Category: Development

International Development, Community Development, Foreign Aid, NGOs

Open Letter to Rick Snyder: from a concerned customer

Development
“The reinvention of Michigan must not leave anyone behind.”
– Rick Snyder (Inaugural Address, Jan. 1, 2011)

Dear Governor Snyder,

Michigan has a long history with big corporations, many which have recently come under severe scrutiny. My generation has watched as numerous corporations from Enron to GM have put their own interests first and have hurt many communities, families, and people in the process. What Michigan needs is not tax breaks and improvements for corporations, but rather improvements for communities of people who are the heart and soul of our state.

I’m not sure where your economic and development theories come from, but a “shock doctrine” just won’t work (just ask Jeff Sachs what the long-term benefits to the Bolivian economy were). There is no way that Michigan’s economic slate can be wiped clean for whatever changes you want to push. Economic development is never independent of history or social consequences. The success of neoliberal economics in further marginalizing populations that are already marginalized is appalling.

In the name of the economy, you have submitted a budget plan that not only further marginalizes populations in need, but also allows for a future of corporate control in our state (emergency financial managers). Taxing pensions of the elderly, cutting incentives for the middle class, slashing tax credits for the working poor, eliminating health benefits for same-sex partners, and crippling the powers of unions and public employees are all powerful representations of your social agenda being masked by your “economic” reforms. There will soon be 2 classes in Michigan, the wealthy and everyone else.

Time and again, in economic development models implemented in communities around the world the need is not for an environment where corporations can thrive, but rather an environment where communities can build and create. People need to be empowered to grow their own communities and create opportunities for collaboration. If you truly believe that Michigan needs an “era of innovation” then you need to look closer at policies that will have long-term impacts for the state.

One long-term impact that you should highly consider is supporting an ‘ideas economy’ through higher education. Young people are struggling enough as it is to graduate with the least amount of debt possible and then find a job (one likely not in Michigan). Adding a 15% cut to higher education funding (on top of 18% cuts since 2002) will cause young people to consider more options outside of Michigan and force universities to fire numerous faculty and employees. How will our universities remain “world class” with these cuts?

Writing as a young person born and raised in this great state, I am concerned with your chosen direction. Reinventing Michigan shouldn’t rely on failed economic models and policies of the past. Your campaign of hollow words paired with your short-sighted economic reforms demonstrates your lack of commitment to the State of Michigan and its people, who you are leaving behind in great numbers.

young, white, and in detroit: gentrification implications

Development, Featured

http://current.com/e/88996181/en_US
Video from: Feministing – Detroit, Gentrification and Good-ass Political Hip-hop

“First-stage gentrifiers” are economically- and socially-marginal “trend setters”. Sociologically, these people are young and have low incomes while possessing the cultural capital (education and a job), characteristic of the suburban bourgeois. They often reside in communal (room-mate) households, and are more tolerant of the perceived evils of the city—crime, poor schools, insufficient public services, and few shops.

Am I a gentrifier? I’m young, educated, low-income, and living in a house with 3 other young people. Uh oh! Since moving to Detroit I have considered what socio-economic consequences I could have on the current population and cityscape. My fiance and I have had many discussions about gentrification and what it means for Detroit. The definition I will be using:

Gentrification denotes the socio-cultural changes in an area resulting from wealthier people buying housing property in a less prosperous community. Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which may result in the informal economic eviction of the lower-income residents, because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes. This type of population change reduces industrial land use when it is redeveloped for commerce and housing. In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, tend to move into formerly blighted areas, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to less wealthy natives.

I live in the University District, which like most of Detroit is now a majority black community, but that wasn’t always the case. The District has a long history from farmland to annexation with the city, to development as a model community where, “homes could never be sold to or used by persons other than ‘of white or Caucasian race.'” Following the riots of 1967 and full blown white flight to suburban areas, black families began moving into the neighborhood. I live in a home who’s family has a long history of living in the area, contributing to the community, and working with the labor movement.

Being a gentrifier in Detroit has a serious implication when tied to the city’s past. That implication is born of the history of racial segregation and violence in the city of Detroit and the Detroit metro area. Public policy and popular perception of black people systematically marginalized and segregated populations based on race. The extended outcome of those causes can be seen with Michigan’s “blackest” city: Detroit residing a stone’s throw away from its “whitest” city: Livonia. Because of this historical disenfranchisement of the black community in Detroit, gentrification is all that much more a hard topic in a city facing difficult economic development.

