RECONSTRUCTING THE MEANING AND TENETS OF DEVELOPMENT

Obi, Emeka Anthony Ph.D.***

It matters little how much information we possess about development if we have not
grasped its inner meaning. (Denis Goulet, The Cruel Choice 1971)

Introduction

Development as a concept, is a victim of the ideological warfare between capitalism and

socialism. Consequently, scholars on both sides of the divide have come to view the concept
differently, resulting in a serious confusion as to the means and manner of embarking on the
development process.

Perhaps, what fueled the conflict on the real meaning of development, was the fact that
despite many years of implementing policies fashioned by Western 'Development' Agencies and
scholars, the Third World nations are still neck deep in poverty and are in some cases getting
poorer. If all the 'theories', programmes and policies which have been forced on the Third World
as a key to development have not worked after so many decades, it then means that either the
conceptualization of development is faulty or the approaches towards realizing it is faulty, or
both. Serious studies, have shown that both the western conceptualization of development and
the 'theories' of development are all wrong. It is this realization that has led to a new view of
the concept of development. This study, adopts this new approach to development, which
appears more genuine and intelligible.

WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT?

As we stated earlier, development has been interpreted in different ways by various

people. Sumner (2007) has argued that there are three discernable definitions of
'development'. The first is historical and long term and arguably value free-'development' as a
process of change. The second is policy related and evaluative or indicator led, is based on
value judgements and has short-to medium term time horizons----development as the MDGS
for example. The third one is post- modernist, drawing attention to the ethnocentric and
ideologically loaded Western conceptions of 'development' and raising the possibilities of
alternative conceptions.

Development as a long term process of structural societal transformation.

In this instance 'development' is seen as a process of structural societal change. This

view of structural transformation particularly predominated in the 1950s, and 1960s. The key 2

1
characteristics of this perspective are that it is focused on processes of structural societal
change, it is focused on a long-term out look. This means that a major societal shift in one
dimension, would have radical implications in another dimension. Thus, development involves
changes in socio-economic structures- including ownership, the organization of production,
technology, the institutional structure and laws. Also the process has occurred over the
centuries, and might be generally accepted as 'development' and having a long-term broad
view may address the picture but may not be able to meaningfully guide development practice
such as policy-making which usually has a shorter time period.

Development as a short-to-medium term outcome of desirable targets.

This is concerned with development occurring in terms of a set of short-to-medium-term

performance indicators, goals or outcomes- which can be measured and compared with targets.
This means it focuses on clear parameters that can be clearly measured and level of
improvement evaluated. This quality has made it very popular among international
development agencies. Thus, issues like poverty reduction, literacy levels etc, may be its target.
The key feature of this perspective is that it is focused on the outcomes of change so that it has
a relatively short term outlook which has made some scholars to see it as ahistorical. What may
be considered the main problem with this perspective is that it presupposes a set of goals or
objectives that may not be generally shared or acceptable by the supposed beneficiaries of
development. This therefore poses the question of 'ownership', as the people for whom these
programmes are meant to 'develop' are not part of its articulation. This clearly looks like
development from above instead of from below.

Development' as a dominant 'discourse' of Western modernity.

This approach which is seen as the post-modern conceptualization of development, is

based on the view that development has consisted of “bad” change and bad outcomes through
the imposition of Western ethnocentric notions of development upon the Third World. This
approach was a product of the disenchantment with the monumental failure of the
'development' initiative of the West that has breed massive poverty in the developing world.
The key element of this approach is that development and poverty are social constructs that do
not exist in an objective sense outside of the discourse and that one can only 'know' reality
through discourse. The central thesis of the Post-modern disenchantment is that development
has been defined as been synonymous with modernity which is then presented in the discourse
as being a superior condition, to which developing nations who are inferior should aim at. Thus,
this discourse which tends to inferiorize the South is a Northern concept whose main interest is
to subjugate and subordinate the South.

