Defining ‘development’
Before we can discuss ‘African development’ we first need to know what the word ‘development’
means. Unfortunately, there does not exist a single, universally accepted, definition of
‘development’. Development is an abstract concept, the meaning of which is far more difficult to
grasp than something tangible like a bicycle, a pair of shoes or your teacher. If you would ask five
people what the word ‘development’ means, it is likely that you will get five very different answers.
One thing is clear though, the word ‘development’ refers to some kind of process of change that
occurs over time.
To be more specific about the way we use the term ‘development’ in this textbook we make a
distinction between ‘human development’ and other categories of development such as ‘political
development’, ‘economic development’, ‘social development’ or ‘cultural development’.
Although all these categories are related, the term ‘human development’ emphasizes aspects of
development that are of direct importance to people. This emphasis appears in the following
definition offered by the United Nations:
Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has defined development along similar lines. According to Sen
development can be regarded as “a process of expanding the freedoms that people enjoy” (2000,
3). Development thus depends on the ability and capacity of people to make choices in their
personal and social lives. The process of expanding peoples freedoms requires removing many
different kinds of material and immaterial barriers to freedom, such as poverty, insecurity, or
unaccountable government, but also a lack of good infrastructure complicating physical mobility
or a lack of access to safe drinking water, food or electricity. In Sen’s understanding of
development, the freedom that people enjoy to decide over the course of their own lives is essential.
Economic or political developments are also important, but mainly because they create particular
conditions for achieving the higher aim of human freedom
Although the focus on people’s freedom of choice gives us a more specific idea of how to define
‘development’, there remain a lot of questions about the meaning of development as freedom. First
of all, when we talk about ‘freedom’, or ‘liberty’, it is important to know to whom this applies.
Few people will actually think that the ideal of human freedom should be pursued under all
circumstances. For instance, parents will restrict the ‘freedom’ of their children until they have
reached a certain degree of maturity. If they wouldn’t protect their children by limiting their
freedom, chances are high that children will not survive. Moreover, what constitutes freedom for
one person, family or community, often implies a reduction of freedom for others. If I allow myself
the freedom to eat all the food on the table, there will be nothing left for my family members. And
what about the ‘freedom’ of humans versus other living creatures, such as plants and animals?
Indeed, freedom and un-freedom go hand in hand: if we agree that all people have a basic right to
free medical care, we simultaneously claim that doctors have a duty to assist us.
The idea that human freedom is almost always distributed unequally among members of any type
of group or society, is best captured in another abstract term: ‘human agency’. Human agency refers
to the capacity of humans to act. This capacity is largely restricted by natural forces, many of which
humans are not able to control or manipulate. But agency can also be restricted by economic, social
or political structures or institutions (rules, see for further explanation below), that go beyond the
control of the individual. An important example of the latter type of man-made restrictions is
gender inequality. In a situation of gender inequality, the agency of women is restricted in favour
of the agency of man. There are many societies in today’s world where gender inequality is
supported by cultural norms, values, religious institutes or even by state law. Hence, if we care
about human development, and we agree that it is about expanding the freedoms all people enjoy,
than the pursuit of gender equality by supporting female agency is very important.
Organizations such as states, families, schools and sports clubs create rules that coordinate and
distribute the rights and duties of their members. States may provide free primary education to
people, but also oblige them to preserve part of their later income for taxes to finance these schools.
Such rules are subject to public discussion and political debate. Even between two neighbour
village families there may exist very different rules about how their members allocate household
labour and shared resources.
We call rules that regulate the behaviour of people ‘institutions’. Institutions include formal rules
such as laws that are written down on paper, but also informal rules, codes of conduct that are
adopted by many but not formally included in codified law. The institutions that govern people’s
behaviour are inspired by different conceptions of what people believe to be ‘normal’ or
‘appropriate’ and what they see as ‘ab-normal’ or ‘inappropriate’. In more simple terms, we can
define institutions as the ‘rules of the game’: without such rules it is impossible for people to live
together in peace and harmony.
But for people living together it is not only important to have rules. It is equally important to have
mechanisms to control and enforce these rules. Rules can only function in practice if people who
disobey the rules are corrected. For instance, in a soccer game the referee has the power to correct
the behaviour of players and make sure that the match is played under fair conditions. The referee
cannot change the rules of the game, he/she can only make sure that they are applied when the
game is played. People can only start to trust institutions if the abuse of rules is constrained. If
people trust that the rules will be obeyed they feel more secure and they become more likely to
invest in their businesses, or to pay taxes to their government. Indeed, if state authorities commit
themselves to uphold institutions and secure the rule of law, then this also implies that they fight
corruption and punish people who abuse political power for personal gain.
There is no society in the world where institutions, including the systems of control, are set up in
a perfect way. National laws, or social codes, always favour some interests over others. But if
societies and politicians have to balance the rights and duties of people, it would be helpful if we
rank the various aspects of human freedom in order of importance. This is more difficult than you
may think it is. How would you rank, for instance, such basic necessities as access to water, access
to food, protection against violence, access to health care, access to electricity, free public
education, political representation or internet access? Can we make a list? And even if we were
able to agree on the priorities, would we then also be able to agree on the best ways to achieve
those priorities? Should the government take money from family Y and give it to family X? Or
should private property be protected at the expense of economic inequality? Indeed, any ranking
of development priorities is informed by notions of ‘equality’ and ‘inequality’.