A Short Guide to Saving Development Economists from the Word ‘local.’

The first time I was ever referred to as a ‘local’ was during my graduate studies. I guess my lack of exposure to RCTs (Randomized Control Trials) or many development projects before this time must have protected me from this term. However, I was working on a project with a group of people, and since I was the only one who knew first-hand details about the region, they often wanted my opinion(s). I, however, realized that whereas I referred to my colleagues from first-world countries as ‘experts’ or ‘professionals’ in their various countries, they continued to refer to me as a ‘local.’

I would say that my paranoia was off the chart, and this connotation I had of the word ‘local’ was all in my head. However, I ran a quick search on Google and found that the Urban Dictionary describes locals as “very generic people who live in your area. They sleep on almost everything decent and tend to be uneducated about important things.” So first stop, and things are already NOT looking good.

I understand that centuries and decades of doing or referring to something the same way kind of makes it stick. It is why many Nigerians call every detergent Omo, a trendy brand of Nigerian detergent, introduced to the market in 1960. But once in a while, I say, “Ah, I need to go to the store and get some Omo,” and someone else says, “You mean detergent?”. So why has no one said, “Ah, you mean professionals from *inserts any third-world country around the world*” when they hear their colleagues call people ‘local’?

Types of Locals According to Development Economics;

1. Program beneficiaries
2. Field officers
3. Fellow Primary Investigators (P.I.s)

Each of these categories of ‘locals’ is very integral to the success of any project. For the avoidance of doubt, my thoughts on program beneficiaries, aid, and humanitarianism, in general, are detailed in this piece I wrote when I was 20. However, a lot of it remains unchanged. These people are more than numbers, and p-values, and journal publications. They are more than photo-ups. So often, our exposure to these people tends to make them see themselves as just locals. However, they are way more than that.

I consider field officers the backbone of every project. These are the incredible people who meet the respondents one-on-one, understand the nooks and crannies of the territory, speak the language and help with the training. Let’s not forget that there would probably be no data without these people. They deserve superhero costumes of their own. When in doubt, kindly refer to them as “our team on the ground,” “our survey experts,” “the nationals of *insert country*,” basically anything but the locals. When we listen to these people, we find that they can tell us how their people might react to a product or a project or why a feature is not what is best for them.

Fellow researchers or P.I.s. I hate to point out the obvious, but these are your colleagues. Whether they work in ministries or government agencies in countries categorized as a third world country(or literally in the same institution as you) DOES NOT mean that you can call them ‘locals.’ Is this all in my head? No. How many times have you, as a researcher, called or heard someone from a developed country a ‘local’?

The fact that something is considered normal and has been so for years does not mean it should remain unchanged. Both my parents are, in fact, theatrical people, so it might be that I got a little bit of that drama lama from them. However, the word local not only feels like a slur to me, but it also feels like a development economics version of the n-word. And yes, one time, it was the norm for everyone to say that.