Development Geography II – Summary
Chapter 1 – Questioning Development
Development relates in geography, economics and the work of international organizations to efforts
to bring about changes which impact on the well-being of countries and their inhabitants.
Arguments about the fact that development initiatives have not worked effectively in the past, and
indeed the view that the types of development attempted could never ultimately be successful, is
considered.
The line of argument is referred to as anti-development, post-development or beyond
development, and is associated with what has been referred to as the ‘impasse of development
studies’.
Development is not an apolitical or neutral process. It has been influenced by key global concerns
and economic shifts since WWII, the rise of neo-liberalism as the dominant economic discourse in the
world, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and, more recently, incipient signs of post-neo-liberalism.
Are conditions improving or worsening, that is converging (getting more similar) or diverging (getting
more varied) at the international scale?
Development: the gradual unfolding, fuller working out; growth; evolution; well-grown stage, stage
of advancement; product; more elaborate form, etc. (Oxford Dictionary)
Turning to the level of the state, physical development (land use) plans are produced, so too are
national economic development plans. These sort of plans are expressly designed to guide the
process of development and change in the sense of unfolding and working out how things should be
in the future. Development therefore has a close connection with planning.
In the arena of development policy, development processes are influenced by development planning,
and most plans are in turn shaped by the prevailing development theories that reflect the way in
which development is perceived.
Prevailing ideologies, such as belief in state determined leadership (called Keynesiasm, implemented
after Great Depression in 1930s and advocates for increased government expenditures and lower
taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the depression) and neo-liberalism
(defined later but refers to support for and reliance on market forces as opposed to state control),
have shaped how development is understood and the strategies and mechanisms to achieve it.
The development process is affected by many factors other than ideologies, although ideologies
often condition state and institutional reactions to these.
Development is conceived of as an approach to respond to and address one of the main divisions of
the world, between the ‘developed nations’ commonly referred to as Global North and ‘developing
nations’ of the Global South, which is manifest in a range of economic, social and political scores.
At simplest level, countries of North are seen as assisting of South by means of development aid, in
an effort to reduce unemployment and other indicators of ‘underdevelopment’.
Such an approach has privileged conceptions of development held by North and assumed that their
interventions are appropriate and even desirable in scope for international development, or for
South-South development. And we should question whether the experience of the North is the ideal
model to follow.
Our perceptions are shaped by our own background, beliefs, culture and economic understanding.
Over time, understanding development has changed. Initially it was conceived of purely in terms of
material advances (higher incomes and salaries), the benefits of which would trickle down to the gain
of all in society. Later, social factors (education, health, etc.) were also part of development. Then
Sen took it to a new level and argued that freedom and empowerment were equally important.
1
,On the plus side is the idea that development brings economic growth and national progress, and
should involve other positive outcomes such as the provision of basic needs, better forms of
governance and a move towards more sustainable growth patterns.
In respect of negative consequences of development, the occurrence and often the persistence of
inequalities between rich and poor regions, countries and groups is often referred to, along with the
perpetuation of relative poverty.
So-called development is associated with the dependency of poor countries on richer nations, and
the maintenance of forms of economic, social, political and cultural subordination.
Development relates to all parts of the world at every level, as much to poor areas in cities and poor
regions in rich nations. Growing inequality and deprivation in North also make development there a
matter of concern.
Growing socio-economic inequalities within the countries of North emphasise the need to consider
application of development. However, understanding and application has become most often linked
with the South / ‘Third World’, which is a value-laden term, the emerge of which was closely
associated with the evolution of the concept of development in the political context of second half of
20th century.
Thinking about development
Origin of modern process of development in late 1940s. Modern era of development linked to
Truman’s speech in 1949, in which he employed the term ‘underdeveloped areas’ to describe what
was soon to be know the ‘Third World’. He also sets out what he saw as the duty of the West to bring
development to such relatively underdeveloped countries. USA was challenging the old European
Empires about their continued pursuit of colonialism as much as advocating a strategy which
privileged western achievements, technology, values and concepts of ideal ‘progress’ as something
all nations should pursue.
If colonialism is defined as the direct political control and administration of an overseas territory by a
foreign state, then Truman was establishing a new colonial/neo-colonial role for the USA within the
newly independent countries that were emerging from decolonization.
This introduced the concept of ‘modernism’/‘modernization’ in the development lexicon, which may
be defined as the belief that development is all about transforming traditional countries into
moderns, westernized nations i.e. that ‘successful development’ implies the pursuit and attainment
of technology, values and systems characteristic of the ‘modern’ western countries.
Such views represented a continuation of the late colonial mission to develop colonial peoples within
the concept of trusteeship.
Trusteeship: the holding of property on behalf of another person or group, with the belief that the
latter will be better able to look after it themselves at some time in the future.
Many other writers recognize that the origins of modern development lay in an earlier period. It was
closely linked with the rise of rationalism and humanism in the 18 th and 19th century. During this
period, the simple definition of development as change became transformed into what was seen as a
more directed and logical form of evolution. These changes took place during period of
Enlightenment: period of European history in 18th century. This thinking stressed the belief that
science and rational thinking could progress human groups from barbarism to civilization.
Increasingly believed that by applying rational, scientific thought to the world, change would become
more ordered, more predictable and more valuable.
This challenged the power of clergy and largely represented the rise of secular intelligentsia.
