Is Development Still a Relevant Concept? If So for Whom? 1.

Introduction Development is effectively a synonym for more or less planned social and economic change (Hobart, 1995) and it came up into existence with a set of puzzling, unstable and fast changing technical words (Lewis, 2005). Initially most of the nations measured development as industrialization and the major goal of the development was to develop the nations economy (Rapley, 2007). On one hand, nations were developing their economies through the establishment of more and more industries and on the other hand, continuously growing industrial sector was adversely affecting the environment as well as lives of human beings (Baker, 2006) and it can be seen in the form of crises such as that of natural resources - water crisis and that of land for example landlessness among poor people, and increasing levels of poverty.

From last six decades, various approaches of development came into existence but none of them could provide effective solutions to eradicate poverty from developing nations, most of them failed to bridge the gap between rich and poor people. In todays scenario, development is only benefitting the elite group such as industrialists and politicians but it is not beneficial for that people who are in the actual need of development. Thus, I would say that development is irrelevant.

This paper argues that development has failed as theory and practice both due to the continuous increasing poverty levels, inequality, displacement of the people and the exploiting elite group. The first section of the paper discusses the meaning and concept of the development, second section critically examines the irrelevance of development from theoretical and practical perspectives with examples from India and the last section comes up with the summary note.

2. Development Concept and Meaning The concept of development emerged in 1949 when US president Truman used the word underdeveloped in his speech. He stated that after the war there is a need of reconstruction of underdeveloped areas of the world through financial assistance and shift of prevailing technologies (Sachs, 1992). Between 1949 and
1

now several development professionals and researchers have put forward their perspectives on concept of approach to development. Most of the approaches contain different aspects of development but mainly focus on the changes from worse situation to better situation whether it is in the form of westernization or some structural changes like new technologies replacing old technologies (Sumner and Tribe, 2008).

Post World War II many development thinkers and economists came up with various theories of development. In 1950s and 1960s most of the economists claimed that the role of government is very important for the nations development (McKay, 2004). After 1970s this thought changed and the thought of less state the better emerged by neo-classical economists (Rapley, 2007). The aspiration to attain high economic growth, on the one hand, states went into industrialisation mode for generation of employment opportunities, revenue generation and re-investment in social development programmes, while on the other hand, growing industrialization led to clash between human beings and environment (Baker, 2006).

Lewis (2005) states that initially development was directly linked to economic growth but it did not encompass human well-being dimension. In 1990s UNDP attempted to address this issue in their first Human Development Report. Human development approach advocated human well-being as the major part of development with impetus on health (life expectancy) and education along with the economic development as GNI per capita. These indicators encouraged academics and development professionals to think radically and to redefine the goals and objectives of the development (Lewis, 2005). Subsequently, Chambers (2003) defines development as a good change whereas Lewis (2005) argues that continuously increasing inequalities in power, environmental degradation, corruption and poverty level creates adverse situation for the future of development. Thus good change sounds too ideal and highly ambitious.

Sen (1999) identifies development as freedom from unfreedoms such as poverty, inequalities, injustice; but all these unfreedoms are reality in contemporary world.
2

It is observed from above arguments that in majority of cases definitional aspirations do not offer any directional hope for the near future.

The next section details out failure of development theory and practices in the contemporary world that makes development as an irrelevant concept.

3. Irrelevance of development It is true that development programmes has brought several positive changes. Highlighting this positive change World Development report (2010) observes:

Thirty years ago, half the developing world lived in extreme povertytoday, a quarter. Now, a much smaller share of children are malnourished and at risk of early death. And access to modern infrastructure is much more widespread. Critical to the progress: rapid economic growth driven by technological innovation and institutional reform, particularly in todays middleincome countries, where per capita incomes have doubled.

However, the basic question is how inclusive this change has been? Is this change merely a play of statistical jiggling or a reality on ground? At what cost has this change been achieved? Let us try to discuss this from theoretical and practice dimensions of development.

3.1. Failure of development in theories After 1945 when modernization theory came into existence, most of the development practitioners and thinkers thought that economic development would trickle down to the poor and marginalized people and the main focus of the nations was on advanced technology. During that time, development not only disregarded the traditional practices or knowledge it also misunderstood the problem of underdevelopment (Hobart, 1995). According to the Smith (2001), modernization has been known as dislocation and relocation of the people. Millions of people have been displaced due to the implementation of different type of development programmes. Thus development programmes stole peoples ownership of their land as well as their local resources and made them powerless. Margaret Rodman (1992)
3

states that The most powerless people have no place at all (cited in Smith, 2001, pg.3). However, while discussing the major goal of development i.e. poverty elimination and economic development, in spite of decreasing the poverty levels and deprivation, modernization had increased those levels.

