The concept of development has been the subject of much debate and controversy in the field of

sociology and other disciplines alike. The meaning of development has evolved over time; or
rather it depends on the frame of context we provide it with. Contemporary development, for
instance, is primarily concerned with how we can sustain ourselves in the future and reduce our
negative impact on the environment, along with marking further technological advancements.
Was this always what we perceived as ‘modernity’? – In his article ‘Development and Social
Change’, Philip McMichael offers a critical analysis of the concept of development through
historical and political narrative and simultaneously examines the development paradox as
demonstrated by nations around the world, time and again.

Thus, we begin by putting the focus wholly on deconstructing the idea of modernity. As
sociologists, we typically view development as ‘directional change’, meaning, a form of
progress that moves in a specific direction. This progress can be seen in the core beliefs of
societies (i.e, from religious to secular rule), their physical arrangements (i.e, from rural to urban
- living), or their material resources (i.e, from animal to machine power). Consequently, this
view often associates development with a western way of life; with numerous non-western
nations already encountering the way of life as per western standards through different means
and emulating western models in their beliefs, social structures, and material practices. The idea
that modernity or development is the ultimate fate of humanity became widespread – as per the
western world’s notion of what is development.

The concept of development lays its origins in the colonial era; McMichael examines the
connection between colonialism and development. The period of colonialism began during the
European expansion from the 15th to the 20th century. It involved a colonizing power
subjugating another culture through military conquest of their territory using physical and
psychological force. Establishing colonies allowed for the exploitation of non-European nations
and the reorganization of their pre-existing cultures. It was essentially a system of political,
economic, and cultural domination in which a powerful country or countries sought to control
and benefit from the resources and people of the colonized regions. This often involved imposing
new institutions, beliefs, and practices on the native population. The history contains various
examples of colonialism; the extensive dominance the British Empire had over a large portion of
North America, parts of Africa, and India being the most widely discussed upon by McMichael.

The outcomes of colonialism were dire – from the marginalization of indigenous people, the
exploitation of their labor and resources, and the plundering of their cultural treasures for the
benefit of the colonial power alone. Moreover, it fostered misinterpretation of European
cultural superiority; colonial subjects were often portrayed as ‘backward’ and ‘trapped in
stifling cultural traditions’ when compared to Europeans through the lens of Europe's dominant
missionary and military-industrial infrastructure.Thus, Europeans felt the ‘moral obligation’ to
bring civilization and modernity to the ‘uncivilized’ people of the world. The concept of the
‘white man's burden’ was born in this context – The idea that the Western world saw itself as
responsible for bringing civilization to non-white races can be expressed as a concept of Western
superiority and a duty to improve the lives of those who were considered to be less developed.
Post-colonial African saying, “When the white man came he had the Bible and we had the land.
When the white man left, we had the Bible and he had the land” accurately sums up the reality of
colonialism and its impact.

One of the key features of the colonial economic system was the division of labour; the colonies
were designed to produce and distribute the raw materials, while the industrialized countries of
the western world were responsible for the production of manufactured goods. This division of
labour created a global economic hierarchy, with the colonies occupying the lowest rungs of the
ladder and the industrialized countries at the top, naturally benefiting the European powers.
Consequently, this specialization created a construct wherein the colonies were dependent on the
industrialized countries for manufactured goods, and the industrialized countries were dependent
on the colonies for raw materials.
This system resulted in the 2 significant effects; first, non - European societies and their natural
environments experienced considerable disruptions; Local farmers were forced to grow cash
crops, such as coffee or peanuts, for export monoculture instead of producing food for their
communities. Plantations, including those growing crops like cotton, tea, rubber, and bananas,
were created on land seized from local populations who were then conscripted as laborers.
Second, deliberate destruction of local handcrafts by the colonial powers; as evidence by the
British traders who destroyed local handicrafts in India through tariffs of 70 to 80 percent on
finished goods, forcing India to export raw cotton, which was then used to manufacture cheap
cloth in Manchester and sold back in India, leading to the decline of a traditional craft. All these
factors led to social reorganization under colonization as McMichael further explains it. He
argues that European development was achieved through a global relationship that was
racialized, with colonial cultures being underdeveloped in the process. He contends that
racialized global relationships were used to further European progress, damaging colonial
cultures in the process.
Needless to say, the western model of development, broadly sculptured by colonialism – a long
history of western countries' control over other societies and enforced their economic and social
systems. The global economic system still bears the scars of this division of labour, with many
developing nations still relying on the import of manufactured commodities and the export of
raw materials.

Early 19th and the 20th century witnessed the very first tremors of independence from
colonialism by the non - European nations; while Europeans aimed to ‘civilize’ their colonies in
America, Asia, and Africa, colonial subjects were questioning the paradoxes of European
colonialism – an argument for rights and sovereignty set up against their own enslavement.
Resistance to colonialism could be seen in the form of the Haitian slave revolution, the
independence movements of Latin American republics and culminating in the dismantling of
South African apartheid. But perhaps the greatest example of resistance to colonialism that
history holds is that of the French revolution. Colonial liberation not only meant undoing the
effects of colonialism from political and economic spheres, but also the deep impact on the social
and psychological aspects of colonized societies. Racism was a significant and enduring legacy
of colonialism that affected both the colonizers and the colonized, leaving behind deep
psychological scars that continue to influence people's attitudes and behaviors to this day.
Decolonization was thus a result of mass political resistance movements seeking liberation from
colonial rule, often marked by violent confrontations and took upon many forms including tactics
of terror against the colonists, national liberation struggles and widespread colonial labour
unrest. The goal of development initiatives was to maintain colonial rule, but colonial subjects
wanted development as a right.

