CHAPTER THREE
3.2 The Idea of Development
Historically, the idea of development is traceable to some authors who went back to seek the roots of the idea in Marx and Hegel and others who went back to the 17th century political economist, Adam Smith or further back to the European Age of Enlightenment with the novel suggestion of transforming the world by scientific discovery and human intervention (de Rivero, 2001). From the beginning of the 19th century, development thinking was couched as a reaction to the crises of progress, such as social dislocations caused by industrialization (Pieterse, 2010).
Within this century, development had meanings from different perspectives including the classical political economy, latecomers, colonial economics and development economics perspectives. From the classical political economy perspective, similar problems of economic development were addressed by classical political economists, from Ricardo to Marx. From the classical political economists, development meant ―remedy for progress‖ and ―catching up‖
(Martin, 1991; Pieterse, 2010, p. 7). From the turn-of-the century latecomers‘ perspective, development meant ―industrialization‖ and ―catching up;‖ from the colonial economics perspective, development meant ―resource management‖ and ―trusteeship‖ under which the administration of colonial economies was ―not merely with a view to their exploitation for
metropolitan benefit but also for the interests of the native population;‖ and from the development economics perspective, development meant attaining economic growth through industrialization (Pieterse, 2010, pp. 5-7).
Modern development thinking can be traced back to the post Second World War era. This is not to claim that the concept of development was not in discussion until the post Second World War era, it was indeed in discussion from different perspectives. Though, the term development was not necessarily used before the post Second World War era, but ―earlier
practices have been viewed as antecedents of development policy (Pieterse, 2010, p. 5). The second half of the 20th century was specifically labelled as the era of development. The beginning of this era is traceable to the 20th day of January, 1949 when it was emphasized by US President Harry Truman in his inaugural address that a new bold programme must be embarked on to make the advantage of his country‘s ―scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of the underdeveloped areas.‖ President Truman further emphasized that neither the old imperialism nor exploitation for foreign profit had places in his country‘s plans; and that the US envisaged ―a programme of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing‖ (Truman, 1949). The idea of development was invented in the post Second World War era to describe the process by which ―backward‖ countries would ―catch up‖
with the industrialized world following help from the latter (Black, 2007, p. 10). According to Esteva (1992), the post Second World War idea of development established a new dimension into development thinking which centred on development from the perspective of escaping from underdevelopment. As at this time, undeveloped countries represented two-thirds of the globe which necessitated a greater proportion of the nations of the globe to define themselves as having fallen into the ―undignified condition called underdevelopment‖ (Esteva, 1992, p. 7). This era
therefore witnessed ―increasing international discussion about how development particularly in the Global South was to take place‖ (Willis, 2011, p. 29). Development thus ―stood as the idea which oriented emerging nations in their journey through post war history‖ (Sachs, 1992, p. 1).
Much of the post Second World War descriptions of development were in relation to ―a long-term view with an emphasis on socio-economic structural transformation;‖ such as ―the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy.‖ The word development was widely regarded as both self-evident and prophetic, informing a widespread assumption in the 1950s and 1960s that ―most underdeveloped countries would almost inevitably become developed‖
(Haynes, 2008, p. 8). But as from the 1990s, much definitions of development were in relation to
―a shorter horizon related to policy objectives and performance indicators such as growth of income per capita and poverty reduction‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 25).
According to Cowen and Shenton (1996), development comes to be defined in a multiplicity of ways because there is multiplicity of developers who are entrusted with the task of development. Development is a concept which is ―contested both theoretically and politically and is inherently both complex and ambiguous;‖ and it is a term which is used so loosely and freely that it has little precise meaning (Thomas, 2004, p. 1; McCarthy, 1994). In other words, it means different things to different people. According to Rodney (1972, pp. 3-4), ―development in human society is a many–sided process. At the level of the individual, it implies increased skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and material well-being;‖ at the level of social groups, ―development implies an increasing capacity to regulate both internal and external relationships.‖ Rodney states further that the term development is used in ―an exclusive economic sense, the justification being that the type of economy is itself an
index of other social features‖ (p. 4). In his final analysis, he states that development is universal because the conditions leading to economic expansion are universal.
Chambers (1997) simply refers to development as good change. This simple description of development indicates that ―it is a positive word that everyday parlance is virtually synonymous with progress‖ (Thomas, 2000, p. 23). He goes ahead to state that the implication of progress is
―continual improvement reaching higher levels perhaps without limit, whereas development, as an analogy from development of living organisms, implies moving towards the fulfilment of potential‖ (Thomas, 2000, p. 25). Conceptually, development should be differentiated from progress as progress had been thought to be an immanent process in the preceding centuries, in that human society was understood as moving viciously to a higher stage of civilization (Cowen and Shenton, 1996). As an immanent process, and ―with the intrinsic dynamism of capitalism,‖
development requires it being distinguished from ―development as an intentional activity,‖ often designed to ameliorate the faults of capitalist growth (Thomas, 2000, p. 48). The two words good change merged quite dissimilar ideas which can cause disorientation between various senses in
which the term development is used. The word good implies a vision of a desirable society, that is, wellbeing for all; something to target, condition of being with certain affirmative traits which can be evaluated so that more or less development can be talked of. As for change, it is a process which may entail disruption and which may or may not be possible to direct (Thomas, 2000).
