What is Development?
As a geographically literate scholar and citizen, you should be following current events around the world. If you do this, you will undoubtedly hear many discussions of development. You’ll hear discussions of some countries that are “developing” and other countries that are “developed.” You might also hear terms like “First World” and “Third World.” You’ll also hear about how well development in the United States or other countries is going at any given time. Finally, you’ll hear discussions of certain types of development, such as sustainable development. But what does all this mean?
It turns out that “development” does not have one single, simple definition. There are multiple definitions and multiple facets to any one definition. There are also multiple, competing opinions on the various understandings of what “development” is. Often, “development” is viewed as being a good thing, and it is easy to see why. People in “developed” countries tend to have longer lives, more comfortable housing, more options for careers and entertainment, and much more. But whether or not “development” is good is ultimately a question of ethics. Just as there are multiple views on ethics, there are multiple views on whether or not “development” is good. Later in this module, we’ll see some cases in which “development” might not be considered to be good.
The simplest and most common measures for development are those based on monetary statistics like income or gross domestic product (GDP, which measures in monetary terms how much an economy is producing). These monetary statistics are readily available for countries and other types of places across the world and are very convenient to work with. Likewise, it is easy to find a good map of these statistics, such as this one of GDP:
Text description of Figure 5.1.
A world map illustrating nominal GDP data for the year 2012 from the IMF Data Mapper. Countries are color-coded based on their GDP in billions of U.S. dollars. There is a color legend in the bottom left corner: dark orange represents countries with GDP of 500 billion or more, medium orange for 100-500 billion, light orange for 25-100 billion, light green for 5-25 billion, and dark green for under 5 billion. Grey indicates no data available. Larger economies, depicted in dark orange, include the United States, Canada, most of Western Europe, China, Japan, and Australia. Smaller economies in greens are predominantly in Africa and parts of Asia.
Take a quick glance at the map in Figure 5.1. What do you see? Does anything interesting stand out? We’ll revisit the map later in the module.
But statistics like income and GDP are controversial. One can have a high income or GDP and a low quality of life. Simply put, there’s more to life than money. Furthermore, monetary statistics often overlook important activities that don’t involve money, such as cooking, cleaning, raising children, and even subsistence farming. These activities are often performed by women, so a focus on monetary statistics often brings large underestimates of the contributions of women to society. Finally, high incomes and GDPs are often associated with large environmental degradation. From an ecocentric ethical view, that is a problem.
Another way of looking at development is one based on health statistics such as life expectancy or child mortality. These statistics show another facet of development. In many cases, those with a lot of money also have better health. But this trend does not always hold. Take a look at this life expectancy map:
Text description of Figure 5.2.
The map uses varying shades of green to represent different ranges of life expectancy across countries. Darker green indicates higher life expectancy, while lighter green indicates lower life expectancy. Countries with life expectancy under 50 years are in light beige. Regions without available data or where the data is not applicable are marked with gray or omitted. The legend is positioned in the lower-left corner, showing ranges: <50, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-87 years. Highest life expectancies occur in Canada, and Australia. Lowest life expectancy occurs in Africa and Russia.
How does the Life Expectancy map in Figure 5.2 compare to the GDP map (Figure 5.1)? What patterns are similar? Is there anything different? Why might this be?
A third way of looking at development is one based on end uses. End uses are the ultimate purposes of whatever our economies are producing. For example, the end uses of agriculture are proper nutrition, tasty eating experiences, and maybe a few other things like the socializing that occurs during meals. The end uses of the construction of buildings involve things like having places for us to be in that are comfortable, productive, and beautiful. For transportation, end uses are being in the places we want to be.
Take a look at the following undernourishment map: How does this map compare to the GDP and Life Expectancy maps? What patterns are similar? Is there anything different? While most of the world's undernourished live in low-income countries, is there an exception?
Text description of Figure 5.3
The map shows the percentage of each country's population that is undernourished. Rates are generally lowest (less than 5%) across North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, and much of North Africa and the Middle East. Moderate rates (5%-24%) are common in parts of South America and Asia. The highest rates (25% to more than 35%) are concentrated in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Some countries have no available data.
| Region | Predominant Undernourishment Level | General Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| North America | Less than 5% | United States and Canada are among the lowest categories. |
| Europe | Less than 5% | Most European countries have very low rates of undernourishment. |
| Russia & Northern Asia | Less than 5% | Russia falls within the lowest category. |
| Central America & Caribbean | Mixed | Countries range from low to moderate levels, with some higher-rate exceptions. |
South America | Mostly 5% to 14% | Most countries have low to moderate undernourishment, with a few countries showing higher rates. |
| North Africa | Less than 5% | Most countries fall into the lowest category. |
| Sub-Saharan Africa | Mixed, often 15% to >35% | Highest concentrations of undernourishment occur in central, eastern, and southern Africa. Several countries exceed 35%. |
| Middle East | Mostly less than 5% | Most countries have low rates, with a few moderate-rate exceptions. |
| South Asia | Mostly 15% to 24% | Several countries, including India, show moderate levels of undernourishment. |
| East Asia | Less than 5% to 14% | Japan and South Korea are in the lowest category; China is in the next-lowest category. |
| Southeast Asia | Mixed | Countries range from low to moderate undernourishment levels. |
| Australia & New Zealand | Less than 5% | Both countries are in the lowest category. |
| Oceania Islands | Mixed/No Data | Some island nations have moderate rates, while others lack data. |
At the core of this discussion of development is one very fundamental question: What is it that we ultimately care about as a society? If we ultimately care about money, then the monetary statistics are good representations of development, and we should be willing to make sacrifices of other things in order to get more money. Or, if end uses are what we ultimately care about, then it is important to look beyond monetary statistics and consider the systems of development that bring us the end uses that we want. Modules 6 and 7 do exactly that.
Consider This: A Note On Terminology
Before continuing, let’s pause for a brief note on terminology. Though they are often used as such, the terms First World and Third World are actually not intended to be development terms. Instead, they are a legacy of the Cold War. The First World was the group of major capitalist countries, led by the United States. The Second World was the group of major communist countries, led by the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union explains why we don’t hear the term Second World much anymore. Finally, the Third World was everyone else, who were viewed as relatively unimportant to the Cold War. These days, the terms First World and Third World are often used not for the politics of the Cold War but for conversations about development. This use of the terms is inappropriate and should be avoided. Another common set of terms is the developing world and the developed world. These terms fit better, though they’re still not perfect. In particular, no part of the world has stopped developing, so, in some sense, all countries are developing countries. Finally, there are no clear divides between the more-developed countries and the less-developed countries, and there are also multiple ways of defining and measuring development. So, a safer choice is to use terms that precisely describe the type of development you intend, such as "high-income countries" and "low-income countries."