VERIFICACIÓN Y VISUALIZACIÓN DE RAÍCES DE POLINOMIOS 2

To put it into historical perspective, the word development came into usage in English in the mid-seventeenth century and was used to convey primarily the idea of a society passing through definite evolutionary stages. The identification of development with industrialisation was inherent, and was gradually strengthened through time until in the twentieth century the association between the two was looked upon as perfectly normal. Following the end of World War II, with the emergence of underdevelopment, a word coined to describe the relative condition of the colonies and former colonies vis-à-vis the industrialised group, the dominant notion of progressive evolution, that is, economies and societies proceed on a set course of stages of development that became firmly established. Each sense of the term underdeveloped connected with images of poverty-stricken societies, to which the established ideas of development were applied. Development in such an ethnocentric framework was inevitably equated with Westernisation, producing a discourse that for many represented nothing more than yet another form of domination and control (Basu, 2010).

According to Pieterse (2010), what has emerged in relation to development is that globalisation and regionalisation are overtaking the standard unit of development, the nation. International institutions and market forces are overtaking the role of the state, the conventional agent of development. The classic aim of development, modernisation or catching up with advanced countries is in question because modernisation is no longer an obvious ambition. Modernity no longer seems so attractive in view of ecological problems, the consequences of technological change and many other problems.

Westernisation no longer seems compelling at a time when local culture and cultural diversity are being revalued. In view of the idea of multiple modernities, the question is: Modernisation towards which modernity? Several development decades have not measured up to expectations, especially in Africa and parts of Latin America and South Asia. The universalist claims of neoclassical economics and structural adjustment policies have undermined the foundation of development studies, the notion that developing countries form a special case.

For many decades development has predominantly been seen as economic growth, with some actors and commentators thinking that growth induced by industrialisation and investment in developing

countries would automatically trickle down to the poor population and thereby improve their situation (Hamm, 2001). Table 4.1 illustrates trends and meanings of development over time (Pieterse, 2009).

Table 4.1. Meaning of development over time

Period Perspective Meaning of development

1800 > Classical political economy Remedy for progress: Catching up 1850 > Colonial economics Resource management, trusteeship 1870 > Late comers industrialisation Industrialisation: Catching up 1940 > Development economics Economic growth: Industrialisation 1950 > Modernisation theory Growth, political and social modernisation 1960 > Dependency theory Accumulation: National, autocentric 1970 > Alternative development Human flourishing

1980 > Human development Capacitation, enlargement of people‘s choices 1980 > Neoliberalism Economic growth: Structural reform, deregulation,

liberalisation, privatisation

1990 > Post-development Authoritarian engineering, disaster 2000 > Millennium Development Goals Structural reforms

Source: Pieterse, 2009.

As indicated above, until the 1980s, development and human rights were regarded as two separate aspects of life that had divergent strategies and objectives. Owing to the understanding that human rights existed outside the sphere of development, nations, development organisations and practitioners were reluctant to recognise the relationship between the two concepts. They did not see the promotion and protection of human rights as an area within their purview. Consequently, this understanding and dichotomy lead to little or no emphasis on the promotion and protection of human rights (Filmer-Wilson, 2005). It was only in 1986 that the United nations (UN) recognised the relationship between development and human rights through the General Assembly‘s adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, which declaration reads thus: ‗the right to development is an alienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised‘. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, assisted in laying to rest the discourse on the dichotomy between human rights and development when it confirms the relationship and convergence between the two concepts, and this facilitated the birth of the rights based approach to development (Hamm, 2001).

According to Miller (2010), the rights-based approach to development has been promoted by a whole host of development actors ranging from inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), major donor and international NGOs to local grassroots NGOs and social movements. Hamm (2001) suggests that the rights-based approach will mitigate the risk that comes with the process of the neo-liberal economic globalisation that is threatening social standards, especially in the countries of the south.

Accordingly, there is unfortunately at this juncture no universal definition of the concept rights-based approach to development due to the varied list of development actors involved in the rights-based approach (Miller, 2010). In an attempt by the then UN Secretary General Kofi A. Annan to ensure that all entities of the UN mainstreamed human rights into their activities and programmes, and to ensure convergence of understanding of the concept by the various UN entities who were already experienced in the approach, the UN held an Interagency Workshop on the Human Rights Based Approach at Stamford, Connecticut, in the US in May 2003. It was in this interagency workshop that a Statement of Common Understanding on the rights-based approach was brainstormed and adopted by the UN entities, and the following definition was adopted: ‗A human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to analyze obligations, inequalities and vulnerabilities and to redress discriminatory practices and unjust distributions of power that impede progress and undercut human rights‘ (UNHRC, 2010).

