My definition of development seems to be an ever evolving thing. When I was younger, I thought that development meant having access to items I take for granted everyday like: running water and indoor plumbing, heating my home in the winter and cooling it in the summer. I then moved to thinking that development meant having democratic elections and freedoms of press and speech and the other freedoms I believe most people desire. I still think those things are part of development. But I
also think of development as security; security in the sense that a society can live free from fear of famine or civil war; they posses their land and home and need not fear that it will be taken from them; they are secure in their knowledge that they can provide a roof, food, water, clothing, safety and education for their family.
I used to believe that development was something that only came from the government or development agencies but my current work has taught me that development must also come from within the people. Successful forms of development must take the poorest of the poor into account and garner their thoughts on how best their situation can be improved. Development should increase the capability and capacity of those it’s meant to assist, but in order to do so, a strong state must exist. As with development, states must be built and strengthened by many individuals: Presidents, Cabinets and average citizens; they cannot be built if only the concerns of the wealthy or elite are considered. As I learned from last week’s readings, this can be difficult to achieve especially in the face of things like resource or conflict traps. However, difficulty and sometimes failure doesn’t mean development in all its current forms should be discarded. But instead, development needs to continue to evolve and be flexible as we search for new ways to combat poverty.
Comments