Addressing Development.

                        Is development still a relevant concept? And if so for whom?

Before addressing the question “Is development still relevant? “, it seems  necessary to define the context in which the word development has come to be understood today and which shade of definition(s) I subscribe to. In the following lines, I will present as to how theories about development have evolved over the decades and why they are still relevant for a host of actors and why not the other way round.

 The word development is very much part of common parlance today and, therefore, needs context-specific definitions for clarity. In contemporary literature, the word development has been associated with as different things as spiritual growth and economic progress.

This prolific use has confused the meaning(s) of this word. This complexity of meanings makes the word development a perfect qualifier of what author Stuart Chase (Chase, 1939) called “the tyranny of words“in his book by the same title. Indeed individuals, firms, states and international institutions have used the word development to mean quite different array of things over the decades.  For example, famous Indian campaigner against British Rule in the subcontinent Mohandas Gandhi mentioned development in following words: “Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position” (Misra, 1995, p.11). Around the same period in 1949, US President Truman spoke of the poverty of developing nations being a threat to the developed world (McKay, 2004). Earlier on, the notion of development had figured prominently in European political thought and philosophy during the influential movements of humanism and rationalism of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. During industrial revolution of 19^th and 20^th  centuries in Britain and North America, the concept of development remained quite relevant to the social and political discourse (Porter et al, 1999).

The concept is still very much at the heart of current models of economic and social growth. For example, in the neo-liberalism model, much emphasis is made on economic development of countries via free-markets and liberal democracy. Policies inspired by these theories are being pursued to this day by global financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Generally speaking, development has come to be understood as an across-the-board improvement in human condition. The origins of this perspective go back in time to 1940s, when large-scale projects like US Marshall Plan for Europe (1948-1951) were introduced (Porter et al, 1999). In fact development interventions of this pattern helped set the stage for other initiatives across many other continents by world powers of that time e.g. many former colonial powers launched development programs under what was termed as "trusteeship".

 Theories behind these plans were based on the assumption that developing countries owed the support of developed countries and they too could, presumably, follow the same trajectory of economic development and social progress starting in urban areas and then “trickling down” to the peripheral regions. The whole process was named “modernization “of a society or modernization theory (Porter et al, 1999). But this was challenged by ‘Dependency Theory’ (McKay. 2004) which originated in Latin America and contended that development endevours launched by the rich countries had an exploitative side to them as these divested the developing countries of their precious resources. In other words, development of one nation resulted in the underdevelopment of another. Hence development was thought as being counter-productive, i.e., worsening the very problems it sought to address.

The dependency theory was a reaction to some trademark practices the colonial powers had followed in the regions under their rule. These included transfer of raw material from backward colonies to newly industrialized areas in the home country. For example in the Sub Continent during British Rule, raw material (cotton and copper chiefly) was transported for use in England which was undergoing industrial capitalism at that time. For this purpose the railway track was laid out only in certain areas to facilitate the transfer (Ali, 2011). For obvious reasons, the development of local people took a backseat against the vested interests of the imperial power. Similarly, a lot of rail and telephone network in Africa was established to ensure maximum extraction of copper and other precious metals (Harlow, 2003). However , in my view ,  this argument of Dependency Theory touches only one aspect of the problem, i.e., makes no mention about the local social dynamics which had a bearing on these so-called ‘failed development projects’. This is in no way to justify the occupation of foreign lands but to state the simple fact that development in many cases couldn’t take off not only because it was imposed from an outside force , which was ignorant or neglectful of local sensitivities , but also because of the inherent incapability of the system in that particular territory. To elaborate, long before the start of British Rule in Indian Subcontinent, Mughal Empire (1526-1858) was on the verge of collapse due to internal fissures and rising tide of provincialism not to mention the worsening divisions along religious and cast lines (Richards, 1995).  In a similar way, pre-colonial Africa was in disarray before the colonial powers took control. So it was wrong to expect rapid development in the first place. Therefore, from a purely development standpoint, it seems unjustifiable to put all the blame of underdevelopment on colonial powers.

