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.