Definition Of Development

Development is the uplifting of the human condition, enabling all the citizens of a country to live in an environment free of random acts of violence, have access to learn the latest knowledge, not to suffer food shortages and to be able to use the latest medical technology to cure basic ailments and experience low infant mortality.

 This is my mimalist definition of development. Even my country USA, which has among the world’s highest per capita income, still does not meet it. Therefore development has income distribution at which those at the lower end of the scale are earning enough to meet the basic needs mentioned above.

 Also the professor asked the question, aren’t all countries developing? This is a very valid point because what is working today will not work in the future. For example the US current pattern of consumption will not fly in the long run. The resource constraints and environmental destruction make our current consumption unsustainable. Therefore the concept of sustainable development is a hot topic and all the so called developed countries and even a developing country like China have to come up with a better model in meeting the important needs of their citizens that does not destroy the planet.

 

 

Comments

[Agust Olafur Agustsson]

I like your definition of development. I think it´s progressive and political which I like. I think the definition of development should push the limited a little bit and be provocative. Development should not merely be measured in quantifiable terms or income per capita. Though Singapore is an economical developed country it is doubtful to call it developed country because of little political and social rights.

So we have to look at development with broad lenses as you do. We may not forget the importance of democracy, personal freedom, social rights and civil society when we define development.

[Jessica]

The idea that all countries are still developing is an interesting way to think about development. I also agree that development is too focused on GDP and economic growth as the main measure of progress. But as you mentioned, can we really consider politically oppressive countries "developed"?

Bill Easterly discussed a similar idea at the DRI conference last week. He warned about the perception of autocrats as being successful. He noted that despite the overwhelming positive reports regarding autocratic regimes, in reality, they are failing to develop equitable and sustainable societies.

[Sarah]

I think its important to recognize through our definitions of development that the U.S. is a developing country, and that in fact, development is an ongoing process. This idea changes the way that we can approach international development. Since we have not attained some ends of "development" at home, we cannot use the United States as the ideal model for what other countries should "develop" into. Although other political and economic models do not hold much weight in the global development regime currently, I think a recognition that the U.S. has its own problems with human rights and inequality reduces the ideological power that the capitalist model represents.

[Jamie]

I liked in your definition that you labeled the US, as a developing country. It is a very important distinction that many people overlook. Development is an ever changing process. It looks differently to all nations and I think that is something to keep in mind. Before trying to develop a nation, you first have to define what development means to them and make plans from there. I am currently a second grade teacher. When I teach I differentiate my lessons to meet the needs of each individual student so they can succeed on their own levels. I think the same is true for developing countries. So I would have to disagree with you when you say, we need to find a "better model." for development. Instead, I believe there should be an individualized model for each country aimed to attain their specific needs and goals.

[Franklin]

Thanks Jamie for your comment and I agree all countries development has to be customized to the specific culture and historical circumstances of the country. The "better model" I was referring to is the resource and consumption intensive path that so far countries have taken and all countries need to rethink especially the US. I do agree that every country needs to come up with their own definition of development. However there will always will be sharing of ideas that should flow in 2 directions.

[Hanying]

I like your minimalist definition of development. Unlike Agust, i like the fact that it looks almost apolitical - by bringing the fact that each country needs to come up with its own definition of development. Although, it would conflict with itself when we dig deeper and ask, how does country reach a consensus on the definition of development - that's almost a very political process then.

[Jacqueline]

I like your definition of development as I found it is one of few that I can align with. My alignment is largely contingent on the fact that it is broad and easy to agree the things you've outlined are thing that all people should be entitled too. At that same token, I also found myself immediately asking:

What is the latest technology?
When is enough knowledge transfered to meet minimum requirements?
Who decides on the minimum requirements?
How much food gets people past starving?
What are the latest technologies?
Will people ever be able to give them to the developing world?

As soon as my mind raced through these questions I found myself wanting a more specific definition.

Per usual, the devil is in the details.

[Franklin]

Thanks Jacqueline for your comment and added questions. The answers to these are not easy. The question of who gets decide to me is very important so I will try to address. As we all know there is an unequal power relationships in the world. So I believe that there should be work done to attempt to equalize this power relationships on a global scale. This is very abstractly stated and there is no easy way to do it, but there is much potential given the spread of social media, which so far has not reached the most disempowered people but maybe it can. Second we need to spread the belief in rights so that people who have the least power begin to feel they deserve better.