Long term relationships are not always indicators of dependency

Jody Akedjody

Dependency. It is the thing to be avoided in international development efforts. Positioned as the opposite of sustainability, it is explained as people living in marginalisation or poverty being in some way reliant on support or help from outsiders. I have noticed that in a sort of sleepy, languid way we have slipped into equating length of time working with a community as a proxy indicator of dependency. It is an unwritten assumption justifying short-term over long-term funding and it affects how we design our programmes. I wonder whose interests this assumption is benefiting.

As part of the IDS-VSO partnership project Valuing Volunteering in the Philippines, I have worked with volunteer programs in universities and locally-based NGOs who are struggling internally and externally to justify a relationship with a community that surpasses 10 years. The sorts of questions they ask themselves in our reflection spaces on volunteer programme effectiveness are:

’Have we created dependency? What should an exit strategy look like?’

Using Valuing Volunteering’s systemic approach, we have been opening up conversations with lots of different stakeholders to learn from them. On a number of occasions I have asked the communities themselves,

’Isn’t it time after 10 years that the volunteers should go and support another community?’

Many will tell me about the importance of ‘bayanihan’ – a Filipino concept of everyone working together for a common goal. Others tell me about the boost or ‘lift’ external help provides people. It is an encouragement that brings energy to community efforts.

In other contexts my question about whether volunteers should move on has been met with dismay and visible distress. Some of the conversations that resonated with me took place with

  •  coconut farmers who have had their land compulsory purchased (at a very low price) by government to make way for a new airport in the province of Albay.
  • informal settlers in Metro Manila who have been living in a state of long-term uncertainty because of a major road building plan threatening displacement.
  • a People’s Organisation which looks after a Community-Based Forest Management Area in the Visayas. They were encouraged to sign a contract with a private investor to cultivate cash crops like pineapples for direct export to the Chinese market.

Listening to their concerns, I began to understand the scale of the development challenges these groups face. The self-organisation required of communities to create a space to voice concerns and rights in formal decision-making platforms when political and economic pressures are working hard in the background to silence or discredit them is an arduous and long process. It necessitates a sure-footedness and level of confidence to maintain a position at the negotiating table which is typically gained through years of grooming in corporate or political life. And overcoming set-backs requires a steadfastness and level of resilience not easy to come by.

It got me thinking how dependency is a convenient mantra for a global economic system that does very well for the word’s wealthy 1% through exploiting less powerful people and their assets for profit. It is interesting, for example, that as development workers we do not lay awake at night feeling anxious that oil companies have not managed to de-couple themselves from government subsidies to move their very ‘grown-up’ industry from dependency to self-reliance. At the same time we can be certain that we will be asked to demonstrate that our livelihood initiatives supporting communities to adapt to the effects of climate change can achieve sustainability within a few years.

What do we mean by ‘dependency’ and ‘sustainability’?
In one multi-stakeholder discussion with members of a community, volunteers and support staff we realised we need to unpick what we mean by dependency and sustainability to answer our questions. For sure, after ten years we should be expecting that communities can run their own meetings and take the initiative on the direction they want to go and how to get there. But to expect that these capacities can translate into being able to tackle deep-seated injustice by themselves is probably naïve.

At a societal level we seem happy to accept that governments can depend on one another for assistance. We describe these arrangements as bi-lateral agreements or ‘special relationships’. And we are comfortable when companies link with government sectors under the guise of public-private partnerships. Yet, we are uneasy when we talk about long-term partnerships to change the rules of the game, ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the people who are forgotten by the rising stars.

It is through Valuing Volunteering, which looks at the way volunteers work, that I am learning a more nuanced understanding of relationships for development. A more ‘human’ development that takes care of people is built on solidarity and friendship. This sort of relationship is not easily fostered within tightly defined project parameters. Yet it is an aspect of development that communities tell me is important to them. As one person said on her interactions with volunteers,

’We experience good relations as if we are almost relatives … what we feel, it becomes lighter because of the concern we experience.’

Volunteers may not bring tonnes of financial assistance. And they may themselves be limited when it comes to shifting wider systemic issues which act as barriers to community development. But the credibility or ‘symbolic capital’ afforded by volunteers and the organisations they represent is an important force for how communities feel about themselves and how others view them. As Lizzie (VV Researcher Nepal) summed up in one of our cross-country analysis sessions,

’Creating spaces where people are self-directed with others is really important … because you can be overwhelmed with what you face and change can feel so small, but with group processes it can feel very different psychologically.’

