Journal of Markets & Morality
Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring 2013): 7–24
Copyright © 2013
This article reviews the experiences, concepts, and prevailing paradigms on de-
velopment from the perspective of economic and international organizations and
offers a framework to integrate them. The development phenomenon gathered
momentum in the twentieth century as a means to mitigate poverty around the
world. The phenomenon-driven nature of development has led to definitions based
on different assumptions on the material and spiritual dimensions of development.
This article contributes both a review of the main assumptions underlying the
dominant paradigms on development and an integration of their core dimensions.
The main argument is that for fruitful dialogues and actions among practitioners,
social scientists, philosophers, and theologians engaged in promoting development
a first step is making explicit the assumptions underlying the dominant paradigms
of development to review and integrate at the social sciences, philosophical, and
Development is a challenge that emerges as a means to mitigate the predicament
besieging nearly 50 percent of the world’s population who live on less than two
dollars a day.1 In terms of income distribution, this reality means that 60 percent
of the people in the world survive on 6 percent of the overall income—a diagnosis
that drove 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Muhammad Yunus to conclude that
“this is no formula for peace.”2 Pope Paul VI had anticipated the same scenario
five decades before, when he put forth a number of thought and action criteria
to accomplish the goal of development as “the new name for peace.”3
Business Policy and Entrepreneurship
IAE Business School
This challenge rallies the efforts of people who devote their time to all dimen-
sions of development. Indeed, public, business, and nonprofit officials as well as
the leaders of religious institutions view development as their topmost priority.
These initiatives include, for example, the Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, created in 1967; the 2000 Millennium Declaration, with one of its eight
goals envisioning the creation of a global alliance for development that engages
both the private sector and society; the Conference on Business as Agent of World
Benefit (Academy of Management and the United Nations’ Global Compact)
held at Case Western University in 2006; the Global Forum Webcast on Creating
Shared Value (United Nations’ Office for Partnerships, Swiss Mission to the
UN, Nestlé, and Creating Shared Value) launched in 2008, and the New York
Declaration by Business, made in 2010 by business leaders from around the world.
These are just a few examples of the learning and action communities gathering
public, private, and third sector organizations to work on development issues.
At the business level, companies are questioned for using an obsolete approach
to value creation, with business goals confronting rather than meeting society’s
needs. As a result, company leaders are increasingly designing development
initiatives with base-of-the-pyramid strategies, deploying corporate responsibil-
ity efforts, or building development into their core businesses. Some examples
of these efforts to match core business objectives and society’s development
include Xerox’s Device Recycling program, which is intended to encourage
hardware returns, and its environmentally friendly photocopying business strate-
gies; Volvo’s new radiator, which decontaminates the environment; CEMEX’s
innovative housing program for the poor; and the Co-Operative Bank’s products
and services based on ethical and environmental causes.
However, a glance at these experiences and current literature lead to a conclu-
sion: The development assumptions and notions used in different initiatives and
serving as cornerstones for diagnoses and plans are not the same. Compare, for
example, the Washington Consensus’ per-capita GDP growth-oriented proposals
of the 1990s and the Millennium Development Goals sketched by world leaders
in 2000, as summarized in table 1.
Table 1: Millennium Development Goals—Some Metrics4
GOAL 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
Halve the proportion of people who live in extreme poverty.
Halve the share of people who suffer hunger.
GOAL 2: Achieve universal primary education.
Ensure complete primary schooling for all boys and girls
GOAL 3: Promote gender equality and empower women.
Eliminate gender disparity in primary education.
GOAL 4: Reduce child mortality.
Reduce by two thirds the under-five mortality rate.
GOAL 5: Improve maternal health.
Reduce by three-quarters the maternal mortality ratio.
GOAL 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
Halt and reverse HIV/AIDS spread.
Halt and reverse tuberculosis spread.
GOAL 7: Ensure environmental sustainability.
Reduce biodiversity loss.
Improve living conditions for slum dwellers.
GOAL 8: Develop a global partnership for development.
Make available benefits of technology, Internet users per 100
Why such a variety of views on development? There are many explanations,
but it could be argued that a main reason for that variety is the combination of
the political nature of the phenomenon and the lack of strong conceptual basis
at the scientific and philosophical level. The phenomenon-driven nature of de-
velopment has led to definitions based on different assumptions on the material
and spiritual dimensions of development. Although the concept of development
could be traced back to Cardinal Newman,5 it lacks strong conceptual bases in
the social sciences and in philosophy.6
Thus both academics and organization leaders need an all-encompassing view
of development to guide their efforts. This requires a phased-in effort. Based on
the argument that the assumptions contained in the paradigms we use to appreciate
reality-shape theories and policies that, in turn, condition outcomes, this process
should start with a historical and conceptual review of development in order to
glean and integrate the core assumptions and realities underlying development
visions. The second stage, supported on this integrated view of development,
involves the design of more comprehensive proposals. Finally, in the third phase,
this entire process comes together, starting with assumptions, moving on to pro-
posals, and leading to the results produced when these proposals are put in place.
