A conversation with Daniel Perell on lessons from rural Kenya and the broader debate on prosperity, social progress, and the moral foundations of development.

1. Rethinking development assumptions

Augusto Lopez-Claros: Daniel, your reflections from Matunda, Kenya, challenge several conventional assumptions in development thinking—about urgency, expertise, incentives, and scale. From what you observed during your time in the community, what do you think are the most important misconceptions that international development practitioners still bring to communities like the one you lived in?

Daniel Perell: From the limited experience I saw, two important shifts necessary in the current approach to international development are related to timelines and the locus of action. Regarding the former, the demand for short term results can have the unintended consequence of actually removing vital steps to a community’s development. Consultation takes time. Education and awareness-raising are long-term investments. Agricultural transitions can take longer than funding cycles. Development should be conceived on a timeline of years, not months. 

The second and more profound shift has to do with the locus of action, particularly regarding the generation and application of knowledge. So long as development is understood as increased economic output, then those places which are economically most productive are conceived to be the desired end-state for all communities, and that the knowledge generated there is (mis)understood to be universally applicable. Yet the experience of communities around the world is that the goal of material wealth is insufficient on its own – the desired end-state might better be described as a community’s capacity to determine its own future. Economic well-being is but one component of a complex web of development. Ultimately, this means that the community needs to analyse its capacity, determine what might be helpful from exogenous resources, and drive the process forward. The benefits of this approach are less about purchasing power and more defined by agency. The role of the international community, in this understanding, is more a resource to be drawn upon rather than a driver of action.

2. Community agency versus external expertise

ALC: You place strong emphasis on locally driven consultation and the community’s own capacity to determine its path to prosperity. Yet development policy has historically relied heavily on external expertise, institutions, and resources. How should we think about the proper balance between community-led processes and the role of governments, international institutions, and development professionals?

DP: This is a vital question that I would suggest requires a sincere and detached exploration. We have inherited certain assumptions about the roles that different actors play in a society: in the development space, institutions are often relied upon to generate resources and action, communities are seen as isolated constituency-based groups with disparate interests, and individuals seek out primarily their own well-being. However, a different conception of the role of these actors can emerge. Perhaps a small anecdote would help: the community I lived with came to rely on eucalyptus as a key fuel because the tree grows quickly and the wood is good for burning. But members of the community recognized that the tree consumes too much water to be sustainable. In consultation, the community determined that before they can stop planting eucalyptus, new sources of fuel would need to be found. Farm waste, when compressed into briquettes can be a source of fuel, so a few of the village women began to collect it from local farms. When an international development organization saw that these women were making briquettes by hand—a labor-intensive process—it stepped in and, with the agreement of the community, purchased a small machine to make their work easier. The roles here are, then, very different from those often seen in development practice: the community became a place of consultation, the individuals were able to articulate their needs and devise solutions together in accordance with local aspirations (generating employment, reducing unsustainable dependencies), and the institution acted as an accelerant. In this way, we see individual ownership, community buy-in, and institutional support (at a much lower cost, as well!). The dynamic between these actors, then, becomes one of mutual support and reciprocity rather than competition or control. This reframing of relationships allows for truly sustainable development.

3. Material prosperity and the role of economic growth

ALC: Your reflections highlight the importance of social cohesion, relationships, and spiritual motivation alongside material progress. Yet economists—from Arthur Lewis to Benjamin Friedman—have argued that sustained economic growth is a critical driver of improved health, education, freedom, and social stability. How do you see the relationship between community-centered development and the larger structural role of economic growth in improving human welfare?

DP: Economic growth is a vital means to achieve development in order for a population to access the basic necessities of life. This is a bare minimum and should not be overlooked: poverty drastically limits the capacity of a person to achieve their fullest potential. However, to confuse the means of economic growth with the ends sought by human beings does a disservice to the reality of the human condition. Extreme wealth, for example, does not produce extreme happiness – which means there is a diminishing return. Or, in other words, economic growth is but one indicator of advancement—and one that is useful only up to a certain point. Moreover, growth can be sustained only so long on a finite planet, because of planetary boundaries. The beauty of community-led development is that even though we may not have indicators for every dimension of advancement, a community is able to articulate and then develop a plan to meet its needs and priorities more holistically. It is a place where people can explore values of sufficiency, satisfaction, and moderation alongside relationship, inclusion, and belonging which, ultimately, may be better goals towards which to strive.

4. Scale: local transformation versus systemic change

ALC: One theme in your essay is the idea that meaningful change often begins locally—“one community at a time.” Yet many of the challenges facing developing countries, from infrastructure and education to inequality and governance, require national or even global solutions. How can insights from community-based development be translated into policies that operate effectively at scale?

DP: In the process of understanding development, there should be a conversation taking place between the local community and the institutions at all levels which exist to support it. At the moment, because we have emphasized the role of the state and other macro-institutions, the conversation is asymmetric. Focusing on “one community at a time” is not to say that all international development efforts should cease, nor that development efforts should focus only on one community before moving to the next. Rather, the point is that each community has something to add to the conversation. When the institutions of society are able to better hear and understand a community’s needs, a relationship of mutuality can develop.

