Mike I've been shocked and appalled (!) by "development" projects when it appears that they *intentionally* subverted or destroyed the existing system of relationships and subsistence in un[der]developed countries. Do I infer correcty from the tone of your comments, Arthur, that such subversion and destruction is, in fact, intentional and that (possibly) everybody in the field of international development work knows this?
If that's the case, (getting back to the original topic in this thread) then when a ripple or shift in the global system happens and the already-poor at the bottom of the scale just fall off the ladder into utter destitution or worse, this is an intentional and predictable outcome of development strategies. I hope that's not correct. ================================== (Deleting the rest because of these para breaks. ) All I can say is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Happened with the missionaries many years ago and happening again in all too many development projects. In the law, intent defines the act. Development people don't intend a negative outcome, but sometimes that is exactly what happens The aid often benefits the donor country more than the recipient . arthur _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