It must be pointed out that as appealing as the post-modernist argument is to the South,
it also has its pitfalls. It is criticized for its perceived nihilism, its celebration of severe
deprivation as a form of cultural autonomy, its romanticized notion of the 'noble salvage' and
the assumption that all Southern social movements are emancipatory. It also suffers from an
internal contradiction which is called “the performative contradiction” which means that if we 3

2
can only know reality through discourse, then why should we believe anyone account(such as
that of the post-modernist) more than any other-each account might be equally 'socially
constructed'.

In his own contribution to the development debate, Szirmai (2005 ) posits that there are
two general approaches that can be distinguished in discussions of development. These are;

1. The fight against poverty. This approach is concerned and focused mainly on the
problems of widespread poverty, hunger and misery in developing countries and on the
question of what can be done to improve on these situations in the short term.

2. The analysis of long-term economic and social development. This approach focuses on
comparing developments in different regions, countries and historical periods in order to gain a
better understanding of the factors which have long-term effects on the dynamics of socio-
economic development.

The first approach has as one of its features, a strong involvement with the problems of
developing countries and their people. The people who adopt this first approach are mainly
concerned with the appalling level of poverty, deprivation and injustice in developing countries
and see this as unacceptable. They are therefore interested in finding quick solutions to these
problems. This concern reflects in policies and programmes which are developed at
international, national and regional levels. However, this approach has a major drawback which
is a certain tardiness in thinking about development. This has to do with the succession of ideas
and slogans which have been employed in post-war discussions of development such as the
idea that large scale injection of capital are the key to development (Big push), which pushed
many developing countries into big debts, the 'small is beautiful' movement, human capital as
the missing link in development, the green revolution, basic needs, integrated rural
development, delinking from the world economy, the New International Economic Order
(NIEO ), market orientation and deregulation, structural adjustment programmes among others.

These recipes have one thing in common, which is their short term perspective. They
were quick-fix measures that were invented to solve targeted problems that had to do with
development. Unfortunately most of them failed, leading to their abandonment and invention
of new measures and policies. This is the so called development fad-at each point a particular
development initiative is marketed as the solution to Third World underdevelopment. Being in a
hurry to 'develop', most Third World states embrace it and then find out that it wouldn't work
after it had been implemented with a lot of effort and scarce resources wasted. The initiative is
dropped and a new one adopted. It is therefore not wrong to attribute most of the mistakes in
development policies as a direct consequence of erroneous advice from development advisers
and experts.

The second approach which is long-term in nature is more detached. It tries to probe
into the factors that led some group of countries to develop while others are stagnating. It
therefore tries to identify the factors that may help to explain the differentials in development

3
of prosperous European and North American countries as serving as a point of reference in
comparative discussions of the experiences of developing countries. It must be pointed out that
it does not mean advocating the copying of Western solutions by developing countries, however
it believes gaining an insight into the similarities and differences in development processes
might be helpful to developing countries. Though there is the argument that the long-term
approach hardly offers neat solutions to the kind of practical problems and choices policy
makers, politicians, entrepreneurs or aid workers are inevitably faced with on a day-to-day
basis. However, this is exactly the kind of distance to policy that enables one to analyze
problems and developments in a more independent and critical manner.

Yet another way to look at development is from two broad perspectives; the traditional
view and the contemporary view.

Traditionally, development meant the capacity of a national economy, whose initial

economic condition has been more or less static for a long time, to generate and sustain an
annual increase in it's Gross National Product (GNP) at rates perhaps 5% to 7% or more (Todaro
& Smith ,2004)

Development, within this perspective was seen almost as purely an economic

phenomenon, thus the major index of development was a growth of income per capita or per
capita GNP. It was believed that the benefits of growth will invariably extend to all segments of
society. This process is referred to as the 'trickle down effect'. Further, development has been
defined as a type of social change in which new ideas are introduced into a social system in
order to produce higher per capita incomes and levels of living through more modern
production methods and improved social organization (Rogers, 1969).

