Jessica Pasteiner

With surprisingly little fanfare, globalisation's golden boy Tony Blair has, (in an act of good faith not in any way, I'm sure, intended to draw some attention away from his much-critised appointment at J P Morgan), offered his 'advisory services', free of charge, to the government of Rwanda. Claiming to be impressed by the “progress” Rwanda has made after years of civil war, Blair is just the latest in a long line of consultants dispatched by both Britain and the international community to offer their expertise in the “development” of Southern countries.

Unfortunately, since the 1980s, “development” has come to mean one thing, and one thing only: neoliberalism. This primarily encompasses the rolling back of public services and the shrinking of social safety nets, mass privatisations, the 'freeing' of trade, and union busting. It inevitably favours western and corporate economic interests, (as it opens markets, creates investment-friendly incentives such as tax breaks and lax environmental and labour legislation, leaves lucrative previously state-owned businesses for sale, and ensures access to cheap labour) and there is one major hitch: it's not working. Since neoliberal globalisation was put into action, the income gap between the rich and the poor has more than doubled, both between countries and within countries, including our own, and according to the UN, considerably more people are living in absolute poverty. It inevitably hits the poor hardest, with measures such as water privatisation, a favourite of neoliberal enthusiasts, raising rates by up to 80%, leaving many households unable to pay, and being disconnected; the infamous 'IMF riots' are products of this system. This due to a program instituted in the name of poverty reduction.

Despite mountains of evidence against its effectiveness, and even the World Bank agreeing the ideas need a facelift, neoliberalism, in its various forms, is the only development discourse officially taken seriously. It is the one championed by the World Bank, the IMF and their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (successors of the notorious Structural Adjustment programs), and the one taken up by most government aid agencies. Alternatives rarely, if ever, get a look in. What's more, even though the policies being introduced have major effects on people's lives, and often drastically change the texture of the country, they are not chosen by the people living there – they are implemented in top-down fashion, often with little or no discussion, in a way not entirely compatible with more 'traditional' notions of democracy. Aware that there is much resistance in the developing world to privatisation programs, international aid is often spent on elaborate 'public relations' programs, such as music videos and roadshows, designed to 'educate' populations about their benefits.

The use of 'experts' to advise governments on how best to implement these reforms, often a condition of accepting aid packages, plays a huge role in legitimising them, and in ensuring that alternatives are not properly considered. Billions of dollars of public money every year is spent on professional development consultants – the British Department for International Development spent £2,319,380 in October 2007 alone. They will have been trained (and paid) to promote the neoliberal discourse. Whilst abroad, they are imbued with the power, authority and money of the Bretton Woods institutions. Their presence inevitably sustains the idea that 'West knows best,' and confirms the concept of 'development' as a technical, one-size-fits-all process, dependent on outside professionals, and with no room for alternative approaches.
In this context, and especially in light of his pro-globalisation efforts embodied in the Commission for Africa, Tony Blair's offer of 'advice' to Rwanda should be viewed warily. While arguably well-meaning, the practice he is joining is highly problematic, and the recruitment of such a high-profile consultant will only serve to legitimise it further.