Development as a holistic approach in achieving well-being

How can development be defined? Who determines the definition? By which standards can we draw a line between the developed and developing? A lot of scholars define development in line with economic growth and modernization (Western) approaches without weighing enough importance on other factors such as history and culture. In fact, it is overwhelmingly difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ definition because each country has unique characteristics in their own development paths. 

 

It is true that economic growth can play a large part of betterment of a country, however, some other conditions need to be met in order to achieve overall well-being, e.g. social/political stability (both inside and outside a country), sustainable environment, personal/societal happiness, access to educational opportunities, rights to express, etc. An important fact is that these conditions cannot be built up at once because they evolve gradually overt time. Here, it is important to note that some indicators of development like GDP or HDI (Human Development Index) do not convey correct information. For example, even so-called developed countries like Norway have a high rate of suicide (which implies that their happiness level is not high) and GDP can be distorted to a large extent because it only takes physical measures into account such as numbers of bridges/roads. Thus, there is no such right answer for measuring development and we need to develop a holistic approach that encompasses all the above conditions for well-being.  

 

All things considered, my definition of development is a process of having access to opportunities to enjoy the above mentioned conditions in a holistic approach. In this regard, my definition is quite similar to that of Paul Collier’s: development is about giving hope to ordinary people that their children will live in a society that has caught up with the rest of the world. Because the ultimate purpose of development is citizens’ well-being, future generations should not suffer from the miseries left by their parent generations. Development is not a result but a process of giving hope to ordinary citizens to be able to benefit from the opportunities for their well-being. 

 

Comments

[Faigy E. Abdelhak]

The holistic approach discussed as a part of this definition of development brings to my mind Amartya Sen's definition of development. He too seeks an approach that looks beyond income levels, and in his own work sees certain freedoms that allow individuals to realize their own potential as keys in development. In the example given for high rates of suicide in Norway, Sen would say that the country needs to develop its social opportunities in order to mitigate the rates of depression and address the incidents with a service encompassed with a social safety net.

[Franklin]

NaHae I like that your analysis went beyond the strictly economic measures of development. While I believe that there is the need to consider the basic needs such as food, health care etc. you have taken this to a higher level of living a fulfilled meaningful life. Additionally the consequences of development such as the destruction to the planet, and potential disruption of social stability that can occur should be a very important part of the discussion.

[Amanda M.]

Like Faigy stated above, I thought your (Na Hae's) definition was very reminiscent of Sen's capability approach to development, which is described very poignantly in the post. Since Faigy elaborated on that, I will say that defining development as "not a result but a process" is an insightful way of labeling something that is so difficult to quantify (as you mentioned with regards to HDI and high rates of suicide in Scandinavia). However, if development is providing "hope" to citizens, does that in some way detract from the aims of practical development? Is the greater _likelihood_ of education or longer life expectancy enough to constitute development? While potentiality is certainly important from an individual perspective of development, I think the physical affects (i.e., GDP, decrease in infant mortality, etc.) are perhaps the best tools that we have as of now to assess levels of development more globally.

[Steven Kohn]

I think it's obvious that NaHae encompassed all the pertinent aspects of truly holistic and considerate development projects. I think that we all agree that well-being is more important than GDP to an extent, and to focus on one and not the other will leave us with either unhappy or broke citizens.
But my personal conflict is that after all the considerations of culture and geography and the economic history of any country, we will still be making mistakes as we implement new programs and projects, each time thinking, "This is it!! Utopia is around the corner!!" and then being disheartened.
I think the most apt nuance of effective development may be a communication mechanism that will solidify the lessons learned with each project. To have a medium where best practices can be reviewed, suggested and critiqued by not only professionals/experts but also those being developed, will be the deliverable arrived at by the qualitative insight mentioned by Ms. Kim above.

[Catherine]

I agree that it can be difficult to define development, and who defines it can have a significant impact. I also agree that it is important to go beyond GDP and recognize Sen’s capabilities as crucial to a “development index”. Therefore, I was confused to see the ultimate definition of development on this post based on an idea that the developing world needs to catch up. The post eloquently talks about culture, history, and a holistic approach to development. To then say that societies need to catch up with the rest of the world seems ambiguous. What does catch up mean? In what way? Don’t we then need to define “catch up”? Maybe to me, catch up means that people should disregard their heritage, do away with tradition, and confirm to how Americans live. I am certain this is not what the author meant to convey, nor is it how I personally interpret “catch up”, but I do think we need to be careful and recognize that people with a different perspective may interpret our words in ways we did not intend.

[DMC]

I like this post and largely agree with Collier's point of view. I think the post also speaks to Sen in many ways, that development is about securing freedoms to live socially productive and happy lives. I also want to add that what I am seeing as a trend in the literature so far is this point about investing in people, education, and a country's human capital. The fact is that we want to make sure if jobs are being created in these countries they are to benefit local people. But in order for that to happen we also need to ensure that people are well-educated and capable of partaking in the development process (i.e. actually get the jobs). Development should be about drawing a poor country's people into the development process, not leaving them outside as the rich and elites benefit from international development initiatives.

[Nathalie]

The author’s definition of development is one that has resonated with me. I agree that development is about hope, providing hope to ordinary citizens. However, I believe that in order to create this hope is important to strengthen the institutions needed to address the needs of citizens. It is important to create solid institutions that would provide opportunities for this generation and future generations. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine what type of institutions should be implemented or how to define development given that each country has different needs; therefore, there is not a “one size fits all” definition.