Communication is at the heart of change, not simply as mediation but as an arena where a community builds its destiny via politics. In our hyper-media societies, the perception of communications has replaced the direct perception of the world. Communications has to do with the political construction of the public space and it is, ultimately, a political struggle for power.

Throughout modernity, the media-led construction of public space is gradually overtaking the direct interaction of the individuals. Modernity’s social construction is mostly a virtual reality. Our societies are imagined communities.

The press and the media have played a key historic role as a political actor in the construction of our modern societies. But through the decades, its action mutated from that of a political actor to one of an economic, business-oriented actor, which led to a privatization of the (now mediatized) public space. A public space guided exclusively by a market-oriented business logic impacts directly on the representative institutions of democracy. Thinking a communications system for development implies, at least ideally, an effort to place public space again in the hands of the public and to the service of the public. The public as a whole can only be represented by the State. And the State, needless to say, is not the government. The management of State-media (public media) should stand at the avant-garde of a project of communication for development.

The surge of new technologies of information and communication is an ineludible aspect to take into account when considering communication for development. We are witnessing a new way of creating culture. But the new media should not be taken as a panacea, because it ultimately refers to the channel rather than the content of what is communicated.

In developing societies, new media penetration is still not as strong as in the developed world – especially Internet connection and e-literacy. But SID- Buenos Aires Chapter –Communication and Development 2 penetration, though important, is not the only factor to take into consideration. The mass media – press, television, radio – are still the place where the big collective political orientations are built. While the constructions of political projects bottom-up are more and more becoming a possibility and a reality, the political weight of traditional media should not be underestimated, especially in societies where the media are highly concentrated and where the mainstream media actors – historically associated with the establishment in highly fragmented an unequal social configurations – tend to play a political role which is staunchly pro-status quo.

This conflict between governments that try – with many flaws included – to confront with the media establishment is very common in Latin American countries in these days. A debate over media reform that has been going on in Argentina over the last year is an example of the hurdles that governments in these societal configurations may find when they decide to undertake a reform path. The close association between the mass media establishment and the economic establishment, whose project in many cases does not coincide with that of inclusive and sustainable development, turns them into a non-elected force which has the power of imposing an agenda in the short term and a political and cultural project favourable to their interests rather than those of the majority in the long run. Their accountability, meanwhile, is purely linked to a consumers’ option in highly concentrated markets rather than to any logic linked to the institutions of democracy.

In the SID Buenos Aires Chapter, we believe communications is neither an input nor purely a channel, but a sphere which has to be regulated by the State in order to create a media environment that is optimal for the many different actors to carry their message on an equal footing. The new technologies move in the right direction in terms of easier access to the tools of communication which are horizontal, but a step prior to the channelling of the message is the power of the individual and the public’s stakeholders associated in a political project to be given the necessary conceptual an intellectual tools in order to be able to form their own judgment.

Although media is global from a technical point of view, it is still not global as a concept.
On the very contrary, the trends in the agendas most of the public in our societies consume, seems to be moving in a direction in which the local gains increasingly more relevance in its quest with the global.
Local agendas continue to condition any good global intention that democratically elected leaders – whose accountability is linked to the national level – may have.

A global view is unlikely to develop until global governance becomes a reality – something unlikely to happen in the near future. Until then, the battle for development will have to continue to be staged at a national level, which is the level that influences decision-making.

The case of media reform in Argentina should be closely watched because it is likely to repeat itself in other developed, developing and underdeveloped societies in the not-so-distant future and, if so, will greatly affect any project of development.

Toward a concept of communications for development

Here we outline a few points regarding what the SID Buenos Aires Chapter  believes should be on the table when the concept of communications for development is discussed.

1. A debate on regulation, overseeing and use of the media space in our societies means discussing the use of public space.

2. Public space is physical – it is the hardware, the virtual streets of our Era – but it is also the possibility of establishing via communications the main ideas, visions and concepts that influence the will and motivations of social groups and individuals.

3. Communications for development must be able to open up the necessary spaces for as many actors as possible to express, in an environment overseen and regulated by the public authority.

4. A communication for development must allow all actors involved in the life of a society to be able to wage a cultural battle on an equal footing. As the alienable owner of the communications spectrum, the State is the actor in charge of distributing the communication tools.

5. There is not private property when we talk about communication, but the administration of the right to talk in the public space.

6. The surge of new technologies of information and communication, their dynamic evolution and their interaction with politics, conflate in the construction of new logics for the public space. Their impact is still unpredictable. Their understanding must be thorough but techno-optimism should be avoided.