Further to this, Thomas clarifies that the idea of development is beyond simple good change and thus makes it to be an inherently ambiguous concept. One of the points stated in support of this is that development generally implies an all-encompassing change and not just an improvement in one aspect. Secondly, development does not revolve around just ―a one-off process of change to something better but implies a process which builds on itself, where change is continuous and
where improvements build on previous improvements.‖ Thirdly, development refers to ―a matter of changes occurring at the level of social change and the individual human being at one and the same time;‖ this simply indicates that ―changes in how people think, interact, make their livings and perceive themselves form the basis for changes in society‖ (p. 23). As a process, development implies a ―change for the better in the individual circumstances as in societies‖
(Black, 2007, p. 29). Fourthly, development is not seen positively at all times as ―what some see as general improvement may have losers as well as winners;‖ and therefore, for social change to be all-encompassing, ―previous ways of life may be swept away with the loss of positive as well as negative features‖ (Thomas, 2000, p. 24).
Development is also described as ―the organized intervention in collective affairs according to standard of improvement‖ (Pieterse, 2010, p. 3). He goes ahead to state that what constitutes improvement and what is an appropriate intervention obviously varies in consonance with ―class, culture, historical contexts and relations to power‖ (Pieterse, 2010, p. 4).
Development refers to the ―remedies for the shortcomings and maladies of progress‖ (Cowen and Shenton 1996, p. 130). According to Ake (1995, p. 125), development is ―the process by which people create and recreate themselves and their life circumstances to realize higher levels of civilization in accordance with their own choice and value.‖ The Human Development Reports (HDR) of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) describes development as
―the enlargement of people‘s choices‖ (UNDP, 1990, p. 10). Development is referred to as enlargement of people‘s choices and human capacitation (Sen, 1985). From all these, it can be inferred that ―development includes an element of reflexivity that ranges from infrastructure works such as roads, railways, dams, canals and ports to industrial policy, the welfare state, new economic policy, colonial economics and Keynesian demand management‖ (Pieterse, 2010, pp.
7-8). Thus, in the modern sense, development ―implies intentional social change in accordance with social objectives‖ (Hettne, 2008, p. 6). Also, it can be inferred that development is ―a kind of social change in which new ideas are introduced into a social system in order to produce higher per capita income and levels of living through modern production methods and improved social organization‖ (Roger and and Svenning, 1969, p. 18). Further to these, it can be inferred that the rate at which a given society is developed is determined by so many attributes such as the whole people's educational level, leadership, and natural resources of a particular country.
Development has been taken to mean growth, economic development, industrialization, economic growth, modernization and nation-building. It thus serves as ―a mirror of changing economic and social capacities, priorities and choices‘ (Pieterse 2010, p. 8).
Three different propositions are set up about the meaning of development by Sumner and Tribe (2008). The first proposition sees development as a process of structural societal transmutation or change characterized by long duration. This aligns with the description of development by Thomas (2004) as a process of historical change. The main characteristics of this proposition are that ―it is focused on process of structural societal change‖ and ―it is historical and it has a long term outlook.‖ Thus, development relates to a wide view of diverse socio-economic changes in that the process does not relate to any specific ―set of objectives‖ and as a result, ―not necessarily prescriptive.‖ The analysis of the proposition is not based on ―any expectations that all societies will follow approximately the same development process.‖ This indicates that development is not compulsorily connected to intentional or good change as in some cases, it is characterized by ―decline, crisis, and other problematical situations‖ of which can be ―accommodated within the wide perspective of socio-economic change‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 12). Such structural and long term transformation or changes or goals were the
ones that ―dominated the 1950s and 1960s via vision‖ (Gore, 2000, p. 794). The second proposition sees development as ―a short to medium term outcome of desirable targets;‖ in other words, it centralizes its focus on ―the outcomes of change so that it has a relatively short-term outlook‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 13). This is characterized by a vision or measure of progressive change (Thomas, 2004). Gore (2000, p. 794) relates this to ―performance assessment.‖ This perspective has a ―much more instrumental element which is likely to be favoured by practitioners within development community notably in international development agencies‖ because its concern is based on development that occurs ―in terms of a set of short to medium-term performance indicators, goals or outcome which can be measured and compared with targets‖ such as ―changes in poverty or outcome levels (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 13).
The MDGs of the UN that have to do with meeting specific targets on poverty reduction by 2015 exemplifies this perspective. It is important to clarify that ―the two perspectives of development are respectively based on visions and outcomes‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 14). The third proposition sees development as a dominant discourse of Western modernity. This is referred to as ―post modern, post development, post colonial or post structuralist position‖ and its argument
―is based on the view that development has consisted of bad change and bad outcomes through the imposition of Western ethnocentric notions of development upon the Third World‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p. 14). The view of this perspective ―suggests that those who construct the concept or the discourse have in mind an inherent element of inferiority-superiority,‖ under which ―values are placed on certain assets which the South does not have.‖ The South is thus
―viewed as inferior‖ to the North as an attribute such as ―non-modern or non Western approaches to medicine, or other aspects of society are perceived as inferior‖ (Sumner and Tribe, 2008, p.
15).
Thomas (2000) distinguishes three main senses in which the term development is used.
First, it is ―used as a vision, description or measure of the state of being a desirable society;‖
second, it is ―used as historical process of social change in which societies are transformed over long periods;‖ and lastly, it is ―used as consisting of deliberate efforts aimed at improvement on the part of various agencies, including governments, all kinds of organizations and social movements.‖ There exists a relationship in the three senses in which the term ‗development‘ is used in that ―the state of being a desirable society is supposedly the result of the historical process of development, and the vision of a desirable society may form an aim towards which to direct efforts at improvement‖ (p. 29).
From the above analysis, it may be safely agreed that real development involves a structural transformation of the economy, society, polity and culture of a country that allows the self-creating and self-bolstering use and development of the people‘s potentials (Nkrumah, 1965). It may also be agreed that the overall multiplicity of definitional debates includes a general agreement on the view that development encompasses continuous change in a variety of aspects of human society (Sumner and Tribe, 2008).
3.3 Perspectives of Development over Time