WHAT IS MEANT BY “DEVELOPMENT”?
Of the several facets reflected in the term “development,” we, in United States, have chosen to focus on a very narrow one: development as material growth through centralized industrialization, which we glibly equate with social “progress” and “economic health.” The narrowness of this view is, I believe, behind the notion of “developed” versus “developing” nations. I have over the years worked in a number of countries without giving much thought to the notion of “developed” versus “developing” or, as some would put it, “underdeveloped” although I have spent time in each. During a trip to Malaysia some years ago, however, I was profoundly struck by the arrogance and the narrowness of such thinking. Malaysia is the only place in which I have ever heard the people refer to their own country as “developing,” as though they were lesser than “developed” countries and must somehow “catch up” to be equal. Yet the Malaysians have a national unity the likes of which I have never before seen, not
Development seeks to improve the conditions of communities in a sustainable way. It is based on working with communities, rather than for or on behalf of communities. For example, if a community needs a well dug, they might ask an organisation to dig them a well. The development approach would say ‘No. Instead, we’ll help you dig your well, first by looking at all the things that you as a community can do to dig the well. Someone outside of the community will only do those things on the list that can’t be done by the community.’ The result would be that the community will have its well, more skilled members, and a sense of its own ability, not disability.