Marcelo García coordinates the Communication and Culture Department of SID’s Buenos Aires Chapter (SIDbaires). He holds a degree in Media Studies and is completing a masters’ degree in International Relations (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina). He writes a weekly column on Politics and Press in the Buenos Aires Herald and contributes on communication issues with several other publications.

Photo credit: Alosh Bennett/Flikr

At the latest lecture which took place at the German Development Institute in Bonn (http://www.die-gdi.de) on June 9th, Dr. Werner Kiene, Chairman Emeritus of the World Bank Inspection Panel and member of the Washington Chapter of SID introduced and discussed the concept of bottom-up accountability.

Dr. Kiene pointed out that bottom-up accountability is the result of a decades-long learning process in development politics. The ideas of participation and self-help have been existent for a long time now; however, project-design, implementation and evaluation are still structured top-down in most cases. Actors in development politics are accountable to their financing partners, but not to the beneficiaries of their projects. In order to change this imbalance, the World Bank was the first main actor in international development politics to introduce the Inspection Panel as a tool to foster accountability from below in 1995. Individuals and communities world-wide can file a complaint to the Panel when they feel their rights have been hurt by actions of projects or programs funded by the World Bank.

However, as the follow-up discussion showed, bottom-up accountability is no panacea of development politics. In absence of a strong and globally interconnected civil society and under the condition of disapproval by the government, bottom-up accountability can even pose a threat to those people who make use of it.

For further information and a detailed resume of the described lecture and follow-up discussion in German, please visit the website of SID Bonn Chapter.

(Tatjana Ernst, SID Bonn Chapter)

In the last fifteen years, demographic and population policies have been widely recognized as a critical component of the development agenda. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo saw the international community come to  an unparalleled consensus about population policies, recognizing that beyond demography, population policies have to do with some very private aspects of people’s lives, such as  sex and sexuality, reproductive health, childbearing , family relationships. The ICPD contributed to shift the focus of policy interventions from slowing population growth to improving the lives and free choices of individuals – and women in particular – and set the agenda of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR).

However population policy are not limited to fertility and reproductive health.  ‘Even though thinking has moved towards improving the lives of individuals, there is still too often in development policies a focus only on one aspect of population – fertility rates – which in effect limits rather than enlarges  women’s reproductive freedom’ (Andrew Martin Fischer).
Simplistic and dangerous notions of ‘overpopulation’ – referred to as a result of reproductive habits of people in the developing countries – sometimes emerge as the main explanation of poverty, challenging the general understanding and risking unethical policy solutions. A holistic approach to population policy is therefore needed, that is right based in terms of guaranteeing good quality of life,  and inclusive – as a minimum – of consideration of gender, generation, mortality, migration.

Moreover, the interaction between population, environment, and distribution of population as a result of migration (amongst the others) are increasingly becoming a critical concern for the policy making at national and international levels. Issues of climate change, environmental degradation, food, water and energy scarcity, security and failed states, urbanisation and migration, inevitably reopen the question around population and development, requiring informed responses.

The Population Question and Development report summarises the key results of a cycle of six lectures co-organised by the SID Dutch chapter, the World Population Foundation (WPF) and the Institute of Social Studies (ISS),  in 2009, aimed to reframe the population question within the debate on development in the Netherlands, by exploring population growth and dynamics in relation to the above issues and by focusing on, amongst the others, the following themes:  population, migration an urbanisation; population and generation; population and gender, china’s population dynamics and its impact on china’s development.

Download the report by Andrew Martin Fischer,  senior lecturer of Population and Social Policy at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) of Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Download the leaflet with the agenda

Visit the SID Netherlands’ Chapter weblog

Mr. Williams long and distinguished career spanned several decades and he served his country and the international community in various positions. This ranged from his service in the army during the Second World War, later on rising to become Deputy Administrator of USAID. He also served as a presidential coordinator for major foreign disaster relief efforts from Bangladesh to Nicaragua and as chief US negotiator on post-Vietnam War aid talks with North Vietnam. From 1974 to 1978, he was chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and thereafter served as Director of the United Nations World Food Council (a now-defunct food policy arm of the United Nations that sought to end world hunger and draw attention to famine) through to 1986.

Mr. Williams was SID President from 1991 – 1994 and he also served as Secretary General from 1991-93 (combining this with the President’s role) and was an active supporter of the Society even after his presidency, both as a member of the Governing Council and as a senior member of the Society.

