Meanings associated with the concept of development has varied across disciplines, and equally confused is its use within development theory. Like its conceptual ambiguity, practitioners and other actors have approached this field from different viewpoints, some of which dominate current development practice, despite their inherent lapses. For instance, its use has transitioned from emphasis on income and productivity to basic needs and social welfare, and more recently to environmental justice.
This paper attempts to elucidate weaknesses within current dominant paradigms of the practice, describing them as unstable and potentially implosive. Conceptually, it highlights qualifications such as ‘developing’ and ‘developed’, questioning in effect whether or not any country can truly be described as developed; as well as critiquing values that inform ‘first’, ‘second’ and ‘third’ world classifications. Other factors contributing to current realities in countries struggling to provide dignified livelihoods for their citizens are equally reflected upon, profiling in effect fundamental inequalities and other injustices perpetuated by a globalised world.
It argues that unique conditions of each country are a product of their equally unique experiences, which are accounted for by both deliberate and circumstantial decisions made by a powerful continuum of actors. Perceptions of identities, tools and other contestations are therefore elucidated, situating these discussions within the current framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Recommendations to address these fundamental inequalities are offered, drawing on a historiography of and emerging trends across civilisations. A case is made for an inclusive conceptualisation of development, an approach that guarantees a voice for all persons, and has potential to secure dignity for all, irrespective of their environments.
Acknowledgements: The author(s) is solely responsible for the content of this article, including all errors or omissions; acknowledgements do not imply endorsement of the content. The author is grateful to Siziwe Ngcwabe, the content committee and the Africa Evidence Network team for their guidance in the preparation and finalisation of this article as well as their editorial support.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in published articles, as well as any errors or omissions, are the sole responsibility of the author/s and do not represent the views of the Africa Evidence Network, its secretariat, advisory or reference groups, or its funders; nor does it imply endorsement by the afore-mentioned parties. We hope you enjoyed this blog teaser. Be sure to watch our newsletter for when the full blog post is published after Evidence 2023.
