Members Reflections

By Dr Mia Perry, Dr Deepa Pullanikkatil and David Gerow

“Development” is one of the most overused words in any language, often reflecting progress, aspiration and something that ought to happen. But is there consensus on what development really means? Thirty-eight members of Sustainable Futures in Africa (SFA) discussed this question during an eight-hour bus journey from Entebbe to Lira, Uganda in February 2019. We were in Uganda for the third annual symposium of SFA, an interdisciplinary network across the UK and Africa that aims to build understanding, research, and practice in socio-ecological sustainability in Africa. This word cloud was made from the keywords that emerged in our discussion.

The word “development” originated in the 16^th century from the Old French développer and/or desveloper, meaning “unroll”, “unfold”, “unveil”. It is no longer used in this sense, and it has acquired many definitions in modern usage.

One of the earliest definitions was given in 1978 by the French economist François Perroux. He defined development[1] as “the combination of mental and social changes among the population which decides to increase its real and global products, cumulatively and in a sustainable manner.” In A New Concept of Development (1983), Perroux argued that development “represents a dramatic growth of awareness, a promise, a matter of survival”, and he identified its root as personal development – “the freedom of persons fulfilling their potential in the context of the values to which they subscribe and which they experience in their actions”. His understanding of development places importance on the role of human/cultural values in progress, either economic or otherwise.

The words “growth” and “development” have often been used interchangeably in economic discussion. Some might say that development is positive growth. Members of SFA mentioned “growth”, “growing”, “steady-growth”, “positive”, “positive action”, “positive change”, and “positive transformation” when they discussed the word “development”.

A wider definition related to social, economic and political changes in society was put forth by scholars such as Todarro (1981) and Tayebwa (1992), who discussed development as a multi-dimensional process beyond economic development, economic welfare or material wellbeing that includes improvements in economic, social and political aspects of a whole society, such as its security, culture, social activities and political institutions.

Participation and Equity

This people-centred approach to development has been promoted by many organizations, such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), where local people participate in their development process. SFA members seem to agree on the participatory and people-centred aspects of “development”. Such keywords emerged as “Community-specific”, “Collaboration”, “Community-owned”, “Teamwork”, “People-driven”, “People-managed”, “Capacity development”, “People-focused”, “Co-developed”, “Participatory”, “People-driven”, “Bottom-up”, “Working together”, “Stakeholder-driven”, “Homegrown” and “Community-driven”. Members felt that development should be “Culturally appropriate”. They also mentioned that “Cultural hegemony” – the dominance of one social group over another – must not be part of development. In the same vein, the words “Equality”, “Equity”, “Common good”, “Diversity” and “Inclusive” were mentioned, implying that development must be just and fair. As well, the politics of a country has profound implications on development and it is important to understand the political drivers behind development. This aspect was evoked by some members who mentioned “Good governance”, “Political will”, “Ownership” and “Government-owned”.

Quality of life and sustainability

Tackling inequity is a development goal on its own and it may ell start with poverty reduction, the focus of most development agencies. Members mentioned “Wellbeing”, “Improve life”, “Needs-based”, “Basic needs”, “Livelihoods enhancement”, “Better way of life”, “Quality of life”, “Improving lifestyles”, “Decent livelihood” and “Empowerment”. To achieve improvements in human well-being, the natural environment is key as it provides the necessary resources. We have realised that development which exploits the environment is wreaking havoc on the planet and we need to find a balance between growth and environmental sustainability. Development must take place alongside caring for the environment and in this light, “Environmentally sustainable”, “Balanced” and “Resource use” were mentioned by members.

 Capacity strengthening and positive change

Innovation, learning and knowledge-sharing are key enablers of development. Members mentioned “Share knowledge”, “Innovation”, “Mindset change”, “Innovative practices” and “Capacity development”. But acquired knowledge and skills are not the only important things; the softer aspects also matter. In Amartya Sen’s highly acclaimed Development as Freedom (1999), he argues that human development is about the expansion of citizens’ capabilities. For Sen, freedom means increasing citizens’ opportunities and access to things they have reason to value. SFA members identified “Freedom”, “Aspired transformation”, “Transformation”, “Positive transformation”, “Self-Actualization”, “Satisfaction”, “Peace” and “Happiness” as aspects of development that they valued, all of which are worthwhile goals for development.

The majority of the definitions of “development” have come from economists and politicians. SFA is a multi-disciplinary network and believes that “development” is a multi-layered word and can mean different things in different contexts. Defining this word using a narrow economic lens or implying that increased consumption equals development has led the world to unsustainable exploitation that threatens the planet itself.