Andy’s career spanned well over 55 years and saw his active involvement in international organizations and international development activities. A political scientist, with an undergraduate degree from Harvard College and a Ph.D. from Syracuse University, he worked in the U.S. Congress, the State Department and the White House, and taught as an Adjunct Professor at the American University School of International Service.

Andy was one of the individuals who came together in 1957 to found the Society for International Development. From its humble beginnings at the Brookings Institution, SID was to grow to become an organization with worldwide affiliations. SID was always close to Andy’s heart – a fact evidenced by his continued service and dedication to it. Andy served as SID’s Chief Executive for close to 20 years and was thereafter a long-time member of the Governing Council. Even after his retirement from the Council, Andy continued to be involved in SID and was instrumental in coordinating the Washington Chapter’s successful bid to host the 2011 SID International Congress in the United States.

Always patient, always optimistic and with a kind word even in the most complicated of situations, Andy Rice was not only a great inspiration to the SID Secretariat, which he always made a point of visiting when in Italy, but to the entire SID network, never tiring to respond to chapter requests and issues and to continually encourage the expansion of the SID family.

During the 1950′s he also helped organize the International Development Conference, a cooperative of U.S. non-governmental organizations, of which he later served as President and Chair. Andy was a past President of the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area and a member of the National Council of the UNA-USA.  In recent years, he also served as Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Watch Institute, Co-Chair of the Alliance for United Nations Sustainable Development Programs, and as a member of the governing body of the Union of International Associations (Brussels).

The Washington Chapter of SID has named its annual prize for the most promising young professional in development the Andrew E. Rice Award.  The UNA National Capital Area chapter established the Andrew E. Rice Fund for Global Education as part of a major celebration of Andy three years ago.

We will all miss Andy’s counsel and wisdom as well as his indefatigable dedication to SID. His spirit however remains with us. Rest in peace Andy

Click here to learn more about the SID Washington chapter’ s activities and events.

Wendy Harcourt, Editor Development, Rome Italy

At the latest lecture which took place at the German Development Institute, Bonn (http://www.die-gdi.de) on February 2, Wolfgang Schmitt presented his thoughts about the current situation of development politics. For more than ten years with his contract ending in late 2009, Wolfgang Schmitt has been managing director of the GTZ, a German development agency that promotes technical cooperation.

According to Schmitt, the quality of German development politics is severely suffering from the urge to keep up with international standards like the Millennium Development Goals. Instead of focusing on partners and their needs, the GTZ and others are striving for aid effectiveness which is an indicator of speed rather than quality.

Another lively debate developed around the question whether or not development aid in general is a sign of a ‘civilisatory sense of mission’ and occidental hubris. Schmitt put forward the idea that we can not overcome this hubris as long as we stick to our classical definition of poverty.

For further information and a protocol of the lecture and the following discussion, please visit the website of SID Bonn Chapter (http://www.sid-bonn.de).

It was unanimously agreed that a chapter be formed, and an interim program committee was formed to plan a number of events for 2010.  A chapter constitution is being prepared for ratification as soon as possible.  At the inaugural meeting there was a lively panel discussion on the major themes covered in the latest edition of the SID journal Development – “Responding to the Crises” and “New Models of Development”.  Speakers included John Langmore, formerly of the UN and the ILO, and Ego Lemos, a Victoria University postgraduate student and founder of the Sustainable Development Network in Timor-Leste.

For further information and a protocol of the lecture and the following discussions, please visit the SID Bonn Chapter’s website: http://www.sid-bonn.de/

The SID-Washington Award for Leadership in Development is given annually to an individual or individuals who display a true dedication to advancing the field of international development.  Senators Kerry (invited) and Lugar (confirmed) will be presented with this year’s award at SID-Washington’s Gala Dinner in Washington, DC on January 27, 2010.

“Our organization is delighted by the opportunity to pay tribute to Senators Kerry and Lugar for their commitment to foreign aid reform, specifically their most recent work in co-sponsoring the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act”, said Betsy Bassan, SID-Washington Board President.

The Foreign Aid Reform Bill seeks to redefine the original Foreign Assistance Act (1961) that has become increasingly less relevant in addressing foreign aid demands in the 21st century.  Through the implementation of extensive structural changes, the proposed bill would better align U.S. strategic planning goals with development policy, as well as scale up evaluation and reporting practices.

In a speech made earlier this year at the Brookings Institution, Kerry, who is the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, said the proposed bill “will initiate a reform process to begin laying the groundwork, and providing a blueprint, for the diplomacy and development institutions we need.”

“Our bill seeks to better evaluate programs, improve coordination among agencies and enhance staff development and training,” said Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Dick Lugar.