DECLARACION DE ACEPTACION Y CIERRE DEL PROYECTO

Like peace, development is often spoken in general terms and if not suffused with strong ideological interpretation. There are many interpretations to development some of them conflicting. The thesis under this sub-section focuses on a discussion of the meaning of development especially as used in peace research perspective, with the broader intention of contributing to a holistic understanding of what it means when one talks about development. In doing this, this paper argues and is guided by Singers assertion that “the story of development,

the lessons of development experience, the evolution of development, all these things […] can be written from many different angles” (Singer, 1992:1).

Since the end of World War II, the socio-economic and political upheavals of most post- colonial societies have drawn the attention of scholars, researchers and policy makers to help address the challenges of development, and since then this quest has been endless, and plagued with different interpretations and paradigmatic trajectories on how to do or achieve development. Being very diverse and complex, the field of development is often engrossed in a crisis of ideologies, and as Peterse aptly puts it, the field “reflects wider paradigm of crisis” (Pieterse, 2001:4) and “war of paradigms” (Berma and Suleha 2004:46).

This is due in part to the very broad nature of what is entailed in the field of development [studies] more so when issues associated with development – such as income inequality, poverty, environmental degradation, demography – cannot necessarily be separated from problems such as politics, institutions, governance, culture, religion and the like (Berma and Suleha, 2004). If we take poverty as an example within the domain of development, it can be discerned that poverty is not just a problem of lack of income but highly correlated with “poor access to resources and skills, policy biasness, attitudes towards wealth…” (Berma and Suleha 2004: 49). Berma and Suleha assertion that development problems are so complex that no single discipline can possibly explain and respond to them effectively concurs with Singer view that the development story can be written from “many different angles” (Singer 1992). Thus, to address issues related to development, there is therefore the need to adopt a more holistic, multidimensional, and multidisciplinary approach involving areas such as economics, sociology, anthropology, political science and the like.

The term development, which is often associated with modernization, westernization and industrialization, is believed to have gained much currency in the 20th century especially after the demise of feudalism and the rise of capitalism. Since its advent, the field of development has seen the rise of various development theories that offer justification for policies, and thus the answer to what is development in a sense often determines which strategies, frames, policies, projects or to say what type of industry or organization is in line with developments goals (Kuhnen, 1987).

So what is meant by the term development, and as questioned by Hettne, “What kind of development would facilitate the emergence of more peaceful economic, social and political structures?” (Hettne, 1983: 340). Hettne (1983) and Sørenson (1985) drawing insights from “Another Development” propounded by the Dag Hammerskjöld Foundation (1973) sees “development as need-oriented, endogenous, self-reliant, ecologically sound and based on structural transformation”. As has been already highlighted above the thesis’s objective is not to outline the “right” definition of development but to aid in a holistic understanding of the term.

A cosmopolitan outlook in defining development offered by Peet lends an in-depth understanding about development despite his brevity in conceptualizing the term. He notes that development stands for “improvement in a complex of linked natural, economic, social, cultural, and political conditions” (Peet, 1999: 1). A critical look at Peet’s definition highlights a progressive advancement in the aforementioned dimensions, but falls short of highlighting the mechanisms that can facilitate this process. Peet’s definition sheds a descriptive understanding and it is less scrutinizing on the process of development.

The integrative approach to development as propounded by UNHCR, sheds an instructive understanding of the term development. Accordingly, this paper finds the Rights approach to development more fulfilling, practical, and enduring. According to UNHCHR definition,

Development is people-centred, participatory and environmentally sound. It involves not just economic growth, but equitable distribution, enhancement of people’s capabilities and widening of their choices. It gives top priority to poverty elimination, integration of women into the development process, self-reliance and self-determination of people and Governments, and protection of the rights of indigenous people (UNHCHR, 2009). At the heart of this integrative approach to development lies the well-being of all without necessarily compromising individual’s right to freedom and choices which is a central hallmark of what can be called development. The integrative approach to development resonates well with the widely acclaimed understanding of Sen’s that “development is not so much something that can be done to others, but is instead something people do for themselves” (cited in Barnette, 2008:79). The reason behind Sen’s proposition stems from failed experiences since post 1945 development era which saw programmatic social engineering policies implanted to do development onto others. Unfortunately, and in most cases, these development agenda due to their lack of sensitivities to localities tend to marginalize many – the same people intended to be developed – and caused wide spread environmental and cultural damage (Barnette, 2008).

These failed experiences culminated in Sen’s thinking, his thesis of world acclaimed – Development as freedom that people will develop as they see fit given “sufficient economic opportunities, political liberties, social powers and the enabling conditions of good health, basic education and the encouragement and cultivation of initiative” (Cited in Barnette, 2008). Thus for Sen, these opportunities are freedoms – enabling conditions -, and these freedoms are both the means – how to; and the end – goal of development.

Whilst Sen’s insight bridges many gaps in development theories and discourse, there is much silence or a fundamental lack of explanation on the relationship between freedom and development. Further, Sen’s does not offer much explanation or is less scrutinizing on power relations that cause and reproduce underdevelopment often institutionalized at national and international political domains. Foucault’s analysis of power relations could have been instructive but is beyond the scope of this paper in this regard.

In most definitions of development one finds a tendency to define it in broader and general terms raising the question: is development everything such that it becomes nothing or still further, is development an apotheosis? It is undoubtedly true that development must be a living and thriving phenomena with attributes such as: “change”, “growth”, “progress”, “advance” and the like. However, if development is seen as an end in itself then it ceases to be an objective to strive for, because the human society is phenomenal, dynamic and ever changing, and so must development. Singer reminds that:

The development story is clearly a mixture of good and bad, of progress and regress, of success and failure… The scenario which is perhaps, the most fruitful approach to an understanding of the development story and to drawing proper lessons from it… is to live up to the scenario of development as a learning process and create a new “splendid story” (Singer 1993, 35; 38).