 As of today , the inherent weaknesses of political systems in developing countries like corruption, incoherence on national issues, nepotism, law and order problems and conflicts need to be considered before reaching a decisive conclusion on what caused the development endeavors to fail. For example in 1960s, the idea of five-year development programs was introduced in what was termed the UN ‘Development Decade’. These plans worked quite well in some countries leading to economic growth in many sectors. While in other countries the plans failed to produce the same kind of results. It was not because the idea (which was floated by the UN under the auspices of world powers) was bad in itself rather it was because the local conditions of the country impinged on the desired outcomes. For example , the five-year plan of India 1951-1956  met most of its targets in terms of reviving the agrarian sector of the economy but a similar plan in Pakistan 1955-1960 failed because the country was undergoing political instability at that time (Blood , 1984).

 Over the decades, the concept of development has evolved to incorporate a more human element into the whole process.  Many theorists have argued on this aspect e.g. Robert Chambers implied that development essentially introduced a good change in a society (Chambers, 2005). The founder of UN Human Development Reports, Mahbub-ul-Haq defined development as "a process of enlarging people’s choices" (United Nations Development Program, 2011). Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate in economics, described development as an agent which brought about freedom to the people (Sen, 1999). Development, in the sense viewed by these experts, has been pursued by many rich countries in the form of aid to the poorer countries though with certain political quid pro quos. For example, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) , United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)  have spent billions of dollars on development aid to poorer countries of the world , apparently all focusing on improving the lives of people in poorer countries in one way or another.

During the cold war, the United States and former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) exploited the concept of development to win allies across the world. The world powers spent considerable resources to maintain the allegiance of smaller countries which had joined their respective camps. As the cold war came to an end, it was hoped that developed countries would pursue the aims of development in its true spirit. But, unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The countries in Asia and Africa which used to receive “development” aid on account of being “allies”  were left to fend for themselves (McKay, J. 2004) as they were no longer a policy priority in the eyes of the superpower. This led to an impression that world powers initiate development projects basically to further their political machinations and not as development per se. Meanwhile, foreign aid in the name of development is still being used as a political tool today (Birdsall, 2005).   In a way, the policies of US and its allies after attacks on USA in September 11, 2001 have taken the world back to the cold-war days. Against the backdrop of such policies, a number of theorists challenged the very notion of development in what became known as “post development theory” or “anti-development “theory. Most prominent among these is Arturo Escobar. He criticized the development discourse championed by western industrialized countries and termed it a tool for gaining political hegemony more than anything else (McKay, 2004).

The foregoing premise shows the dilemma one faces in explaining the meaning of the word development which is surrounded by so much contestation. Perhaps no single definition is comprehensive enough to cover the multi-faceted concept that development has come to be over the decades. The best practice, in my idea, would be to state one’s own position vis-à-vis the concept. This helps the reader understand what is called “positionality” (Andy Sumner 2009) of the writer. It signifies the fact that the writer is leaving the room open for potentially mixing his own fundamental beliefs with the subject at hand. I will argue for the cause of a human-centered development model as proposed by Amartya Sen (Sen, 1999) and the “Human Development Concept “stated in the 2010 United Nations’ Human Development Report. These writings signify the point that economic growth of a country is important but other phenomena like gender equality, education, health, infrastructure and freedom from repression etc must also be considered when planning development.

Why development is still relevant and for everyone?

