Human Capital Discourse for Public Policy and Development
University of the Philippines CD 111: Policies, Programs and Services for Community Development
During our first activity on the Power Walk I already had a different notion of what “development” should be from the individual to the institutional and national level. When I recited what I felt every time I stepped back, I said I was “embarrassed”, however, my classmates that were on the last row at the end of the game said that they did not feel a minority, rather they felt empowered. From that day forward, I reflected on many unsettling realities that my upbringing never really taught me. Considering that development is a human right, Amartya Sen’s (1999) deconstruction of the term becomes important not only in the bigger macro-political aspect of nation building but more so for me to be mindful in locating my positionality. I also learned that “inequality builds ignorance” as varying demographics might have shallow understanding of the lived experiences of communities that they are not exposed to. Inequality decompartmentalizes individuals based on prejudices. Consequently, rules and laws become hard to implement because even if they are binding on paper, they become illegitimate in reality as communities interpret them differently. For instance, as discussed in class, stores in Baclaran have two rules to follow, and therefore two tariffs to pay because national policies on the informal economies in that area are not as clear, helpful, and sturdy. This makes policy epistemologies not only a nuance but more importantly a discourse that should be centered on equity, equality, and sustainability that is not anthropocentric.
It is an unshakable monolith for many nation states to believe that policies should veer towards cornucopia. Most policy makers tend to make technological advancements an avant garde framework to define “development” which should not be the case. Development has different meanings and should involve the harnessing or guiding of the marginalized informal economy to the formal. This way we can help them grow and sustain their livelihoods without being harassed by different actors with questionable identities and intent. Recognizing their contributions and strength help improve human capital without exploiting individuals. “Formal economy thrives on the back of informal economy” that their contributions should be recognized and acknowledged less we fall into stereotyping them as criminals or creating a leviathan policy that prioritizes properties over people. When I watched Human Scale, I was moved by how the directors used modern architecture of houses in the busy cities of developed countries like New York and China in justifying how some forms of development have been harmful to minority sectors and even working class citizens that quite literally builds the economic backbones of nations. Implant urbanism, privately owned public spaces, even the creation of International Banks may have contributed to dangerous and deregulated modernization that help only the upper echelons of societies. I agree with Zygmunt Bauman’s quote that “the quality of society is measured by the quality of life of its weakest.” We can not improve or develop when we dismiss unsettling realities experienced by minority sectors when they constitute most of the working class citizens. When neoliberalization hurts than helps, then development becomes problematic.
Sen (1999) points out that development should be based on freedom and this freedom “depends on social and economic arrangements (for example, facilities for education and health care) as well as political and civil rights (for example, the liberty to participate in public discussion and scrutiny)”.
I learned that at the individual level, there are more constraints than freedom to develop. Hence, at the institutional level, policies should be holistic and not dismissive of unsettling realities. These policies should not be built from cliche or niche definitions of development but social facts, robust research, stakeholder analysis, problem tree analysis, among others, or even direct consultations with minority sectors. Excluding them from the creation of policies and laws devalue the legitimacy of these rules for they may not be helpful or will only be benign tokenistic problem solution mismatch filibusters completely irrelevant to the development and progress we want to achieve.
