From GNP to Basic Needs
| DOI | 10.1177/002085237904500307 |
| Author | Nasir Islam,Georges M. Henault |
| Date | 01 September 1979 |
| Published date | 01 September 1979 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
From
GNP
to
Basic
Needs :
A
Critical
Review
of
Development
and
Development
Administration
*
UDC
330.114.2:35.06
by
Nasir
ISLAM,
Assistant
Dean
(Graduate
Programmes),
Faculty
of
Administration,
University
of
Ottawa,
and
Georges
M.
HENAULT,
Vice-Dean,
Faculty
of
Administration,
University
of
Ottawa
During
the
last
three
decades,
the
notion
of
development
has
undergone
a
radical
change.
It
has
moved
away
from
a
narrow,
largely
economic
conceptualization
towards
a
wider,
all
encompassing,
socio-economic
one.
In
the
mean
time,
however,
the
development
process
has
not
waited
for
development
to
be
defined
precisely.
Policy-makers
in
the
&dquo; developing &dquo;
as
well
as
the
&dquo; developed &dquo;
countries
have
proceeded
with
formulation
of
strategies,
policies
and
administrative
designs
for
development.
These
strategies,
policies
and
structures
were
very
significantly
influenced
by
the
notion
and
conceptualization
of
develop-
ment
adhered
to
by
the
policy-makers,
experts
and
academics.
The
first
period
began
in
the
late
forties
and
early
fifties
with
a
simplistic
notion
of
development
leading
to
a
simplistic
adminis-
trative
model
of
development
administration.
The
sixties
ushered
in
a
period
of
evaluation
of
results,
doubts,
repetition
of
old
strategies
and
faltering
new
starts.
The
early
seventies
heard
the
voices
of
strong
dissent
and
saw
the
revamping
of
the
concept
of
development
leading
to
a
very
different
design
for &dquo;
Devel-
opment
Administration
&dquo;.
In
this
paper
we
would
like
to
evaluate
these
changing
notions
of
development
and
the
corresponding
designs
for
managing
development.
We
believe
that
there
has
been
a
tendency
toward
a
generalized,
idealized
model
of
development
and
its
im-
plementation
without
reference
to
the
society,
the
community
and
the
country
being &dquo; de-
veloped
&dquo;.
We
will
argue
that
the
two
models
are
not
alternatives
to
each
other
but
two
poles
of
the
same
continuum.
The
planners
and managers
must
develop
models
which
represent
the
blending
of
attributes
of
two
idealized,
polarized
versions,
contingent
upon
the
nature
of
society
and
country
concerned.
This
would
allow
the
consideration
of
environ-
mental
and
contextual
differences
between
various
societies.
Development
in
Model
I:
the
Omnipresence
of
GNP
To
clearly
understand
the
traditional
notion
of
development
one
must
begin
with
its
an-
tonym
underdevelopment.
It
is
a
relative
concept
and
generally
the
most
commonly
used
measure
of
this
relativity
has
been
the
income
or
product
per
capita
(accompanied
by
GNP
and
NNP).
These
measures
although
short
hand
have
been
regarded
as
the
closest
approx-
imation
of
reality.
GNP
economists
have
argued
that
these
measures
are
highly
cor-
related
with
a
number
of
conceptually
less
ambiguous
and
more
specific
measures
such
as
housing
space,
infant
mortality,
number
of
physicians,
hospital
beds,
calories
per
capita
and
various
other
precise
indicators.
Almost
all
traditional definitions
of
economic
develop-
ment
incorporated
rising
income
per
capita
as
a
central
feature.
Any
underdeveloped
economy
has
been
characterized
by
pre-industrial
methods
of
production.
An
underdeveloped
economy,
for
example,
would
use
animal
power
rather
than
tractors
and
organic
manure
instead
of
chemi-
cal
fertilizers.
In
manufactures,
the
prevalent
methods
are
oriented
to
handicraft
rather
than
large-scale
mechanical
technology.
The
pre-
valent
mode
of
transportation
also
remains
pre-industrial
and
non-mechanical.
All
these
factors
lead
to
low
labor
productivity
and
most
of
what
is
produced
in
labor
intensive
agriculture
is
consumed
by
its
labor-force.
Low
labor
productivity,
high
costs
of
transportation
and
lack
of
specialization
generate
low
per
capita
income.
Thus
a
large
majority
of
the
population
is
prevented
from
buying
manu-
factured
goods
because
they
do
not
have
sur-
*
The
authors
are
thankful
to
Professors
Milton
Esman,
Bernard
Schaffer,
Fred
Riggs,
and
John
J.
Carson
for
their
comments
on
this
paper.
To continue reading
Request your trial