"Development", simply defined.

Development - The attempt of (any) institution to change the public status quo. 

Comments

[Michelle]

Although I am in favor of succint, simple definitions, I think this one may be a little too simple,a little too vague. What kind of "change" does development aim for? Does development inherently imply positive change?

[jgershman]

I would share Michelle's concern with this definition. So is what the Nazis wanted to do constitute "development"? Or al Qaeda? Why is supporting the status quo not "development" if the status quo is serving people well?

[Sara]

To address Michelle's question, "What kind of change does development aim for?"... That's the reason for the need of a simple definition, because as we know, development comes in many different shapes, colors, and sizes. Each development project has a different mission or different "aim". So to categorize, or define the aims of development as one, seems impractical. With regards to the question "Does development inherently imply positive change?".... Well, we know that it does not always. Some development produces positive outcomes, while often times it produces negative ones. So again, to define only the projects with good outcomes as development, leaves out the well-intentioned ones that inherently failed, but were nonetheless a development attempt.

I dont believe that supporting or maintaining the status quo constitutes as development. That does not go to say that in some cases, the status quo does not benefit or serve the people well. However, to me, development means "change" or "progression" and any attempt therein, with the aim being a positive outcome, nevertheless an uncertain one.

The problem with specific definitions is that they miss some form or dynamic of development and for that reason, are never all-encompassing. It is very difficult to include all the different actors that are involved in development activity. It is very difficult to include all the different aims development projects hope to achieve (economic, cultural, social, political, etc). It is very difficult to define development based on whether or not it produced a positive outcome, meanwhile, leaving out well-intentioned development goals that did not produce the intended effect.

[LaurenW]

I like how you're trying to make this a succinct definition, but I have to agree with the comments above that it needs to be more specific as to include the goals of the act, not just the attempt to change status quo.

[jgershman]

I would weigh in here as well to say that we it's dangerous to anthropomorphize institutions, governments, organizations, and in this case is particularly problematic. Institutions themselves don't change anything. In fact, they can't change anything. The actions of people can change things (or not), and they may act through institutions to promote or retard change. Talking about institutions in this way I would argue obscures the reality that people do, or do not, make history.

[Yuk C.]

Instead of saying development is about changing the status quo, I would say that development is about improving the status quo. We can still do more to serve people better even if the status quo is serving people well already. I would also argue that all the nations in the world including the United States are considered developing countries in my definition. There is no perfect system and each country has its own problems and faces a number of challenges such as income disparity, expensive health care and education. Hence, a country must continue to develop itself and further improve the well being of all the people.

Throughout the history, there were leaders who manipulated development from time to time. They tried to gain support from the public to fill their own interests by making promises of changing the current situation with which people are unsatisfied. Oftentimes the changes were too radical and people actually suffered. In cases like this, I don’t think such changes should be considered as development since they made the situation worse. They were just development attempts at best.