Let us dare to question “development”

October 16, 2017

Economical actors, central Africa, Latin America, Article, Democracy, Sustainable development, Human rights, Ecology, Economy, Europe, Geopolitics, Globalization, International organisations

What do we mean by “development”? Development cooperation, sustainable development, personal development, etc. ; development has today become “particle-based”. Very often, it seems to be the (only) way to follow for a positive and serene future. But is this really the case? Let's see together what is hidden behind this polysemous word.

When we talk about development, what are we talking about? Development is generally accepted as a positive phenomenon. It supposes an idea of movement, the passage from stage A to stage B considered better. Used in many areas, it implies the idea of progress, growth, expansion. The time frame for development is often long. Change and transformation do not happen overnight. They require patience and effort, even sacrifice. In the field of human sciences on which we will focus, development designates the improvement of the living conditions of a population, and refers to the social organization serving as a framework for well-being. So development often seems to be the key to a problem. For example, to escape poverty, a country must develop. In this, it will be helped in particular by aid to development granted by another entity (country, groups of countries, international organization, etc.). It will be partly implemented through cooperation with development assumed by various associative, governmental, etc. actors. Preferably, it will respect the principles of development sustainable. Development and growth Today, the link between development and growth seems close to many people, especially to our policy makers. Based on the historical trajectory of our Western societies, they are convinced that it is economic growth which contributes to development and which ensures greater well-being to the population of our country. According to Gilbert Rist , professor at the University of Geneva, the contemporary use of development dates from 1949 in President Truman's speech. This divides the world into developed countries which have reached a certain standard of living and underdeveloped countries which are excluded. This paradigm transcends political divisions. On the left, we focus on proactive state policies, on the right, on the positive externalities of good business performance. However, in our opinion, defining development implies distinguishing it from growth. Remember that growth measures the quantity of wealth produced in a country over a year through GDP (Gross domestic product). It does not provide any indication on quantitative or qualitative social aspects. She presupposes a fair redistribution of this wealth . While development, in our vision, is more interested in the well-being of people which depends on the conjunction of a series of factors (living environment, health, human relations, etc.), we will come back to this. Growth can contribute to development, if the benefits are fairly and equitably redistributed. But it's not always the case. Growth without development also exists, when the quality of life of the population does not increase. “Conversely, even in the absence of growth, priority given to the most useful production and greater equity in the distribution of goods produced improve the living conditions of populations and create development » . Development would therefore be more qualitative than quantitative. To go further than simple economic calculation, the UNDP (United Nations Development Program) developed in 1990 a Human Development Index (HDI) which calculates human development based on 3 indicators: GDP per capita, level of education and life expectancy at birth. A single (economic) development model? As we have said, our Western development model, based on industrial progress and growth, remains in the imagination of many the ideal recipe to apply because it has allowed us to achieve our current comfort of life. Different economists (Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Walt Whitman Rostow) postulate that all societies naturally go through a series of stages during their history, from a primary stage to a developed/industrial stage. Even if wealth inequalities are exploding and throwing an ever-increasing number of Europeans into precariousness , our ruling class continues to believe it is useful to promote our model to other countries in the world, particularly those in the South of the planet. In underdeveloped or developing countries, we can identify several models of economic development implemented . Let's go through a little historical overview. Following the crisis of 1929, Latin American countries noted the inefficiency of an economy based on exports of raw materials. Industrialization therefore appeared to them as the path to prosperity. There is no longer any question of importing too many goods from outside, but of producing your own consumer goods. This policy, involving an important role given to the State, gave rise to a period of growth. This model collapsed in the 1980s when many Latin American countries (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, etc.) found themselves in a situation of acute financial crisis. Goods produced on site were unpayable . Interest rates on Latin American loans rose sharply and they found themselves unable to pay. To avoid bankruptcy, these countries were forced to turn to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They obtained new loans conditional on the adoption of a structural adjustment plan (PAS). This involved strict economic measures: reduction in the role of the State, privatizations, reduction in public spending... Also called the Washington Consensus, this liberal recipe trusts the market and globalization to bring development. Today, these SAPs are widely criticized for their counterproductive effects. Furthermore, more than a structural adjustment, these programs forced the countries of the South to align themselves with the official economic paradigm of Northern societies based on competition, the enrichment and promotion of the individual. Following the 2008 financial crisis, similar recipes were imposed on European countries, with different degrees of intensity. A few years later, the IMF and the World Bank admitted the limits of austerity policies. And the UN has just published a report which aims to overcome austerity. On the Asian side, several countries (including China, South Korea, Taiwan) have decided to base their development on the market and