Thoughts on International Development from an Eternal Optimist: Why the Glass is 1/3rd Full

Dr. Roy Culpeper who has spent 23 years at The North-South Institute, 15 of them as its president, is stepping down. Under his leadership, NSI sought to bring about a more peaceful and equitable world through evidence-based research for development. Dr. Culpeper has been awarded the prestigious Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canada-U.S. Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. He takes up his Chair in January. He has also recently been named adjunct professor at Carleton University's School of Public Policy and Administration. Dr. Culpeper will become a distinguished research fellow at the Institute.

Before taking up his Fulbright prize, NSI sat down with Dr. Culpeper for his insights on development and NSI – 23 years later.

How has the development landscape changed since you first arrived at NSI?

The landscape has changed on a number of fronts. There have been visible improvements in the standards of living of a great number of people who now find themselves better off and facing better prospects than they did 30 years ago. While it's true that progress has been uneven, there is reason to be hopeful. Africa, of course, is the continent where the challenges have been greatest. But even in Africa, its ability to survive and to recover from the recent global financial crisis, for example, is something that most would not have predicted a decade ago.

We have also changed the way we think about development. Thirty years ago the focus was overwhelmingly on economic development – that is to say, measuring development progress through economic yard sticks like gross national product. Such indicators are not unimportant, but the singular focus on them proved inadequate. Income may go up, but other things, like longevity or people's health and well-being, may not.

As a result, the focus has broadened to include social and political indicators so that, now, when we think about whether people are better or worse off, we look at economic measures but also improvements in areas like health, education and gender equality. It's a very good thing.

How has NSI responded to the changing development scene?

To go back to the beginning, NSI's initially focused on 3 things: aid, trade and finance. That pretty well resonated with the economic focus of the 70s and 80s. But, in the 90s, we began to broaden our perspective; we started to look at issues like gender and development, the role of civil society as an actor in progress or change, and security as a fundamental contributor to development. More recently we've tackled topics such as migration and Indigenous Peoples. These are all examples of how the NSI's research program has evolved to respond to development needs.

What 3 accomplishments or impacts are you most proud of?

In terms of the Institute, I'm proud of the introduction of the Canadian Development Report (CDR) as NSI's flagship publication. The series began shortly after I was appointed President. The CDR has given NSI a vehicle by which to draw attention to the leading issues of the day. It has also provided another opportunity for the Institute to reach out to its Southern partners and provide them with a way to articulate what those issues are and what the policy responses should be.

Insofar as my own research, I continue to invest time looking at issues concerning debt and finance for development which, as the recent crisis has shown, are still fundamental to the stability and sustainability that we see around the world. I'm particularly proud of the inroads made by NSI's work on resolving debt problems in development nations. In fact, former Prime Minister Paul Martin acknowledged that this research contributed to Canada's eventual policy on debt forgiveness.

We've also made some very important contributions on the issue of gender equality, and this goes back to my predecessor, Maureen O'Neil, who put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of gender in development. It's led us to be able to persuade APEC to acknowledge that gender equality is an important yard stick of progress; this, at a time when it was quite clear that in Asia, gender was being dismissed. It is now very much on the agenda and I think our work can take some credit for that.

In a results-oriented world, how do you promote the value of research?

Notwithstanding the examples I just gave you about NSI's impact, two issues make it difficult to demonstrate results as clearly as one might wish: attribution and time.

For example, it's rare that any organization would be alone in doing research in a specific subject, and it's probably the case that topics tend to gel in the research agendas of many organizations. So it's hard to dis-entangle the impact of NSI's work from that of others on addressing a same issue, though we can claim to have helped shape policy outcomes.

As for time, quite often policies don't materialize overnight. The process is long, complex, and involves a number of factors and players that, for the most part, exclude researchers. Research, if it's good, provides a strong case for policies to change. If policymakers are listening and convinced – and those are both big ifs – than that might trigger change. To take the example of debt forgiveness, NSI began its research in the 1980s but its efforts, as well as those of others, only resulted in debt forgiveness becoming a reality a decade and half later. That's the reality of the evidence-driven process: change needs to win the support of policymakers and the public … and that takes time.

Why choose to try to make a difference in development by focusing on policy change instead of simply feeding the hungry or attending to the sick?

Ultimately all actions that succeed have to be based on ideas and concepts that inform those actions, or they risk being fruitless or not very meaningful. Successful action, in one way or another, originates in an idea or concept that may become a policy, or may create an environment that allows success and development to happen.

Time again is an issue here because sustainable change requires it. We could be talking decades or several generations. For example, the payoff from education takes a very long time. If you achieve universal primary education today, you still have to secure jobs for a cohort of students for the next 20-30 years. Yes, these students will enter the workforce more literate and numerate, but other things need to happen for them to find jobs. You can produce all the graduates in the world, but what good is it if you can't employ them? People in development often feel that the importance of policy and creating space for change isn't sufficiently acknowledged in the impatience by some to see results from year-to-year.

Where does NSI fit within the context of a growing number of Canadian organizations dedicated to development issues?

NSI still believes in the concept of development in a way that other organizations have chosen not to. In some circles, development is seen as passé, a 20th century concept. So some organizations frame the issues in terms of sustainability which speaks to ecological issues, or in terms of governance, seen as a root cause of well-being, or in several other ways. All of this is good. But NSI, at the end of the day, is still the only independent think tank in Canada that looks at poverty and the need for human development not just in terms of increasing incomes but across the economic and social spectrum.

Poverty is a huge challenge that will need to be addressed deep into the 21st century. Having said that, it doesn't mean that widespread poverty is going to be with us forever. I would like to think the kind of poverty that exists in the developing world may be history by the end of the 21st century. I remember someone saying that the great challenge of the 19th century was the abolition of slavery and that it took people most of that century to achieve it. So the abolition of widespread poverty can be seen similarly as a challenge that can be addressed. It is conceivable to talk about abolishing poverty especially given the type of progress made over the last decades. To go back to your question, I don't think there are other think tanks in Canada that look at the world in this way. They look at it through different lenses; related, but different. So I do believe NSI remains unique in Canada.

What are your thoughts on the future of NSI?

NSI has a niche in Canada and has demonstrated a fair amount of flexibility and nimbleness in moving from one research focus to another in order to achieve its mission and mandate. Given that track record – we're into our 4th decade now – we'll be 40 by 2016 – there's every chance that NSI will continue to thrive and adapt to a fairly fast changing environment.

There is certainly no lack of questions for NSI to address. The latest crisis has shown that globalization has some pretty severe downsides and, for a number of reasons, makes countries vulnerable to shocks. Researchers must urgently examine these reasons and explore such questions as: what kind of new development models do we need to think about to address these issues? How can development become more equally shared? How can inequality become narrower so that the global community as a whole is not prey to massive breakdowns? So there is lots of work to be done.

What legacy do you hope to be leaving behind?

I haven't thought in terms of legacies so much as in terms of work that is passionate and inspired in its conviction that there is a better world to be achieved if we can just get the ideas and evidence out there to convince both the public and policymakers to do the right thing. To me that's the legacy of NSI. It's something I haven't created. I'm the third president at the Institute. But I think we all shared the same passion and conviction and this legacy will be shared by all who work for NSI past, present and future.