The Concept of New Economic Development

The New Economic View of Development The experience of the first decades of post–World War II and postcolonial development in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, when many developing nations did reach their economic growth targets but the levels of living of the masses of people remained, for the most part, unchanged, signaled that something was very wrong with this narrow definition of development. An increasing number of economists and policymakers clamored for more direct attacks on widespread absolute poverty, increasingly inequitable income distributions, and rising unemployment. In short, during the 1970s, economic development came to be redefined in terms of the reduction or elimination of poverty, inequality, and unemployment within the context of a growing economy. “Redistribution from growth” became a common slogan. Dudley Seers posed the basic question about the meaning of development succinctly when he asserted: The questions to ask about a country’s development are, therefore: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result “development” even if per capita income doubled.6 This assertion was neither idle speculation nor the description of a hypothetical situation. A number of developing countries experienced relatively high rates of growth of per capita income during the 1960s and 1970s but showed little or no improvement or even an actual decline in employment, equality, and the real incomes of the bottom 40% of their populations. By the earlier growth definition, these countries were developing; by the newer poverty, equality, and employment criteria, they were not. The situation in the 1980s and 1990s worsened further as GNI growth rates turned negative for many developing countries, and governments, facing mounting foreign-debt problems, were forced to cut back on their already limited social and economic programs. But the phenomenon of development or the existence of a chronic state of underdevelopment is not merely a question of economics or even one of quantitative measurement of incomes, employment, and inequality. As Denis Goulet forcefully portrayed it.