Based on the above interpretation of development, some development scholars, have

come to equate development with westernization, which implies that any country that is
desirous of developing must struggle to be like the western capitalist societies. These group of
scholars, are referred to as the modernization theorists.

According to Ake (2001):

In its most common form, modernization theory posits an original state of

backwardness or underdevelopment characterized by, among other things, a low rate of
economic growth that is at least potentially amenable to alteration through the normal
process of capital. This original state of backwardness is initially universal. According to
the theory, the industrialized countries have managed to over come it. All the other
countries could conceivably over come backwardness too if they adopted appropriate
strategies.

Modernization theorists, according to Offiong (1980) ,often use such words as 'modern'
and it's permutations and by categories such as "institutional differentiation", 'development,'
'nation building' 'westernized’ 'backward' 'primitive' 'tribal' 'detribalized' etc. According to him:

4
What modernization theorists most often end up with is in eventuating ethnocentric practical
recipes which admonish the poor societies to imitate them all the way and they would acquire a
sudden leap into the 20th century. In other words, join the calvinistic cult and you will
experience a sudden leap into modernity.

Notable theorists of the modernization school are W. W. Rostow, (Stages of Economic

Development), Everret E. Hagan, (Status withdrawal), David McClelland, (Need for
Achievement ), Bert F. Hoselitz, (Assignment and Reward), Piero Gheddo,(Four Revolutions).

The disappointing performance of most countries that pursued development from the
traditional approach, led to a new thinking of the concept of development. The mindless pursuit
of development through an increase in income per capita without a thought on how the
benefits of growth are distributed in the society, resulted in income disparities; a few very rich
people and a mass of the majority wallowing in abject poverty. While the rich were getting
exceedingly richer, the poor were getting miserably poorer. It became apparent that the
'trickle down effect' did not take place. This phenomenon which Celso Furtado described as
'growth without development', showed that the traditional approach to development has failed
to address the need of the developing countries, hence, the need for a new conceptualization of
development.

Perhaps the question posed by Dudley Seers, at the Eleventh World Conference of the
Society for International Development in 1969, at New Delhi, India captures the new thinking
about development. According to him:

The questions to ask about a country's development are therefore: What has been
happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been
happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, then
beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one
or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have,
it would be strange to call the result 'development' even if per capita income doubled.
(Seers, 1969)

This new focus on the meaning of development is one that makes people the target or
end of development. Development in this sense is just not all about growth but all about
people. It is making sure that the benefits of growth are redistributed to enhance a better
quality of life for all.

Development is thus, “the process by which people create and recreate themselves and
their life circumstances to realize higher levels of civilization in accordance with their own
choices and values “(Ake, 2001).

It must therefore be conceived of as a multi-dimensional process involving major

changes in social structures, popular attitudes and national institutions, as well as the
acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of
poverty. It must represent the whole gamut of change by which an entire social system,
tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that

5
 system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory toward a
situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually better (Todaro &
Smith, 2004).

In his own analysis Rodney, (1972) sees development both from the level of the
individual and that of the society as a whole. At the level of the individual, development implies
increased skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and
material well-being. On the level of the society, development cannot be seen purely as an
economic affair, but rather as an overall social process which is dependent upon the outcome of
man's efforts to deal with his natural environment.

Dependency theorists believe that Third World underdevelopment is a consequence of

the exploitative contact between the West and these countries. Thus, Offiong (1980) argues
that underdevelopment is not an original state as modernization theorists would want us to
believe. The beginnings of African underdevelopment can be traced to the trans-Atlantic slave
trade, abandoning of that trade in favour of legitimate trade and the eventual partition of
Africa. Dependency simply states that crucial economic decisions are made not by the countries
that are being 'developed' but by foreigners whose interests are carefully safe guarded.

