@TheUnited Nations Universíty, 1979 Printedin Japan tsBN92-808-0081-7 rssN0379-57M HSDRGPID-l9/UNUP-81 THENATURE AND FUTUREOF DEVELOPMENTIN NEWZEALAND DavidC. Pitt TheUniversity of Auckland Auckland,New Zealand -M-""Xg paper This wasfirst presented at the GplD lll meeting,Geneva,2-g october 197g. Geneva,September 1979 JohanGaltung This paperis being circulatedin a pre-publicationform to elicitcomments from readersand generate dialogueon thissubject at this stageof the research. In this paper an attempt is madeto critically evaluate the nature of developmentin NewZealand. A main object is to suggest that there are, internal ly and externally, manymisconceptions about the level and bases of l',lewZealand development. The perpetuation of these myths is one reason why planning has been so ineffective. A numberof points are stressedparticularly. First, that in many,if not most, social structures, developmentpatterns are muchmore complex (in terms of goals and process) than most overseas simpìistic models suggest. There is diversity and volati I ity. Additional ly, however, manyaspects of the social structure are unknowneither becauseof the myopiaof the observers or becausethey see simply what they are looking for. As a consequenceof the lack of simplicity and comprehension,much change is unexpe.t"dl and unaccepted. DevelopmentC is often chaotic and confl ict is implicit. !/e do not u/ant to spend too muchtime in definition (the basic para- metersof the GPIDproject are broadly accepted) nor in defining what NewZealand 2 society is. \'Jesimply accept the official geonomenclature,G even though this excludes manyNew Zealanders (those overseas) and those international ly part of the NewZeaìand network (economic, political, social, kinship, friendship, enemy,etc.) and includes those who do not call themselvesllew Zealanders - notably those Polynesianswho regard themselvesas inhabitants of pre-European Aotea Roa (Land of the Long \'/hite Cloud) or more latter-day ? republics- and those from outlying physical islands or internaì social islands, whether Poìynesianor Europ""n./l However,we do insist that NewZealand should be regardednot as a monolithic concept but as a plural ist assortmentof different social groups whoseboundaries are I L-- constantly changingin spaceand time.) \nt"are nìost interested in the "coì i dea of l ect i ve mental i t i es" as proposed by l''larcBloch and the Annaìes School of French social historians. ldeare not realìy looking for ideal types in the senseof Max f"Jeber- rather more for down-to- earth, grass-roots, everyday (tnthe senseof Schutzian lebenswelt) imagesand models. lf we begin by looking at goals of development,we can see someof the probìemsthat structure-space-timeplural ism raises. In terms of structurerthe dividing I ines maybe ethnicity, rel igion, age, sex, class (strata of power,wealth, or status), party, or other forms of subcultural affil iation. Eachgroup or individual may belong in varying degreesof intensity to none, one, or manyplural ist segments, and the numberand intensity varies over time. There is muchevidence pointing to a nomadicstructure in I'lewZeaìand society, obvious from such indicators as a 30-40 per cent annual houseoccupancy turnover in someareas, a history of ten or more jobs by the time a man reaches 30, five schoolsS per annumfor someyoung children, more than ten foster famiI ies for other abandonedchi ldren, the highest ex-nuptial birth rate in the world, very high air mileageand other travel per capita, and a net outflow migration at present higher than the birth rate. Considerabìesocial movementand boundarycrossing may also be indicated in the large numberof cars, calories consumed,even high blood pressure I evels, etc. In terms of goals, developmentmay be defined by manyNew Zealanders not in terms of goods but as being place- and even time-oriented and -associated, particularly with status factors. The key aspiration may be a return to a euphoric homeland(the Pacific lslands for the lslanders, the maraefor the Maori, Englandor Europefor the Europeans,the bright lights of Sydneyfor the young, the El Dorado of Aucklandfor the upwardlymobile workers, the retirement havens of Tauranga, Nelson, l/hangarei , etc. , for the el derl y) . The t ime dimensionfeatures a return to the good old days, or to a future millennium. This explains in the former case why overseasobservers have said NewZealand is 30 years behind the times. why the radio 2 stations, even the jazziest, continuaìly play "golden oldies." The searchfor a miI lenniumexplains the enormouspopularity of lotteries, punting in general, and of charismaticpol itical figures I ike the late NormanKirk or the present PrimeMinister, RobertMuldoon. One novelist, C.K. Stead, has suggestedthat a possible f uture I'lewZea I and state would in fact be fascist. 