Culture and Development

By Alan S. Cajes, PhD

“Culture and Development: A Study” is a 1994 UNESCO paper written by Mervyn Claxton in time for the celebration of the World Decade for Cultural Development. It aimed to re-examine the concept of development using culture as a lens in the light of the experiences of several countries. The study also showed that culture and tradition are important determinants of development. Thus culture and tradition can serve as the planting ground for a suitable species of development. If there is a clash between economic model on the one hand, and the cultural and tradition on the other hand, a rupture could occur, in addition to an economic failure or disaster.

The paper explained that the western concept of development was an offshoot of cultural forces that are shared by western countries. It also showed that non-western countries can formulate their respective versions of development that is suitable to its culture and tradition.

Culture is viewed as an indispensable determinant of development for all people throughout history. The interrelationship between culture and development was broken with the propagation of a western concept of development and its subsequent implementation in non-western countries. The author used concepts from related literature and experiences from western and non-western countries to pursue the idea that culture, traditions, history, philosophy, faith, and other cultural assets provide the context for a model of development. Thus, the role of culture in development must be examined and re-examined.

The standard idea of Western progress is economic development -- to increase the standard of people as a whole. When this approach fails in western countries, the effect is not as bad as non-western countries. Western countries have “internal mechanisms to address any distortion” since the concept is largely suitable for western conditions. This is not the case in non-western countries where failure to adopt the model would result in ruptures of the socio-cultural, economic, and political dimensions.

The Western model of economic development is a product of its age. In western countries, the idea of progress was born out of cultural assets, such as individualism, competition, wealth accumulation, and capitalism. Individualism was a consequence of historical factors that eventually led to the formulation of philosophical concepts and religious beliefs that celebrate individual freedom, which is the banner of liberalism. Liberalism abhors the restrictions of the old states and governments as represented by kings and monarchs; hence, political liberalism and liberal democracy. It also breaks away from the controlling grip of the government entities and rejoices in the unseen hand of economics; hence, economic liberalism and free enterprise.

Liberal democracy and market-oriented free enterprise allowed capitalism to thrive and dominate western economic development. Capitalism implies the use of property by the owners, and the restricted use of the property by the non-owners. This, in turn, enables the capitalists to use capital to generate more capital through an endless process of wealth accumulation.

This can be illustrated by the experience of a feudal landlord, who invests in real estate to transform an agricultural land into a real estate location. This approach enables him to keep his property and accumulate more wealth in the process. Driven by the success of his economic model, he buys other parcels of land, including agricultural lands, and then converts these lands into more housing and real estate structures, thereby further increasing his wealth. The expansion of his wealth increases his status symbol in the community, thereby gaining political influence that supports his economic standing in the community.

Armed with economic power and political influence, the real estate developer can have access to more land, including those that have pristine environmental conditions or have critical environmental functions. Since this economic model does not consider economics as a sub-set of ecology, it encroaches into the valuable ecological systems that have nurtured various and valuable cultural assets and traditions. When this model is transplanted in areas where the indigenous communities thrive, the result is a rupture between culture and lifestyle, between the traditional way of life and the modern way of existence.

This real estate development mentality is one of the culprits for the unstainable development pattern in the country. From being the Pearl of the Orient Seas, the country’s ecological footprint is now higher than biocapacity. This means that our demand of the natural resource is higher than the supply of natural resources. No wonder, our forest cover is less than 25% of the total land area. In some provinces, the forest cover is lower than four percent of the total land area. With degraded forest cover comes the problem of soil erosion, soil acidity, siltation of freshwater and coastal areas, depletion of fish stock, low farm productivity, flooding, etc. One of the causes of deforestation was the plantation economy that was introduced by the Spaniards and the Americans.

Sixto K. Roxas, an eminent fellow of the Development Academy of the Philippines, shared with us last week that those countries that attained early progress did so through industrialization that was fueled by resources of the home countries, and later on by colonizing other countries to exploit crops, minerals, timber, and other natural resources. The colonizers also embarked on plantation economy that was made possible with the slave labor from Africa.

Roxas also pointed out that the colonized countries that have gained their independence, the trademark that made colonization worked, is still evident. This trademark refers to the progress of the elites that were used by the colonizers as instruments of colonization by giving such elites rights to large tracts of land, rights to exploit mineral resources, logging concessions, etc. These elites eventually become the dominant traders, bankers, and professional who are engaged in the trading of commodities through importation and exportation. This is the path that the Philippines took during the post-colonization period.

For any model of rural development to be successful, it should be consistent with the socio-cultural context of the communities. That is why the Philippine Agenda 21 includes socio-cultural viability as one of tests of program or project sustainability. In the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022, Chapter 7 is devoted to “Promoting Philippine Culture and Values”. It states that:

“Culture has a huge role in building the foundations of inclusive, sustainable, and human-centered development. The government will promote Philippine culture and values to weave historical narratives, heritage, and the people’s way of life into a strong bind, which will serve as a unifying force among Filipinos. This is necessary in attaining a society that is founded on trust and mutual understanding.”

Culture cannot be divorced from any development intervention in rural areas. To do so would lead to a development that has neither heart nor soul.

It is instructive to study and learn from the experiences of other countries, especially those that pursued a different path for development. According to Roxas, in countries with high population densities like Japan and Thailand, plantation agriculture fails to produce high income to eliminate poverty. What these countries pursued was minifundia – “small-farm intensive, eventually commercialized agriculture”.

Based on my visits to farms in these countries, I noticed that the small farmers typically engaged in rice cultivation, freshwater fishery, and animal domestication. My visits in successful small farms in the Philippines also point to the same formula – the opposite of subsistence agriculture.

Proper farming practices, such as natural farming, inter- and multi-cropping, etc., can transform subsistence agriculture into a commercial one that can increase farm income and break the cycle of poverty. The assumption is that the government provides the needed technical and financial support.