Concept of 'Development'

The word development presently used to refer

to improving income, widening life
opportunities and better quality of life.
With its roots in biology, the concept of
development carries a normative burden.
Industrial and technological growth has
become the key to development.
In natural sense, development refers to unfolding
of things over time. It accreted(growth) value
and directionality in 19th century social and
biological writings. Haeckel's study of
ontogenetic(is the origination and development
of an organism) development is the key
biological writing in this regard.
Linked to particular 19th century theories of
biological evolution and social progress.
Ernest Hackel describes ontogenetic
development as progressive,
preordained(inevitable) and unidirectional. .
Darwin proposed non directional and blind
natural selection and there is no perfect model
nor any superiority in terms of strength or size
This was missed by social theorists of 19th
century who reproduced current prejudices
about social evolution with an aura of scientific
authority.
Misreading of Darwinism and misapplication to
society resulted in social Darwinism with
stages of evolution such as hunter gatherer,
pastoral, agricultural and commercial or
industrial. Thus aborigins become primitive and
Asian culture became a case of arrested
progress.
Victorian social evolutionary theory epitomized in
Spencer's work Progress : Its Law and Cause.
He says transformation of simple to complex is
organic development and this is what all kinds
of development .
With an incongruous mix of Victorian
progressivism and a misunderstood Darwinian
theory of evolution, social Darwinists used
terms like natural selection, survival of the
fittest and struggle for existence to
serve racist doctrines, colonial expansion and
extermination of aborigins and imperialist war.
Also used to defend free market competition as a
state natural to man. State intervention to
reduce poverty etc discouraged by social
Darwinists.
Socities are expected to progress from infancy to
the culmination ie European civilisation.
Poor were treated as unfit and therefore their
death was only natural.
Free market operated on principles of natural
selection and therefore a market with no state
interventions was likely to be more successful.
Capitalist competition treated as a law of nature.
Emergence of capitalism gave credence to
Spencerian sociology whereas idea of
progress and evolutionary ranking of socieities
came down from earlier centuries.
Industrial revolution reinforced Europe's
superiority.
Eurocentric arrogance is clearly shown in
Orientalism emerged in 18th century. Three
aspects significant in East West contact
Acknowledged contributions of Ancient India and
China but Oriental culture remains degenerate
and cannot be adopted
Second, vast resources awaiting exploitation
Third, subjugation justified because of superiority
and even to help them elevate.
Spencerian progressivism overlooked key
feature of Darwinism that organic evolution
was non-teleological I.e without assuming any
pre determined goal or outcome.
Though social Darwinism was not taken
seriously by most economic theories,
Specerian social evolution, marked by ordered
progress, is accepted widely.
All European social theories of 19th century
including Marxism accepted goal directed
social evolution.
Non industrial societies seen as contemporary
ancestors.
By borrowing technology, primitive societies can
leapfrog into the advanced ones.
Such views even went to the extend of holding
that primitive societies that are not fit can be
exterminated.
Human domination over nature is what makes
European civilisation more evolved.
In Cartesian world view, all non-human creatures
are mere machines and this justifies all
experiments on animals for human welfare.
Anthropocentric developmentarian imperative of
Western Europe can be traced to biblical world
view according to which man is created in the
image of God and therefore he can dominate
over the rest of the world.
Some argue that industrial and technological
development was possible in Europe because
Christianity teach that nature and other
creatures exist for mans purpose.
 Cartesian division resulted in superioriy of mind
over body, civilisation over wilderness and
Europe over the rest. This world view results in
subjugating the other and determine the course
of development.
Anthropocentrism of Christian theology
retained in Enlightenment ideology. Though
Darwins theory threatened the belief in
uniqueness of man, it did not end
anthropomorphism
 Human uniqueness and superiority shown by
comparative ethology and anthropology.
From 17th century, Lockean logic was used to
argue that right to property belongs to those
who could improve it.
It even went to extent of holding that if Natives
did not have any document to show right to
property, they have no right to have it.
It was seen overthrowing savages and bringing
reason and civilisaiton
All non-European societies seen as
atavistic(primitive) and in need of
Enlightenment.
With Bacon's presentation of nature as knowable
and female, the attempt to conquer it
flourished.
But this has happened long back with Neo
Platonists practising alchemy. In Western
Christian tradition, human reason was
instrumental to understand nature, which was
manifestation(form) of God's reason.
Triumph of classical mechanics and discovery of
mechanical systems led to belief that whole
world is composed of small atomistic units that
follow linear rules.
Reductionism linked to
individualism,characteristics of modern society.
Also, all science tries to follow the characteristics
of physics with economists trying to be
deterministic and defined humans as 'rational
and egoistic agents who merely try to satisfy
their wants.