To this group therefore, development must involve freedom of the Third World nations
from the exploitative relationship they are presently having with the west. Thus, development is
the coincidence of structural change and liberation of men from exploitation and oppression,
perpetrated by international capitalist bourgeoisie and their Internal collaborators. While real
development involves a structural transformation of the economy, society, policy and culture of
the satellite that permits the self-generating and self perpetuating use and development of the
people's potential (Crockroff, et al 1972). Development results from a peoples frontal attack on
the oppression, poverty, and exploitation that are meted out to them by the dominant classes
and their system (Offiong, 1980).

The most surprising aspect of the paradigm shift on development or 'New Development
Thinking' is the acceptance by the World Bank that it's previous conceptualization of
development was faulty, hence the rise of a 'New Development Thinking'. In apparent
acceptance of the faulty nature of its previous approach to development, Paul Collier, the
Director of the Development Research Group at the World Bank submits that:

Progress on poverty reduction depends primarily on policy and institutional changes in

low-income countries. The World Bank's previous approach to inducing these changes
relied on negotiated conditions on loans, or conditionality. The empirical evidence
suggests that this approach was largely ineffective, where change occurred, it was
chosen by governments rather than induced by conditions on loans. Various
countervailing pressures undermine the effectiveness of loan conditionality. An
alternative approach to inducing change is to empower, through knowledge and
participation domestic constituencies to make change. This approach is likely to be
more effective in promoting policy change and essential in promoting institutional
change now usually the frontier of economic reform. This shift in focus is part of the

6
 rationale for the Banks comprehensive Development framework. (For more on this
see Annual World Bank Conference on Development Boris Pleskovic, and Nicholas
Stern, (eds) 2000).

In line with this new thinking, the then President of the World Bank, James D.
Wolfensoln stated that “Our new framework is a holistic and integrated approach to
development strategies and programs that highlights the interdependence of all aspects of
development strategy social, structural, human, institutional, environmental, economic and
financial”.

While lending his voice to the New Development Thinking, a former Director of the
World Development Institute, Paul P. Streeten, opines that:

Development must be redefined as an attack on the chief evils of the world today;
malnutrition, disease, illiteracy, slums, unemployment and inequality. Measured in
terms of aggregate growth rates, development has been a great success. But measured
in terms of jobs, justice and the elimination of poverty, it has been a failure or only a
partial success.

A former Chief Economist of the World Bank, and the 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics,
Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, who has been in the forefront of challenging the neo-classical view of
development, which has dominated thinking at the World Bank previously, argues that :

development should be seen as a transformation of society, a move from old ways of

thinking, and old forms of social and economic organization to new ones. Development
and developmental transformation involve a change in the way people think and the
way societies function, a change in norms, expectations and institutions. Development
involves not just the acceptance of change but its promotion and indeed, it's
routinization. (Stiglitz, 2000).

Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economics added yet another angle to the
New Development Thinking. He put forward the idea of what he calls 'functionings'. According
to him:

The concept of 'functionings' ... reflects the various things a person may value doing or
being. The valued functionings may vary from elementary ones, such as being
adequately nourished and being free from avoidable disease, to very complex activities
or personal states, such as being able to take part in the life of the community and
having self respect (Sen, 1999).

VALUES OF DEVELOPMENT

Goulet (1971) has put forward, three core values of development which summarizes the
common goals which all individuals and societies seek, and which Todaro and Smith (2004) have
analyzed so well. These core values are;

7
(a) Sustenance: the ability to meet basic needs

(b) Self Esteem: to be a person

(c) Freedom from servitude: to be able to choose

Sustenance : which is the ability to meet basic needs of food, shelter, health and
protection should be the basic focus of all development programmes. This is because it is when
these basic needs, which Maslow referred to as physiological needs in his hierarchy of needs
theory are fulfilled that a man can really understand or appreciate the other higher ideals of
society or development.

For a development policy to be able to satisfy this core value, it must focus on poverty
reduction (which) would require active, large-scale redistribution policies to offset the forces
that seemed to systematically exclude the poor from the benefits of growth.