Young Detroit

Recently NPR carried a story from Model D, an online news magazine that seeks to create a new narrative for Detroit (they also wrote about gentrification in 2005). The story was about a Detroit neighborhood soccer (futbol) league. Initially I thought it was incredible, but then realized that this was a snapshot of the growing gentrification of Detroit as I noticed in the video that nearly all of the participants were young and white. Many were there for the excitement of working in Detroit for non-profits and other social ventures. A band of “first-stage” gentrifiers? On the flipside how is Detroit supposed to innovate and grow without an influx of young and creative people? How can Detroit bring in excited youth, who are often white and more established, without fueling gentrification or the continued disenfranchisement of the majority black population?

Gentrification is happening mostly in areas around Wayne State University, the historic Corktown neighborhood, and neighborhoods near the Riverfront. The argument that these empty places in Detroit aren’t displacing anyone lacks a long-term vision. The city is beginning to see an increase in the number of “first-stage” gentrifiers and simply what follows is a second and third stage where eventually the first and second stage gentrifiers are displaced themselves by lawyers, physicians, and bankers. While all stages of gentrifiers are displacing the “native” populations of these areas by way of their socio-economic power. Is gentrification a natural fluctuation of the urban landscape? Can gentrification do any good?

Is Gentrification Growth?

No, if you look at the face value of gentrification and its broad economic impact, then sure gentrification is growth. However, when you factor in community and the effects on people – gentrification never equals growth, rather displacement.

Nothing good can come of gentrification. There is a minimal increase in tax dollars being sent to the city government, but that has little impact when (for now) the business dollars are being invested and collected in the suburbs surrounding Detroit. Communities don’t grow and get stronger, communities are changed by economic force through gentrification.

Looking Forward

The important step for Detroit now is to strengthen its community organizations and engage would be gentrifiers to support neighborhood development. Downtown redevelopment only benefits those with social mobility and that is not the majority of the Detroit population. Detroit’s black community has seen years of oppression and gentrifiers come in with a load of unearned privilege and resources.

First-stage gentrifiers (young, white, educated) can change the course for Detroit and instead work to be “allies in development” – partnering for stronger community organizations in black communities and actively engaging in local community efforts: shopping locally, attending block club meetings, and utilizing their privilege to highlight the progress that has been happening by native Detroiters as opposed to outsiders coming in with grand ideas for development.

If Detroit (and Michigan) is going to make it there can no longer be a black and white divide. There needs to be engagement from both populations where black communities have strong neighborhoods and white migrants recognize their privilege and work to assist community development that is already getting started. Get to know your neighbors and community, don’t create enclaves of white privilege, and support your community leaders!

“Detroit’s future is its neighborhoods” – Reframe Detroit

measuring poverty beyond a dollar a day

Development
(Photo credit: Allianz Knowledge Partnersite)

How do you measure the worth or suffering of someone’s life? We’ve all seen the ads where a white man walks through desolate streets as malnourished children cling to his hands. He tells us that we can help and that these children can be helped for just a dollar a day. So why do these commercials play year after year if all that is needed is a dollar a day?

The truth is that a dollar a day tells you very little about those children, the reason for their lack of nourishment, or the history or their countries, communities, and families. For years international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been using the Human Development Index (HDI) created by the United Nations Development Program. The HDI is a set of statistics used to rank a country based on “human development” (i.e. mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.) The original idea was to “to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people centered policies.”

The HDI and its statistics built such programs as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and many had criticisms. Some argued that the HDI was still too nation focused or that measuring material wealth could never promote “human development” thus ending poverty. Just yesterday the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) of Oxford University and the Human Development Report Office of the UNDP announced a new way to measure poverty called the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). Director of the UNDP Human Development Report Office, Dr. Jeni Klugman, said. “The MPI provides a fuller measure of poverty than the traditional dollar-a-day formulas.” She noted that the MPI assesses critical factors at the family level and it will be used to compliment the HDI by examining broader aspects of well-being.

As our understandings of the root causes of poverty increase so must our means of measuring its affects. While some are focused on pulling our heart strings with “dollar a day” lines, the larger development institutions are working to become more innovative in their approaches to measure poverty.

While the MPI is a positive step in the right direction, it seems that it will still be very broadly focused and may still lose the “people centered” perspective. As large development institutions focus and innovate measures for poverty, why have they not just asked those most affected?

batman wears green in detroit

Development
(Photo Credit: ComicVine)

There was a time when Batman acquired the super human powers of Green Lantern, no joke. Imagine the combined powers of Batman’s wit and charm paired with the power of Green Lantern’s ring which can alter the physical world and is as powerful as the wearer’s willpower and imagination.