Development—Plan and Scope of the Article7
This article focuses on the first stage, that is, the review of key development
experiences and assumptions in order to build a framework that integrates them.
Its goal is to visualize in order to integrate, clarifying the assumptions underlying
different development visions from the economic and international-organizational
point of view.
This article contributes both a review of the main assumptions implicit in the
dominant paradigms of development and an integration of their core in order to
create fruitful dialogues and actions among practitioners, social scientists, phi-
losophers, and theologians engaged in promoting development.
The scope of this article is limited by time-related and disciplinary restraints.
Time wise, this article focuses on development experiences and notions drawn
from the twentieth century when this phenomenon not only started to be researched
but also began to be used as a public and private policy-making goal. From a
disciplinary standpoint, while the development phenomenon is closely related to
the fields of theology, philosophy, sociology, economics, and management, this
article focuses on contributions by economists and international organizations.
The idea here is not to put forth a new model but to merge the prevailing views
of development as seen by Nobel laureates, like Amartya Sen, and international
agencies such as the United Nations’ serving as a guide for both academics and
managers who devote their efforts to the study and pursuing of development.
Once the assumptions underlying these views are made explicit, they could be
compared and integrated with the assumptions on development from a philo-
sophical and theological standpoint.8
To accomplish its goal within the above-mentioned scope, this article is divided
into four parts. Once its motivation, objectives, and scope have been described,
the next part reviews the historical evolution of key development notions since
the last century and their assumptions, pinpointing the differences between growth
and development as well as among development dimensions. Finally, this article
introduces a framework that encompasses the views on development, while the
last brings this article to an end, providing a number of proposals for reflection,
integration, and action.
Development: Reality, Notions, and Paradigms9
The interest in development, added to its complexity, renders leaders’ goals
and efforts disjointed and leaders themselves unable to pursue a common end.
Indeed, a current study reveals that “development” definitions and measure-
ments vary greatly. Several stakeholders, with differing views, are involved in
its characterization and gauging, enriching the outlook on reality but also lack-
ing shared criteria to afford a more comprehensive view of development. Table
2 summarizes development definitions and associated metrics, as described in
Table 2: Development Definitions11
Reference Notion Definition Metrics
1. Allen and
“A continued increase in
the size of an economy—
i.e., a sustained increase
in output over a period of
“Economic development is
… enhancing the factors of
labor, capital, and technol-
ogy—of a national, state, or
GDP and job creation
in Allen and
“Increase of society’s
productive capabilities, in
terms of their technolo-
gies (more efficient tools
and machinery), technical
cultures (knowledge on
nature, research and abil-
ity to develop improved
technologies), and the capa-
bilities and physical, tech-
nical and organizational
tools of those involved in
“Satisfying the needs of
current generations, without
compromising the possibili-
ties of future generations to
meet their own needs.”
local air quality), soci-
ety (e.g., car accidents
in roads/1,000), econ-
omy (e.g., long-term
“The purpose of devel-
opment is to create an
environment where all indi-
viduals can expand their ca-
pabilities and opportunities
can be enhanced for present
and future generations.”
Index (HDI). This
three metrics: life
expectancy at birth,
educational level, and
Table 2: Development Definitions (continued)
Reference Notion Definition Metrics
6. Sen (1990,
“The expansion of human
freedom to live the kind of
lives that people have rea-
son to value.” This freedom
is achieved by “the expan-
sion of people’s capabili-
ties” (Sen, 1999).
Literacy rate, health
rate, farming expan-
sion, industrial de-
real per-capita income
on North and
Enhancement of the socio-
(rules governing social
tion of capabilities and
(structure of networks or
relationships) and capabili-
ties (quality of networks or
such as organiza-
and sub-indexes, like
the World Economic
“Our goal is to eradicate
poverty, achieve sustained
economic growth and
promote sustainable de-
velopment as we advance
to a fully inclusive and
equitable global economic
system” (paragraph 1).
(see table 1).
These definitions stem from both implicit assumptions in development views
and the historical evolution of the concept itself. They point to at least three
major distinctions that will enable us to separate development from other as-
sociated phenomena: (1) “development” understood as “economic growth,” (2)
“development” viewed as “economic development,” and (3) new “development”
views. Next, these distinctions will be explored within their respective original
Development and Growth
First, a distinction must be made between “development” and “growth,” as both
terms are often used as synonyms. Indeed, “economic growth” (table 2, item
1) refers to a quantitative change in the scale of an economy, while “economic
development” (table 2, items 2 and 3) is a qualitative change that requires adjust-
ments in an economy’s capabilities.