Marx too hailed industrialisation as unleashing
colossal productive forces
For Marxists too like Colonialists, wild lands were
unproductive unless brought into cultivation
Though some voices in mid 19th century
expressed concern over man's activities
impacting species diversity, it was taken for
granted that industrial development for
progress is essential
Champions of Euro Imperialism interpreted
development as to be galvanised by
government. Thus resource extraction from
colonies purported to be for mutual benefit
Western capitalist economic growth serves as
both reference frame and goal.
Economic development seen as co terminus with
social progress.
After WWII, the notion of development used to
revive the empire and restructure relations
between colonies.
Poverty in two thirds of the world became a new
green pasture for developmentalist doctrine
Flow of capital seen as investment and
accumulation of capital as means to
eradicating poverty and bringing prosperity
Prosperity understood in terms of luxury
consumption and wasteful expenditure, a new
concept of poverty constructed to facilitate
global deployment of development doctrine.
 Development and Western
hegemony(domination)
With yardstick of industrialisation and
urbanisation, the standard of Western
economic growth used in constructing concept
of development.
Hegemony of this view precludes any other
discussion of development
Ignoring traditional food and nutritional
measures, it standardizes food practices,
overlooking dangers of overconsumption.
Development in the transitive sense becomes
the norm and is pitted on the assumption that
underdevelopment is a factual reality. ( the
word development engenders a perception as
well as a perspective)
After WW II, Western way of life identified with
American way of life.
With increasing material aspirations of both the
rich and poor, industrialisation taken as the
only way out.
Paradigmatic assumption of development
economists is : more development mean
bigger GNP and even a small pie of it will
satisfy needs of greater number of poor people
than an equal proportion of a small one.
'big pie' logic sets priority of economic concerns
and situates industrial growth over ecological
integrity. Care and concern for enviornment is
treated as luxury for poor nations until it
reaches industrial growth on par with the West.
Institutions like WB treates low GNP as
correlated with poverty and prescribes
economic growth as only way to eradicate
poverty.
Standardized measure of GNP per capita
submerged social and political dimensions of
individual poverty.
In 60s when ecological movement gained some
momentum economy over ecology was the
catchphrase among the elite. ( prefer man over
nature)
Marxists used to treat ecological concerns as
that of bourgeoisie.
Enviornmental issues seen as necessary
byproducts of industrialisation essential for
social progress.
Developmentality is the global consensus for
rapid quantitative growth along the lines of
Northern model of techno-industrial
development.
With acceptance of development as destiny, it is
even held that poverty is the root cause of
environmental degradation.
Poverty alleviation is greatest defense for
development agenda. So, the reasoning goes,
development can reduce poverty and, in turn,
protect enviornment too
Even if leftists used to oppose foreign aid,they
also accept development as destiny.
Socialists countries too destroyed nature.
Until 70s most people in poor countries thought
that enviormental protocols are attempt to
ensure Northern domination over the South.
Market is driven by economic rationalitypart of
human nature-- market forces are on par with
natural laws.
Subsequently, some space was given for welfare
economics. But social Darwinism continues to
lurk in
neo-classical economics
All mainstream economists accept need for
industrial development. And this is justified in
terms of rationality as inherent tendency to
maximise selfish interests at the cost of
society.
Free play of economic rationality leads to
commodification and destruction of the natural
world.
Universal grammer of power steamrolls a
uniform rule and norm of development the
world over, shaping public attitude towards
social progress, individual happiness and
quality of life.
Development paradigm engenders and is
reinforced by standard economics profession.
 Flaws in Founding Concepts
Many real life factors are treated as 'externalities'
in standard economic addresses
Assumption of naturalness of market forces and
individual pursuit of selfish interest engenders
a particular understanding of value and use of
natural resources
 Economic Rationality
As pursuit of self interest. Consistent with Adam
Smith and reflected in classical and neo
classical economics.
Someone who maximises his self interests
This is rooted in individual centered view of
modernity, which precludes any consideration
of cooperative behavior.
Can all human behavior be explained with this
model?
Economic rationality does not take into
consideration group interests and long term
interests. Short term is given importance,
because as Keynes, in the long term we all are
dead.
Sacrifice of common good for individual benefit is
seen as inevitable in this view
Sociobiology explains altruistic behavior in terms
of maximising individual's genetic interest. So
there is kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. As
per this view, all altruisitc behavior is ultimately
selfish. This buttresses neo classical
theorisation of rationality.
If there is a conflict between individual interest
and group interest, the former has to prevail,
as per this rationality. This leads to 'tragedy of
commons'.
But, actually, commons in traditional societies
were managed well through restrictions. This
community ethic collapsed in recent times with
arrival of market forces.
