What is Development?

l  My definition of Development?

l  My definition of Poverty?

l  What Development Economists should do to promote these definitions?

There is no single definition for development and neither a common sense in any definition that we can give. For instance, Todaro (2009:14-27) doesn’t dare to bring his own definition, he makes a comprehensive historic overview of trends for defining development and finishes with Sen’s approach, development of capabilities, freedom, happiness, among others.

But my aim here is not to express previous definitions. As experts in Development we have our own targets regarding how we perceive development inserted in our own biases and visions of the world. A lot of critic has been done by scholars regarding traditional definitions of development and poverty. The main problem with the traditional point of view is that many scholars, even today, look at Development through the scope of those who reached certain patterns of social, economical, structural and institutional changes first and target the same patterns for late comers. This is what is called Euro centrism or westernization and for many it’s influenced by Globalization.

We may see a similar problem when we define poverty. In order to minimize the uniformity of patterns for poverty, the World Bank introduced different levels of poverty. It’s called absolute poverty if someone lives below $1.25 at 2005 purchasing-power parity (PPP). While it is not an easy issue to define the poverty lines (poverty gap at 1.25 US$ day; poverty gap 2 US$ day), there is Relative Poverty (Poverty gap at national poverty line; Poverty gap at rural poverty line; Poverty gap at urban poverty line) which is almost the same as measuring income inequality as if a society gets a more equal income distribution, relative poverty generally fall. These are useful instruments, but do they represent the real concept of how different societies perceive poverty?

As Jonathan Hobbs stated, poverty is also a complex and multidimensional concept that has economic, social, political, environmental, and other facets. Poverty is not only a matter of low or no incomes, although it is often expressed in these absolute terms. Poverty can also be relative whereby it could be a lack of access to education, health, and other essential services, or what we call the basic needs dimension. It could be a lack of self-respect and dignity that poor people experience, or what we call the social exclusion dimension. Or it could be a risk or likelihood of falling into poverty and insecurity and a relative exposure to sudden shocks, such as droughts or floods, or what we call the vulnerability dimension. There's also a transient dimension to poverty which describes when people move in and out of it. Therefore, there are very multifaceted ways of perceiving and interpreting poverty as well as development.

In my own definition, Poverty is lack of hope. Hope here must be perceived in all senses of self-deprivation. So, it’s a more emotional and spiritual feeling than material. Absolute poor are not those who live below $1 day. Who needs $1.25 a day when you have food from the ground, meat of the corral, water from the spring, eats firewood bread, and extracts honey from the bees and milk from the sheep? And if you don’t have all these resources available, (those who live in the desert, nomads, and other environmental restricted areas) but you still have means and tools to overcome your daily deprivations, you may still be satisfied (happy) therefore not feeling poor. Being unsure of what your tomorrow will be is worse than not having markets.

What about Development? In my definition Development is self emancipation represented in a societal progress to reach its targets. In this definition there are two dimensions. An individual (self achievements) who overlaps to the group where this person is inserted (society). Therefore, a person is a key for development. A serious investment in education will come out with new ideas and solutions to overcome common problems. In a more globalized world, where development is also perceived as reaching international patterns, the solution for development is still education.

What should development economists do in order to promote these definitions? It’s not a single action that will change the status quo. As development and poverty affects primarily the poor countries, scholars from these countries who perceive advanced studies have the role to write and talk about the best policies for their countries. Unfortunately, in the case of Africa, most of the brains end up serving different interests because the absorption levels of their contributions are weak in their home countries. But that’s not the only problem. I do believe that these brains could contribute more even without returning to their home countries. The Information Technologies are very important. There are plenty of things that can be communicated by word, but actions can also be efficient. For those who belong to developed countries, development studies was always associated with westernization. This view needs to change. A better approach should be to listen more to what these countries have to say. More fieldworks and case studies are needed.

Bibliography:

l  Todaro, Michael P.; Stephen C. Smith; Economic Development; Tenth Edition, Addison-Wesley and Pearson Education; England – USA; 2009.

l  Sen, Amartya; Development as Freedom; Anchor Books; New York; 1999

l  Hobbs, Jonathan; Making SEA More Relevant to Poverty Reduction Policies, Plans, and Programs; World Bank