Argument:

• “Underdevelopment” becomes a tool for colonizing not by brute and force but
by influence.
• Development’s meaning changed when President Thurman of the United
States coined the term “underdevelopment” which gives the America a
permanent power at the top being a model of a well-developed country.
• In avoiding underdevelopment signs – poverty, scarcity, and other undignified
conditions, development under powerful countries became its standard.
• Development continuously alters traditional societies into economic societies which
was top-down/hierarchical design.
• It is possible to attain development by focusing on what the country has and
strengthen it envisions not to copy other country’s meaning of development.

Questions:

• What if development under colonization still rule does it change the fact that
underdevelopment countries can possibly stand on its self?
• Does “Development” under powerful countries as a standard be not beneficial
to the so-called underdeveloped areas or countries as a primary cure for their
needs?
• Can nation’s self-independence on growth and development be sufficient to
equalize the hierarchical standards many societies had been facing?
• Will it be chaotic when the whole world creates their own developmental
standard and not centralized to one particular nation whom is close to reach its
full potential?
• How can we scale each countries growth and development if all of each are
having its own standards?

Connection:

• This paper is convincing in a case of making powerful countries as a standard

for development that Philippines as a third world country should strive to be
as economically advance as United States.
• It is also convincing in the sense of underdeveloped countries never really excel
even given all these years we strive to be called a well-developed nation in a
system where design according to the United States.

Implications

• this paper prioritizes the call to promote nation’s action to create its own
standard for development while the main problem does not majority relies on
the definition of development but continuous hierarchical standard that
equates poor to be poorest and rich to be richer.
• It also induced a straight forward argument without clearly justified the result
why we should stop making powerful countries as a standard for development.

Esteva, Gustavo. “Development.” The Development

Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs. Zed
Books, 2010.