DevPolitics

Development Definition

Development can be defined as a multi-disciplinary approach to the improvement of the standard of living for people. While simplistic and general, this description does serve to cover several bases, such as education, health care, foreign aid, human rights, et cetera. When people refer to 'third-world' or less developed countries, they automatically compare the quality of life there to that in a more developed country. Take, for example, the thought process of someone from a more developed country planning a visit to a less developed country. They will start to count off the basic amenities that they may or may not have access to: running water, electricity, basic health services, et cetera. These services should be not only present, but accessible to people, regardless of their financial status.

What is Development?

There is ample disagreement about what it means for countries to develop and how that development is best achieved.  What does it mean to help a country develop?  Is there a point at which a country is sufficiently developed?  Some international development practitioners emphasize the importance of basic health and education services, while others see development as an increased access to income generating opportunities and general economic growth.  Despite the disagreement at large, there is consensus that development involves the bettering of the human condition and improving living standards. 

Though perhaps unproductively broad, this approach to defining development is more complete because it recognizes that human welfare is the ultimate aim of development.    Through this lens, development can be defined as the continuous process of constructing and refining sustainable institutions and systems that better address the numerous human needs.  This definition of development recognizes that the institutions, which largely dictate our destinies, are dynamic systems which can be continuously improved. 

This definition also recognizes that there is no single solution to development.  Rather, development should take a holistic approach, aiming to improve the numerous institutions and policies that affect human wellbeing.  In some cases, this means helping people increase their access to clean water, health care and education.  However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that helping the poorest and most marginalized communities of the world will require addressing the historical power imbalances that have led to the disastrous unequal distribution of wealth. 

For centuries, the wealthiest nations of the world have developed wealth-extracting institutions and policies that favor, namely, their own economic growth. Governments of those countries and multinational firms must adopt and encourage policies that stimulate economic growth for the poor, even at the expense of growth for the rich.

Human history offers a plethora of examples in which we have improved existing policies and systems of governance by applying science and reason.  Development should embody this same spirit.  It should be about pursuing the best policies to provide the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people. Though the task at hand is monumental we can draw inspiration from Margaret Mead’s quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  If we continue to apply science and the lessons from past successes and failures, we can come closer to the productive applications of development that improve the lives of those who need it most.

Defining development is not so easy.

To me, development is an-ever evolving process, whereby changes to the economic, social, cultural, or political fabric of a given community(/country/region) improve the well-being of at least some of its people in some measureable way. These changes may be organic or strategic, formal or informal, incremental or drastic. They may be implemented top-down or bottom-up, borrowed from neighbors or cultivated locally. Some may arise from greater freedoms, others from stricter governance.

Improvements must be measurable, you say? As I see it, development is marked by an expansion of opportunities, whether in the home or the workplace, at the clinic or polling station, in the streets or in the fields. The opportunity to enroll your children in a decent school, and to walk them there safely. The opportunity to buy produce before you need it, and to sell your goods or services for the amount they are worth. The opportunity to see a medical professional when you fall ill, and to do so without having to travel for days. Opportunity may not always be quantifiable, but it may nevertheless be a good measure.

Broad? Vague? Yes. But necessarily so. Since the needs of the underserved vary widely, so must the means of addressing them.

Author’s note: The more time I spent pondering the notion of development, the more convinced I became that defining the word might just be half the battle. With so many issues to address, frameworks to apply, lenses through which to view, it's a wonder that anything gets done in this field at all. But that's neither here nor there.

Definition of development

Conceptualizing what development is and is not, is an ongoing challenge.  Nailing down exactly what the ends of development should be never seems to have an easy answer. Figuring out the means of development is even trickier for me, but luckily I am not here to discuss that today.

I tend to agree with Sen that the ends development should provide people with capabilities and ensure their freedoms. It may not be more than an issue of semantics, but I believe development is essentially about expanding the economic, social and political rights so that all people can participate fully in their world and have the ability to be co-creators of the society that want to live in. Others argue that development is about dignity and freedom, but dignity and freedom cannot be achieved if basic rights are not upheld and respected.

Essentially you can’t discuss the ends of development without some consideration of the means. If the ends of development are to expand the rights of people, and thus their ability to exercise them, then any work related to this end must not conflict with this end in the process. Often development work is done with little regard for the wishes and interests of the ‘developing’ – which I would argue is an obvious disregard for their rights as agents capable of self-determination. 

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. 

 

Ooooooooohh THAT development....

When attempting to accurately and completely define development, one must acknowledge that the term was merely a "buzzword" utilized by President Truman's innovative speechwriters to evoke awe in the crowd. However later, it became an umbrella term that held secular power as to justify any and all projects the western world sought worthy of it's pursuit. This is not unlike justifying manifest destiny or slave trade with the excuse "because we're so good at it we should do it!!" Most development projects' progress was one sided and quickly rebuked the mystery and power the word once held. Now the word is acknowledged as "manager talk" by many in the field and further strikes fear in those who are to be "developed"...

