We had an interesting debate this afternoon about the effectiveness of different development actors, including International NGOs, National NGOs, Faith-based organizations, Private Corporations, Peace Corps, and the Peruvian Government. The nature of development invokes questions regarding its very definition, and the ambiguity surrounding this practice leads to serious discrepancies in its goals, methods, progress, and results. Development is such a complicated process, and although “sustainable development” is definitely a hip buzz-word right now, it can be difficult to define and even more challenging to carry out.

As Peace Corps volunteers, I think we have an obligation to seriously consider our methods of “development.” Many understand development as attempt to improve the standards of living in developing countries through the alleviation of poverty and the provision of resources to meet basic human needs. I feel like economic growth and integration into international trade have long been considered necessary steps toward development. However, critics have more recently questioned the implications of economically based development programs and highlighted the need for environmental, political, and cultural factors to be incorporated into the understanding of development in order to understand the various consequences of such efforts.

Without a clear cut definition for development, it is near impossible to have a mutual understanding regarding the goals and the paths necessary to lead to this imagined destination of “development”. Different measures of progress also affect development practices and deliver very different reports regarding the success, failures, and prescriptions for various programs and efforts. It is vital to acknowledge the intersection of interests and ideologies that drive development discourse and contribute to the controversy surrounding its implementation. Various international actors, organizations, and scholars seek to understand the practice of development and through the examination of these competing opinions and critiques regarding the methods and consequences of development, the complexity of the term emerges.

Although I may be biased, I think the community-based approach of the Peace Corps offers a more sustainable method of development. Integration into our communities is one of the main Peace Corps goals, and it is only through this integration that communication, coordination, and “development” can occur. Although the Peace Corps surely has its weaknesses, as does every development agency, I think the grassroots approach facilitates local empowerment and ownership over the goals and direction of development which is unique to each community.