Development is associated with change. How the world, the people, the economic, the society and technology changes. How it improves with time.
Between the 1950’s and 2000’s the analyst has characterized this time as the “age of Development”. After World War most of the world international development became a formal focus in the international relations.
We see Development as good to the world that will make the world better, however in the Compiling second edition of the Development Dictionary in 201, editor Wolfgang Sachs insisted:
The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscapes. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes, have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work.
But with all this negativity, development remains an important part in the international relations. It also forms an element in the architecture of development at both governmental and non-governmental levels.
There is three important links between modern development thinking and historical philosophy:
It is seen as a natural and necessary
It links the development with nature and the natural
The links between science and myth
Gillbert Rist made a very good point in 1995: There can be no fixed and final definition of development or what it should imply in particular contexts.
Therefore I have come to a conclusion that development can be good or bad. It can affect the international relations negatively or positively. It depends on how you as an individual choose to see it. I think development is good for the World. It makes the World a better, not necessarily safer, but a better place.
Development = Change
Change = GOOD!!
How relevant is it to classify countries as North World and South World
When poverty and development is the subject of any conversation it is very important to have some sort of grouping of the countries, who share the same characteristics.
If we talk about countries as rich or poor or developed or developing we are stereotyping. We give countries some sort of bad or good name, which may not be the case.
Most of the world would rather refer to the countries as developing or developed countries and that all the Countries is busy making their way to this change. Some faster than others.
"First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after World War II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia
Whoever uses the term today in a variety of meanings, mostly tries to describe the top end of the evolution of countries. Nations with the most advanced economy, highest standard of living, and the most advanced technology, the greatest influence in the world.
The term could also means: industrialized nations, developed countries, rich countries or the civilized world, in contrast to the poor, under-developed, un-civilized, exploited nations of the so called Third World.
Third World is all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries, as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.
Despite many definitions, the concept of the third world serves to identify countries that suffer from high infant mortality, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, and heavy dependence on industrialized nations. These are the developing and technologically less advanced nations of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. Third world nations tend to have economies dependent on the developed countries and are generally characterized as poor with unstable governments and having high rates of population...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document