Having said this, any current and all-encompassing definition must acknowledge a) progress is subjective to different cultures b) communicative, rather than prescriptive intervention (work with what is already there; don't superimpose own agenda) and c) must institutionalize the sustainability of those whose land/community is being developed, not those developing. This means that jobs, profits, social services, and proper distributive financial policy must cater to those who will remain once developers leave. This basically translates to the developing community being an integral part of the planning and continued management of said institutions. This is not often seen.

So without further ado...

Development is the process by which coordinated efforts implement a physical, social and or economical goods/service to improve the standard of living for a specific population/state/community; these interventions are most successful when designed by and to best facilitate the established cultural interactions of the populations being developed.

What development does NOT mean is a specific GDP, certain number of roads or hours logged on the internet. It seems the best measurement is well-being, which allows for those communities being developed to rate their happiness with the projects by thier invidual cultural standards; as opposed to a results-oriented metric which would likely favor the tangible and ultimately profit-seeking nature of developers.

What is Development? State and Society - Responsibilities Taken.

On defining what is development, I think we need to look at the realization of various capacities and capabilities of both state and society. (It’s an awkward dichotomy but let’s just proceed with that.

I agree that we can never overemphasize the importance of development of individual capacity and capability – including and beyond survival, the inalienable and equal rights of achieving economic well-being, political freedom, social mobility, cultural engagement, etc. (I am trying to expand the list but I shall stop now.)

All of theses, however, cannot be fully achieved without a strong state – a state with its own capacity and capability, not only able to claim its sovereignty on international arena (it does not equal to jeopardizing domestic human rights), but one with proper and working institutions to supply public goods – food, water, health, security, rule of law, property rights, access to information, etc., so that its citizen do not live in fear or other countries, of their future and of its government.

I am not, however, advocating for a state-centric approach to development. If state comes from society, then a strong state comes from within a strong society - I think that is probably what Duncan Greene means by ‘active citizens’ and what Wangari Maathai mean by ‘holistic development’, as she said, ‘rights come with responsibility’,  ‘to believe in themselves, don’t leave all the responsibilities to government, they should take charge of their own destiny, fighting to restore justice, accountabilities.’ (Is development, then, all about the mentality prescribed by ‘Enlightenment’??)

While talking about development as freedom, capacity and capability, we shall not exempt the state from taking its responsibilities, nor the citizens. 

Stories from China--My understanding of development

My understanding of politics is very straight-forward, it is from my own and my parents and grand parents' experience. I see development as increased opportunity for people to achieve their goal through diligent work in a society. Appologize for my clumsy English, it's easier to illustrate it from the stories of three generations of my family.

When my grandpa was young, he and his parents were poor farmers renting very small lands from a local landlord, and because the landlord charged so high interest that no matter how hard they work, they could barely increase their life standard and were constantly in a state of hunger. Then came the communist party who destroyed the landlord system and equally distributed lands to every farmer, and my grandpa would see that as a huge development because he now can have more food if he works harder.

When my father join the iron factory in the 1970s, every worker was given a same wage, no matter who made more parts or less. My father was one of the few college student then and he has redesigned the production meghod that saved the factory more than 30% of its cost, and he gained no rewards at all. And he said to me, for those years, the society is stagnant because no one is willing to do more or better job. Until in 1978 when Deng Xiaopin kicked off "reform and opening up", when people are allowed to embrace wealth and their salaries started to be hooked with performances. And the stories of the next 3 decades are more or less known to the world.

And finally, me. Ever since I'm in Kindergarden, I am taught that I will realize my dream by hardworking, and it appears true. I worked hard and followed my heart and here I am in Wagner, and it appears that I can achieve my goal through continued efforts. And this, to my parents and grandparents was such a fantacy when they are young. Therefore I think, China has developed a lot over the past century despite many twist and turns. 

And this is how I understand development. As Sen put it, everyone should decide their own preference and make their choices base on their own situation. And if the environment he's in provide him with better chance for him to reach his goal if he works hard, then to me, the environment is developing.

[ d e v e l o p m e n t ]

Development is a dynamic living, breathing process.

Development is a web of relationships that aligns individuals, communities and systems to move towards human flourishing and freedom.

Development is the process of building cohesive community at all levels of social networks: family, community, and nation across the global landscape.

Development links training and tools that build internal capacity, facilitate ownership, and ensure accountability.

Development effectively leverages internal assets and aspirations.

Development requires mechanisms to carry the work forward through institutions, shared-leadership structures, relevant cultural foundations, and inclusive governance.

Development requires a willingness to pay attention to undercurrents and otherwise non-obvious factors that encourage and hinder freedom in the social, economic, political and institutional fabric of a community.

Development is rooted in raising up marginalized voices, in reclaiming power and affirming agency.

Development is collaborative action that can leverage opportunities for growth, expose new possibilities, and mitigate threats to dignity and human rights.

Development reaches toward a more just and creative world.

Defining development

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.