|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
By Muhammad Ayaz Maroof kheil BSc Agri economic. As we know that the economic development is a process whereby the real national income of a country increases over a long period of time.If the increase in real national income is greater then the increase in population groth,so the per capitle income increase the real GNP a representative of the economic development.
Development is a metaphor?
Economic development can also be seen as a metaphor to growth. If we accept this metaphor the phrase "developing countries" has a subjective political meaning of "better" or "worse" countries. "Developed " countries become the "best" option or the final outcome of a State´s history. But this is not necesarily the case. There are many ways of living and some States might not wish to become "overdeveloped" (enourmous ammounts of waste, production, consuption and a lack of happiness and individuality). The notion of development can be critized in the same way we can critize evolution, when it implies man is the ultimate achivement of nature. When this happens we become blind to the issue of standards of living (human rights, and minum living conditions) which was the first intent for the notion of "Development".
Juan Camilo Bohorquez email@example.com (22.214.171.124 14:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
Juan, I agree that we should be very careful when we explaining the term "Economic Development" and I agree that we should change the way it is exposed here:
"Economic development is the development of economic wealth of countries or regions for the well-being of their inhabitants. The study of economic development is known as development economics."
At the same time I don't see economic development as a methaphor of growth. I would like to point out that there are important differences between the terms "economic development" and "economic growth".
First we should point that "Economic development" is still a term in dispute, and different currents of thought are still trying to take "ownership" of the term (in special because the subliminal message of improvement related to it).
At the same time there are clear differences on the concept of economic development and economic growth (that are clearly not grasped on this text) and that should be emphasize. The term “Economic Growth” is basically related to the concept of an increase on production per-capta (and consumption) of a region. On the other hand the term “Economic Development” has its meaning connected to changes on the way the economic system behaves, (usually, but not necessarily, associated to “economic growth”) increasing the “efficiency” of the economic system.
In my oppinion we should change this text and make it more focused on the different meanings of the term and shift the talk about the models to other pages. what you guys think?
(Luisinui 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
I think expanding on the meaning of the term 'economic development' would be fine. On the other hand I also think the models should stay. Particularly the one on surplus labor has a good discussionin it. They could be edited for length and flow though.radek 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"The notion of development can be critized in the same way we can critize evolution, when it implies man is the ultimate achivement of nature. When this happens we become blind to the issue of standards of living (human rights, and minum living conditions) which was the first intent for the notion of "Development"." It's not clear to me what this means. In particular, is this intended to imply that 'the notion of development' should NOT be criticized, i.e. that it is unassailable? Or is it to imply that development is a rather shady, malleable and ambiguous term?
I looked up this article hoping to find A: a clear definition of 'Economic Development', and B: at least some discussion as to WHY continuous economic development is necessary, or even desirable. It is obviously not necessary, as any indigenous native culture illustrates, and it seems questionable that it should be desirable outside of its intimate ties to notions success, and happiness in western culture, history and philosophy. The notion of individual development, and a movement towards philosophical satisfaction at the individual level make sense; beyond the provision of basic amenities I do not understand how one can construct an objective measure, based mainly on production and consumption, which gauges this development at a macro level.
I am particularly interested in this subject because I am now a graduate student in Japan, and have lived here almost two years. I often read in western papers, and in the Japanese papers as well (though less often in the latter) about japan's economic ills, or the threat thereof. I read a comment by a lead banker at one of the large foreign investment banks here about the need for Japan to increase its population so as to insure that its economic growth continues, or increases. I still read about the recession and economic stagnation of the 90's, and yet this is by far the safest, most efficient, cleanest place I have ever been. Most people have jobs, but if they don't, they still have a place to stay. If the population decreases, shouldn't it be acceptable for the GDP to also DECREASE albeit hopefully somewhat in proportion to the size of the population? Shouldn't sustainability be the only necessity? We live on this little dirt-ball in the middle of nowhere - and it seems really weird to me that we should have these sorts of 'growth' ideas about sales of softdrinks, software, or improved technology (don't get me wrong, I like the former, and spend the great majority of my time studying the latter).
It would be nice if this article at least addressed the issue of why sustained economic growth, rather than a sustainable economy, is necessary. This is a pillar, a fundamental tenet of western society, and it exerts a huge influence on public policy and international relations, as well as national identities. Yet I, and probably many other people, have absolutely no clue what it means. It seems absolutely insane to me, as a notion, so it would be nice if there were a clear, concise explanation, rather than a series of multipart, subjective criteria, used to define the central figure of the article. Thanks! joe
I do not think that the word development should be used in the definition of economic development. "Economic development is the development of the economic wealth..." Carlo
Sorry guys, see UN documents, I think HDI and human development are related to SOCIAL development, while economic development is still kinda GDP and economic indicators thing. All related indicators such as literacy etc. are relared to social development.