Thereafter, in the 1970s new school of thought emerged i.e. Dependency theory. The promoters of this theory advocated for exporting the cheap raw material to the rich industrial countries. But due to the exploitation of the low cost labour resources it was highly criticized for its practical results which were not providing the effecting solutions to eradicate the poverty (Lewis, 2005). After, this unsuccessful attempt, in 1980s neo classical theory came into existence. This theory supported the idea of Less state the better and advocated free market economy. It also trusted that people know their strengths and they can act according to them (Rapley, 2007). In this period privatization increased and the government failed to manage the economy as well as market systems (McKay, 2004) and due to this unbalance free market economy only benefitted the elite groups and poor people again remained in the same position - marginalized and vulnerable. In addition, McKay discusses that due to the economic crisis (increase in oil prices) in 1980s, Government raised the interest rates that resulted in high inflation rate. Thus, the developmental policy of the Government made poor people more vulnerable.

In1990s World Bank initiated the Structural Adjustment Policy and gave a new direction and strength to the neo liberal approach. World Bank influenced the development of all developing nations through their bounded lending conditions which included the neo liberal approach for development (Broad, 2006). Due to the liberalization of trades which means removing restrictions on imports and devaluing overvalued currencies, private sectors challenged the government in the economic sector and the major part of the market is governed by the private sector. Thus, the poor and marginalised people became more vulnerable in terms of access of resources. This created large gaps between poor and rich and this gap is continuously increasing till today.
4

Therefore, most of theories failed to provide better life standards to the poor and marginalized people. The status of the poverty levels is almost same as compared to the starting phase of development thus; development seems to be irrelevant from theoretical dimension. Further, the coming section discusses the failure of development in the context of practice with examples from India.

3.2. Failure of Development in Practice (in context of India) There are various programmes that have been designed by the state and national governments for the welfare of its citizen in India. However, due to improper implementation and design of the programme, many belonging to the disadvantaged groups were left out. They were compelled to migrate from their native place and lost their land ownership. Agriculture plays a most important part in economy of India but the development programmes which have been made by states and national governments are displacing the peasants and the poor who are the most vulnerable section of the society and the major contributor in economic development through their agricultural practices.

For instance, due to the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) programme in India many villagers have lost their lands, employment opportunities. In some of the cases the villagers had to face health problems and deaths. Yet another case is Singur incident in West Bengal, where Government allotted 1253 acres (500 Hectares) land to the Tata Motors, a car manufacturing multinational company for purposed car manufacturing plant in 2006. The land which Government allotted was highly fertile and was the home to 5000 families which included agricultural labourers, industry workers and local businessmen of 11 villages. Moreover, Government had not any plans for their rehabilitation and employment and without thinking of the welfare of the community Government passed the order to stop farming practices on that land and passed the orders to give this land to Tata motors on Lease according to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Government was just allotting

some monetary compensation to the peasants and that compensation was below the market price (Lahiri and Ghosh, 2006).

Another unsuccessful example of development is Sardar Sarovar Dam, on Narmada River which displaced approx. 1.5 million people from their native land in 3 states ( Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh) and adversely impacted the human lives as well as environment (Kapadiya, n.d.). Thus how can be development seen as relevant concept and at what cost? In the both mentioned cases Government only wanted economic development of the state but if development needs sacrifice of the people and lots of environmental damages than it is completely irrelevant.

Another aspect of irrelevance can be seen in poverty aspects. The continuously increasing gap between rich and poor is proving that development has failed (Lewis and Wallace, 2000). According to the World Bank India report (2011) India, a fast growing economy of the world, is still struggling to reduce the poverty levels. The datas of 2004-2005 shows that 42% of the rural people and 26% of the urban people still living below the poverty lines. The estimated data of 2009-2010 shows only 5% (32% compared to 37% in 2004-05) decrease in poverty levels. Sen (1999) claims that development involves reducing deprivation or broadening choice (cited in Nafzigar, 2005) thus without reducing the poverty levels how can it possible to reduce deprivation? In this context, there is no relevance of development because still there are lots of deprived people who are struggling with their lives and the data from the World Bank (2011) is proving this fact.

Moreover, development of Industries is not only displacing the people but it also damaging the environment and these damages can be seen as pollution and different forms of natural resource crisis. According to the Human Development Report (2006) which was based on the progress of the countries towards the Millennium Development Goals describes that more than 1 million people have no access to clean water and 2.6 million people are still lacking access to sanitation. In addition, every year 1.8 million
6

children die due to the diarrhoea, unclean water and poor sanitation. Gopal Gujar one of the farmers from Rajasthan, India states that They [the factories] use so much water while we barely have enough for our basic needs, let alone to water our crops (cited in Human Development Report, 2006, pg.1). It means constantly increasing industries are creating a problem of water crisis and poor sanitation which may increase the death rates of the children due to the unclean water and poor sanitation facilities. Thus in this context development again seems to be a failure.