Those interested in tackling the difficulties of Detroit can take a lesson from this partnership of sorts, a sharing of resources, and a use of imagination to solve social problems. I’ve written about some issues happening in Detroit, some background, and so the next few blog posts will be focused on highlighting some critical solutions that Detroit needs to implement as well as some creative programs already in place.

Number one on the list is job retraining for skilled labor in green building and technologies. For places like Detroit (and Flint) there is huge potential for centers of education to refocus their resources to offer training that contributes to the green economy. Countless case studies have shown that programs that target low-income communities with green job trainings take a serious jab at fighting poverty, reducing crime, and building communities (Sustainable South Bronx SSBx; Green for All). Detroit is a great setting for these trainings because of the density of community colleges and universities. The city is also a critical location where there is a need to increase home energy efficiency: heating, cooling, etc.

For Detroit, building an “inclusive green economy” Detroit can work to reverse its history of class divide, reduce crime, and innovate industry all at the same time. At a time when jobs are needed, poverty is rampant, and new ideas for growth are a must, investing in education and training makes the most sense.

I wrote previously that this is one area that Detroit can learn from Grand Rapids, and it has. Grand Rapids Community College offers a wind energy program. The city itself is number one in LEED-certified green buildings. How far off could this be for Detroit?

In the Roosevelt Institute’s Midwest 2.0 Journal, author Cory Connolly (Pg. 17) highlights the statistics for a bright future in green careers for Michigan. He writes that 72% of energy professionals believe that there will be a shortage of workers in the green economy in the next 5 years (Apollo Alliance). Many Michigan education institutions have started some programs, but the state is well behind. Cory focuses on integrating career based trainings at the high school level through existing infrastructures. By creating partnerships with green industries and fresh young workers the unemployment numbers for Michigan could drop significantly. California is invest 20 million in a program just like what Cory describes.

In the same journal, Valerie Bieberich (pg. 15) lays out the attractiveness and ease of bringing green jobs to the Midwest. The most critical point that Valerie makes is that the Midwest has a strong worker base and resource base for green industries. For states like Michigan the infrastructure already exists and unemployment is high – workers are ready for green jobs! Michigan has already seen two green energy firms start their work in Battle Creek and more recently Holland.

In Detroit, green job training is become more readily available. Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice is an organization pushing the green economy forward with a number of green jobs training and programs focused on making Detroit green.

Wayne County Community College (WCCC) is offering three tiered green jobs training courses in: energy efficiency, weatherizing certification, recycling, and green building certifications. It is an extremely comprehensive program targeting unemployed residents who have at least a high school diploma. This is an excellent example of the type of program needed to reverse the negative growth that Detroiters have seen.

grand rapids can’t afford for detroit to fail

Development

One of the recent articles from “Assignment Detroit” in Fortune Magazine attempts to say that Detroit needs to learn from Grand Rapids. The content that follows in the article goes on to prove that Grand Rapids is not like Detroit at all.

The article was titled, “A Michigan Success Story” with the tagline: “Its not the kind of view you expect these days in downtrodden Michigan”. It seems they can never give a clear message about Michigan or Detroit. Its a success, but downtrodden. Its working hard, but never making the mark. Let’s jump right in – so it is true, Grand Rapids is growing, has retained young people, and has significant investment in higher education and medical services – but that does not mean Detroit can replicate the business successes of this tiny West Michigan city.

Grand Rapids is not similar to Detroit. They had different industries, different populations, and different mean levels of income. From the article:

“thanks to a combination of business leadership, public-private cooperation, and the deep pockets of local philanthropists.” 

This picture is not as visible in Detroit, the deep pockets of philanthrophy don’t reach as far in a significantly larger city with a larger population (ever with Detroit’s population decline). Retired Chairman and CEO of Old Kent Bank, John Canepa is quoted saying,

“But Grand Rapids had an unusual set of assets. The wealth in this city in proportion to its size is extraordinary.” 

The Amway corporation and family, DeVos (whose name appears on far too many things in Grand Rapids), Steelcase and Meijer.

“The founders of those companies and their descendants still reside in Grand Rapids area, and match their deep roots with deep pockets of philanthropic dollars.” 

The article’s author is defeating his own argument with each quote he gets from local Grand Rapids leaders. They recognize that there were some similarities in how the decline in industry had effects on both cities, but are not as naive to think that what worked for Grand Rapids will work for Detroit.

