Development Essay Example

in the mid-1980s, which, as Pieterse (2010) notes, views development as capacitation.

The background of the United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) renowned Human Development Reports has also served as a perspective on development. Scholars and schools of thought have offered various interpretations of development, ranging from economic to historical and societal to human. Thus, the attempt to define, explain, and comprehend development has been fraught with controversy and instability over time. Factors such as ideology, historical context, time frame, and cultural contexts frequently influence the definition of development. Clarifying development as a concept generates a range of questions, including those surrounding definition, application, and theories. Additional controversies emerge with challenges to the conceptualization of development.

According to Pieterse (2010), the goal is to re-establish development as a central focus in modern social thought and counteract the tendency to view it as a distinct sub-discipline. While development theories were a prominent topic of scholarly discussion in the 1950s, interest declined during the 1980s, which Schuurman (1993) describes as a "lost decade" for many developing nations as well as the field of development theory.

Starting from the mid-1980s, a growing number of publications described the boundaries of what was later known as 'the development theory impasse' which faced criticism and a perceived crisis. Despite being underestimated in social science, it was surprising that development theory was questioned because it focused on issues primarily affecting developing countries in the south.

Development theory's legitimacy has been questioned not only due to its focus on a specific discipline, but also because many developing nations failed to progress as expected. This failure can be attributed to the dominant development theories from northern countries being

applied in the south without proper consideration of crucial aspects like culture, history, social and political backgrounds. The Post World War II development project is viewed as flawed because it universalizes Western experience and ignores the diverse needs, experiences and aspirations of those it seeks to aid (Matthews, 2004). Neglecting development discourse and the knowledge of the southern nations is one of the causes of underwhelming results from development projects intended to assist these countries.

Development theories and discourses need to address the lack of inclusivity in current dominant views and processes. A review of the entire development discourse is necessary. Western hegemony homogenizes development, as the south provides raw materials and data, while knowledge production remains in the hands of the north. This notion is questionable as it requires interpretation and devising by the north, who may lack understanding of the realities and backgrounds of southern states or nations. The hegemonization of the discipline causes concerns, problems, and stagnation for countries used as application areas. (Pieterse, 2010).

According to Jensen (2007), it is likely that indigenous peoples also desire changes and modernization, but there are concerns that they may not have the opportunity to develop their own solutions in a political environment that includes and excludes them. Discrepancies in the interpretation of human development and education concepts can arise due to ideological, political, and cultural reasons. To ensure a participatory aspect of development, it is vital to consider the inside view of development discourses. Failure to recognize the needs, background, culture, and experiences of countries can lead to exclusion from the development process. The renowned Human Development Reports were born out of a Westernized perspective on

development, but it is crucial to question which development and whose development is being prioritized.

The inaugural Human Development Report was released in the 1990s, originating from an Asian (specifically Pakistani) economist's perspective on Southern Asian development. However, the report took on a more Westernized approach as it progressed. While the report's multi-dimensional approach claimed to address development issues, it failed to consider the experiences and knowledge of Southern nations in the development discourse. The criteria and indicators of development, such as health, education, and income, only measure limited aspects of development, rather than the holistic approach that developing countries strive for. Although the Human Development Report gained global attention from states, nations, and governments, there remains a question of whose development it primarily serves.

Before the Human Development Report, monetary institutions such as the Bretton Woods paved the way for increased dependency of the south on the north. The Bretton Woods brought forth the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Rural Development (IBRD), now known as the World Bank, giving the north more power and influence in dictating the development process in "aided" countries. These institutions are also responsible for currency and monetary policy domination worldwide. Remenyi (in Kingsbury, 2004) noted that the Bretton Woods institutions were created to dominate the environment in which international development and official development assistance were administered.

The development field, including North and South Development, has been in crisis since the 1980s. There's uncertainty about which type of development should be followed and whose development should be prioritized. Despite receiving regular official development aid (ODA), some parts of Latin America and Africa have experienced development failures, raising doubts and

questions about development theories. Hegemony and counter-hegemony are prevalent issues in the discourse surrounding development.

According to Pieterse (2010), the definition and methods of achieving development vary across different parties. This uncertainty has led to the dominance of certain perspectives, with their corresponding development processes being reviewed and accepted as the norm. Development theory has been criticized for its narrow focus on developing nations and underestimation in social science. The idea of a south-north bipolar economic order also raises concerns about hegemonization. As Pieterse notes, the traditional distinction between developed and developing societies is becoming less relevant as the 'south' and 'north' blur.

The hegemonization of knowledge and knowledge formation by the West has not taken cultural, societal, and historical differences into account in developing countries. This failure challenges the credibility of development theories interpreted by developed Western countries. A re-evaluation of development theories is necessary to recognize the impact of other factors on a nation's development. Matthews' (2004) research on post-development theory in Africa highlights the need to acknowledge the failure of the PWWII development project in Africa and other developing nations.

There is a necessity for a reconsideration of the development theories and approaches utilized in developing nations, particularly as they were originally created by the West. The concept of de-westernization has long been recognized, especially regarding the dominant perspective in the development discourse and the inquiry of whose development is being sought. From the viewpoint of developing states, achieving development has been more of a struggle than a challenge, particularly when conforming to processes imposed by external forces. In today's age of inclusive development, a comprehensive view of development should take into consideration the perspective,

indicators, and processes derived from developing nations' experiences. This implies a call for de-westernization - fundamentally a political separation from economic decision-making.

The current state of development discourse is losing credibility and attention, requiring a shift towards a more inclusive approach focused on the global south. Development theorists must reassess their theories and discourse in response to the issue of hegemony, recognizing the necessity for a south-inclusive development approach.