Kothari by Jennifer - Wednesday, 25 July 2012, 09:22 PM

I'm unable to download the Kothari paper properly and have no further reference, year or first initial to find this resource, can anyone please help?

Cheers. Jennifer

Hi Jennifer,

The reference for the paper is Kothari, Rajni, Environment and Alternative Development, Alternatives 5:4 (1980: Jan), p. 427-475.

I hope that this helps.

Fiona

Thanks Fiona for providing the publication details. Kothari in his article offers an elaborate plan to achieve equity, social justice, and environmental sustainability. Is his plan workable? What do you think are the stumbling blocks? Do you think that much has changed since the time he wrote his article (in the late1970s)? If yes, in what ways? If no, why?

People back then definitely wasn't stupid. It's interesting to see how he highlights different aspects that we consider essential for sustainable development. The use of culture and tradition, and also having a holistic perspective are all aspects I associate with 'alternative development'. Also it’s interesting looking at the critiques of society and suggestions for change in the man-resource relationship. Consumerism can be seen as a direct cause to inequality in the world, as people from North hardly would let go of what they’ve already got. I suppose viewing environment as a key aspect of development was ‘in the time’ back then, but it is clear that the North dependency on South for nature resources in both consumption and maintenance of global climate has an impact on the efficiency of development.

On the other hand, the attempt of creating a universal approach to development is ambitious, and I would love to see any work in practice. I agree that there are values and principles we can assume applies for everyone, however, the cultural aspect of development could be the most important determinant. One thing we as must submit to is the importance of environment, but I do not think the global South is the ‘big bad wolf’ in that area. Liberation and indecency may be linked with society in global North. Personally I believe that these are important factors, or goals so to say, but the idea may be different in other parts of the world. Japan and the Mayans from Mexico have a value of interdependence, which may sound a little like a socialist or communist idea, but this is what their society is built on.

When Kothari writes about nature I feel like we’re behind. We have failed with protecting the treasure of earth, and we need to hastily do something about it. I’ve read that the process isn’t reversible, but I’m a pure optimist, and I believe that Kothari is right when saying science and nature has to unite. And the connection made to agriculture and industry as a whole is intriguing; I would like to know more about what ‘liberating techniques’ in these areas are. And solar power! In the 70s that must’ve been like star wars to most people. His emphasis on reusable energy sources is in the wind these days as well. And I really enjoyed reading ‘It is not Ghandi, Mao and Marx who were wrong in their philosophy’ cause that’s something I’ve been thinking about. The ideology presented in many nice forms, sound really nice, but it is the execution of it, or even more, the ‘sins of humanity’ that is the reason for failure.

In the end, to answer the question, I think Kothari suggest an approach that is strikingly similar to today’s ideas. I question the idea of ‘rural industrialisation’ as I believe rural areas should be protected against massive engulfing corporations, but if adequately implemented, in a Ghandi kind of way, perhaps it would do the trick!

I think most people agree with Kothari's principle of minima that everybody should have access to food, clothing, shelter, good nutrition, health, education, drinking water, public transportation. There are many people, organisations, governments trying to achieve this.

Emil made a good point that it is in the execution of this ideology that we have failed. Could this be because Kothari's idea of maxima has not been combined with individual autonomy? Kothari defines his policy of maxima as a limitation of wants. Unfortunately continued growth in terms of material wealth is pervasive in our culture. We all strive to obtain much more than our basic needs of whch I am more than guilty. It is hard to see how this can change to an ethic that encourages austerity as it is a huge shift.

Democracy is meant to lead to individual autonomy for all. In reality it might do so for those with wealth or in positions of power but not for those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. I agree with Kothari that we need to create a society that gives all individuals a sense of dignity and self-respect by challenging the current economc paradigm.

It is amazing how relevant Kothari's ideas still are 30 years later. Hopefully more change can happen in the next 30 years than in the previous 30 years.