Self Esteem: Everybody wants to have a sense of self worth, a feeling of not being
inferior, of having dignity and respect. People want to be respected. These feelings come from
not been in extreme need. When people can take care of their material needs without relying
on others, they naturally have a feeling of self esteem. They have that feeling of being a person.

Freedom from Servitude: Freedom here means the sense of emancipation from
alienating material conditions of life and from social servitude to nature, ignorance, other
people, misery, institutions and dogmatic beliefs, especially that one's poverty is one's
predestination. It equally has a political dimension in that this freedom must include rule of law,
freedom of expression, political participation and equality of opportunity.

OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT

Todaro and Smith, (2004) have outlined three objectives of development which have a
universal application and which corresponds to Goulets (1971) core values of development.
These are:

1. To increase the availability and widen the distribution of basic life - sustaining goods
such as food, shelter, health and protection.

2. To raise levels of living, including, in addition to higher incomes, the provision of more
jobs, better education, and greater attention to cultural and human values, all of which will
serve not only to enhance material well-being but all to generate greater individual and national
self esteem.

3. To expand the range of economic and social choices available to individuals and nations
by freeing them from servitude and dependence not only in relation to other people and
nation-states but also to the forces of ignorance and human misery.

COMPARING LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT

8
(The Human Development Index HDI):

Obviously, underdevelopment is not absence of development, because every people

have developed in one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent. Underdevelopment
makes sense only as a means of comparing levels of development. It is very much tied to
the fact that human social development has been uneven and from a strictly economic
viewpoint some human groups have advanced further by producing more and becoming more
wealthy (Rodney,1972).

The issue of comparing the levels of development between or among nations, is one
that has always drawn some controversies. This arises from the fact that most of the indices
used for this comparison are basically economic and as such tend to obscure the fact that
development is all about man and not figures or things. Some development scholars, quarrel
with these indices that equate economic growth with development.

In line with the current ‘New Development Thinking’, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) introduced in 1990 a new comprehensive annual ranking of countries on
the development continuum, known as the Human Development Index (HDI).

The HDI tries to rank all countries on a scale of O (lowest human development) to I
highest human development) based on three goals or end products of development. Longevity,
as measured by life expectancy at birth, knowledge as measured by a weighted average of adult
literacy (two thirds) and mean years of schooling (one third), and standard of living as measured
by real per capita income adjusted for the different Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of each
country's currency to reflect cost of living and for the assumption of diminishing marginal utility
of income. Using those three measures of development and applying a formula on data from
175 countries, the HDI ranks all countries into three groups: low human development (0.0 to
0.499), medium human development (0.50 to 0.799), and high human development (0.8 to 1.0)
(Todaro & Smith 2004).

CALCULATION OF THE HDI

As already stated, the HDI was calculated based on three dimensions:

1. Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity to HDI

2. Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds
weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-
third weighting).

3. Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per
capita at purchasing power parity.

This methodology was used by the UNDP until their 2011 report.

In general, to transform a raw variable, say x, into a unit-free index between 0 and 1 (which
allows different indices to be added together), the following formula is used:

9
 X index = x - min (x)

Max (x) - min (x)

Where min (x) and max (x) are the lowest and highest values the variable X can attain,
respectively.

The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with
1/3 contributed by each of the following factor indices:

Life expectancy Index = LE - 25

85 - 25

Education Index = 2 x ALI + 1 X GEI

3 3

Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = ALR - 0

100 - 0

Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = CGER - 0

100 - 0

GDP = log (GDPpc) - log (100)

Log (40000) - log (100)

On November 4 2010 the UNDP published an updated form of the HDI which differed
from the former one. This new method which we may now label the New HDI (NHDI) was
meant to address the criticisms of the HDI, some of which we have highlighted above. It is still
based on the three dimension as measured by the life expectancy at birth, education as
measured by the mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling and standard of
living as measured by GNI per capita (PPP US $).