Unemployment in Grand Rapids is still very high and not surprisingly this disproportionately affects minority communities. Detroit is a city of minorities, unlike Grand Rapids that holds its roots in the white, anglo-saxon, protestant traditions with traceable histories, long roots to local areas, propped by family assets and connections. The city government of Grand Rapids is also facing serious budget cutting and is working with unions to decrease benefits.

Grand Rapids is the “greenest city in the US” with more LEED-certified buildings per capita. This could also be attributed to the growing trends in environmental sustainability and the wealth that exists in Grand Rapids. Where Detroit can take a lesson is in offering more opportunities for Green Jobs. The Grand Rapids Community College just opened excellent training courses for various “green” industries. I will begin writing more about “green” solutions in following posts.

Detroit doesn’t have the hard cash wealth that Grand Rapids has, but it does have other rich assets when it comes to new ideas and initiatives for improvement. As in Grand Rapids, these ideas don’t come from the government or its funds.

A last final and important take-away from the article was a quote from Mayor George Heartwell, “we can’t afford to see Detroit fail. But if Grand Rapids recovery took two decades, how long will it take Detroit?”
No one can afford for Detroit to fail.

your thumbprint stays the same

Development

Over the course of your life you will grow and your fingerprints will grow along with you, except for your thumbprint. Michigan is much like your fingerprints and Detroit is the thumbprint. As the state has grown (sometimes negative growth), Detroit has remained the same, “trapped” if you will, in its post-automobile slump. Alright, so I know Detroit isn’t in the thumb of Michigan, but it was nice analogy. Beyond the images of Detroit’s destruction lie the seeds of real growth. The economic situation of Detroit isn’t all lost and the state doesn’t need to sign on to stimulating reforms to make it happen.

Few people seem to grasp that the economic situation of Detroit reflects that of the state of Michigan. Where, unfortunately, politics plays a larger role. For many years there has been an unspoken clash between the former economic power that was Detroit and the political power that is Lansing. With Detroit’s decline, no region of Michigan has been able to match and replace the city’s production power and “driving” economic engine. To the rest of the world Michigan is Detroit and until politicians in Lansing recognize that fact – then the state may be doomed. However, the issue goes far beyond image, as I wrote before. One important point made in Professor Ritchie’s post, Is Michigan a Third World Economy?, is the need for “strong political leadership” which is missing in both Detroit and the state of Michigan as a whole.

The one thing that I have found to be a constant in Detroit is the sense of community. From people who live in the city at large, the various enclaves and districts of the city, and the groups and organizations that work to make Detroit a better place. Unlike any other major city, this sense of community needs to be fostered and developed. The city needs to stop trying to bring in people from the suburbs and from outside the city. There needs to be a greater focus on the people who are already here. Living the struggles of Detroit and working to make the solutions.

Thankfully there are examples from initiatives in other struggling cities across the US to give direction as to how Detroit can begin to thrive again. The Governor and many experts have talked about innovative industries. Detroit and dense city centers like it can capitalize on the new “green” industry. But will “green” be enough to “save” Detroit? Hardly, and the third installment about Detroit will highlight solutions happening and the people who are pushing to make their communities better.

detroit is gotham without a batman

Development

batman_truck

Michigan’s “third” world city, as it is often referred to, is a place where community stands out over commerce. It is best known as a place you would not want to visit and best recognized (on the big screen) through scenes of armageddon and the end of the world as opposed to its architectural prowess; qualified as “the nation’s finest.” Since the race riots of 1967, and earlier, the city has never been able to recover its image. Continually in movies and the news Detroit is marked as a pit of a city resembling in some parts a war torn city where bombs have reduced neighborhoods to rubble. Where is this gothic city’s batman? How is it that Detroit matches the “third” world?

I will answer the second question first.

Since August I’ve been living and working in Detroit focusing on youth empowerment and community service/ engagement. What I have seen has been this common image of a destroyed Detroit, but I have also had the privilege of seeing some of the incredible initiatives launched by the communities and people of Detroit. I have to disagree with the many who would say Detroit is “third” worldly. The majority of its population may fall far below the poverty line, but it is absurd to describe the city as a “third” world.

The recent Time Warner “Assignment Detroit” journalists “embedded” in the city have taken to writing similarly scathing articles of Detroit and have perpetuated the destroyed image of Detroit. Example from the New York Times: Ruin with a View. There are a few organizations attempting to recover and reclaim the image of Detroit from these corporate story weavers, notably Inside Detroit tasked with getting more people to know about Detroit: “they know it, they love it.”

