The Guardian's Development section regularly breaks down particular pieces of jargon that are used within the realm of international development. Their article today breaks down a particularly interesting concept that I had not known prior, that of "elite capture."
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/nov/13/development-jargon-decoded-elite-capture
In short, "elite capture" is defined as elites in local communities ("village heads, the chiefs of indigenous groups, or local government bigwigs") taking control of donations to the community and using the money for their own purposes. So, when a village gets a grant for building a well, the village head takes the money and buys a car for themselves.
I found that the use of "elite" contrasted greatly with how we have discussed elites throughout class. CNN, the BBC, the IMF, the World Bank, and western governmental powers are not the elites. They are those in control of local communities. No, the world is not flat, and there are vertical lines of power throughout the world. Community leaders, in general, do have more power than the average citizen in that community. Yes, this type of corruption exists throughout the world and is a problem that should be identified and addressed where it is present. However, it is striking to me that "elite" has been used in these contexts.
As the article notes, "elite capture" was developed in reaction to participatory development concepts. The thinking went that when power is given to local "elites," they take control of the donations and use if for their benefits. Therefore, organizations like the World Bank need to maintain control to prevent this corruption and maintain the integrity of the donation.
From a communication standpoint, I see this as almost hijacking the meaning of a word. I find that this to be a reminder of how important words can be in describing international development, or other international phenomenon for that matter. Additonally, is shows how different "elites," whether the IMF or an indigenous chief, can take control of a conversation through subtle means. Through researching my paper, I have found this to be a the case around how "participatory" is used by different actors in the development field.
What other examples of hijacking have you seen in jargon, either in international development or other fields?
Jargon aside what this reminds me of in Galtung's Theory of Structural Imperialism where there exists a center of the center and center of the periphery relationship. I have to admit that when I thought about the relationship I always imagined a corrupt president or prime minister at the center of the periphery, but now that I think about these periphery centers, they would naturally occur resulting from new developmental capital.
ReplyDelete