The 2010 HDI introduced the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index that factors
equalities in the three basic dimensions of human development (income, life expectancy and
education). According to the report, the IHDA “is a measure of the average level of human
development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account:

In its 2010 human development report, the UNDP began using a new method of calculating the
HDI. The following three indices are used:

10
1. A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth

2. Education Index: Means Years of schooling and expected years of schooling

3. A decent standard of living: GNI per capital (PPP US$)

1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI) = LE - 20

85 - 20

LEI is 1 when life expectancy at birth in 85 and 0 when life expectancy at birth is 20.

2. Education Index (EI) = MYSI + EYSI

2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) = MYS (7)

15

Fifteen is the projected maximum of this indicator for 2025

2.2. Expected Years if schooling index (EYSI) = EYS (8)

18

Eighteen is equivalent to achieving a master’s degree in most countries.

3. Income Index (ll) = In (GNI pc) - In (100)

In (75,000) - In (100)

II is 1 when GNI per capita is $75,000 and 0 when GNI per capita is $100

Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices:

HDI = 3 LEI . EI . II.

LE: Life expectancy at birth

MYS: Mean Years of schooling (years that a person 25 years -of- age or older has spent in
schools)

11
EYS: Expected years of schooling (years that a 5-year-old child will spend in schools throughout
his life)

GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita.

According to Todaro and Smith,(2004) one major advantage of the HDI is that it does
reveal that a country can do much better than might be expected at a low level of income, and
that substantial income gains can still accomplish relatively little in human development.

Secondly, it shows clearly that disparities in income are greater than disparities in other
indicators of development, at least health and education measures.

Thirdly, the HDI reminds us that by development, we clearly mean broad human
development, not just higher income.

The major criticism against the HDI are that first, gross enrollment in many cases
overstates the amount of schooling, because by basing on school enrollment, note is not taken
of those that drop out later.

Secondly, giving the three components equal weight there is clearly some value
judgment behind it.

Finally, the HDI does not really pay much attention to quality. For instance, it considers
school enrollment figures without a thought for the quality of education.

The above drawbacks notwithstanding, the HDI, when combined with traditional
economic measures of development, greatly increases our understandings of which countries
are really experiencing development and which are not. Also by examining each of the three
major components of the HDI-adjusted real per capita income, life expectancy, and literacy and
schooling measures and by disaggregating a country's overall HDI to reflect income distribution,
gender, regional and ethnic differentials, we are now able to identify not only whether a country
is developing but also whether various significant groups within that country are participating in
that development.

By using the HDI, it becomes easy to differentiate between growth and development. As
the experience of many Third World nations have shown, that, the growth of the economy or
economic growth, does not automatically translate into development. Thus, there could be
growth without development. Growth without development, according to Samir Amin is
"growth engendered and kept up from the outside, without the construction of socio-economic
structures that would enable automatic passage to a still further stage, that of a self-centered
and self-managed new dynamism”. Simply put, growth without development explains a
situation where the benefits of a nations economic growth do not 'trickle down' or spread to
the majority of the nations population.

The HDI is not interested in growth but development as indicated by improvements in

the three end products of development, hence some countries that have higher per capita
incomes still rank lower in HDI than others with lower per capita incomes. By using the HDI, one

12
attempts to see development from the perspective of Dudley Seers which we quoted earlier in
this study. Development is not all about high per capita income, but should be concerned with
the living conditions of the people by asking the simple questions of what is happening to
poverty, unemployment and inequality.

Conclusion

Thus far, we have tried to actually look at the concept of development. We have done
this, by trying to examine earlier views of the concept which saw it basically from an economic
standpoint. Fortunately, this conception is changing, and development is increasingly and
correctly being viewed as a holistic phenomenon which is human centered.

What we have been trying to present is the new thinking on development, that aims at
the improvement of social, economic and political institutions and other aspects of the people's
lives.

