lines etc. This contrast made me rethink the term“development”. In my view, the
natives have the right to get a fair share of development they deserve. That is what
scholars call,“social justice.”Income distribution and a fair share of a nation’s
“wealth”should be one of the indicators for development too.
Five years later, I lived in the US; in Amherst, Massachusetts, to be precise.
I observed shattered, rundown, and deserted factories in many towns during the six
years we lived and worked there. The center of mass production had already shifted
to other parts of the world where labors are cheaper and the threshold levels of
pollution can be lower. I witnessed both African Americans and Caucasians who
became homeless, begging for dollars at a few crossroads in our town. Sad news
broke daily: mass massacres from shooting sprees in many places; foreclosures of
homes; huge deficits as a consequence of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and severe
budget cuts that affected the education system, airlines, social services and more. Of
course, we have electricity, tap water, water closets, internet access, a central
heating system, and a phone. It is alarming that 46 millions of Americans still live
below the poverty line. In 2012, a single person under 65 years old who earns less
than $11,945 per year is considered poor (concensus.gov).
On average, a poor American earns about 33 dollars a day, which is almost 30
times more than a poor Thai. In other words, development is quite relative, isn’t it?
The level of dissatisfaction in the quality of life may be more or less the same, but
the amount of money one earns is so different. Does development mean safety of
life, a safety net for the underserved, and income distribution? Can the people in
those almost deserted towns get organized and revitalize their own communities?
You see, development is a discourse. It has many different meanings and defi-
nitions, as Wolfgang Sachs (2013:5), a German scholar in development dialogue,
puts it:
“On the one hand there are those who implicitly identify development with economic
growth, calling for more relative equity in GDP. Their use of the word‘development’
reinforces the hegemony of the economic world view...On the other hand, there are those
who identify development with more rights and resources for the poor and powerless. Their
use of the word calls for de-emphasizing growth in favor of greater autonomy of
communities.”
Regarding development theories, the modernization paradigm which endorses
economic wealth has been popular since the 1960s. It emphasizes development as a
path of growth that a poorer country should follow to get into the holy grail of
living like Western people. That assumption is being proven to be inadequate. The
slumping down of the European and the US economy; the busting of the inflated
housing market in Japan and the US; the droughts and strong UV levels that cause
skin cancer in Australia; the suicidal cases in Japan and Korea, the pollution of air
and water in China...should not be dream goals for any developing country.
xx Introduction