Number of threads which made up Enlightenment thinking:
- Primacy of reason/rationalism
- Idea of orderly progress
- Championing of new freedoms
- Ethic of secularism
2
, - National that all human beings are essentially the same.
People and cultures who could not adapt to such views were seen as traditional and backward.
The whole idea of development became directly associated with Western values and ideologies.
In 19th century, Darwinism began to associate development with evolution (change towards
something more appropriate for future survival). When combined with rationality of Enlightenment
thinking, the result became a narrower, but what many saw as the correct way of development
based on western social theory and science.
During Industrial Revolution, this thinking became heavily economic in nature. Clear distinction came
between progress (typified by the unregulated chaos of pure capitalist industrialization) and
development (representative of Christian order, modernization and responsibility).
Little recognition was given to the fact that traditional societies had always been responsive to new
and more productive types of development.
Furthermore, the continued economic exploitation of colonies made it virtually impossible for such
development towards western standards and values to be achieved, as societies and economies
were structured not to be independent entities, but suppliers of produce. Enforced
‘underdevelopment’ was the result of colonial exploitation.
It was only widely appreciated from the 1970s that development involved dimensions other than just
growing the economy.
Authoritative intervention: based on defined beliefs in the role that economic growth should play,
based on perceived understanding of what had transformed or developed the USA.
Enlightenment values were combined with 19 th century humanism to justify the new trusteeship of
neo-colonial mission, that was to be accomplished by authoritative intervention, primarily through
the provision of advice and aid programs. This is the modern notion of development.
Origins of growth theory lie in Keynesianism, rise of political agenda, and nationalist
developmentalism. These forces are then articulated via economic growth models, planning systems
and aid mechanism, giving rise to the ultimate goal of replicating the historical experience of the
North in the South (figure 1.2 p. 11).
This American led approach was also pursued at the time of Cold War, when USA and allies were
anxious to ensure that nations in rest of the world pursed western ideals and did not align
themselves with socialism and communism. Formation of military alliances to bolster different power
groups.
Increasing material wealth and income were seen as being far more important than making sure that
such income was fairly or equitable spread within society.
Different methods to quantify (under)development:
Gross national product: total wealth (from goods and services) produced in a country from
internal and external sources in a year, in US dollars.
Gross domestic product: similar to GNP, but focuses on internally generated wealth in a
country.
Gross national income: aggregate of GDP plus incomes earned by foreign residents.
When divided by total national population, these can be compared for countries.
While economically based measures of development are instructive, and reflect very real wealth and
income gaps between countries, they cannot tell us about inequalities within countries nor can they
tell us about other measures such as educational and health levels or relative freedom.
Real problem with GNP per capita and related measures is that it gives no indication of distribution of
national wealth between different groups within the population and other developmental
consideration.
Seers uses three criteria to measure comparative development:
Poverty, unemployment and inequality.
3
, 1970s and 1980s came social indicators relating to health, education and nutrition. These eventually
broadened further to incorporate measures of gender inequality, environmental quality and political
and human rights.
One most widely used is the Human Development Index: measures the overall achievement in a
country in three basic dimensions of human development (longevity, knowledge and decent
standard of living). It is measured by life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted income
per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) US dollars.
These three basic dimensions are translated into a series of indicators.
Majority of countries in the North have high HDI, but there are also some countries in the South with
high scores, such as Singapore, Korea, Chile, Barbados, UAE and Hong Kong.
We need to be aware that these scores do not reflect income and gender inequality. While Latin
America and Caribbean score better than much of South, and have achieved clear ‘development’
advances, this region’s inequality and gender scores remain cause for concern.
The stark differences bot validate the urgency of development but also raise questions about why
such gaps have persisted for so long.
The significant per capita GDP contrasts, while being an unreliable measure of development, do
reflect on the limited capacity of governments and peoples in poorer regions to fund social
improvements, provide for employment, etc.
In the South many people derive their livelihoods from what is often marginal or low-incomed
employment in the informal sector and state welfare benefits seldom exists.
If population growth rates exceed economic growth, challenges exist in terms of provision of services
and employment.
Dependency ratios: the higher the score the more the dependents (people under 14 and over 65
years old) which people in the working bracket (15-64) have to support, which may dilute individual
prospects for improvement.
Child malnutrition rates reflect the preceding considerations in which many of the world’s poor are
forced to live.
So a range of development indicators are available to both determine global differences and to justify
support and response. If used different, they show different results and also differences over time.
The notion of development as economic growth has broadened over the years to incorporate social
indicators and political freedoms. There is also the need to factor in other contextual considerations
which impact on global well-being and future prospects. Climate change, resource depletion and
rapid population growth are crucial in ensuring sustainable development (development which meets
current needs but does not impact on the survival prospects of future generations).
Efforts in climate change mitigation need to go hand in hand with efforts to ensure human survival
and well-being and development needs to better appreciate and articulate interventions and
outcomes which address these considerations.
Criticism of development is continuous since 1960s. Evidence that inequality between and within
countries has increased. This is the convergence debate. Trickle down economics had not worked
and the call came for more diversified and broader interpretation of development.
Explanations were sought and offered for the failure of the modernization project and new
strategies were devised. What was debated was the variable and erratic nature of development and
explanations were sought in relation to both its chronical and spatial unevenness. Only later critique
came to question the fundamental bases of development.
Amartya Sen
He argues that development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave
people with little choice and little opportunity for exercising their reasoned agency (or self-choice).
One vital point is that one human freedom tends to promote freedoms of other kinds. He argues that
4