Drawing on the definitions of development and their critique here above, it goes without saying that the concept is equally relevant to both the less developed and highly developed countries today. Human development is an on-going and timeless process. Hence the question is not if development is relevant but what kind of it. As defined in the UN Human Development Report 2010: “Human development is, moreover, concerned not only with basic needs satisfaction but also with human development as a participatory and dynamic process”. For better or worse, the phenomenon of development has brought countries together over the decades. Notwithstanding the differences in terms of social indicators such as wealth, infrastructure, technology and education, countries have come to depend on each other for survival.  Most recent example in this emerging inter-dependence paradigm is seeking of bailout funds by European Union from China. More than anything else, the Euro zone debt crisis has shown that Europe, a largely developed continent, is as much in the need of economic development as any other region in the world with countries like Greece teetering on the brink of anarchy.  This drives home the point that well-being of one country, economic or otherwise, directly or indirectly affects not only its neighbors but others across the globe. As the Greek debt crisis worsens, countries in Europe are worried about its spillover effect on their economies not to mention the potential social collapse of countries like Greece and Spain where unemployment rates have shot up to 20% (BBC, 2011). Fundamental questions are being asked about the viability of the free market system that Europe has been so adhered to over the years. This has necessitated the need for a rethinking of economic development in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland in particular and all over Europe in general. While Europe is facing the debt crisis and needs a rethinking on the underlining economic system, the United States has seen criticism from inside the country for “corporate greed” of its financial institutions in the form of “Occupy Wall Street Movement “. Overall the emergence of so-called “the 99% “  shows the significant challenges developed countries are facing in terms of meeting the needs of a public which is increasingly questioning the viability of current prevalent development models and is discontent with the status-quo (BBC , 2011).

 This essentially means that the search for alternative models of development has only intensified the need for a broad-based development of society instead of letting a handful of people call the shots and dominate decision making. The need, in my opinion, is the democratization of the financial system so that the general masses have a greater say in important decisions and question the profiteering by few. This disillusionment was previously more visible in the less developed countries of the world where majority of the population lives in sub human conditions leading to a never-ending battle for scarce resources resulting in Civil Wars as in Africa and in Asian countries like Afghanistan.  These events only go to emphasize the role of development in the contemporary world. The relevance of the concept of development was never as immense as is today simply because no country in the world today can claim to be immune from uncertain times and thus has to pursue constant development.

Obviously, the need to implement development concepts is more acute in the developing countries than the developed countries which, after all, have some safety mechanism in place which can reduce the shock impacts if certain development strategy fails to provide benefits. This is in stark contrast to many of the developing countries where majority of the population lives in rural areas virtually cut-off from the outside world. For them, development is always a good change as Robert Chambers said (Chambers, 1997).

During my four-year service in the most underdeveloped parts of Pakistan, I have seen people in living in medieval conditions unbeknownst to the modern day innovations that have improved the quality of life around the world. For them, every thing from a small pipe of clean drinking water to 200 Kilo Volt hydro power project is development. But the trouble there is that they are totally dependant on state which is spending poorly on them.  That said, improvement has been registered in the main cities in terms of better education, health and communication facilities. But the level of inequality is so high that one wonders if the slight improvement in some part of the region can even be called development. For example, Gilgit Baltistan is the northern most part of Pakistan and only road to the region is nearly 600 kms from the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad.  In December 2010, Asian Development Bank (Asian Development Bank , 2011) published a report about the region The report detailed the economic prospects for the region considering how the public and private sector expansion had improved the lives of the people. It also talked about the immense potential the region had in terms of the hydro power generation and natural resources like minerals. But the report, which was partly funded by UK DFID, failed to rigorously point out the disparities in terms of gender equality, resource distribution and gap between whatever developments had been achieved in the few main cities and poverty-stricken hundreds of villages in the rural areas. Thus the people who needed the most attention got left out.  The situation is not very different in the rest of rural areas in Pakistan where clean drinking water, health care, education, basic infrastructure and a decent life still remain a distant dream. Most of the time, but not always, researchers fail to provide information about this marginalized section of society.  I have these areas in mind when talking about human development and its relevance. I think it is here that the test of development, taken in its original concept of uplifting the poor, seems most relevant. Across the border in India too, a huge problem exists in the form of extreme poverty in rural areas which often compromises its tiger economy status in the world. Currently, India is far behind its Millennium Development Goals’ target of halving the country’s poverty which still remains at 32 % at the moment (OneWorld, 2011). This failure in meeting the target is attributed, as mentioned earlier, to so many factors ranging from lack of funds to corruption in running the projects thus such development activity is reduced to mere announcement for poor people. As for Afghanistan, it presents a strong case of how development strategies fizzle out when followed by political expediencies rather than focusing, ideally speaking, on a people-centered undertaking. Despite spending billions of dollars over a decade in the name of development, Afghanistan project looks as grim as ever.

