Initially formulated as a relative notion of progress in economic, social and political terms in comparison to the standards of certain Western countries, development has evolved over the past few decades into a catch-all term that describes a range of activities and theories. The term eludes exact definition, varying widely according to the perspective of who is proposing the development, those on the receiving end of development efforts, and observers from academia, public service and beyond. This essentially relative formulation renders any exclusive definition of development impossible. Development encompasses the entirety of the activities undertaken in its name; it is a political debate, a basis for economic theories, political action, institution-building and social enterprises, all often at cross-purposes within and across categories. Rather than an indication that development is meaningless, this conception requires practitioners and analysts to recognize the nuanced, ever-changing trends and applications of development, and to judge the benefits or drawbacks inherent in their specific focus within that context.
In my view, development generally involves identifying a need, where a vulnerable population would benefit from the theoretical and experiential knowledge of development practitioners, whether it be alleviating poverty in a village in India or establishing stable institutions in a country with uneven political representation, and taking steps to address that need based on an integrative approach that combines expertise with input from the target audience and citizens involved.
Comments