0thers have talked of a I'kindly a h fasciSr,"" a bureaucraticfascism dispensing welfare-state handouts but as dictatoriaì and as repressiveas anv other fascist state. NewZealand has, despite its democratic ideology, a powerel ite who transìate goals into what are conceivedof as needs, not necessarily nationally or monolithicalìybut still for aìl the plural segments. Even in the drawingof boundaries(and hencetheir legitimacy) and certainìy their maintenanceand crossing,7 control ìies in the hands of the bureaucracy. NewZealand then is a case not of over- development,in a senseof over-consumptionor over-production, so muchas of developmentfrom above, over-development in the sense of over-legisìatîon and over-Cemarcationof I ines and controls. This form of over-developmentshows itself in the myriad of maps, mosaics (manyconf I icting) that cover any l'JewZealand community, each drawn (and frequently redrawn) by the thousandor more statutory bodies as well as by governmentand local bodies. These"official" mosaics combinedwith the mentaì mapsof the various pìuraì ist groups become so entangled that there are no longer any paths through the thicket and muchsocial time is spent tying and untying the knots. This kind of exercise has producedmany kinds of developmenteffects. First, it has beena major reasonfor the key institution of the committee. Becauseevery issue involves large plural segmentsand multiple mosaics,there need to be representatives,not usually as delegates so muchas token symbolsfrom important social qroups in NewZea land. Commi ttees i n l',lewZea I and a I ways have token women, token Polynesìans,token Aucklanders (Vlett ington is the committee capital). However,many, perhapsmost, plural segmentsare not represented. Committeesin NewZealand sit interminably. Moreover, they are constructed from and construct other committees. The 3 hierarchy up and downwhich informationpasses is circular in the sense that each committeepasses on or passesback decisions so that very few decisìons are made,and those that are madeare usually too late, or inapproprîate. This samestructure is not only true of the powerelite but pervadesmost sociaì groups in l'lewZealand society, with perhapsthe exceptionof rural subcultures. The tangled weaveof committeesand boundaries is also most resistant to contact with the everydayworld of therrevery manor woman." There "closed" is a quality about NewZealand society. Governmentis secret even in mundanedetails, and communicationis habituaìly blocked. 0ther groupsare not rnuchdifferent. Again, there are many illustrative stories, sayings, and revealing vignettes. There is the overseas traveller who comesto find NewZealand closedl and indeed there are many long hol idays and short working periods, betweensmokos, ìunch breaks, rest stops, strikes, lockouts, go-slows, rain-offs, etc. There is the story, too, of a manwho rang the post Office to ask which beach was featured on a ne\irstamp - only to be told that the Post Office did not divulge without higher authorities' permission the source of information on íts stamps- and the matter supposedly almost went to the Cabinet (in NewZealand even the fate of a lavatory in a small rural school might be Iforgive the pun] a cabinet matter). To a considerable degree the economicaspects of over-developmentare dictated by thís over-imposition. The committeesfix the numbersof cars, televisions, etc., not really through pricing so muchas through suppìy. There are demographiccontrols throughmigration and cultural controls through censorship. ln NewZealand even the richest are frustrated in purchasinggoods becauseof unavailabi I ity, both local ly and particularly from abroad, controlled through the I icensing system. Over-developmenthowever is resisted or ignored by somegroups in which deveìopmentprocesses are qui te d i fferent. To someextent Poìynes ian communitiesinvolve different paradigrr8- traditional extendedand large famil ies, flexibil ity, social as opposedto economicvalues - 4 though ín aìl this there are manywho are Poìynesians,as defined by Pakehas(Europeans) at least, who have crossed the boundaryand reclassified themselves. There is, too, in the Europeanworld of commíttees,much of the Polynesiandistaste for publicly exposed confl ict. Poìynesianmeetings are simply ritual and symbolic expressionsof decisions already taken or n'ìorepreciseìy of certain inevitabiI ities, of which the Europeanhabit of procrastinationmight even be one examole. A strongly independentgroup who have aìways preferred development from below to developmentfrom above are the f"rrurs.9 Their goals are muchmore orthodox, an increase in free trade in which their efficiency (andthe inherentfertil ity of the soiì and cl imate)will