Talk:International development

History of Development

I propose removing or replacing the 3 paragraphs that start "International development has existed as long as nations have existed." This redefines ID in a way that is too broad to be helpful, is not consistent with common usage, and is inconsistent with the rest of the article. It is true that international relations and international trade have a longer history, but international development as a field of study and practice really started after WWII. I don't see any reason why the wikipedia article should take a different position than most text books. Unless there are any objections in the next couple of days, I will make the appropriate changes to the history section (and remove the link to Shah Waliullah for same reason), Cheers. APB-CMX 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The above suggestion is well-taken. If we look back at human history, it is simply not true that "international development" has existed for very long. For most of the history of nations, war and conquest was the rule. The theoretical, practical and fiscal concern of actually 'aiding' other nations in and of themselves, and/or understanding how they can develop to promote human welfare is a relatively new concern. Perhaps in part because social mobility - including accessible and widespread wealth - is also a relatively new feature of the general human experience. In sum, I agree with APB above in the suggestion to remove or replace this misleading suggestion that the existence of nations and the idea of international development somehow relate or connect. Globalfix (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

china?

The following qoute should be tempered. It is well known that if you take out China (which has not followed liberalism, but rather a state-guided capatalism- quite the opposite), poverty in the world has not decreased. This is an entirly misleading statement. someone please share their thoughts before I change anything. This is the qoute: "By the 1990s, development theory had reached an impasse [5] and some academics were imagining a postdevelopment era[6]. The Cold War had ended, capitalism had become the dominant mode of social organization, and UN statistics showed that living standards around the world had improved over the past 40 years[7]. Nevertheless, a large portion of the world's population were still living in poverty, their governments were crippled by debt and concerns about the environmental impact of globalization were rising." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.171.49.168 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC). I have heard similar criticism of development statistics in the past, but I am unsure if the numbers from China merely pad the increase in global development or are the sole cause of a positive vs. negative growth percentage in world poverty statistics. Could you include a link to the statistics you are citing? 204.227.243.16 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia An article from Wikipedia's poverty article should help to clear up any confusion about rising poverty rates and the influence of China's development on overall poverty statistics. [[1]] This article written by Xavier Sala-i-Martin, a Professor of Economics at Columbia University, states that, "The exact growth of income per capita in China is a key determinant of the reduction of worldwide poverty, given its large size and the remarkable rate at which it has reduced poverty. Using only survey data, the World Bank estimates that $1-a-day consumption poverty in China fell from 53 percent in 1980 to 8 percent in 2000.[13] Although China is an important part of this success story with a decline in the poverty rate from 32 percent in 1970 to 3.1 percent in 2000, which accounts for 251 million people escaping poverty, it is by no means the whole story. Indonesia’s poverty rate declined from 35 percent in 1970 to 0.1 percent in 2000. Thailand, with a poverty rate over 23 percent in 1970, had practically eliminated poverty by 2000. In fact, with one exception, all of the countries in this region experienced reduction in poverty rates; the only country in which the poverty head count increased was Papua New Guinea." It goes on to detail an increase in the number and percentage of people rising above the poverty line in South Asia (minus Nepal), and an increase in development in Latin America when measured from 1970 to the present, with most occuring in the first decade, and a more modest backtracking since. It also deals with Africa, which has gotten poorer over the same period, and shows an increase in development in post-Soviet states, when they abandoned state-run economies, and began shifting towards a more market-driven economic approach. So overall, China does play a role but its rise is not the sole cause of numbers detailing increasing global development. 204.227.243.16 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Please add info

I gave it my best go, and I think what content is there reads pretty well. Still, someone who knows something about the topic should definitely go in and add some more information. I was also somewhat concerned about the use of "some think that" in the last section, but I didn't know and the previous version didn't specify either. So that'd be something for someone who knows these things to add.

Well...before I do anything, I want to run by some ideas to anyone who might be following this topic. The first is that "Development Theorists and Practioners" could be merged with "Development Studies" and "Development Economics" under those sections. Also, there should be a separate "Law and Development" article, detailing that area. Also, I included a section of Regional Development Agencies and the thing that immediately came to mind were the regional banks, but I wanted to leave it open for others. And maybe it is not even necessary, I am not sure how best this page would be organized yet. Working on some ideas. Gibbsale 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas to elaborate on:

• WID (women in development)
• GAD (gender and development)
• GED (gender, environment, development)
• gender/women in environmental conservation
• gender/women and stuctural adjustment
• gender/women analysis of micro-credit
• difference of practical and strategic needs
• further explanations on the making of underdevelopment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraheli (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate lists into text

This article is list-heavy and text-light. I'd like to see a lot of the terms, theories, etc incorporated into a textual discussion of their relevance to international development rather than simply sit, unexplained, in list form. I don't really have the time to do this at the moment, however... --The Way 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of making some revisions! I added the lists first, but have since added a big chunk of text (a section called 'the era of development'). I intend to add more text at a later date. I believe that both text and lists are needed if this is to become the definitive article on international development. Note: I have not touched the old section on 'Methods and concerns', which is now partially redundant. Does the original author want to make some edits, or shall I take a go at this? APB-CMX 11:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Development in Practice

I've added a development in practice heading with "methods and concepts" as a sub-heading. I think this could include explanations of how development projects might actually work - what is taken into account (such as participation, women, children etc). There could also be a section on development sectors (health and sanitation, education, shelter, human rights, governance etc) explaining what they are and what their effects are.Tkn20 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Development theory

Currently the article on 'Development theory' is virtually without content and this article has a big section on it--would it be appropriate to move the section into that article? Countermereology 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Modernization Theory & Dependency Theory are two main development theories/schools of thought. If others agree this is where those ideas belong I will find the time to write up some of their main theories, once I am done writting an essay on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraheli (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic development article

What is the relationship between the Economic development article and this one? What should that relationship be? Jeremy Tobacman 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the best way to classify the distinction is 'economic theory' versus 'history & policy'. Also, the models discussed in economic development appear to relate primarily to domestic (ie, internal to the country) requirements for growth, while the concepts discussed on international development relate to global aims, goals, policies, etc. My recommendation would be to maintain two separate articles, otherwise they risk becoming too long and confusing. Specifically, the relation should be the discussion and explanation of economic theory (ie, Harold-Domar model) versus global policy aims. Admittedly, it is a difficult matter to parse precisely - but clearly important and worthwhile! Globalfix (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

some changes

I changed sustainable to long-term as much of what is done under the heading of international development cannot be considered sustainable. Sustainability is a fairly new concept in development and is only gradually being incorporated outside of the rhetoric, and I think it would be wrong to portray international development as being distinguishable from humanitarian assistance on the basis of sustainability. I am also looking to come back and include alot more on the history of international development, but I don't think the 'theories' section should be a sub-section of 'history'... Should it just be its own heading perhaps?

Livelihoods

I added some substance to the Livelihoods section. As the SLA is widely respected in policy circles and in use today by development agencies and organizations, there should really be a new article focusing simply on the approach's history, framework, connection to development theory, and how it is utilized in development practice. Perhaps someone could start this up.