The concept of economic development and a related notion, that of economic growth,

have both assumed a pivotal role in any meaningful discussion of the state of the
economy and the attendant social consequences. Both have become indispensable tools
of todays economic analysis. One needs only to witness the great energy and excitement
spurred by Thomas Pikettys recent magnum opus, Capital in the 21st Century, to have
become convinced of the fact. Pikettys underlying thesis, whereby the relationship r>g
[where r, the rate of return on capital, exceeds g, the rate of (economic) growth],
signifies economic conditions conducive to generating greater and greater income
inequality is a case in point. In no small measure because of the recent OWS movement,
the thesis has become the starting point of any poignant critique of the capitalist society
in years, for allowing the growing income- and wealth disparity to become permanent
features of everyday life so much so, in fact, that almost overnight Piketty had become
the darling of the liberal economists the world over, and his thesis has been lauded as the
greatest invention since sliced bread. Needless to say, the concern is well placed even
though the bulk of the proposed solutions, which range from progressive taxation on
income to lowering the limit on tax-exempt inherited wealth, aim at ameliorating the
symptoms rather than at eradicating the cause.
What do we mean, however, when we speak of economic development or, by extension,
of economic growth? Do we have a clear and distinct idea of the underlying concepts or
are they just buzzwords we tend to parrot now and then since theyve become a part of
everyday economic jargon?
On one level of discourse, the concepts in use are fairly straightforward, especially if we
take them to be more or less synonymous. Growth, for instance, measures an increase in
size, in body weight, IQ, GNP, GDP, et cetera: its a relative measure, besides, relative,
that is, to some prior value. Ever since the advent of statistics and scrupulous recordkeeping, economics has become a science, not exactly hard science but a science
nonetheless just like (the history of) baseball can be said to have been set on a quasiscientific basis by virtue of records scrupulously kept. Consequently, the economys
growth and/or decline are calculable in terms of prior values: it registers either an up- or
a downtick. Thats the business of econometrics. And yet . . .
The purely quantitative approach to concepts such as economic development or growth,
unless we know exactly what it is that were measuring, can be grossly misleading. It
doesnt answer the fundamental question about the underlying conceptual content the
meaning of the terms so readily employed by far the most interesting question of all!
What exactly does economic development or economic growth come to? Whats their
overall significance? What exactly is it that we are measuring? The scalar concept
clearly obscures the metaphysical content of what it is that is being measured. Yet, it is
commonly assumed that we all know what it is. But do we, really?
Offhand, I can think of at least two problems which arise from such a simplistic
employment of what is purported to be key economic terms. The first concerns the very
notions of growth and/or development: theyre hopelessly ill-defined. If we are to take
the physical model or analogy of growth seriously, as in body weight, for instance and I

dont see why we shouldnt! then we clearly we run into all kinds of difficulties, for
surely, not all kinds of growth are identical: while some may be beneficial to your health,
others may be detrimental. An obese man, for one, obviously shouldnt carry his great
bulk as a badge of honor; hed do much better to shed a pound or two if his health is a
matter of concern. Cancerous or benign growth, though an extreme example, is in the
same category: both are harmful to body and soul, there being no benefit to either.
Likewise with the concept of development, for development can be normal as well as
abnormal. It would seem that the economic concepts in use make little or no provision
for these anomalies, which shows that their respective definitions leave a great deal to be
desired.
The second problem is considerably more nuanced though no less perturbing for the fact.
To wit, it had become a longstanding mantra among the critics of the capitalist system
an unexamined assumption, as it were that capitalism is more prone to generating
excessive or wrong kind of growth than any other economic system. Charles Taylor, for
one, makes a strong case to that effect (see, for instance, his Growth, Legitimacy and
The Modern Identity in Praxis International, 1:2 July 1981, or the expanded version of
the Praxis article, Legitimation Crisis? in Philosophy and The Human Sciences:
Philosophical Papers 2), although the bulk of his argument centers about moral
repercussions which are likely to follow from what he dubs in so many words as
excessive growth.
While some aspects of Taylors analysis may be to the point, and while we may further
agree that his singling out the capitalist system, of all economic systems, as being the
most conducive to generating excessive growth is not exactly counter-intuitive, it still
remains to show what it is exactly about capitalism proper that would make it so. In
particular, what is it about capitalism that makes it generate a kind of excessive growth
that would be detrimental to our moral fiber, whereas any other kind of growth, simply
because it would issue from some other economic system (say, the one based on slavery
or feudal relationships), would be likely to get a free pass? Why is excessive growth
which is due to capitalism alone so cancerous insofar as our moral well-being is
concerned, whereas any other kind of excessive growth doesnt carry such a
connotation? If excessive growth is the main culprit insofar as its effects on our moral
fiber are concerned, then why it should it matter which particular economic system is
responsible for generating it? In particular, why should capitalism be punished more
severely than any other economic system for doing precisely the very same thing as the
others? Simply because it does it better, in that it generates a greater abundance of goods
and services than any of its predecessors?
If this were the sole basis of Taylors critique, then Id be inclined to dismiss it. But
perhaps theres another idea lurking in the background as well, namely, that perhaps
certain kinds of excessive growth are proprietary, which is to say, characteristic of the
capitalist system alone, it and no other. And if that were the case, this remains to be
shown.

In any event, in the future installments we shall re-examine this and similar assumptions
in light of Jane Jacobs seminal work, The Nature of Economies. Ms. Jacobs central
thesis is that any kind of development, including economic development, is but a
subspecies of development sui generis. Its the way of nature.