Show me the money

In preparation for drafting the policy document at the WYC, I had emailed the aseanist seeking input on the topic of youth & development, from a developing ASEAN perspective.

The aseanist's latest post, in response to that, has given me some serious food for thought. Specifically, it's made me think a lot harder about the whole field of development economics, and the role it plays in international development. And, conversely, about the relevance of lofty, idealistic notions of youth empowerment and whatnot - held by naïve, privileged young punks who enjoy the opportunity to attend international youth confabs (yes, I'm also looking more critically at the events in which I invest of myself) - like me - who are hardly representative of ASEAN youth.

I have mixed thoughts about this. On one hand, I recognise that economics is often a huge - if not the largest - influencing factor in decisions on various issues on all levels, within ASEAN (without excluding that this fact applies to several other nations as well). While certain commitments may be made by various ASEAN politicians or governments with regards to youth, community, or even human rights, these socially or democratically significant issues would almost certainly not take precedence over economic concerns.

On the other hand, I also feel that economic growth as a measure of development cannot be truly meaningful, even on a human development level, if it does not follow through to serve as a means to a broader end - a just, equitable and sustainable society.

I agree that, seeing as most of the delegates who attended the WYC were privileged relative to the youths from their respective backgrounds, perhaps the balance of emphasis lay too much on empowerment, at the expense of market reform strategy. At the same time, I feel that the logical shift towards building economic structure and opportunity need not occlude the 'loftier' aspects of human development, a topic that seems to impassion (or distract, depending on which way you look at it) me more.

Which is why I come from the perspective that efforts to drive economic growth, and in the case of Youth-Led Development - young entrepreneurship, must also not lose sight of the fact that young people are more than just economic units, whose value is measured - not just by the government and society, but also by themselves - in GDP per capita.

[Added para]
Because to me, speaking as a young person (ok - it's all relative), the perception of one's citizenry; value; worth on this planet - especially for a young person - comes not just from their economic productivity, but also (among others) from their deployable human agency.

A question that naturally arises, for me, is the reality or application of the stage theory of development: Are countries that are poor today really poor because they are simply "taking off" later? What about the consideration of the changes in socio-political climate of the last several decades? What about the existing trade relationships between the north and the south, that often seem only to exacerbate the poverty gap and keep the rich where they are - precisely by (intentional or otherwise) economic exploitation?
[Ed: Yes, I know these questions have been already beaten to death, but it doesn't stop my begging them.]

Other than my (extremely crude) understanding of this, apart from the chronologically linear hypothesis of industrialisation, I've come across, albeit anecdotally, another version of "stage theory", which is somewhat allegorical to Maslow's hierarchy of needs - fill your stomach (economic growth) before you achieve self-actualisation (greater choice, empowerment and whatnot).

This is rather contentious in my mind, because after all - don't you also need the social aspects of industrialisation such as health and education - in order to drive industrialisation itself? In this view according to Theodore Schultz, industrialization - if it came at the cost of social development - could never be self-sustaining.

Reading the aseanist's post again, I see that there wasn't any indication that economic growth was the be all and end all. So it could very well be that I was mistakenly grabbing on to the economic prerogative in detriment of the social. Hopefully. Then again I'm coming from an extremely uninformed, inexperienced perspective on this whole 'development' thing, so I'm also looking to be challenged and slapped around a bit with a trout, if only to see a little more than what my blinker of ignorance currently offers me.

The aseanist's forthright comments have injected me with anewed buzz in finding out more about this funny thing we call development. I'm anticipating that my current understanding - and perhaps even position, too - on development will undergo a fair bit of metamorphosis.

Final thoughts: exactly how could (ASEAN) governments facilitate the building of a culturally, educationally and politically supportive environment for young entrepreneurship? What kind of policy changes might that involve? And, if these measures have already been thought of, then what's stopping governments from implementing them?

What are people's thoughts on this?


Technorati: human development, economic development, ASEAN