Consider Development

In 2013 the Government of Benin appropriated funds for two large projects designed to increase the quality of life for all citizens. First, the routinely underfunded educational system received adequate finances so that all public primary schools could provide all-day kindergarten, or école maternelle in French. As a result, the youngest students of poor suburbs and rural villages would not be left out when local schools lack funds. Second, the Ministry of Communication and Technology managed the massive expansion of broadband internet access across the entire country. Previously, private internet providers only operated in major cities, but public investment paid for grid expansion and subsidized prices for poorer, far-off, and rural communities. The Ministry has promoted their project as bringing every Beninese student, farmer, and businessperson to global markets and information no matter their home community.

What do you think of these policies? They sound like huge successes for a country as poor as Benin. Just think about it. Remote villages have access to cultural, educational, and entrepreneurial resources online, and young students have guaranteed education no matter their zip code or parents’ income. The unfortunate reality, however, is that Benin never implemented these policies. Instead, it was the State of Minnesota. Then-Governor Mark Dayton and DFL legislative majorities passed these policies over vocal Republican criticism. DFL rhetoric highlighted opportunity and equality while the GOP responded with appeals to fairness and market efficiency.

Placing these policies in Minnesota instead of Benin evokes much different opinions and emotions among Americans. What was at first a huge success story in the fight against poverty and inequality is now dirty, angry politics where there are winners and losers, indomitable heroes and abominable villains. When Benin implemented the policy, it was undeniable progress; in America, it becomes a battlefield. Honestly, our image of the policy in Benin improperly lacks the muddy realities of politics and fiscal budgets; questions of accountability and sustainability are paramount in accepting any given policy. These questions, however, are not what give us pause when policy comes closer to home. Instead, our gut reaction to these policies happening in the U.S. instead of Benin is fueled by ideology – preconceived positions on social matters that filter out our better judgment.

Ideologies take many shapes. In American politics, one common ideology is that the free market solves (all) problems efficiently and effectively, making any state action unnecessary at best or disastrous at worst. Other ideologies include statism, communism, anarchism, and conservatism to name a few. What connects them all is that policy decisions always have a prescribed answer no matter the question. For the free market fundamentalist, the answer is always markets. For the statist, it’s state control. Policy results have far less importance than their intentions.

In contrast, development focuses much more on results. In the U.S. “development” usually refers to the activities of a city planning commission, but its broader, global definition pertains to the improvement of the quality of life for individuals and communities, especially the poor. Now, development and ideology do not form perfect contrasts. Ideas for development are never free of ideology, nor is ideology devoid of claims to human improvement. The key difference lies in that ideology claims its good intentions good enough for policy while development seeks a more results-focused approach. Unfortunately, Americans often filter policies through ideologies while reserving development for poorer countries. Thus, state-led expansions of childhood education and internet access become progressive talking points and conservative anathema in America, but in Benin they’re just called progress in quality of life. Americans should think this unfair on themselves and instead look at development approaches in countries like Benin as alternatives to ideological bickering and political gridlock.

Benin is one of 193 countries implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs detail 17 ways to improve people’s standard of living. Among the 17 goals are the elimination of extreme poverty and chronic hunger by 2030 (1 and 2), the improvement of public health outcomes including universal health care access (3), universal education (4), gender equality and empowerment (5), clean and affordable energy and climate mitigation (7 and 13), reducing inequality (10), and the protection of non-human life (14 and 15). The SDGs present consensus policy objectives for rich and poor countries alike; sustainable development and improved livelihoods apply to every community and country. In fact, the U.S. also signed onto the SDGs in 2015, but because it’s mainly thought of as a poor country program, our politics feels free to focus on ideology more than development results. As a result, the U.S. ranks last among G20 countries and 36^th in the world when it comes to accomplishing the SDGs.

Benin sure has a long way to go before it reaches a standard of living close to that of the U.S., but it’s policies like the SDGs that are making a difference in people’s lives. Perhaps the U.S. should think of itself more as a country worthy of and needing improvement for every one of its citizens. Changing our rhetoric and politics to better match development results like the SDGs could go a long way in solving both our political mayhem and the problems plaguing our diverse communities. Development and SDGs don’t tell us how to accomplish objectives, but they at least emphasize accomplishing them in the first place. When thinking about policies introduced in Congress, state legislatures, or even city council chambers, consider the blueprint of the SDGs. Consider emphasizing our collective quality of life. Consider results over intentions. Consider development.