As the colonial empires crumbled, the period from 1945 to 1981 saw the emergence of a new
major world order focusing on development. This period saw 105 new states become new
members of the United Nations, more than doubling its membership to 156 countries. Political
sovereignty extended to non-Europeans, who made up more than half of the world's population.
Moreover, this period was marked by the pervasive feeling of boundless idealism, as both the
governments and citizens of the first and third world collaborated in a synchronized effort to
promote economic growth and social progress through various methods. The leaders of the new
nation-states embraced this idealism and emphasized equality as a domestic and international
goal, inspired by the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

McMichael sees decolonization and development as intimately linked, since nations needed
political independence in order to pursue national economic development. In essence,
decolonization served as the ideal of sovereignty, while simultaneously offering the possibility of
converting colonial subjects into citizens and creating economic development for social justice.
European colonialism was the obvious model for the European colonial subjects, but not all
European colonies gained independence during the same period, resulting in varied development
models; Latin America’s independence being one of the major examples. Along with the
influence of French and U.S. ideologies of liberal-nationalism, decolonization and development
are interwoven in a way wherein development is granted.
McMichael further noted the difference between inner and outer directed model of development;
inner directed model emphasizes national self sufficiency and the protection of domestic
industries, thus associating itself majorly with import substitution. On the contrary, the outer
directed model focuses on integrating a country's economy into the global economy and
emphasizes export oriented growth, relying on global markets to drive growth and development.
In this context, US development was understood as an inner directed model, while British as
outer directed model of development.
The world was split into three major geopolitical regions during the postwar era of
decolonization, marked by the cold war after World War II (1939-1944). The First World was
the capitalist, Western countries, the Second World was the communist, Soviet bloc, and the
Third World was the postcolonial bloc, mostly consisting of rural, impoverished populations.
There were significant inequalities both between and within these subdivisions, as well as within
national units. In summary, the era of decolonization gave rise to a new world order that was
characterized by significant global inequalities. It is crucial to note that during the post-World
War II period, the United States held significant power in terms of its economy, military, and
ideology, serving as the superior standard of living – It goes without saying it came to be the
prototype of what a developed society should strive for.

The development project was first discussed by President Harry S. Truman in his 1949
speech, which divided the world's population into developed and underdeveloped regions with
the goal of assisting the less fortunate. This new paradigm erased its colonial roots by positioning
development and modernity as the gold standard, and as universal, natural, and uncontroversial.
The first crucial ingredient of development was nation-state; based on the government-citizen
relationship that developed in 19th-century Europe, nation-states are geographically narrowly
defined political systems. The second was the concept of economic growth; establishing the
goal of achieving a ‘rise in standard of living’, measured through using indicators such as Gross
National Product (GNP) or the national average of per capita income.
However, it is important to note that economic growth does not necessarily lead to equitable
distribution of wealth or a reduction in poverty. The development project must also consider
factors such as social justice, environmental sustainability, and political empowerment to ensure
that economic growth is sustainable and benefits all members of society.

The idea that development was inevitable and necessary was a key aspect of the development
project, and this was a widely held belief among planners, government officials, and citizens.
Both the Western and Communist blocs shared this belief, despite their different approaches to
achieving development. In terms of development, the West aimed for free-enterprise capitalism
as the end goal, drawing on Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy that individual self-interest
leads to the common good. Meanwhile, the communist bloc sought the abolition of private
property and central planning, based on Karl Marx's collectivist principle. Despite the
differences, both the blocs saw it essential for industrialization as a means to development.
Furthermore, the concept of national industrialization was described as an aim to move from
an agricultural-based society to an urban-industrial one; the policies were implemented to shift
people and resources from agriculture to industrial sectors, with the expectation that industrial
growth would improve agriculture. This belief is rooted in the fact that development would
follow a straight line to catch up with the west, which is considered almost natural.

In comparison, the third world countries were associated with the concept of economic
nationalism; strategies employed by developing nations with the aim to stimulate national
economic growth. For this, governments mobilize money and people, using individual and
corporate taxes, export and sales taxes to finance transportation systems and state-owned
enterprises. The main goal is to reverse the colonial division of labor, wherein the developed
countries mainly focused on manufactured goods while developing countries were suppliers of
primary goods, thus reducing the dependence on primary exports by protecting domestic
industrialization with tariffs and public subsidies, ultimately leading to industrialization and self-
sufficiency in manufacturing. Raul Prebisch is the main figure associated with this concept.
Import substitution industrialization, which sought to shield domestic industries from foreign
competition by subsidizing them, served as the framework for early economic development
strategies in third world countries. To support rapid industrialization and secure a growing
industrial base, third world governments also forged political ties with a range of social groups,
i.e, they adopted the concept of development alliance. In a way, the third world nations had no
alternative but to pursue industrialization as it aligned with the West's image, but that doesn’t
mean the development project wasn’t subjected to scrutiny by the members of the third world
nations.

In conclusion, the concept of development is not innate or universal, but rather a complicated
and debatable idea that is influenced by social context, politics, and history. Contrary to popular
belief, the western model of development is the outcome of historical and political processes that
were influenced by the enlightenment and colonialism's legacy. The ‘linear’ and ‘western’ idea
of development that is almost seen as natural is rather shaped by the diverse cultural, historical,
and social contexts in which development takes place. The idea still remains – to explore new
and alternative visions of what we call ‘development’.