The Green Revolution Programme has been considered as most effective and creative development programme in India which benefitted government as well as all the people of the nation. Ganguly (n.d.) describes that during 1977-1978 Green Revolution transformed India into a food secure nation. This revolution brought about lots of progress in Indian economy and improved standard of living especially in poverty stuck rural areas. The benefits of this programme can be seen from both economic and social perspectives. Economically it contributed to the increase in the GDP of India and socially it created job opportunities for the people. In contrast, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI, 2002) observes that this revolution adversely affected the environment. The institute argues that in this programme due to the extreme and improper practice of using fertilizers and pesticides most of the highly fertile land turned into unfertile land because of the increased salt levels and also all the waterways got polluted. Further, the continuous use of few major varieties of cereals has seriously harmed the bio-diversity on farms. The big farmers who reaped maximum benefits during green revolution could bear the shocks of their land turning fertile (many of them invested on land elsewhere or went into diversification of their business), but the small and marginal farmers whose land turned saline are on verge of deprivation. They are bound to migrate in search of jobs and livelihood security. But, the researchers and the elite group who were planned this programme do not have any solution for such poor and the deprived farmers.

Furthermore, in the context of gender equality, development efforts could not bridge the gender divide in society. Duflo (n.d.) describes that 60 to 100 million women are missing in developing countries and the main reason is unequal status in the society in comparison with male. According to Sen (2001) gender bias is the main reason for missing women and it creates a huge gap between male and female. In addition, Sen discusses that women derive less care and support from society especially in case of health. Furthermore, Duflo (n.d.) states that due to the inequality:

Women in developing countries lag behind men in many domains for every 100 men in secondary schools and universities there are only 79 girls. In labour market opportunities: women are less likely to work; they earn less than men for similar work, and are more likely to be in poverty even when they work. In political representation: women constitute just 15.9 per cent of the members of lower and upper houses of parliaments. Moreover, Eyben (2011) states that there is no place of womens care in development policy. Womens work includes household, family farms and businesses and they have to take care of their children, their husbands, their houses but, there is no value of this work and women do not receive any payment for this work even development policies ignored their work as a part of economy. Development policies and programmes are not contributing to enhance the status of women and they have completely ignored the contribution of women in economic development. Thus, above mentioned figures and statements are providing enough evidences to the failure of development in developing countries in context of gender equality which has been the important issue in development circles for quite some time.

Despite significant investments in education sector there is significant difference between the Gross Enrolment Rates (GER) of poor and nonpoor and rural and urban in India. Thorat (2006) observes that the GER during 1999-2000 for the poor was almost twelve times lower compared with non-poor. During the same period, even among the non-poor the GER for the Scheduled Tribes (ST), Scheduled Castes (SC) and Other
8

Backward Caste (OBC) {ST, SC and OBC are the state recognised social strata in India} was lower as compared with others. For instance the GER was 6.68%, 9.70% and 8.69% for SC, ST and OBC respectively while all India average is 12.81%. This clearly shows that the effect of investments in education in India has not been able to translate into benefits for the disadvantaged groups within the country. Those who benefitted are the members of other social groups within which the GER was 19.73% against the national average of 12.81%.

Therefore, development seems failure in the context of practice also because of the poor and powerful-centric implementation of the programmes. 4. Conclusion It can be concluded that development has not been successful in solving the problems faced by the poor and marginalised. Rather the interventions have contributed to magnifying the problems of the poor. When it started, it had a very clear objective to improve the living status of the human being and communities but due to the wrong assumptions and the power of the elite group it contributed effectively in acceleration of exploitation of the poor people as well as natural resources by the rich and the powerful. Development programmes and theories in practice have shown affect the environment, poverty levels, equality, and employment adversely.

To sum up it can be said that there are several reasons for the failure of development. Firstly, most of the development practices were in the favour of elite groups and they were not serious about the well-being of the poor; thus trickle down and take off principles could not work. Secondly, development programmes should have been environment friendly but they were not. Thirdly, development programmes should have been planned effectively so that minimal displacements would have occurred and better rehabilitation and employment opportunities should have been put in place for those displaced. Finally development should have included all the aspects of human well-being not only economic growth.
9

Therefore it can be summarised that the development has failed to deliver better life to the poor and marginalised and thus is hardly relevant.

