DP1 Students: IA Engagements!
Most definitions of development are going to come back to the idea of "well-being." The broadest definition of development is something like "the sustained effort to improve well-being and reduce ill-being." But, what does that mean?
Sustainable development, as it connects to the larger concept of sustainability, is certainly one reason why the precise meaning of development is contested. Sustainable development has become a topic of conversation, debate, and action more frequently over the last two decades, though early mentions of it date back into the 1960s and 1970s with the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Even within the idea of sustainable development, there are things that are still hotly debated, like whether or not nuclear energy can be considered sustainable (renewable? certainly not, but there is a fairly good case that it could be considered "sustainable" thanks to the technology and safety tools we have available to us today.)
Imagine there is a debate over definitions of development. Let's keep in mind that there is no ONE definition that is supreme and better than any other (at least, not objectively; subjectively... yeah people have their favorites fo sho.)
Consider how different sides of a debate might treat different definitions of development. A good debater is able to view the merits (the good aspects) of different ideas and arguments, but also the limitations (including the limits of their own point of view or position.) Consider the upsides and downsides of...
A definition of development that emphasizes Maslow's hierarchy of needs (it's worth considering the WHOLE pyramid.)
A definition of development that emphasizes social equality and social justice.
A definition of development that resembles W. W. Rostow's five-stage model, focusing primarily on economic growth via the export of manufactured goods.
A definition of development that leans heavily on sustainability, and pushes for environmental preservation via a DRAMATIC decline in emissions and the abandonment of fossil fuels.
Think of this more as an intellectual exercise rather than a debate that you try and hold with another person. The goal here is to try and fairly understand a variety of views, their positive traits, and their "blind spots" or limitations.
Uh...
Based on what you value the most.
Lots of things can be factors. While understanding a range of specific individual factors is helpful, you're also encouraged to think of them in terms of five different categories, as well as whether developed is helped or supported (or "promoted") or whether it is held back, limited, or "inhibited."
To what extent is the achievement of social and political stability essential for development?
Discuss the view that harmful environmental factors represent the greatest threat to successful development.
To what extent does development depend on the existence of institutional factors?
With reference to political and institutional factors, discuss the view that development is more likely to be promoted at the global, rather than local, level.
Vanuatu is a rather small Pacific island nation, made up of 13 main islands as well as a large number of smaller islands (mostly uninhabited.) There are only 300,000 people who live in Vanuatu, making it less populated than Beitun + Xitun districts of Taichung (when put together, at least.)
Environmental factors:
Social factors:
Yes... well, kinda. Keep in mind that several of the development theories we've looked at are a bit old and outdated (and certainly things like Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory are NOT advocated for or practiced in the current day.) BUT we look at them even though they're not used because they highlight different priorities for development, and we DO see many of those same priorities today, even if the "pathways" that states take towards becoming more developed no longer follow Rostow's 5-stage model or Dependency Theory's advocacy for self-sufficiency.