Thanks for posting this Ka-Hey; I'm always impressed by the talks coming out of the Earth Institute.
The idea of behaviour change leading not lagging development is an interesting one. As Parker mentions, behaviour changes, such as attitudes towards crops, farming techniques, and sanitation procedures, can have a dramatic effect on development, but I'm curious about how changing larger scale social behaviours can affect development. For example, democratic structures in many developing countries have historically been relatively fragile. Does this reflect the fact that these structures were put in place prior to necessary behaviour changes? In terms of behaviour change leading to development or development leading to behaviour change, is there feedback between the two? How can this be facilitated?
Facilitation brings up another question: to what extent do Westerners have a role, if any, to effect behaviour change on a small or large scale? In the West it seems we've fostered a certain set of behaviours that have led to the where we are now, which has positive and negative aspects. On the other hand, to what extent has our development fostered a certain set of behaviours? We know that there's some link between the two and we can probably make guesses as how we got here and how we could facilitate that development, but how would you go about facilitating another, different, path, unknown beforehand? By trying to push certain behaviours are we impeding new development paths that could arise, or are we helping achieve positive change? It seems to come down to how universal we think our values are.
More concretely, here's a couple examples. Say we think that democracy is beneficial to development and human rights in general. If we accept the idea that behaviour leads rather than lags development, it seems like we should try to focus on behaviour changes that lead to democracy rather than direct support of the existing democratic structures. What if we say that polygamy leads to suppression of women's rights, how do we react then? How about belief that the market system is the best way to structure the economy; do we want to impart the behaviour changes that would facilitate such a system instead of direct support of the economic structures?
The implications of how behaviour changes and development are linked seem very important, though like many things, it doesn't look like there are any real cut-and-dry answers. To me this seems like one of the most controversial and troublesome areas of development work, practically and ethically. I'd be very appreciate to hear other people's thoughts or criticisms, or pointers to any reading on the subject.
Cheers,
Hans
I thought that I would post a text version of Parker's speech as well.
Also, for some good thoughts on behaviour change in development and some of the issues you've raised above, a good book is Robert Chambers' "Ideas for Development".
Thanks for the links Ka-Hay and George!
Very interesting talk, though it seems to run a dangerous risk of assuming that we know what the optimal behaviour is and the society should be shaped in accordance with that behaviour. Even in empowering locals to supervise/implement projects, aren't you running the risk of being a 'know it all Westerner' who is deciding what's best? However, is that always a bad thing to think, particularly when people are dying as a result of the current behaviour patterns?
Just a couple random thoughts. I'm looking forward to being on the ground in Ghana next month and being able to think about these issues from a more credible perspective....
Hi,
I'm curious to know what the reaction was at the conference to some of Parker's comments, as some seem at odds with the Millennium Village pilots...
J.
Behaviourchange
Robertchambers
Stateoftheplanet