10

Bibliography y Baker, Susan (2006). Sustainable Development. New York, Routledge, pp. 110 y Bacha, Edmar L. AND (1990), THE A GDP THREE-GAP GROWTH Available MODEL RATE IN OF FOREIGN

TRANSFERS [online]

DEVELOPING at:

COUNTRIES Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 32 (2), pp. 279-296.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030438789090039E (Accessed: 28 October 2011) y Boulder, Colo and Lynne Rienner (2007) The Neo-Classical answer to failure in Rapley, John Understanding Development: Theory and Practice in the Third World, 2nd Edition, pp. 63-86 y Broad, Robin (2006). Research, Knowledge, and the Art of 'Paradigm Maintenance': The World Bank's Development Economics Vice-Presidency (DEC). Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 387419. [online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25124080. (Accessed: 25 October 2011) y Chambers, Robert (2004), Ideas for Development,IDS working Paper 238. Sussex: IDS y Duflo, Esthar, (n.d.) GENDER EQUALITY IN DEVELOPMENT.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Online] Available at: < http://econwww.mit.edu/files/799> [Accessed: 30 October 2011] y Esteva, G. (1992). Development in Sachs, W. (ed.), The development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Publications, pp.68 y Eyben, Rosalind (2011). The neglect of care is the greatest scandal of development policy Global Development. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/povertymatters/2011/oct/31/neglect-of-care-scandal-development-policy 31 October 2011) y GREEN REVOLUTION- Curse or Blessing? 2002. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE. [online] Available at: (Accessed:

11

<http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf> [Accessed: 30 October 2011] y Hobart, Mark (1995) An Anthropological Critique of Development. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. pp. 1-5 y Human Development Report (2006). Beyond scarcity:Power, poverty and the global water crisis. [online] Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06complete.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2011) y Kapadia, Nisha (nd.). Indias Greatest Planned Environmental Disaster: The Narmada Valley Dam Projects. Environmental Justice Case Studies. University of Michigen. [online] Available at:

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/narmada.html (Accessed: 30 October 2011) y Kaplan, Allan (2000) Understanding Development as a Living Process in Lewis, David and Wallace, Tina ,New Roles and Relevance: Development NGOs and the Challenge of Change, United States of America, Kumarian Press, pp. 29-34 y Lahiri, D.P. and Ghosh, Arpita (2006). Our Land Their Development: Speak Out. 26 October 2011) y Lewis, D (2005) Anthropology and Development: the uneasy relationship London: LSE Research Online. [online] Available at: [online] Available at: (Accessed:

http://www.foodsov.org/resources/ourland_theirdevelopment.pdf

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive00000253 (Accessed: 22 October 2011) y McKay, J. (2004), Reassessing Development Theory: Modernization and beyond, in Kingsbury, D.J. Remenyi, J. McKay and J. Hunt, Key Issues in Development. Basingstoke, Palgrave Mcmillian, pp. 45-66 y Nafziger, E. Wayne (2005) From Seers to Sen: The Meaning of Economic Development. Research UN University/World Institute for Development Economics Research Paper. [online] Available at:

(WIDER)

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/widerconf/Nafziger.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2011)

12

Rodman,

Margaret

C.

(1992)

"Empowering

Place:

Multilocality and

Multivocality," American Anthropologist, 94(3) pp. 640-656. [online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/680566 (Accessed: 30 October 2011) y Sebi Ganguli (n.d.). From the Bengal Famine to the Green Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm

(Accessed 30 October 2011) y Sen, Amartya K. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press, [online] Available at:

http://socialtheoryblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/developmentasfreedomby-manji.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2011) y Sen, Amartya (2001) The Many Faces of Gender Inequality. The New Republic 17 September. [online] Available at:

<http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/course/occupational_envHealth/bamick/RICE%2 0-%20Weis%20398/sen_gender.pdf> [Accessed: 30 October 2011] y Smith, Anthony, 2001. DISPLACEMENT, RESISTANCE AND THE

CRITIQUE OF DEVELOPMENT: ROOTS University TO of THE GLOBAL. Oxford. Refugee [online]

FROM THE GRASS Studies Available Centre, at:

<http://law.wustl.edu/Library/cdroms/refugee/data/RSC%20Reports%5CDispl acement,%20Resistance%20and%20the%20Critique%20of%20Development. pdf> [Accessed: 30 October 2011] y Sumner, Andy and Tribe, Michael (2008), International Development Studies, London, Sage publications, pp.31-52 y The World Bank (2011) India Country overview. [online] Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/ZUIBUQT360 (Accessed: 31October 2011) y Thorat, Sukhadeo (2006) Higher Education in India Emerging Issues Related to Access, Inclusiveness and Quality. [online] Available at:

http://www.ugc.ac.in/more/chairman_nehru_lecture.pdf education (Accessed: 2 November 2011) y World Development Report (2010) Development and Climate Change, Washington D. C., The World Bank, pg.1. [online] Available at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/52876781226014527953/WDR10-Full-Text.pdf. (Accessed: 2 November 2011)

13