In common parlance the term “development” figures prominently and is used both frequently and rather casually; with popular usage including the following: development studies, problems of development, developing countries, less developed countries, development cooperation, underdevelopment, development aid, development strategies, development policy and so forth. Hence, what is meant by this term? (Szirmai 2005:6).
There are few words that offer as many definitional difficulties as development and it remains a highly contested term. While dictionary definitions focus on the idea of ‘a stage of growth or advancement’, development remains a complex and ambiguous term which carries with it several layers of meaning. As a verb, ‘development’ refers to activities required to bring about change or progress, and is often linked strongly to economic growth. As an adjective, ‘development’ implies a standard against which different rates of progress may be compared, and it therefore takes on a subjective, judgmental element in which societies or communities are sometimes compared, and then positioned at different ‘stages’ of an evolutionary development schema (Lewis 2005).
The term therefore seems to defy precise definition although not for a want of definitions on offer (Cowen & Shenton 2005:3); Political scientist Fred Riggs (1984) reviewed the relevant political economic literature, and (twenty years ago) found at least 72 definitions of the term. He notes that “the term ‘development’ has largely replaced such earlier terms as ‘progress’ and ‘evolution,’ terms that are associated by connotation” (Riggs, 1984, p. 125 cited in Pretes 1997:1421). Psychologically “development is a concept that is so ingrained in Western thought that it is taken for granted and assumed to act almost as a law of nature; that is, development is viewed as simply the progression of human life” (Pretes, 1997: 1421).
The prolific academic writer and scholar, Torado, provides a working definition in stating that “development must be conceived of as a multi-
105
dimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitude and national institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of poverty.” He goes on to say,
….Development in essence must represent the whole gamut of change by which an entire social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory toward a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually better (Todaro 2000:16).
Similarly, Remenyi, Kingsbury et al. (2004) expressed the opinion that “development is a process directed at outcomes encapsulating improved standards of living and greater capacity for self- reliance in economies that are technically more complex and more dependent on global integration than before.” This explanation is partially supported by Haines (2000) who noted that “development is often, but not exclusively regarded as a synonym for progress.” Escobar (2001:501) in his inimitable vigorous style argued that “development has been taken to be a true descriptor of reality, a neutral language that can be utilized harmlessly and put to different ends according to the political and epistemological orientation of those waging it. Whether in the political science, or sociology, economics, or political economy, development has been debated without questioning its ontological status.”
In almost two decades,
….there has been an efflorescence of literature which contests the very meaning of development. Applying the lessons of post-structuralism, this nascent school – which has come to be known as post-development thought – proposes that development is itself an arbitrary concept rooted in a meta- narrative which, in turn, reflects the interests of its practitioners. It is proposed that the goal of improving living standards leans on arbitrary and unjustified claims as to the desirability of the goal. This, in turn, is rooted in
106
something of a tautology: people seek development because it is desirable, and we know it is desirable because people seek it (Rapley 2004:350).
Development has always been an ambiguous notion: on the one hand it is virtually synonymous with “progress”, while on the other, referring to intentional efforts to “ameliorate the disordered faults of progress” (Cowen and Shenton 1996:7 cited in Thomas, 2000:774).
Glanville (2005:1), Oyugi (2000:4), Todaro and Smith (2006: 15 cited in Taabazuing) (2010) all posit that “development is not an easy concept to define, and to develop necessarily involves normative or value judgments being made.” Riggs notes that in the social sciences, at least, “the word typically suggests the evolution of human social systems from simpler to more complex, mature, or higher forms” (Riggs 1984:126 cited in Pretes 1997:1421-1422). In essence, based on the raft of definitions in vogue, it may be argued that development seeks to optimise societal and individuals’ quality of life in an equitable manner.
In view of the multiplicity of definitions provided above, the fundamental question that arises is whether or not development is able to be imposed from outside; or is it an internal initiative? In response to such a question, LouiseFrechetteformer Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations was quoted by Harvard International Review (2003) as saying, “I think development is an internal process. The policy prescriptions that are promoted by bilateral donors or the United Nations may have a different impact or be received differently in different places; as a result their success depends very much on local conditions.” Hein de Haas noted that “...development is not only a complex multi-dimensional concept, but can also be assessed at different levels of analysis and has different meanings within different normative, cultural and historical contexts. It may therefore, be an illusion that there can be a single universal definition of development” (2009:8).
107
5.2.1. Meaning of development over time
The table below attempts to portray what “development”, as a concept and as an academic discipline, means to different people at different periods.
Table 5.1: Evolution of the Meaning of Development
Period Perspectives Meaning of Development 1800s Classical political economy Remedy for progress, catching up 1870˃ Latecomers Industrialization, catching up 1850˃ Colonial economics Resource management, trusteeship 1940˃ Development economics Economic growth, industrialization
1950˃ Modernization theory Growth, political and social modernization 1960˃ Development theory Accumulation-national auto-centric 1970˃ Alternative development Human Flourishing
1980˃ Human development Capacitation, enlargement of people’s choices 1980˃ Neo-liberalism Economic growth-structural reform,
deregulation, liberalization
1990˃ Post-development Authoritarian engineering disaster
2000
Millennium Development Goals Structural reforms Source: Pieterse (2010: page 7)
From the plethora of meanings that have emerged to describe a process aimed at solving the state of underdevelopment to which so many people have been subjected, it is not difficult to see why Escobar (2001: 498-499) is seemingly bewildered when he notes that “the question of development remains unresolved in any modern, social or epistemological order.”
In summary, it is clear that there many different definitions of development, and that in essence, development means different things to different people. However, one common thread running through all the definitions outlined above, has been aptly captured by Fox and Van Rooyen (2004:188) when
108
they state that “development is regarded as people oriented, future oriented and entails hope; it implies a desired state compared to the current state of affairs.” What is fundamentally important is the fact that the development process must be an initiative with an internal dimension to ensure its sustainability and ownership by local stakeholders.
5.2.2. Objectives of development
Lyons and Hamlin (2001:7) put forward the view that “objectives are statements that serve as a guide for action; in other words they are something to shoot for.” Generally speaking, objectives are clearly set out in a logical and measurable manner, in order for the intended purpose/s to be achieved.
Specifically, Charley, Jenkins and Smith (2001:4) and Todaro in Glanville (1993:2) noted that objectives of development include the following:
...Firstly to increase the availability, and to widen the distribution of basic life-sustaining goods, such as food, shelter, health, and protection to all members of society. Secondly: to raise the level of living standards, including higher incomes, provision of more jobs, better education and more attention to cultural and humanistic values. These all serve not only to enhance material well-being but also to generate greater individual and national esteem. Thirdly, to expand the range of economic and social choice to individuals and nations by freeing them from servitude and dependence, not only in relation to other people and nation-states but also to the forces of ignorance and human misery.
The final objective, which is drawn from the body of reviewed development literature, may be described as: an objective of development is to address or ameliorate the social and economic imbalance that exists between so-called developing countries of the south and developed countries of the north. It is worth pointing out that the list of objectives listed is not exhaustive, but
109
instead represents a small fraction of an increasing list of conceived and proposed objectives.