For development to take place means the people who are its agents as well as the goal
must be involved. They must be involved in making the decisions about how to proceed with
the development process. This is why most nations that have adopted foreign or foisted
prescriptions on how to embark on developing their nations have really found it difficult to carry
their people along. For instance many nations that adopted the Structural Adjustment
Programme which was clearly an imposed programme have met with revolts from their people
and other kinds of covert resistance. Sadly, this has been mis-interpreted to mean that the
people are not ready to face the hard choices which will lead to rapid development. This is far
from the truth. The people are ready to make the sacrifices, but they should be part of the
decisions pertaining to the sacrifices. Development programmes or paradigm that alienate the
people cannot achieve optimum results. If we accept that we cannot shave somebody's hair in
his absence, we then understand that we cannot develop a community without the community.

“Development is something that people must do for themselves, although it can be

facilitated by the help of others" (Ake, 2001). This being the case, it is important that in
fashioning development paradigm, the values and peculiarities of particular nations should be
properly taken into account. As aptly noted by Stiglitz (1998):

What works in one set of circumstances may not work in others. Analysis is required to
identify the factors that determine success and to establish the counterfactuals (what would
have happened in the absence of a particular project or policy). Examples of best practices may
provide useful and persuasive anecdotes, but they are no substitute for analysis.

Another fact that must be borne in mind about the development process, is the role of
leadership. The pivotal role of leadership become apparent when it is realized that, it is the duty
of the leaders to galvanise the people towards embarking on the development process. It is
equally the leadership that determines the path to follow. It is in appreciation of this that
Waterson wrote that:

13
 Experience demonstrates that when a country's leaders in a stable government are
strongly devoted to development, inadequacies of the particular type of plan in use, or
even the lack of any formal planning will not seriously impede the country's
development. Conversely, in the absence of political commitment or stability, the most
advanced form of planning will not make a significant contribution towards
development.

Our discourse has clearly avoided the issue of development theories with their merits
and demerits. This is clearly intended. We do not intend to join the debate about the best
approach/theory or paradigm. Our interest is simply that whichever path a nation chooses must
be one that aims at making man the aim and agent of development, for it is in doing so that
development makes meaning to the man on the street and becomes a meaningful process.

REFERENCES

Ake, C. (2001). Democracy and development in Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited

Crockroft, J. D., Frank, A. G. & Johnson D. (1972). Dependence and underdevelopment. New
York: Ancor Books.

Goulet, D. (1971). The cruel choice: A new concept in the theory of development. New York:
Atheneum

Obi, E.A. (2005). Political economy of Nigeria. Onitsha: Bookpoint Ltd.

Offiong, D. (1980). Imperialism and dependency. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers Ltd

Pleskovic, B. & Nicholas, S. (Eds) (2000). 'Introduction' Annual World Bank Conference on
Development Economics. Washington: The World Bank Group

Rodney W. (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-'Ouyerture.

Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Sen, A. (1999).Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf

Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development. Paper presented at the eleventh world
conference of the society for international development. New Delhi: India.

Stiglitz, J. (1997). An agenda for development in the twenty-first century. A key note address to
the ninth annual World Bank conference on development economics. Washington DC April
30,1997. (2000) Development thinking at the millennium. Keynote address to the annual World
Bank conference on development economics, April 18,2000.

14
Streeten, P. P. (1994). Strategies for human development: Global poverty and unemployment.
Copenhagen: Handelshojskotan Forlag,

Todaro, M. P. & Smith, S. C. (2004). Economic development. New Delhi: Pearson Education.

Todaro, M. P. & Smith, S. C. (2011). Economic development. (11th Ed.) New Delhi: Pearson
Education.

***Obi, E.A. (2017). Reconstructing the meaning and tenets of development. In E.A. Obi, A.M.
Okolie & S.O.Obikeze (Eds). State and economy: Interrogating the role of the
state in the development process (2nd ed). Onitsha : Bookpoint Educational Ltd.

15