Tragedy occurs when individuals are not aware
of the consequences of their behavior.
If maximising one's needs is rational, needs are
not easy to define. In fact, market defines
needs as 'lacks' to be satisfied by material
resources.
It is not difficult to see that many decisions are
not based on economic interest such as
choosing expensive things, giving importance
to ethical, religious values.
Instituion of private property and desire for more
constructs needs to have more.
But happiness is not directly proportional to
material well being.
For many what matters is not how much they
have but how much more than others have.
This is extra economic irrational social drive and
this plays a pivotal role.
Economic policy prescriptions based on
economic rationality without even considering
whether it is a complete picture of human
behavior.
Neo classical economic theory ignores
ecological limits and entropic constraints to
economic growth
Infinite capability of technology to surmount all
social and enviornmental problems is assumed
New resources are not just discovered but they
are substituted. Thus, it is assumed that,
technology can ensure infinite resource
availability and the future will take care of itself.
The axiom of infinite substitutability of natural
resources and infinite potential of technology to
create everything that is necessary
Neo classical economics is deprived of
consideration for life, nature and social values.
If Judeo Christian monotheism took nature out of
religion, Anglo American economists took
nature out of economics.
No intrinsic value found in nature unless it is
good for something. Even direct use value of
oxygen, water etc ignored in economic
analysis. Concept of renewable resource
results in over exploitation beyond levels of
replenishment. Even resource harvesting
policies , say, for whaling industry, fails
because of failure to take into account complex
ecological relationships
Also when resources are valued in terms of their
utility, the conclusion results that more
resources mean greater welfare.
Economics assign values only to things for which
there is a utility, ie a market. So price of
exchange value is what determines value of a
commodity or service. Since oxygen, sunlight,
water etc available at zero price their value go
unrecognised.
Cost of pollution is not a part of the prices paid
by producers or consumers and hence
considered to be an externality in the calculus
of production cost
The assumption that human economic activities
are grossly independent of natural resources
leads to treating damage to nature as
unimportant externality.
From ecological perspective most enviornmental
goods like nitrogen fixing bacteria, ozone layer
or pollinating insects have a positive infinite
price.
Much of damage is not even detected for long
and therefore no value given. It was discovered
late that ozone layer was getting depleted and
cost of replacement will be infinite
Opportunity cost is the only way to estimate the
cost of ecological services I.e cost of
replacement of a commodity. This is a risky
exercise.
Rejection of all constraints on growth including
the thermodynamic ones, reinforced by some
cases of substitution such as that of whale oil
by petroleum, fuel wood by coal, oil and natural
gas etc.
Substituability argument made in different ways,
even holds that loss of natural resources and
knowledge systems justified if there is access
to TV and mobile sets.
Nobel economist Robert Slow once claimed
world can , in effect, get along without natural
resources
Are organic soil nutrients substitutable with
soluble inorganic salts?
Use of synthetic fertilisers appear unsustainable
as soil health is not maintained without soil
organisms.
It is childish to believe in efficiency of chemical
and mechanical management that would
substitute complicated ecological functions of
organisms that have co-evolved over millions
of years.
 Discounting(overlooking) the future
A standard operating procedure in cost benefit
analysis to sustain positive rates of profit.
Discounting makes sense when a decision is
made on investing the money with a time
horizon of 10 to 15 years. But not for
enviornmental factors that affect entire society
and have time horizon of centuries
Enviornmental problems and inter generational
equity appear insignificant in the cost benefit
analysis involving discounting.
When positive discount rates are used in
calculating enviornmental damages, future
generations are written off.
Decision to use a positive discounting rate,
however small, implies that the future does not
matter.
Some influential economists argue that global
warming of 2.5 C, when calculated with 3
percent discount rates, amounted to 1-2
percent of Gross Global Product.
High discount rates make it 'rational' for private
owners to exhaust resources as fast as they
can.
Two questionable assumptions underlie the
operation of discounting:(1)growth will continue
in the distant future and therefore future
generations will be richer than we are and they
can take care of themselves better(2)materials
in use today will be substituted with others in
future
 Positive rates of profit and growth
Profit is difference between financial inputs and
outputs in an economic activity. Only visible
outputs are taken into account and emission
and effluents do not matter.
Institutional arrangements make it sure that any
money invested generate some profit.
Also, rates of interest set the lower limit for rates
of profit. ie. The latter cannot be less than the
former so that there is demand for credit.
