The concept of affectedness in international development. (February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jokubauskaite, Giedre
• Is Part Of: World development. Volume 126(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-02
• Subjects: All-affected principle -- Democratic boundaries -- Participation -- Vulnerability -- Structural social groups -- The World Bank; Economic history -- 1990- -- Periodicals; Economic assistance -- Developing countries -- Periodicals; 330.9
• DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104700
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-750X

Abstract

Highlights: Affectedness is a category of development governance created by international financial institutions (IFIs). Persons excluded from this category have no access to project consultation process, nor to IFI's accountability mechanisms. Grounds of affectedness are usually set by IFIs on an ad hoc basis, also based on essential identities of affected groups. Hence, decisions about who to include and who to exclude from project governance are arbitrary and cannot be challenged. There are better ways of drawing the boundary of inclusion, e.g. by using the category of Structural Social Groups (Young). Abstract: The groups who experience direct impacts of development projects are generally known as 'affected people'. This category is gaining traction in the governance of international financial institutions (IFIs) and is arguably becoming ubiquitous in contemporary development discourse. In this paper I investigate what 'affectedness' means, and also what it should mean in development context. The aim is to examine the grounds based on which the scope of affected people can be ascertained, and to underline the conceptual but also practical difficulties associated with this exercise. The proposed analysis is predominantly theoretical. It builds on the debate about the 'all-affected principle', as well as the theory of democratic inclusion by Iris Marion Young. My main argument is that currently the idea of affectedness functions as a boundary of inclusion/exclusion in the governance of development projects. I therefore suggest that leaving this category entirely open-ended also leaves it exposed to arbitrariness of decision-makers. This is problematic, because generally consultations that include affected people are seen as conveying legitimacy and proving social support to development initiatives. Without principled approach to affectedness, this process of selecting who should be consulted and who should not, enables an unjustified exclusion of the most vulnerable communities. This paper suggests that in the context of international development the most plausible ground for inclusion is vulnerability, which can be articulated by using the notion of structural social groups developed by Iris Young. These two concepts combined offer a principled enough approach for decision-makers to identify the minimal scope of affected persons.