We're Back

Kurtis has completed two semesters and is into his third in Waterloo and I have completed two terms in Manchester and I’m now starting to work on my dissertation, due on September 5.

We’re both looking forward to getting stuck back into this blog and we hope we haven’t lost our faithful readers along the way.

Leaving our discussion of value frameworks for the moment (although I’m sure that topic will surface again in the posts to come) we will turn to the topic of my dissertation for 6 consecutive posts.  I will offer three posts and Kurtis will respond in a separate post to each of them.  Following those posts, we will shift focus to sustainability, particularly as it pertains to those of us living in OECD countries – those of us consuming –non-renewable resources faster than anyone else, at topic that Kurt is thinking and learning about.

I’m still fine-tuning the topic of my dissertation.  But roughly, I will attempt an analysis of a particular set of development projects ongoing along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I will look at the project design, plans and implementation, especially in the context of the regional conflict and, in the broader context of the War on Terror and the current development category of fragile states.  In my next three posts, I will first introduce the concept of fragile states (look for that post tomorrow).  Then I will look at the securitisation of development with respect to fragile states theory.  Finally, I will look at theories of development planning in the context of fragile states.  Along the way I’ll offer my two cents on Osama bin Laden’s killing, Three Cups of Tea and Greg Mortenson and a topic on the tips of all your tongues: liberalism’s external sovereignty frontier.

Value Frameworks and Pascal's Wager

Policy Issues with OER for International Development: a proposed Evaluative Framework on Prezi

Through previous discussions with Jordan and his last blog posting I have learned about value frameworks as a consideration in international development. Most of us have a basic ideas of the concept in general but maybe haven't used that terminology. The presentation above has some interesting points that I appreciated.

So first I wanted to put some definitions to my own value framework but I feel somewhat like a fish who can't see the water. So I started thinking about what values I might share with other people, especially other cultures. Beyond the general, "Don't steal or kill." morality values, what other values do I share with other cultures? In other words, "What do I values do I have in common with other cultures? Somehow that second question was able to jog a sequence of other thoughts and here's what I came up with.

It seems to me that the vast majority of modern cultures, for good or bad, are attracted to man made goods. Columbus, Cortez and company traded beads and trinkets for furs. So, jump with me here, what is it about artificial stuff (technology) that is just automatically attractive to the vast majority of the population? I don't think this is straight up materialism (which is a value, good or bad, that most people have) which would encompass even more things. I think our attraction for artificial goods is a distinct subset of materialism. I could give examples but maybe think of some examples yourself. Why do we automatically want (and need!) the extra features of some new device that we were doing quite fine without until we found out about it. Five years ago, how many people wanted a tablet computer? Sure some would have consciously wanted such a device but now everyone (myself included) could think of some reason why I need one. Unfortunately I don't have much more deep thoughts on this, I'm still processing things.

However, I think this concept does relate to the foundation of development work. Schumacher talks about how the field of economics is relatively young and yet hardly any news article or government policy is discussed without an economic analysis. It seems to me that by "doing" development in a place by bringing better health, education, governance (are these all values? Are the subjective or objective?) to a region we also, fairly directly, bring that region into the modern economy. And by bringing people into the modern buy & sell economy we pass on this automatic valuing of artificial things.

Maybe we should automatically question man made things, assume they are guilty until proven innocent, much like the Old Order Mennonites that live around this region. One of my papers got me thinking about a sort of a Pascal's wager for communication technology. Along one axis for communication technology it can be either harmful or helpful. The other axis is if we start to analyze and question the effects of these technologies more closely.

1. If new technology is helpful and has no harmful effects on society and we don't question it then no harm done, we've unknowingly escaped any consequences.
2. If it (new technology) is helpful and we question it then no harm done.
3. IF this technology (cell phones, facebook and even blogs) is potentially harmful to the requisite socialization dynamics that society is built upon and we don't question anything then we might be in for some big upsets in society.
4. However if this technology is harmful and we question it then maybe we will be able to mitigate some of it's effects.

The question really is between 3 and 4 and in keeping with Pascal then why not 3.

To me this ties in to one aspect of applying the value framework concept to development, other aspects that relate include faith and society and hopefully we can cover those later. I really wish I could be a fly on the wall in some more informed discussions on the subject. I apologize for the very late post but things were rather hectic for a while. In fact, Jordan and I have agreed to put things on pause until mid-May at which time we might be able to get back into things with renewed thoughts and more time.

Any thoughts?

Kurtis (in Waterloo)