The fundamental proof of development and social
advancement is not found in ubiquitous infrastructure projects, neither is it primarily
evidenced by an upward trend in GDP. The litmus test for accurately evaluating and
qualifying the developmental state of a nation is conducted by evaluating the
prevailing mindsets and worldviews of the people. Since the law of averages
must apply in this context, a nation cannot be said to have attained “developed”
status simply because it has managed to produce exceptions and outliers i.e. a
few stars here and there.
Walter Rodney explained that Development in human society
is a many-sided process. At the level of the individual, it implies increased
skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline,
responsibility and material well-being. Some of these are virtually moral
categories and are difficult to evaluate. However, what is indisputable is that
the achievement of any of these aspects of personal development is very much
tied to the present social realities, prevailing socio-economic status and national
destiny as a whole.
He also gives interesting insight into what
Underdevelopment is.
He says underdevelopment is not the absence of
development, because nations have developed in one way or another.
Underdevelopment makes sense only as a means of comparing levels of
development. It is very much tied to the fact that human and social development
has been uneven and from a strictly economic view-point some human groups have
advanced further by producing more and becoming wealthier.
The moment a nation appears to be wealthier than others, an
enquiry is bound to take place as to the reason for the difference. After
Britain had begun to surge ahead of the rest of Europe in the 18th century, the
famous British economist Adam Smith felt it necessary to look into the causes
behind the ‘Wealth of Nations’. At the same time, many Russians were very
concerned about the fact that their country was ‘backward’ in comparison with
England, France and Germany in the 18th century and subsequently in the 19th
century. Today, our main pre-occupation is with the differences in wealth
between on the one hand Europe and North America and on the other hand Africa,
Asia and Latin America.
