At the Th!nk3 launch in Brussels, several people indicated that they wanted academia to get more involved in the making of development policy. This is not so strange; that increased scientific knowledge makes political decisions simpler is a very popular idea. The notion is, in the words of Bruno Latour “that the more science we know, the more rapidly minds will agree and the less disorder we shall have” (pardon his formulations, he’s French!). Science, in other words should provide a clear picture of reality, which could be used as a roadmap by politicians searching for answers. Consider the words of Connie Hedegaard, Danish minister of Climate and Energy when addressing an audience of scientists in March 2009 as an example: “Science must inform us and guide our decisions!”
Intuitively this belief in science sounds like a safe bet. The quest for better knowledge must ultimately result in easier decision-making, right?
Wrong! This might sound absurd, but when you think about it, it’s not so strange. Climate science might be a good case in point, illustrated by decades of increased scientific effort coupled with as many decades of political paralysis.
Another striking example of how science complicates things is found in debates over how to govern so called “commons” – natural resources which aren’t regulated by any particular property regime. Typical examples could be forests, fisheries or large communal irrigation systems, resources which are often vital in developing societies. The notorious “tragedy of the commons” portrayed by Garrett Hardin in 1968 is a potent image of non-sustainable human behaviour where self-indulgence triumphs over the collective good, resulting in resource degradation or destruction. Scientists in many disciplines have spent years pondering how to escape these dynamics. A few decades ago our best wisdom pointed towards two clear policy alternatives, both guided by the best science available at the time. One was resource-privatisation, leaving regulation to “free markets”, the other strict regulation, through the state or other central institutions. In other words; the world was very simple – black or white. Years of scientific analysis has shown, however, to the frustration of policymakers and development agents, that there is no “best way” to govern such resources. In fact, the Nobel Prize winning research of Elinor Ostrom suggests that local norms and institutions, physical geographical qualities and ecological traits of a resource are all aspects influencing what policies should be implemented. Further, blindly adopting policies which have been successful elsewhere are frequently found to do more harm than good. In other words: increasing our scientific knowledge has brought us from a situation where policymakers could choose between two simple solutions, to a situation where the best advice science has to offer is: “it depends!”
In a world facing an increasing number of related and highly complex challenges, this might sound discouraging. If poverty, material inequality, climate changes, loss of biodiversity and a range of other issues can’t be solved through a scientific quick-fix, what are our chances of dealing with them in a reasonable way at all? Luckily there is not only doom and gloom coming out of this. The good news is that the re—discovery of the importance of the local, of particular circumstances, of situated knowledge and of the fact that science can’t provide simple solutions, has opened the door for a potential democratic dialogue where science, politics, nature and the public could all participate on more equal grounds than we ever thought possible. Luckily the debates at the Th!nk3 launch seems to indicate that the complexities of development issues are sinking in.
We now know that that implementing universal solutions to highly diverging problems is a route to failure, and this is a key point. This means that “we” – predominantly rich, white, middle aged men in London, New York, Paris and Copenhagen – have to acknowledge that the answers to the question of how to develop the world must also be sought elsewhere. If the significance of this is properly recognized by all relevant actors it should herald a major change of balance in global intellectual power, empowering those living in the so-called “third world” and other marginalized groups to unprecedented levels, making new voices heard in debates about global and local issues alike. There is, of course, an extremely long and difficult road ahead, and my outlook in this post is perhaps leaning too much in an optimistic, utopian direction.
We really shouldn’t underestimate the powers of people, groups and perspectives profiting from status quo.
I think this is 100% on target, Tomas. Much of development history has centered upon finding broad solutions, but the truth is that in most cases this is impossible. More studies and policies are starting to reflect the idea that, as you say, “the importance of the local, of particular circumstances, of situated knowledge” is key.
Economics studies contradict one another all the time, so it’s difficult to know which empirical direction to take. The work by the Poverty Action Lab provides some more scientific evidence, but it still has to be taken with a grain of salt since real life definitely can’t be controlled!
Hello Maria, thanks for the kind words. I definitely have the same impression, these ideas are seeping into the mainstream, and have a greater impact on policy than before. However, I do have the impression that the economists in the World Bank and the IMF still have too much confidence in their own science as a tool for finding catch-all solutions. With the merits of the structural adjustment programs and the Washington consensus in mind, however, I think they should be more cautious..
Nice post, it reads like an essay! But what do you mean by local, particular circumstances? More involvement from local NGO’s? Microcredits? Local bloggers?
Hello Hieke, thanks for commenting. The three examples you mention are very relevant and could all serve as examples of local actors which could be relevant in particular circumstances. However, this will probably vary a great deal from situation to situation, from place to place. My main point is to avoid generalizations. What is needed in a village in Malawi will differ from what is needed in the Brazilian Favelas (and indeed, different villages might have very different needs). If science wants to succeed in shaping policy to help development it has to take a close-up look at reality “on the ground” rather than assume that general assumptions about good governance will work everywhere..
Great post! One of my favourites so far
I think the COP 15 showed that the relation between science and politics is complicated. We act out of convictions and belief, but science should actually be about something else - an organised disbelief. The miserable state that the IPCC has ended up in now I think is that they didn’t keep the border between science and politics.
Development would be slightly different, since we are then talking about science and economics… The problem here is maybe that we hope to get the same kind of reliable knowledge about human behavior as we have about natural science? I think this is impossible, but it is a very old and ever-relevant discussion.
Making space for local solution is maybe not more “right”, but it still has a big advantage - it is much easier for humans to find solutions when the problems are taken down to a human scale, e.g. our village needs sanitation in stead of 1.000.000 people die from Malaria.
“re—discovery of the importance of the local, of particular circumstances, of situated knowledge and of the fact that science can’t provide simple solutions, has opened the door for a potential democratic dialogue”
!!! That’s the point. Isn’t it. I was on a cocktail party on Friday, and I talked to a guy who found a successful IT private equity firm, and we were talking about the same thing - even though he is in another type of business. It appears the issues overlap, it’s all about “localities.” There are no aggregates. It all starts from the individual level, individual choice. Right?
But I was trying to make another point (they should let us edit our comments, btw) - context is crucial. You actually got a bunch of different ideas in this thesis statement.
Thanks for the comments, guys!
@daniel; Yes, the discussion about production of certain knowledge about human behavour is indeed old, but economics (and to a less degree other diciplines) have a track record of over-confidence in this respect. I also think you’re on to something on your second point about down-scaling goals to the local level
@Ivo; Yes, and the idea that localities matter isn’t exactly rocket-science, is it. It’s harder to run up a hill than it is to run down a hill, and you have to use a different technique for the two.. If you only learn from a book “how to run” you will be in trouble pretty soon when you actually go running (sorry for the half-dumb metaphor:)
Tomas,
Belated thanks for the post!
It reminded me of one of our Polish writers, Żeromski’s quote:
“Science is like an immense sea. The more you drink it, the more you are thirsty. One day you’ll know what bliss it is.”
I believe our work as development journalist should love both science and… (apparently) marketing - to sell our work to the audience!