Introduction
The idea of development for the poor third-world countries promoted by the wealthy population of the western world has experienced serious critique from researchers, who explore the issues of racial and social discrimination.
The foundation of this critique is the disillusionment regarding the effectiveness of the development programs offered to the third world countries in earlier periods. The three articles observe three current undertakings in the poorest countries of the third world – fair-trade coffee, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs, and land grabs. All these undertakings aim to be compatible with the ethical vision developed by western human rights activists, but they fail to some degree. The following paper aims to respond to the value of the class readings and discuss the new insights gained from them.
Main body
First, the common feature of the three articles is their address to the theme of development, and its shortcomings over the past few decades, in particular. These class readings evaluate the three current international development undertakings including fair-trade coffee, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs, and land grabs in third-world countries. In her article, Deborah Sick speaks of fair-trade coffee as an alternative that will enable millions of small-scale farmers in Latin America to earn adequate incomes to provide for their households and cover their farming business expenses.
According to Sick (2008), “the export market remains essential, and in this volatile and competitive environment, FT offers hope for the survival of small-scale coffee producers” (p. 203). Next, the PES program is the focus of research in the article by Ibarra, Barreau, Campo, Camacho, and McCandless (2011). In this article, Ibarra et al. (2011) observe the problems of such a venture as paying the native inhabitants to make them end up with their usual farming and hunting practices in order to preserve the wildlife. The authors identify the key issues connected with racial discrimination as the major foundation of the current PES programs.
Thus, this venture appears to be another factor contributing to the disillusionment of current international development undertakings. Finally, Zoomers’ article makes an overview of such a burning problem as land grabs. Based on the negative outcomes for the local population, the author makes her conclusions regarding the inappropriateness of such an undertaking.
Further, all three readings attempt to critique the current approach to the theoretical and practical tenets of development. Particularly, Sick critiques the attempt to create better trading conditions for the local people within the frames of the fair-trade coffee market. She explains that economically disadvantaged people are not able to seize the new opportunities the free trade has created because of their disqualification and other unfavorable factors such as low effectiveness of traditional growing methods, the prohibitive costs of inspection, marketing, and certification, etc. Thus, the fair-trade coffee market appears a well-intentioned but ineffective arrangement because it does not adequately address the circumstances of local farmers.
In their discussion of the PES program in Mexico, Ibarra et al. (2011) has addressed the main theoretical problems underlining the development of the Oaxaca region. The researchers argue that the program did not manage to adequately tackle the issues of racial discrimination initially put into the foundation of the earlier version of the PES program for the area. They explain that the new program still utilizes the racist approach by limiting the area of hunting and cultivating crops for the native citizens.
In addition, it fails to provide sufficient financial compensation for buying processed food instead of utilizing traditional practices for food provision. Moreover, the new approach to nutrition has already led to the social health decline. According to Ibarra et al. (2011), “continued strict preservation measures under the guise of community conservation could lead to losses of agrobiodiversity, dietary diversity, hunting skills and associated environmental knowledge” (p. 318).
In Zoomers’ article, the critique concerns the problem of the economically-disadvantaged people’s marginalization connected with a land grab. The author argues that the implementation of Codes of Conduct within the frames of administrative approach is a poor effort to minimize the negative impact of land grabbing on the local inhabitants. According to Zoomers (2010), the only solution to the problem is systemic change in the neoliberal economic model.
The author concludes with the statement that free trade market is not an option for every nation since the economically-disadvantaged countries are not able to handle the complex bafflements they face in free trade zones. To support this conclusion, Zoomers provides an illustration with the creation of tourist resorts in third-world countries with an objective to provide employment to the local people and exploit the new markets in food and other supplies. The author explains that few to no people benefit from such an arrangement since the local inhabitants are not in a position to seize the job or trading opportunity due to their unpreparedness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the class readings offer a thought-provoking argument regarding the shortcomings of the current international development ventures including fair-trade coffee, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs, and land grabs. The fair critique the authors present in their articles proves that current economic models badly need systemic change to stop the marginalization of the poor.
References
Ibarra, J. T., Barreau, A., Campo, C. D., Camacho, C. I., Martin, G. J., & McCandless, S. R. (2011). When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: Impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico. International Forestry Review, 13(3), 318-337.
Sick, D. (2008). Coffee, farming families, and fair trade in Costa Rica: New markets, same old problems? Latin American Research Review, 43(3), 193-208.
Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalization and the foreignisation of space: Seven processes driving the current global land grab. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 429-447.