There are numerous definitions of the word “development” and SFA does not aim to add another to the pile. However, we would like to stress that when we use this word, we do not presume that any worldview or culture is superior to another or that all countries should follow a set pattern or have common indicators of “development”. Instead, we like to think that development must be defined by communities themselves, and each country, each community and each person may define it differently. Ultimately, development has to lead to a better outcome for the globe, humans and the environment. It ought to reduce poverty, reduce inequities, be culturally appropriate and community specific, nurture nature, and be owned by and relevant to people and place. Let us rethink the word “development” in order to enhance the well-being, freedom, peace and happiness of each and every one of us and the planet as a whole.

[1] 1978, L’équilibre des unités passives et l’équilibration générale des unités actives”, Economie Appliquee.

By Dr Mia Perry, Dr Deepa Pullanikkatil, and David Gerow

Our network is called “Sustainable Futures in Africa” or SFA. It has members from Botswana, Malawi, Uganda, Nigeria and the United Kingdom representing various disciplines, from educators to artists to administrators to NGO practitioners to scientists from various fields. Our common binding force is that we are critical thinkers who deeply care about research and practice in socio-ecological sustainability in Africa.

This year we held our third annual SFA symposium in Lira, Uganda, in a rural location at a lodge that is completely powered by solar energy and sources locally made food. The idea was to “walk our talk” by trying to make our meetings more “sustainable”. On day one of the symposium, thirty-eight participants (members of SFA) rode in a bus from Entebbe to Lira on an eight-hour journey, which allowed us to engage in what we called “Bus Talks”. During these talks, we explored what the word “sustainability” meant to each of us. This word cloud is a visual representation of the vocabulary used in the discussions.

We believe “sustainability” does not (and should not) have just one rigid definition. Hence, we explored the many definitions of this word, which is often overused loosely as a buzzword. SFA members like to keep a questioning, critical mind, and at the symposium, all members agreed that SFA is not an “echo chamber”. We welcome alternative ideas – in fact we thrive on them. This blog post doesn’t propose a new definition of sustainability, but highlights what SFA members care most about when we talk about this word. As a collective, we are trying to develop a deeper vocabulary, beyond the buzzwords that inevitably become diluted across languages, cultures, disciplines, and sectors.

The most common definition of sustainability is in the document “Our Common Future” by the Brundland Commission in 1987: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This document provided the ecological definition of sustainability. It also highlighted the fact that resources are finite and need to be preserved for future generations.

The preservation of resources

Some of the key words and phrases suggested by SFA members during the “Bus Talks” that agree with the Brundland Commission’s definition were: “Ability to sustain populations”, “Balance between using and protecting resources”, “Benefit future generations”, “Caring for ecological system”, “Intergenerational”, “Maintain ‘everything’ for future generations”, “Only necessary use of resources”, “Present and Future generations”, “Preservation of resources” and “Resources not depleted for future use”. These words emphasize the meeting of needs, as opposed to wants, and place a clear focus on intergenerational equity.

Enhancing natural systems

In the early 1990s, recognizing that sustainability affects most areas of human activity and is intrinsically complex and multi-disciplinary, scholars began to think about it using the systems approach. This highlights the linkages among population, environment, and development and examines the causes of environmentally unsustainable development. Looking at the world as a socio-ecological system and recognizing its linkages and inter-connections is something that SFA strongly believes in, and thus we promote inter-disciplinary work. During the Bus Talks, the linkages and words that support a systems approach included “Caring for ecological systems”, “Keeping the population at a sustainable level”, “Enhancing natural systems”, “Sustainable food systems” and “Sustainable production”.

Continuity

When discussing the meaning of a word, it would be remiss to not talk about its dictionary definition.  Sustainability’s meaning in the Cambridge Dictionary is the “quality of being able to continue over a period of time” and “the quality of causing little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time”. Statements and key words from SFA members that echo this definition were “Being able to carry something forward”, “Continuity”, “Continuous output”, “Keep something going”, “Self-perpetuating without external intervention”, “Balance between using and protecting resources”, “Preserve resources” and “Preserving and balancing”.

Engaging in meaningful discussions about sustainability during this long bus ride was not only a good use of SFA members’ time, but also helped us find the many meanings of a single word. Other keywords used by members which do not neatly relate to the definitions mentioned above included “Culturally appropriate”, “Community self-sufficiency”, “Diversity”, “Equality”, “Freedom”, “Harmony and balance”, “People in charge of their destinies”, “Happiness”, “Reflection”, “Preserving and balancing”, “Peace” and “Wellbeing”. One member summed it up as “Living in a community in a way that we could live forever”.

All the keywords discussed here could be packaged as synonyms of “sustainability”. But for the SFA, sustainability is not just a concept or a word, and we have come to realize that it is too diverse to define. Perhaps the focus should shift from defining it to living it. Perhaps we need to look at it as a way to be aware and sensitive, to reflect, be critical, encompass wider contexts, and integrate these actions into our work and everything we do. Sustainability, like most complex concepts, is insufficiently represented by a single word, but should prompt us to reflect on what kind of world we want to live in and how can we contribute towards achieving that.