The Implications Of Economic Development: The Concept Of Development

‘Development’ a word that has so much power that it defines the world for us. It is widely agreed by all the economists that development is not purely an economic phenomenon but rather a multi- dimensional process. Often development was seen as a synonym of economic growth. Till today this phase holds truth. No doubt that economic growth is an important constituent of development but it is not an end in itself. Economic growth is an equally important means of development. Throughout the 20th century the definition of the term development went through various changes. But in order to understand the term development, we first need to understand the meaning of the term under-development/ under-developed. Hla Myint, in his work ‘Economic development’ in Encyclopaedia Britannica, talks about the hypothesis of under-development. According to

This would require changes in government policies of the 3rd world. Thus, given the appropriate institutional framework, the 2 core elements of the Rostowian theory were (i) the manufacture as the ‘leading sector’ and (ii) the investment ratio. The trigger of economic growth was change in investment activity concentrated in manufacturing sectors designated as the ‘modern sector’ (Lipton, 1977).

Amartya Sen in his article “The Concept of Development”, talks about the same thing. He goes on to say “There can be scarcely be any doubt that, given other things, an expansion of opulence must make a contribution to the living conditions of the people in question. It was, therefore, entirely natural that the early writing in development economics, when it emerged as a subject on its own after the 2nd World War, concentrated to a great extent on ways of achieving economic growth and in particular increasing the Gross National Product (GNP) and total employment.” (Sen, The Concept of Development,