See: Declaration on Social Progress and Development http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/m_progre.htm
UNDP Human development concept http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/
UN SOCIAL and ECONOMIC development http://www.un.org/esa/
UNDP ("made just because not only economic but human development) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge with 'Development economics' and with 'Economic growth'?
It seems to me that much of this article would best be put in the article on 'Economic growth', and that the remainder of it could be usefully moved into the 'Development economics' article, with this article then redirecting to 'Development economics', and that one linking to 'Economic growth'. Seems strange to have 3 articles here when 2 makes much more sense (growth theory has a claim for autonomy because it exists in non-development economics) Countermereology 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I mostly agree. There is absolutely no reason for economic development and development economics to be two separate articles. They are synonyms. However, the only reason for the development economics article to have a link to the economic growth article would be to distinguish between the two areas of study. --JHP (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a somewhat fine distinction between the terms "development economics" and "economic development". "Development Economics is the branch of economics that studies developing countries....Economic Development has been defined by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen as 'the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy'....In short, there is more to economic development than growth in incomes."
- However, looking at the development economics article, it appears to cover economic development. In either case, economic development is a different area of study than economic growth. --JHP (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my first attempt to suggest an edit to a Wikipedia page. I am a 35-year practicioner of the of the "Practice" of economic development, having managed economic development organizations at the federal, state and local level. I disagree with the proposal to merge the section on economic development with development economics or economic growth. It seems to me that the discussion of this topic is very academic and that the definition provided of economic development is only itself partially valid. what is described in the definition is the "process" of economic development utilized by policy-makers to imcrease wealth in a community, thereby creating new jobs and tax base. In addition to being a "process", economic development is also a professional "practice", engaged in by tens of thousands of professional economic developers in the United States, Canada, and in most developed and many developing countries. As the original article states, this practice primarily involves efforts to grow and attract new businesss to a nation, a state or a community, efforts to develop new business and entrepreneurship and to help assist these businesses to reach a successful maturity and, finally, efforts to retain and expand existing businesses. To implement these goals, economic developers use a wide range of programs and activities that are created by policy makers to support this purpose.
The problem is that the term “economic development” often means different things to different people. In order to quantify the results of any economic development effort, it is necessary to define what is meant by the term, and this is where I don't believe the current definition goes far enough. Back in the 1980's, the American Economic Development Council, then one of two major economic development trade associations in the United States (merged with the Council for Economic Development in 1991 to form the International Economic Development Council) came up with the following - I think very useful - definition of economic development. I believe that the Wikepedia article should include it.
The "process" of economic development is defined as “the creation of wealth through the mobilization of human, financial, physical and natural resources for which there is a profitable market.”
The “practice” of economic development is defined as “the planning, design and implementation of community efforts which influence where wealth is created in order to strengthen an area’s economy by creating and retaining jobs and expanding the tax base.”
Economic development according to the UN is one thing that encompasses more than only (from my point of view) economic growth. I thing it would not be good to merge those. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the above, agreed that ED can be distguished from EG, per for example the Journal of Economic Literature codes used to classify articles from thousands of journals for eaarch purposes, in particular at JEL classification codes#Economic development, technological change, and growth JEL: O Subcategories at JEL: O1 and JEL: O2 for ED and OJEL: O4 for EG.
- Agreed also in different uses of "ED" term. However, that is an argument for Disambig, not necessarily using one article as an umbrella term for such divergent uses. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:development economics#Partial merge with 'Economic development'? for commenting on partial-merge proposal seeking comment in next 2 weeks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Interactive World Atlas
I have added an external link—the Encyclopædia Britannica "economic development" article—to this article. Britannica allows web sites to link to full articles, while casual visitors to Britannica can only see partial articles. The external link gives Wikipedia readers the right to read the full Britannica article on the subject. If anyone thinks this external link is inappropriate, go ahead and remove it. The purpose for adding the Britannica article was to give both Wikipedia readers and Wikipedia editors more information on the subject. Readers can also get the topic explained in a different manner than Wikipedia, which some readers may find helpful. --JHP (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
At least a portion of this article seems to have been furnished by the International Economic Development Council, which is not an unbiased entity. Economic development in the United States has spiraled out of control with public monies, furnished by taxpayers, going to private enterprise as "incentives" for locating those enterprises to certain locales on the promise of "creating jobs."
There are other schools of thought decrying "checkbook" economic development that are not addressed in this entry. Many economic development organizations -- local, state, regional, national -- support public funding because it's a guarantee of their continued existence and, by the way, where did all the money go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awordguy (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As an European, this article seems clearly written in the US point of view: Several references to US policies and policy making, particularly with examples such as Project Socrates, K-12 education, Economic Development Administration, and so on. Additionally, it focuses mostly on competitiveness and the neo-liberal economic school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sda030 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If economic growth is one aspect of development, then development shouldn't be the effort to promote something - it should be succeeding at that promoting. In other words, it's not just trying to attain growth, etc - it should be doing so. (Note undeveloped countries vs developing countries.) Allens (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)