The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (1999:1) defines the concept as follows:

A rights-based approach to development sets the achievement of human rights as an objective of development. It uses thinking about human rights as the scaffolding of development policy.

It invokes the international apparatus of human rights accountability in support of development action. In all of these, it is concerned not just with civil and political (CP) rights (the right to a trial, not to be tortured), but also with economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights (the right to food, housing, a job).

Elements, principles or benefits or objectives of the rights-based approach to development as espoused by a number of development organisations such as the Australian Council for International development (2010), Amnesty International-Irish Section (2005), International Center for Research on Women (2006), and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004) are: (i) the promotion of the realisation of human rights; (ii) helping governments and their partners achieve their human rights commitments; (iii) the promotion of accountability by duty bearers such as governments; (iv) the promotion of transparency in development and the fulfilment of rights; (v) the fostering of the empowerment and capacity development of rights holders to hold duty bearers to account and to participate in their own development; (vi) the promotion of partnership between the rights bearers and the rights holders; (vii) ensuring active and meaningful participation of rights-holders in their own development and the fulfilment of rights; (viii) the creation of ownership of the development process; (ix) enhancing the sustainability of development; (x) the reduction of vulnerabilities by focusing on the most marginalised and excluded in society; and (xi) the encouragement of the expression of rights through different mediums of communication.

The UN Statement of Common Understanding (UNHRC, 2013) lists the following as essential for the implementation of the rights-based approach to development:

(1) people are recognized as key actors in their own development, rather than passive recipients of commodities and services; (2) participation is both a means and a goal; (3) strategies are empowering; (4) both outcomes and processes are monitored; (5) analysis includes all stakeholders; (6) programmes focus on marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded groups;

(7) the development process is locally owned; (8) programmes aim to reduce disparity; (9) both top-down and bottom-up approaches are used in synergy; (10) situation analysis is used to identify immediate, underlying, and basic causes of development problems; (11) measurable goals and targets are important in programming; (12) strategic partners are developed and sustained; and (13) programmes support accountability to all stakeholders.

Hunter (2012) in her emphasis on the commitment, empowerment and participation of communities or rights holders in the realisation of their rights, posited that ‗unlike alley cats and lost dogs, people are not helpless. They may be thrown into situations which they are not equipped to handle without help, but this does not make them helpless—this makes them in need of help. People are capable of changing their own lives. They don‘t need pity. They need a ride to the nearest gas station, maybe a few dollars for gas, but they can drive the car themselves‘. She further argued that there were times when charity-driven and damage control approaches were useful, especially during famines and natural disasters. According to King (2006), in housing development, individuals are either ignored altogether or seen as an ideal type whose reaction can almost be guaranteed by the operation of particular economic or policy instruments, as they are portrayed as being reactive and dependent upon the actions of government or institutions. Furthermore, King posits that in housing markets individuals are portrayed as rational consumers whose behaviour can be predicted by the psychological nostrums of orthodox economic theory.

Similarly, according to Evans (2007), a rights-based approach to development rejects the notion that people living in poverty can only meet their basic needs as passive recipients of charity. People should be the active subjects of their own development, as they seek to realise their rights. The role of development actors, including the state, should, inter alia, seek to build people‘s capabilities to realise their rights. However, too often public housing policies and private sector practices do not take into account the ability of low-income groups to earn, save, borrow and invest in housing. They do not consider the fact that by using what means and strategies are available to them, the urban poor have built their homes and made vast additions to their cities (Gattoni, 2009).

Apart from invoking human rights, as indicated above, the rights-based approach to development brings to development critical elements that are lacking in conventional approaches to development such as needs-based and charity approaches to development. Issues that governments and their

partners grapple with in their development programmes are: (i) empowerment and capacity development of beneficiaries of programmes, (ii) active and meaningful participation of beneficiaries of government programmes and (iii) the knowledge of rights by the rights holders (communities) and their ability to hold government accountable to respect, promote and ensure the fulfilment of their rights. It is critical to note that this approach does not promote the notion that rights holders will remain passive and wait for government to deliver a service to them.