One could imagine a counter-example where the local community is the exclusive domain of development. In such a scenario many helpful dimensions of the broader development effort would be lost: aggregating learning from diverse settings, developing policy that can allow communities to flourish, articulating a common vision, etc. The question, then, is one of balance. At the moment, it seems the voice of the community could be strengthened.

5. Institutions, inequality, and political stability

ALC: In many parts of the developing world—including Latin America, which I have written about—economic stagnation, inequality, and corruption have led to political unrest and institutional fragility. Do the lessons you observed in Matunda suggest ways in which stronger social cohesion and ethical foundations at the community level might contribute to better governance and more equitable development at the national level?

DP: In the conversations I had in Kenya which, admittedly, is the small sample size of one person’s experience (my own!), one thing that kept emerging was the capacity of individuals and communities to take action regardless of what the institutions were doing. It seemed to me that participants were coming to realize certain first principles that were often lost: that we are all capable of being protagonists, that we all share a desire for rising generations to have greater opportunity than ourselves, that when a community flourishes, so do the individuals within it. The community became a source of constructive resilience, adapting to needs as they arose, deepening understanding, developing new strategies, all in pursuit of these first principles. This isn’t to say that everything was smooth and progress was linear and continual. But it does offer a different approach from the most prominent development models in place today. I suspect that as greater numbers become involved in community-based initiatives, naturally those lessons and expectations will rise to the national level and beyond. And by keeping basic first principles centered in these efforts, the work of development can be done joyfully and constructively, which would represent a new approach to the relationships between individuals, communities, and institutions.

6. The moral and spiritual dimension of development

ALC: Your reflections place unusual emphasis on the role of spiritual principles, service, and moral purpose as drivers of development. At the same time, global debates about development are often framed primarily in terms of markets, institutions, and technology. Do you think the development community has underestimated the moral and spiritual foundations of social progress, and if so, how might these dimensions be more consciously integrated into development thinking?

DP: The simple answer is yes, the development community has underestimated moral and spiritual foundations. But the reasons for doing so are legitimate, as the name and credibility of religion has often been used as a tool of oppressive forces, including colonialism and slavery. Yet ignoring its power to shape behavior and motivate a population would serve no one. An equivalent might be appeals to stop advancing scientific technologies because their fruits have sometimes been used as weapons of war. 

The deeper question of how to integrate moral and spiritual convictions into development thinking should be an area of proactive research and inquiry. A few indicators come to mind that could be considered, some of which we already measure. The margin between extreme wealth and poverty in a community (income inequality) and the extent to which women are able to meaningfully engage in the life of society (gender parity), for example, can be proxies for the relative well-being of a society. The number and types of consultations that communities are able to constructively engage in; how participants feel about those consultations; the effective coordination and collaboration among individuals, communities, and institutions–these can all meaningfully demonstrate the strengthening (or fraying) of community bonds, including the extent to which trust exists in a society. Even percentages of a population that donate or give their time to community service can measure other sources of motivation. The primary indicator we use to measure progress today, GDP, was not intended to be the only indicator of progress. And those alternatives which I have mentioned above are merely a few elements of an increasingly large area of inquiry which should aim to include moral and spiritual foundations of social progress.

7. Spiritual values and modern economic development

ALC: A related question arises from the broader development debate. Historically, many societies that experienced rapid economic growth also underwent profound social transformations—sometimes including the erosion of traditional structures and values. From what you observed in Matunda, do you think it is possible to pursue economic progress while consciously strengthening spiritual and community values, or is there an inherent tension between these two processes?

DP: I do not think this tension is inevitable, but I do think caution is warranted. If accumulation – of power, of resources, etc. – is treated as the mark of development then the ensuing competition for resources can eclipse other values. However, if other conceptions of progress are sought by a community, such as social cohesion, participation, and consultation, then the community can determine how economic growth can serve as a means to achieve wellbeing and, therefore, withstand the temptations that can otherwise be associated with rapid economic growth. In other words, economic growth needs to be understood as a means of development, and not be misunderstood as its end. This is a challenge that faces high income countries just as much as their lower-income counterparts.

8. Closing question: lessons for the development community

ALC: Looking back on your experience in Matunda, what is the single lesson you think development practitioners, economists, and policymakers should take more seriously when thinking about how societies progress? And conversely, what aspects of the broader economic framework—such as growth, institutions, and national policy—do you think communities themselves may sometimes underestimate?

DP: The most important lesson, to me, is the need to move beyond a conception of development that is defined by material accumulation. If the goal is social cohesion, if the goal is education, if the goal is livelihoods, then the paradigm, approaches, and metrics need to reflect those goals and the community must participate actively in charting its own path forward.

Similarly, what may be underestimated by communities is the capacity that they have – regardless of the outside forces acting upon them – to meaningfully shape their own social reality. International development theory may have benefits, but it also may have drawbacks when applied at the local level. The process of learning, testing and applying that knowledge, and modifying action based on what results – in alignment with the values of a community – may result in more sustainable and inclusive development.