strong state control. In collusion with certain private companies, the latter leads a controlled liberalism. In Africa, decolonization in the 1960s gave hope for autonomous, inclusive and participatory development. But Western supervision remained significant in this continent rich in raw materials essential to the European Union. Most African countries have an economy that relies on the export of targeted raw materials. Africa thus imports 83% of processed food products. Some will go so far as to say that the development appears to be a new form of colonization. Many developing countries continue to perceive the Western development model as the ideal to achieve. Most countries want to integrate into the great game of the global market. This is the trajectory that several Latin American countries have in any case followed. This is the case of Peru and many other countries which have an undiversified economy based mainly on the export of poorly processed raw materials and therefore quite vulnerable to price variations. However, aligning developing countries with the Western model is impossible when we know that 20% of the world population consumes 80% of the planet's natural resources. We see, under the influence of the West, and in the context of globalized exchanges, development models tend to become standardized. Countries thus seek to create growth according to their economic profile in order to create wealth and develop. But for several decades, we have seen the damage of this development model which involves a phase of industrialization costly in energy and resources. The more countries develop economically, the more they generate capacity to consume for an expanded middle class. A vicious circle of massive consumption fueled by intensive production of material goods begins, the ecological cost of which has become unbearable for the planet. The ecological excesses of this model are recognized and admitted by an ever-widening circle. Thus, it was necessary to invent a new vision of development ensuring a peaceful future: sustainable development. The solution: sustainable development The notion of sustainable development forged by the Brundtland report in 1987 came to close the debate on the physical limits of economic growth, saving the productivist consensus endangered by the Meadows report in 1972 . At the Rio Summit (1992), it was agreed that economic, social and environmental priorities could be reconciled, that economic development and the growth of production at its base would become socially and ecologically tolerable, distributing natural resources between generations present and future. Along the same lines, “green growth” appeared, promoted in particular by the OECD. It presents itself as the economic aspect of sustainable development. But given the limits of our development model, shouldn't we deeply question our definition of it before associating it with the word "sustainable"? As long as the development will be associated with growth in the minds of decision-makers and citizens, it cannot constitute a sustainable horizon. The proof is that the concept has existed since 1987 and that the ecological situation has continued to deteriorate since then. . Further still, we can also question whether development is really an end in itself. Is it really a guarantee of social well-being? Is an underdeveloped country necessarily inhabited by an unhappy population? Conversely, does a developed country like Belgium suppose de facto the well-being of its inhabitants? Many indigenous communities live a fulfilling existence outside of development, too often threatened by our development model. In a certain way, while dominant discourses have considered these indigenous peoples as backward, a trend could on the contrary today consider them as advanced because they live much more in harmony with their environment. This trend of putting man back in phase with his environment is spreading massively in Europe. Giving new meaning The word “development” covers multiple meanings. It is used by everyone but everyone puts their own nuances into it. Some will understand it as inseparable from economic growth and others will necessarily see it outside of it. Furthermore, it is undoubtedly its broad meaning that allows it to be so popular. It allows people from different backgrounds to speak the same language. Or at least they think so… It is this misunderstanding of the term “development” which also pushes some to completely exclude it from their vocabulary. This is particularly the case for supporters of degrowth. Rather than banning this word, we prefer to recover it. Today, we must reinvent a meaning for “development”, apart from the economy at all. A meaning consistent with the challenges of our time, a meaning which does not impose one model on another, a plural meaning. From this perspective, development would perhaps simply designate the conjunction of a series of conditions, which may vary according to cultures, which would ensure the quality of life of populations without degrading the environment. Have a roof over your head, have something to eat, maintain human relationships, live in a peaceful environment leaving room for individual and collective freedoms, benefit from a system of justice, education, health, decide democratically on your own own development model while respecting the environment. Geraldine Duquenne.

Attachments

Let us dare to question development

Notes[+]

Notes
↑1	He is the author of the book “Development, History of a Western Belief”.
↑2	To go further, see the Justice and Peace study, “What if the economy told us about happiness? Indicators of citizen prosperity”.
↑3	This indicator is inspired by the work of Amartya Sen on human development. In 2016, one in three people still lives in poor conditions of human development.
↑4	In 2008, 116 million Europeans were “exposed to the risk of poverty” according to Oxfam. In 2015, there were 123 million.
↑5	This part is inspired by the article by Denis Clerc, “The three models of economic development” in Alternatives Economiques.
↑6	See also the article by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa in Le Monde Diplomatique in 2013, “Indebted Europe reproduces our errors”.
↑7	It is in this report published by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development that the term “sustainable development” is used and defined for the first time.
↑8	This report highlights for the first time the ecological dangers of economic and demographic growth based on calculations from a computer model.
↑9	See the upcoming Justice and Peace study on the depletion of natural resources.