This week saw the launch of the joint CAFOD, Tearfund and Theos report Wholly Living: A new perspective on international development. The report raises an important question: What is development for? Or, more specifically, how (if at all) should we adapt our notion of development to better enable human flourishing?
The report brings “the inadequacy of traditional indices of development from the intellectual margins to the heart of public debate, in order that its practical implications for
There has been a recent surge in socially-conscientious research pieces, all suggesting the same thing: monetary wealth only makes us so happy. After this, it is our relationships, our generosity, and our belief in the common good which ultimately fulfil us.
The Spirit Level, released in 2009 by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, elevated the notion of “equality as necessity” to the upper echelons of public discourse. The book noted that, whilst a national increase in GDP initially facilitates human progress and development, this effect tails off to a point at which gross increases in personal and national wealth do not have any effect on continued development or, in theory, on wellbeing.
In developing countries GDP growth can still enable a massive improvement in quality of life; Wholly Living highlights the promising news that between December 2006 and December 2007 alone, the number of inhabitants of the developing world who were able to access antiretroviral drugs rose by 47 per cent, and GDP growth is still acknowledged to be the most significant contributing factor to these occurrences. However, there is a general consensus that, whilst we in the West might be richer than we have ever been, have access to the best healthcare, and enjoy the riches of technological advancement, we are not ‘happy’; we suffer from higher rates of anxiety, depression, stress, relationship breakdown, anti-social behaviours and crime than we have ever seen before. Add these to an increase in environmental disasters and the impact of climate change, and it seems it might be time to rethink our priorities.
Much of the debate centres on the notion of inequality, with Wholly Living critiquing the current situation in which “for the poor to become slightly less poor, the rich have to become vastly more rich.” Development does not occur simply by increasing the wealth of every global citizen to an acceptable level, but by reducing the huge gap that divides the poorest members of our societies from the richest. This cannot be accomplished by every member of society working longer hours and making more money, but will only be tackled if every person has equal access to services, time and resources. From this premise, the report argues for a system that tracks development not just on the basis of economic success, but on a measure “for progress that will perfectly reflect the full vision of human of human flourishing”. We need our governments to recognise the importance of time spent with families, access to culture and education, and being afforded the opportunity to evolve as creative, productive, and generous beings.
It is imperative that citizens of both the developed and developing worlds are able to be active, giving citizens, not just to trigger an increase in economic activity, but in order to generate a surge in social capital and an increase in wellbeing. In this time of political re-birth and reassessment of our common values, we need to ask ourselves what it is that we prize above all else. Development should be done with an end goal in mind and, in order for it to be truly successful, governments need to adopt a teleological approach. Development for the sake of development is of no benefit to the greater good, nationally or internationally, and in order to restore wellbeing and enable human flourishing we need first to address the underlying issues of inequality and injustice that fetter progress.
Emily Lightowler is a theology graduate and recently completed an internship at Theos.