Many people that I have worked with talk about the similarities between the developing “third” world and Detroit. Poverty has many similarities and often looks the same from the outside, but poverty has many stories and the circumstances are never the same. My friend Cory recently described what is and has been happening in Detroit as a man-made disaster. I couldn’t agree more. It is no hurricane, flood, or earthquake, but definitely comparable: from rapid industrialization, capitalism, racial tensions and white flight to relying on a solitary automobile industry, even the long running political climate in Detroit has been a contributing factor. “Third” world is just another negative descriptor for the city and an attempt to glamorize the city’s economic decline.

Stay tuned for the my answer to the first question this week (to be continued. . .)

* Note: I am not really giving “answers,” but my thoughts based on learning about and being located in Detroit over the past year. I wouldn’t dream of giving Detroit answers after just one year.

ending charity: alone, is not the answer

Development, Health

>

“Giving in its purest form expects nothing in return.” – Anonymous

There are a lot of confusing buzzwords being thrown around these days: ending charity, dead aid, patient capitalism, impatient optimists, and investment over aid. What does it all mean?

My initial thoughts on this subject were spurred by zyOyz founder Steve Jennings’ repost of an article titled: “Charity alone not the answer to tackling poverty”. Well I agreed with the article’s basic premise that just giving money is not the only solution or the best, I was troubled by the article’s absolute statements that business models and capitalism will save the world.

The article, reposted from the Financial Times, notes the work of the Acumen Fund founded by Jacqueline Novogratz, which invests in small businesses with a social impact termed as “patient capital.” It has become a highly successful model, however Novogratz is quoted as saying: “We need creative approaches to reinvigorate capitalism and make it more inclusive.” The most inclusive business model that I know, with high degrees of success, is the cooperative model based on needs of those involved, inclusion, and participation. Looking at history, capitalism has generated exclusion: great amounts of wealth for many people, but it has also perpetuated extremely flawed systems that create great degrees of poverty for many people. The evidence is in any major city where the consequences of capitalism lay bare the desperation of good people who are left with nothing.

At the root of the article, “Charity alone not the answer to tackling poverty,” is the long-running debate on whether investment is more effective than aid. Professor Bill Easterly made popular the fact (through his book, “White Man’s Burden”) that over $1 trillion in aid has been given to Africa over the last 50 years with limited positive results, Dambisa Moyo has termed this “dead aid” and calls for a complete end of aid to Africa. Others like Bill and Melinda Gates, who have given vast amounts of aid (which they often call “investment”) to Africa with their foundation, label themselves as “impatient optimists.” They are hopeful for the future and want more done at the present time.

However, there is a problem with their impatience that many have critiqued. Impatience tends to push solutions that are ineffective. Ian Wilhelm gets further into this topic in a blog about “irrational aid.” In the post he writes about Alanna Shaikh’s critique of ineffective aid, such as outdated pharmaceuticals and medical equipment that has no use in the field. This argument is countered by Isaac Holeman’s disagreement that well that aid may be irrational, it provides immediate personal stories of need to bring in more donors. I have to agree with Alanna in saying that this irrational, possibly impatient, aid does more harm and basically no good.

How have we now moved from decrying the failures of charity and aid to highlighting the benefits of business models and the capitalist system back again to smiling about greater benefits of monetary investment in people and ideas? Where is the line drawn between investment and aid? As far as I can tell it is mostly semantic. Isn’t aid when transparent, effective, and driven by best practices an investment? Giving an investment is essentially the same as giving aid or charity.

Investment is the buzzword used by social enterprises, microfinance, and has become the new fad in international development organizations. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what is effective and what is not. Aid can be very effective and investment can be very ineffective. The reverse is also true. Where does effective aid change from being a type of investment? When experts talk about the broken aid system do they forget that the broken aid system is merely a reflection of the broken financial system. The same interests and individuals who have run financial systems have run foreign aid systems.

The real issue in this debate need not be if businesses are better than charities or who’s money is better spent. What is most important needs to be the question of, “How?” The systems, structures, and practices that implement aid and drive investment need to be cooperative, inclusive, needs based, and people-centered – in one word: effective. If you are looking for a return on investment (ROI) or accolades for your donated or invested dollars, then maybe you should reconsider why you give?

Written for the SCOUT BANANA blog.