The development fiasco discussed provides good lessons for development strategists in future. For one, it brings forth the importance of laying out the foundations of infrastructure rather than focusing on social services. Examples abound where foreign contractors and local corrupt officials basked themselves in the windfall of aid money that donors showered on Afghanistan after a UN appeal for funds in the Bonn Agreement reached in December 2001. Looked at from another point of view, especially the western view, there has been a semblance of normalcy in the country especially compared to autocratic rule of Taliban regime (1996-2001). For the sake of it, elections were held in 2004 and 2009 and a government purportedly representing all segments of society was installed. But the core goal of state building through development still remains a pipe dream. This is no to say that foreign aid is out rightly bad. But when it is given with short-term political agendas in mind, long term policies can not be initiated and hence development can’t be sustained. 

In conclusion, it seems fair to argue that development, regardless of how it is defined, remains a concept of timeless importance. It’s the only way to bring about a change for the better in the lives of people especially in the developing countries but not excluding those in the developed world. Increasingly, the world is becoming uncertain with events in one country affecting, directly or indirectly, the socio-economic dynamics of other countries around it. The current debt crisis in the Euro Zone exemplifies this notion.  That said, we need to learn our lessons from the apparently botched efforts at development (the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan and settlement of Greek debt being just two cases in point). In my view, this necessitates the need for evolving approaches which take into account the long-term impacts of policies instead of “firefighting” as and when the crises reach a boiling point.

References

1.      ‘Pakistan , Gilgit Baltistan Economic Report , Broadening the Transformation’ Asian Development Bank (2 Dec 2010) ,  <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/05/03/000333037_20110503000328/Rendered/PDF/559980ESW0Gray1OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY191.pdf > (28 Oct 2011)

2.      Ali, Mubarak “Rise and Fall of Mughal Empire “ Daily Dawn 11 Aug. 2011 <http://www.dawn.com/2011/08/06/time-check-british-india-mughal-fall-rise-of-british-raj.html> ( 1 Nov. 2011)

3.      BBC ( 3 Nov. 2011) Greece Referendum: Democracy versus the Euro Zone < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15553685> (3 Nov 2011)

4.      Birdsall , Nancy ‘Seven Deadly Sins : Reflections on Donor Failings’. Centre for Global Development (19 Dec 2005) < http://www.cgdev.org/files/2737_file_WP50_rev12_05_2.pdf > (29 Oct 2011)

5.      Blood, P. (1984). Pakistan: a country Study Washington:  Federal Research Division.

6.      Chambers, R. (2005) Ideas for Development. Bath: Bath Press

7.      Harlow B., Carter M., (2003) Archives of Empire, Volume II, the Scramble for Africa. USA: Duke University Press.

8.      ‘Human Development Concept’. United Nations Development Reports. 2011. <http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/ > (1 Nov. 2011)

9.      McKay, J. (2004) Reassessing Development Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 2: ‘Reassessning Development Theory: Modernization and Beyond’ p.45.

10.  Misra, O.P. (1995) Economic Thought of Gandhi and Nehru, A Comparative Analysis. New Delhi: M D Publications

11.  OneWorld (May 2011) , India Poverty Reduction Briefing <http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/india/poverty > (2 Nov 2011)

12.  Potter, R. et al (1999) Geographies of Development, an Introduction to Development Studies. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Chapter 1: ‘Defining Development’, p.3.

13.  Richard, J. (1995). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

14.  Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, New York: Knoff.

15.  Sumner, A. and Tribe, M., (2008) International Development Studies, Theories and Methods in Research and Practice. London: Sage

(I wrote this essay as part of academic requirement here at IDS in November).