Berkley Center

The topic of international development is incredibly controversial. While large international development practitioners—multilateral organizations like the World Bank, government arms like USAID, and NGOs like the Bill and Melinda Gates Organization—argue that their aid efforts bring social and economic empowerment to people in developing areas, others argue that the scale of large international development projects ignores the diversity of local cultures and power structures. Regarding such projects, human rights consultant Michael Hobbes writes in The New Republic, “When you improve something, you change it in ways you couldn’t have expected.” Hobbes gives several examples of the unintended consequences of such projects: teachers struggle to keep up with student enrollment increases that come as the result of textbook donations, communities intentionally damage their livelihood systems in order to qualify for development funding, and local governing systems disappear when NGOs show up, leading to long-term stagnation. In order to prevent these unintended consequences, Hobbes writes that major changes in these communities must come from within. Hobbes concludes, “Rich countries need to spend less time debating how to divide up the tiny sliver of our GDP we spend on development and more time figuring out how to leverage our vast economic and political power to let it happen on its own.”

As an international development enthusiast, I am conflicted over the true efficacy of the practice. I believe that because of the inherent inequity of the global capitalist system, it is the obligation of those of us who benefit to give up some of our time, income, and power to attempt to raise the standard of living for others. However, I also believe that there is some hubris involved in going into a community, ignoring cultural differences, and believing that the “standard” solution is the right one in every case. For this reason, I am always encouraged when I encounter community-led development solutions. In my short time in South Africa, I have encountered two of these grassroots success stories.

Many South African cities are flanked by informal settlements, or townships. These areas, relics of forced racial separation during apartheid, contain tiny shacks usually made of corrugated tin, shared restrooms and water spigots, and little formal infrastructure to speak of. Enkanini, the informal settlement outside of my host town Stellenbosch, has 10,000 people living on the side of one small hill. Unlike in many informal and illegal settlements, most Enkanini residents now have a once-rare commodity: electricity. The iShack project is a partnership between the people of Enkanini and the Sustainability Institute, an academic center focused on sustainable development. The cornerstone of the iShack project is a small, cheap solar panel sold to individual households within Enkanini. The panels are sold by a group of entrepreneurs who live in the settlement and have been trained to install, operate, and maintain the technology. As a result of the iShack Project, the majority of Enkanini residents now have electricity that can be used for lighting, cooking, and entertainment. Interestingly, while most Stellenbosch residents are subject to rolling blackouts from South Africa’s government owned power company, Enkanini, the city’s poorest area, always stays lit.

One of the closest towns to Stellenbosch is Franschoek, another idyllic tourist destination. Just outside of Franschoek is Langrug, an informal settlement with 2,000 households. In tandem with the NGO Informal South, the people of Langrug are implementing a very different innovation. Langrug, like many informal settlements, suffers from water scarcity. As a result, a task force managed by a resident of the community is building a waterless toilet facility near the top of the settlement. This two-story building will also have space for a kindergarten and a health clinic on its top floor. Our group was able to visit this facility under construction and talk with the manager, and I was impressed with her focus on the involvement of other community members.

These two projects—one of which has already been successfully implemented and one of which is currently undergoing—are, in my opinion, excellent examples of how outside organizations and grassroots leaders can work together to achieve a shared goal. It is true that NGO and government help is necessary to implement development projects; the knowledge and funding gap within vulnerable communities is too large to prevent this. However, an emphasis on community ownership and the transfer of knowledge to informal settlements is equally important. While external entities can provide background support, ground-level ownership allows communities to spread technical knowledge and to adapt projects easily. I believe that as time passes, we will increasingly see development projects that are better tailored to fit the specific circumstances in each community. The projects we encountered in Enkanini and Langrug exemplify the grassroots method of community empowerment, and they represent a step in this direction.