In an ecosystem where the motives of all those involved are not transparent, I have witnessed how a volunteering programme can result in a web of volunteer-community interactions that lead to trusting and lasting relationships built on shared experiences, different worldviews and a motivation to work for the common good. In a context where change at the political and economic level can be stubbornly slow I can see the potential for long-term relationships established in the spirit of volunteerism to be a foundation for resilience and adaptability instead of dependency.

Jody Aked works as researcher for the IDS-VSO partnership ‘Valuing Volunteering’ in the Phillipines. She is also a PhD student with the Participation, Power and Social Change Team

Advertisements

5 Responses to Long term relationships are not always indicators of dependency

  1. Paul Harvey says:

    Dependency is also a much used and abused term in humanitarian aid. I argued in this report ( http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/277.pdf ) that it is often nonsensical and used to blame the symptom not the cause of poverty and crisis. It argues that people depend far less on outside help than is often assumed, being able to depend on assistance should be seen as a good thing and there is little or no evidence that aid undermines initiative. Far more helpful as a term is the idea of interdependency drawing on Dean (2004) The Ethics of Welfare and feminist work on welfare in the west.

  2. idsppsc says:

    Response from Jody Aked:

    I agree with you about interdependency. It has been shown in psychological studies to be far more effective at enabling more initiative and innovation. It is interdependence, not cooperation per se, that gives people the psycho-social foundation to move forward. It is the basis for some of the work I was involved in the new economics foundation on co-production of public services with vulnerable groups,

    “Co-production is a relationship where professionals and citizens share power to plan and deliver support together, recognising that both partners have vital contributions to make in order to improve quality of life for people and communities.”
    (http://coproductionnetwork.com/page/about-coproduction)

    What I am finding in current research with IDS is that the patterning of interactions under the guise of any project or intervention is what ultimately determines whether outcomes breed dependency or self-reliance. If the interactions are reciprocal in ways that play to everyone’s strengths then you are onto a winner.

    With communities I have been calling this ‘jamming’ … with ideas instead of music. Everyone brings their musical instrument, and together, we play.

    I will enjoy your report. It looks like the more nuanced debate on dependency that we need.

    • Paul Harvey says:

      Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the work on co-production which looks fascinating and could be useful for work we’re doing on health services in eastern DRC where churches, NGOs and the state are all engaged in a complicated melange. Has co-production been used in developing country contexts at all?

      And I also like the idea (and term) jamming which reminded me of the work that David Booth and colleagues have been doing at ODI talking about convening and brokering http://www.institutions-africa.org/page/appp+synthesis

      ‘fundamental governance challenges are about sets of people finding ways of being able to act together in their own best interests. They are about collective problem-solving in fragmented societies hampered by exceptionally low levels of trust.’

      Do let us know next time you’re in London with time spare for a coffee at ODI and I’ll do the same for Brighton.

  3. idsppsc says:

    Response from Jody Aked:

    Hiya

    I have used principles of co-production in training in international development settings and it forms the basis for some of nef’s work on entrepreneurship. There are other sorts of challenges I think … would be good to discuss them. IIED published a report on it also with examples – http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10578IIED.pdf

    I will tap some people to see if I can get any examples specific to health services in international development.

    I find the principles of co-production really useful for a values-based approach to designing and implementing services. In practice I find I am hugely going against the cultural grain of command-and-control governance in the Philippines. The sticking points are often with people in leadership positions. That said, in Malaysia just recently I had residents and government officials jamming together. Walking into the room, you wouldn’t have known who was wearing which hat only a few hours in. Increasingly I like the work on human centred design, especially when it comes to co-producing the design phase of a new service.

    http://tamarackcci.ca/files/design_thinking_for_social_innovation_-_ssir.pdf
    Also check out the IDEO website for toolkits – http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/

    I love the look of the David Booth work, as it is very relevant to work I am doing at the moment on natural resource governance. I have a strange dichotomy … social networks are very strong in the Philippines in terms of number but collective problem solving is very difficult. I was with some seaweed farmers the other week facilitating a reflection session. We drilled down to the causes of another failed livelihood attempt … low levels of interpersonal trust. Self-trust is also an issue where individual and group confidence is exceptionally low. It reminds me of Richard Sennett’s recent book Together – the general gist is that communities of interest are easy. Anyone can do them. Cooperation is much more difficult. It requires a skill set that few posses, and which we don’t celebrate or nurture enough.

    I am in the Philippines at the moment but I will drop you a line on email. I would love to chat more

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: