Module 1
Development: An Overview
1. Introduction
The learning objective of this module is to give an overview into the broad topic of development. The module is
meant to provide a glimpse into the larger discourse and debates on development. This overall picture will
enable a critical perspective on the demographic transition theory as it was originally put forward, its later
developments and discussion around it, which comprises many of the modules in this paper on population and
development. This module focuses on development as an evolving concept, that is problematic, and has multiple
stakeholder perspectives. It also discusses the relation between power and knowledge, the need for critique,
before going onto a discussion of how the conception of development has evolved into one that puts people at
the center of development. At the end of this module is discussed efforts on the international level with regard to
development, including the Millenium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals.
2. Development as debate: shifts in meaning
The term development can be considered as a concept that shifts in meaning over time and is a term that is
constantly debated. A brief description about how this concept of development has shifted in meaning over time
is given in following from (Rapley 2007).
The idea of 'Development' grew in importance after World War II, as countries in the West, faced the challenge
of reconstruction post war, which was entrusted to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(later became the World Bank). Theories developed about particular challenges facing developing countries, and
paths towards industrialisation. Development and industrialisation became synonymous with each other.
The primary goal in this period was to increase incomes and enable the poor greater access to a range of goods
and services, as was prevalent in the developed countries. What was considered valuable for a country was
industrialisation, and the capacity to manufacture finished goods.
Independence for many countries that were colonies of Europe also came post the war, which further supported
the impetus to industrialise. Many countries in Asia and Africa upon independence were impoverished and the
development processes was also looked to as a means to (hasten) improvement of the quality of life of citizens,
to strengthen the new independence and to have the new sense of political equality be converted into economic
equality as a means towards gaining respect and self-dignity, which colonisation had denied.
There was also a focus on state-led development, given the experience of countries in Latin America and debates
around the time. The state was considered a central actor to develop economies and societies to meet needs of
people, better than the market, working towards the collective. In the early post-war period, there was thus felt a
need for increased intervention by the state, which was supported by structuralist economic trends.
Many countries in the third world adopted these state-led models, and the demand for products increased against
a booming economy in the world, which provided capital towards the development of industry and
infrastructure. But growth was slow and not at pace with the needs of the country. There were inefficiencies and
state-led development was beginning to be seen as problematic, which led to debates regarding the role of the
state and the market. The push towards a greater role for market took emphasis, as seen in the strategies of
structural adjustment of international agencies, which pressured countries in the third world to move towards
similar policies. While there were some gains, it was mostly problematic, and did more harm than good in
countries.
By the 1990s, the antiglobalisation movement, together with postmodern thinking influenced development
thinking as well, at times referred to as post-development theory, which gained prominence over time. The
emphasis was on questioning the development concept, seen to be focused on imposing control over citizens
1
, rather than trying to improve conditions, and thereby to reject development in favour of a more decentralised,
participatory approach. While successes experienced by countries in East Asia in the 1990s recalled the
popularity of the state-led developmental model for a short period, the Asian financial crisis in the late 90's
contradicted that. These events also bolstered the power of the IMF and the U.S. Treasury, enabling them to
assert liberalisation agendas in these countries.
Development theory in the early 2000s was more flexible and less programme oriented. The debate also changed
from the extent of the role of the state to how its role can be improved, towards a more locally-focused approach.
Post-development theories emphasised focus on people, in determining the ends and measures of development,
although this was not unique to it. The concept of sovereignty, of authority, came to be questioned as well, taking
on more contested understandings. The failings of the focus on the market also became evident as with the Asian
Financial Crisis, the increasing unrest among developing countries and street protests at international financial
meets regarding the inequalities of the market and the terms of world trade. Sen's book, Development as
Freedom, was considerably influential, returning focus on the people for whom development understood in terms
of freedoms is pursued. The world dynamic is also shifting in part because of China and India’s economic
growth, impacting the world economy, but it is not yet clear to see the long-term impact (Rapley 2007).
With regard to the concept of development and what it is, we can see that many perspectives on development
have emerged and have shaped its meaning over time. Pieterse (2010) argues that the meaning of development
shifting over time can be understood either in terms of a critique of development, or, to consider it as part of a
historical context changing according to circumstances and sensibilities, of changing capacities, priorities and
choices in society. Another possibility offerred is to combine these different understandings of development. The
following table categorises the different shifts in the meaning of development over time by time period and by
perspective:
Table 1.1: Meaning of development changing over time
Period Perspectives Meanings of Development
1800s Classical Political Economy Remedy for progress, catching up
1870> Latecomers Industrialisation, catching-up
1850> Colonial Economics Resource management, trusteeship
1940> Development Economics Economic Growth- industrialisation
1950> Modernisation Theory Growth, political and social
modernisation
1960> Dependency Theory Accumulation – national,
autocentric
1970> Alternative Development Human flourishing
1980> Human Development Capacitation, enlargement of
people's choices
1980> Neoliberalism Economic Growth – strutural
reform, deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation
1990> Post-development Authoritarian engineering, disaster
2000 Millenium Development Goals Structural reforms
Source: Pieterse 2010
2
Development: An Overview
1. Introduction
The learning objective of this module is to give an overview into the broad topic of development. The module is
meant to provide a glimpse into the larger discourse and debates on development. This overall picture will
enable a critical perspective on the demographic transition theory as it was originally put forward, its later
developments and discussion around it, which comprises many of the modules in this paper on population and
development. This module focuses on development as an evolving concept, that is problematic, and has multiple
stakeholder perspectives. It also discusses the relation between power and knowledge, the need for critique,
before going onto a discussion of how the conception of development has evolved into one that puts people at
the center of development. At the end of this module is discussed efforts on the international level with regard to
development, including the Millenium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals.
2. Development as debate: shifts in meaning
The term development can be considered as a concept that shifts in meaning over time and is a term that is
constantly debated. A brief description about how this concept of development has shifted in meaning over time
is given in following from (Rapley 2007).
The idea of 'Development' grew in importance after World War II, as countries in the West, faced the challenge
of reconstruction post war, which was entrusted to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(later became the World Bank). Theories developed about particular challenges facing developing countries, and
paths towards industrialisation. Development and industrialisation became synonymous with each other.
The primary goal in this period was to increase incomes and enable the poor greater access to a range of goods
and services, as was prevalent in the developed countries. What was considered valuable for a country was
industrialisation, and the capacity to manufacture finished goods.
Independence for many countries that were colonies of Europe also came post the war, which further supported
the impetus to industrialise. Many countries in Asia and Africa upon independence were impoverished and the
development processes was also looked to as a means to (hasten) improvement of the quality of life of citizens,
to strengthen the new independence and to have the new sense of political equality be converted into economic
equality as a means towards gaining respect and self-dignity, which colonisation had denied.
There was also a focus on state-led development, given the experience of countries in Latin America and debates
around the time. The state was considered a central actor to develop economies and societies to meet needs of
people, better than the market, working towards the collective. In the early post-war period, there was thus felt a
need for increased intervention by the state, which was supported by structuralist economic trends.
Many countries in the third world adopted these state-led models, and the demand for products increased against
a booming economy in the world, which provided capital towards the development of industry and
infrastructure. But growth was slow and not at pace with the needs of the country. There were inefficiencies and
state-led development was beginning to be seen as problematic, which led to debates regarding the role of the
state and the market. The push towards a greater role for market took emphasis, as seen in the strategies of
structural adjustment of international agencies, which pressured countries in the third world to move towards
similar policies. While there were some gains, it was mostly problematic, and did more harm than good in
countries.
By the 1990s, the antiglobalisation movement, together with postmodern thinking influenced development
thinking as well, at times referred to as post-development theory, which gained prominence over time. The
emphasis was on questioning the development concept, seen to be focused on imposing control over citizens
1
, rather than trying to improve conditions, and thereby to reject development in favour of a more decentralised,
participatory approach. While successes experienced by countries in East Asia in the 1990s recalled the
popularity of the state-led developmental model for a short period, the Asian financial crisis in the late 90's
contradicted that. These events also bolstered the power of the IMF and the U.S. Treasury, enabling them to
assert liberalisation agendas in these countries.
Development theory in the early 2000s was more flexible and less programme oriented. The debate also changed
from the extent of the role of the state to how its role can be improved, towards a more locally-focused approach.
Post-development theories emphasised focus on people, in determining the ends and measures of development,
although this was not unique to it. The concept of sovereignty, of authority, came to be questioned as well, taking
on more contested understandings. The failings of the focus on the market also became evident as with the Asian
Financial Crisis, the increasing unrest among developing countries and street protests at international financial
meets regarding the inequalities of the market and the terms of world trade. Sen's book, Development as
Freedom, was considerably influential, returning focus on the people for whom development understood in terms
of freedoms is pursued. The world dynamic is also shifting in part because of China and India’s economic
growth, impacting the world economy, but it is not yet clear to see the long-term impact (Rapley 2007).
With regard to the concept of development and what it is, we can see that many perspectives on development
have emerged and have shaped its meaning over time. Pieterse (2010) argues that the meaning of development
shifting over time can be understood either in terms of a critique of development, or, to consider it as part of a
historical context changing according to circumstances and sensibilities, of changing capacities, priorities and
choices in society. Another possibility offerred is to combine these different understandings of development. The
following table categorises the different shifts in the meaning of development over time by time period and by
perspective:
Table 1.1: Meaning of development changing over time
Period Perspectives Meanings of Development
1800s Classical Political Economy Remedy for progress, catching up
1870> Latecomers Industrialisation, catching-up
1850> Colonial Economics Resource management, trusteeship
1940> Development Economics Economic Growth- industrialisation
1950> Modernisation Theory Growth, political and social
modernisation
1960> Dependency Theory Accumulation – national,
autocentric
1970> Alternative Development Human flourishing
1980> Human Development Capacitation, enlargement of
people's choices
1980> Neoliberalism Economic Growth – strutural
reform, deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation
1990> Post-development Authoritarian engineering, disaster
2000 Millenium Development Goals Structural reforms
Source: Pieterse 2010
2
