Thread: Development: an idea that's logically incoherent, or in need of reform?

If a person were to examine the foreign policy of the United States and other industrialized nations, they will find that much of their foreign policy hinges on the development of foreign nations and the societies of people within them. For instance, in Iraq, it is said that the only possibility for a lasting peace is to develop Iraq, so that they may achieve a state of freedom, while the insurgency becomes less attractive to the average Iraqi. In addition to Iraq, much of the American foreign policy towards Africa is geared towards developing Africa, so that the people can learn to live in a more prosperous environment, where they can truly be free; for when people are dependent upon others for their food and livelihood, they cannot really be free. However, what is meant by this term 'development'? Does development mean that infrastructure should be developed? Does it mean that people should be given electricity, that they should be given jobs, that they should be given greater access to technology? Many times, although a system of development has good intentions when it tries to bring prosperity and freedom to the people of a given region, such development either does not do anything for, or works against, the goals of the developer. When development does not work for, or works against, the goals of the developer, it is because the developer failed to take into account the pre-existing power structures and the relevant forces in play in the lives of those they wish to develop – as such, the goals of the developer can only be achieved through a new understanding of the dynamics of development and power.

While there is some truth to the view that often development results fail to meet aims, there are examples that suggest it's a risk worth taking. Our investment in Europe and Japan after WW2 brought trading partners and prosperity to American business. It's an economic fact that market expansion and growth are linked; to grow an economy, expand its markets. That's why poverty is a millstone to an economy: No production, little consumption, and why the growing economies in the third world are ones where the population is transformed into consumers through labor. We may have some repulsion at the idea of a sweatshop economy, but they are needed to relieve poverty.
One of the problems we have repeatedly faced is supporting losing factions in power struggles, based on poor intelligence, bad tactics, and wishful thinking. (South America, for instance)

Originally Posted by Guyker

While there is some truth to the view that often development results fail to meet aims, there are examples that suggest it's a risk worth taking. Our investment in Europe and Japan after WW2 brought trading partners and prosperity to American business. It's an economic fact that market expansion and growth are linked; to grow an economy, expand its markets. That's why poverty is a millstone to an economy: No production, little consumption, and why the growing economies in the third world are ones where the population is transformed into consumers through labor. We may have some repulsion at the idea of a sweatshop economy, but they are needed to relieve poverty.
One of the problems we have repeatedly faced is supporting losing factions in power struggles, based on poor intelligence, bad tactics, and wishful thinking. (South America, for instance)

concrete examples would be very helpful.