Since environmental and social costs do not
appear on the accounting structure of
production, normal rate of profit appear
unaffected by the production process. Thus
enviornmental effects of economic growth
disregarded in Institutionalised pursuit of
money as a goal of action
 GNP as prosperity
Though expansion of human capabilities as the
objective of development was not forgotten, the
main emphasis has always been on increasing
gross national product, per capital
measurement of which was supposed to
provide the picture of 'standard of living' and
indicate the degree of freedom and control of
nature.
GNP counted by total exchange of value of
goods and services in a country, and excludes
all unpaid, customary, domestic and scholastic
work. If the expenditure on cleaning up
industrial pollution will inflate GNP . A country
with large usage of bicycle will be low in GNP
but not so the one with high automobiles.
High enviornmental damage and high GNP are
mutually reinforcing.
Medical and social costs incurred due to
pollutants also add to GNP
e.g asbetos contributed to GNP: first when being
sold as building material, then when medical
care for asbestosis, then as legal costs for
damages, and now when they are replaced
If enviornmental and social costs are subtracted
from GNP, there will be zero or negative growth
in social welfare
Labour intensive production becomes less
important than energy and material intensive
production. Wages have to increase as general
standard of living increases due to increase in
productivity.
Hence labour intesive 'organic' agriculture is not
encouraged though it is more productive but
chemical agriculture is given all support.
Inequality does not decrease with GNP.
Inequality itself is outcome of development
through concentration of capital, which cannot
allow functional democracy.
 Is Market Omnipotent(almighty)?
In free market/free trade ideology, market is
assumed to be just because it functions
through honest contracts between fully
informed individuals
This simplistic view overlooks the fact that
historically creation and access to markets
were assisted by state through tariff structures
and military interventions. Further contracts are
incomplete with overstating worth of
Commodities through advertisements, cheating
by traders etc.
Market forces have never resulted in withdrawal
of toxic chemicals. All such things happened
due to state interventions.
In fact private property itself is a political legal
arrangement
Also market determines the true value of
everything is mistaken as we are far away from
having any idea of how to evaluate monetary
value of ecological assets
In profit maximising context, land conversion and
not conservsation is more profitable.
As only utilitarian value of resources accepted in
neo classical economics, the value of natural
resources beyond market not recognised
 Happiness and commodities
A close linkage assumed.
Development defines needs as wants beyond
necessities. The paradox is that the horizon of
need perpetually recedes with techno industrial
progresses.
Studies show no direct relationship between
income and happiness. In rich countries the
relatively poor are richer compared to the poor
in poor countries.
As long as there are more people in the higher
rungs of the ladder,the modern economic
person is not happy
Studies show people believe that, regardless of
their income, they would be happier if their
income doubled.
The more the economy grows, the greater the
demand for luxury goods,the more rapid the
depletion of living systems that are the source
of real wealth and more intense the unequal
competition between the rich and the poor.
The idea of sustainable development centers on
the denial of economic growth in terms of
material production and consumption as a
necessary condition for an acceptable
livelihood.
 Revisions and Reconciliation
New Institutional Economics emerged to counter
neo classical economics. Bounded rationality
to take into account long term interests,
attempts to incorporate environmental costs.
At the same time, the need for industrial growth
and notion of individuals as utility seeking,
profit maximising remain unaltered.
World Bank accepted Amartya Sen's capability
approach in which health, powerlessness,
vulnerability etc are incorporated in depiction of
poverty but its perspective on development
continues.
HDI measures quality of life. But within the
country differences are overshadowed by
differences between countries due to inherent
weakness in measuring well being through
some indicators.
When life styles are different and non
comparable, international comparison of
indices is absurd.
Some attempts are made to internalise the
externality of enviornmental costs borne by the
society.
Such approaches look only to natural capital ie.
Resources that are utilisable and overlooks the
large amount that have apparent no economic
value. Thus preservation of key elements of
biodiversity that have no current value is not
done.
Managerial treatment of natural capital ignores
the fact that market price of useful things does
not reflect the true value of their utility.eg.
Market price of forest products does not take
into account the rent of the land as it is open
access.
Attempt to monetise natural world stems from
the realisation that it is the language that policy
makers understand.
Total value of ecological life support systems is
infinite because entire economy will collapse
without them.
Current economic valuation techniques can
consider only the immediate market value. e.g
tree is useful for oxygen production, soil
protection etc none of which is considered in
market value.
The concept of value need a thorough change in
the context of enviornment.
Sen talks about increasing capabilities rather
than richness. Without democratic rights freedom
capabilities cannot be increased even if high
income is there. This is an attempt to bring back
ethical grounds to neo classical economics.
While neo classical economics tries to turn the
enviornment into part of self regulating market
system. Environmental economics only tries to
change enviornment into a capital and fails to
prevent disintegration of environment.
Ecological economics emerges out of this failure
and questions the assumptions of neo classical
economics.