Memo+28+Chapter+Summaries+(Dan+F)+3

The introduction to this text will bear in mind the benefits realized by the current system. The current global economic system does function despite gross inequality and being nowhere near sustainable in the long run. The introduction will continue with the acknowledgement that it is relatively clear that complete and immediate change away from the current system is not very feasible. Once started with earlier forms of Western market integration, namely colonialism and imperialism, globalization would be dangerous to stop in some ways. Those who have become dependent on foreign resources would be cut off and much worse off then the current unfair system has already allowed for. There is no going back at this point. For better or worse, globalization has become the dominant model for interaction. Had another system propagated it is possible the world would be just as or more successful as it is now, but because the majority of the world is locked in to the current model’s understanding, we will likely never know, barring some global catastrophe tantamount to a reset. With the full acknowledgement that the metaphorical “speeding train of development” cannot stop in the amount of track it has left, it will be important to explore the accompanying issues that make this train so hard to stop and so hard to keep building track for. The first component is the desire for more track because of how success is measured for this train. GDP, PPP, and income per capita are not adequate measuring tools for accessing progress because the world could easily run out of track do to overall limits in growth. This is acknowledged but not necessarily well established by the current literature. The direction and locations of track can be built to are also very limited due to issues of geography and scale. Of course, once that track has been laid it cannot be taken away without jeopardizing both the train and those serviced by it. A lot of the stuff that has been discussed up until this point in the introduction will be well recognized to anyone who has pursued the current literature. This is where a departure will be made in order to bring in the critical object for confirmation and discover. This object will be appropriate and efficient, clean cook stoves. In many cases the technology is already were it needs to be for the most part, even though break through will always be welcome and probably required given enough time. Time will be taken to talk about the different stove technologies along with their benefits and limitations. Even more importantly, time will be taken to explore the need for these more efficient devices and who requires them. Outlining this system of understanding and development will show why it is an excellent case study for exploring the affects of development more generally. The rest of the Introduction will outline the format of the rest of the book, as the introduction to the dissemination section of this proposal has already described.
 * Setting the Scene for Stove Development **

This section will include some historical components about changes in U.S. government and world trade policy and how stove dissemination is outlined by what has been put in place by the powers of the world. This will seek to show that not everyone is playing from the same rulebook and explains why so many approaches are needed to address development to a certain degree. The failure of encompassing regulation furthers inequality leaving a void to be filled by other approaches. This is also a primary stage where problems are defined which is likely the most important component of this approach’s discussion.
 * Exploring Development Through Government Regulation **

For-profit Companies make up the largest component of the stove dissemination process. If you can truly believe in the current economic system to write all wrongs in the most efficient way then For-profit is the perfect approach… except for the fact that due to the nature of the current approach people will always be defined on a scale of have and have-nots. Other attributes of the current system that encourage the for-profit exchange include the failures of global regulation: the cheap labor and resources that are not held as closely as they are in more developed regions. It’s the ultimate feel-good approach because the economists win, businesses win, and the targeted supposedly consumers win. Unfortunately, the externalities in this system are not measured with the future in mind.
 * Making a Profit While Saving the World **

This is another instance for feeling good. While it’s true that everything included in this section will not apply to every non-profit group, it applies to the majority so it is important to discuss when talking about the stove movement. The bottom line is Charity doesn’t work. It is not a long-term solution and can barely qualify as a short-term solution. Non- profits typically provide semi-short term relief and long lasting damage. What’s worse is the understanding of why charity is needed and what is given in return for charity however indirectly. There is no place for religion in development. This concept will be explored on multiple levels and discussed primarily on the foundation of stove NGOs and INGOs. The very nature of these groups should be to put themselves out of business and as no funding means no pay, there is a very real incentive to keep being a non-profit with no end in sight.
 * Making a Profit While Saving the World While Not Making a Profit **

It has been well established that, to a certain extent, the developing world makes an excellent testing ground. There are tons of student development projects that look ever so good on resumes but fail to address root issues effectively. These students often gain more out of the experience then the target group or population does. The very nature of the student interaction process can be damaging and ineffective overall. The projects can be largely ineffective because they inadvertently pass on their belief systems, provide evidence of a standard of achievement that has unforeseen costs, do not continue after students leave or are not sufficiently followed up upon, do not take place over a long enough period, can be inefficient when multiple groups have to relearn past groups mistakes, and often strengthen dependence on external resources. The slightly more positive side to Academic involvement is the development of new technology and the establishment of guidelines like those that surround appropriate and intermediate technologies. These do act as a positive force and are the reason the efficient stoves that have been developed help solve issues that led to the clean cookstove movement, but they are also rejected because of the developed world lack of use of the proposed solutions.
 * Learning a lot, Saving the World, and Moving on to Bigger and Better things **

There has been a paradigm shift towards individualistic approaches to solving development problems. Examples include fair trade and microfinance. These systems, especially fair trade, encourage people to vote with their expenditures as part of the current economic model. This is required to achieve change because of the failures of the whole system brought about at least partially by the lack of encompassing regulation. For the dissemination of stoves this means that people can access them but only to a limited extent and only so much as priorities allow. When more pressing issues then cooking with low emission, low fuel stoves arise, acquisitions of this nature will likely be the first to go.
 * Getting Fed up, Making it Personal, and Trying to get Somewhere **

While there is a sense that all approaches will be needed to end development, it is too easy for many of these approaches to fit within the current model without changing anything at all. This is primarily a question of where to define what scales are even slightly beneficial. It is very common for people to acknowledge that there are no silver bullet approaches to development, and that is the combined nature of clean cookstove dissemination. The approaches are varied by both technology and system of dissemination. Together they form multiple solutions to all different types of situations, but not in a way that is any fairer then would occur if no integration had occurred to begin with in most cases. There is an order to development and we are trying to skip steps and are inadvertently forcing steps onto target groups. This is not how progress is made. There has to be a foundation. The clean cook stove movement has had some effect but it is not clear for how long and it is not clear that dissemination has been a success. A number of practices will be discouraged in this section and some suggestions for redefining interaction will be made. Most importantly the locals don’t need to be a part of the process as much as they need to be the process. Advocacy cannot be effective externally. It is just plain confusing and ineffective for the actual target groups. The external advocates benefit from the issue they define more then the target groups do. The real question is not how to encourage these target regions to develop, the question is: how do we make up for the damage done by trying to encourage them to develop? Developed regions obviously got the better allocation, and further wealth was generated and allocated to these regions through the guise of development, but really it is just a money machine the generates further wealth for those who are already wealthy. It’s a long-term con that has started out almost completely transparent and has become more and more steadily disguised. The United States has encountered the exact same phenomena in every war since the last world war. Development is just another insanely lucrative “war” with no end in sight. In the war of development there are only short-term winners (although they might not seem short term in some superficial respects), everyone involved is the long term looser. Even in the end, when everyone could be considered a looser, there will still be some who have lost way more then others and it won’t be more developed regions that loose the most.
 * Moral Globalization **