The concepts in table 2 emerged as a result of the needs and urgent require-
ments prompted by events in the past eighty years. In fact, the modern notion
of development surfaced, reactively, after World War II, driven by the need to
grow. It was then that development became assimilated to growth, construed as
“a continued increase of the size of an economy (its GDP), that is, a sustained
output increase over a period,” usually measured in terms of GDP variations.18
Both concepts merged to serve the goals pursued at that time: rebuilding a
share of the West that, devastated by the war, was threatened by widespread
poverty, which, as viewed by leaders amidst the Cold War’s ideological polarity,
could translate into a breeding ground for communism. Thus the international
institutions created to regulate economic relations in the post-war period—the
World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and United Nations—and the United
States took development, construed as growth, as a priority.19
Development and Economic Development
Having clarified the historical and conceptual distinction between growth and
development, a second challenge awaits in disentangling economic development
Europe’s reconstruction after World War II was envisioned as an experience-
based transfer effort intended to analyze and replicate—taking into account
individual cultural and political settings as much as possible—the traits that
had driven some Western nations, such as the United States, to the degree of
economic development achieved at the end of the war.
Next, physical capital and the systematic advancement of technology became
the characteristic signs of the so-called developed countries. As a result, at first,
the notion of development was tied to industrialization, a term that referred
to features such as technological innovation and capital investments, which
were viewed as necessary to fuel development. This process continued to be
measured by means of a progressive increase in per-capita income—none other
than a nation’s economic growth rate. Economic growth became synonymous
with economic development, while the link between development and economic
development also grew stronger.
The previous views on development suggest that it is necessary to make yet
another distinction between economic development (table 2, items 1 through 3)
and the new notion of development (table 2, items 4 through 8).
• Economic development: Traditional views construe development
as a national economy’s ability to drive and sustain annual gross
domestic product (GDP) or per-capita income increases. This
notion prevailed until the 1970s and defined development as an
“economic phenomenon whose rapid overall and per-capita GDP
growth would trickle down to the masses, translating into new jobs
and economic opportunities, or would create the necessary condi-
tions for a broader distribution of the economic and social benefits
borne by growth.”20 As noted below, the results of this assumption
were not as expected, and, consequently, economic development
was redefined as poverty, inequality, and unemployment reduction
in a growing economy.21
• Development: The new notion of development emerged during the
1970s, after many developing countries had accomplished their
goals over the previous decades and, yet, failed to see any major
changes in their population’s living conditions. This scenario wors-
ened in the 1980s, as development fruits only benefited the wealth-
iest groups, both inside and among nations.22
Table 2 definitions based solely on economic assumptions (items 1 through
3) show that several authors focused on the economic dimension of development
and growth, neglecting the intrinsic connection among the economic, social,
institutional, environmental, and human realms.
Empirical evidence proved that efforts zeroing in exclusively on features such
as technology and infrastructure were ineffective or insufficient. Indeed, some
authors realized that the failure of development models like the one prescribed
by the Washington Consensus in the 1990s suggested that economic policy in
and by itself was not enough to propel development—much less in a sustainable
fashion.23 In turn, with a more critical view, the theorists of the new develop-
ment notion passed judgment on traditional theories, labeling them as follows:
• Reductionist—because these theories view development as being
strictly economic, isolating this phenomenon from history, nature,
time, and space.
• Exogenous—as development is construed as a set of attributes
(GDP growth, economic structure industrialization) acquired via
external resources or conditions.
• Static—these views neglect development’s intrinsic interaction and
• Universalist—on account of their pretended universal prescription
with formulas theoretically applicable to dissimilar scenarios in
different times and places.
The successful examples of countries such as Germany and Japan—with the
latter replicated later in other Southeast Asian nations, such as Singapore, South
Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan—revealed the need for additional conditions.
Thus the lessons learned started to imply the development of human capabilities
to make production structure streamlining possible. As a result, development
came to be attributed not only to the existence of financial stocks (savings) or to
infrastructural traits (technology) but also to investments in education and health,
as well as people’s technical and intellectual capabilities—a key new factor in
the battle against poverty and its underlying causes.
This paradigm shift placed economic drivers in a broader context that also
included people, society, and the environment, paving the way for new notions
within the new development agenda, such as the following.
First, sustainable development is viewed as the assurance of “better living
conditions for all and for future generations,” focusing on the environment.24
Second, human development is viewed as the expansion of people’s capa-
bilities and freedom. Rising poverty and inequality have bred discontent with
development concepts and the need for a comprehensive approach, paving the
way to a perspective focusing on education, culture, autonomy, wealth distribu-
tion, and opportunities to access better living conditions. As a result of this dis-
satisfaction with the outcomes from reforms inspired by the globally prevailing
development scheme, the notion of human development emerges, drawing closer
to an integrative approach. Human development is construed as “the expansion
of human freedom to enable people to live the kind of life they value” and that
freedom comes when people’s capabilities are expanded and measured in terms
of economic, social, and human metrics, such as real per-capita income, literacy
rates, life expectancy, healthcare, and political involvement.25
Third, socio-institutional development is viewed as improved socio-institu-
tional environment (rules governing social decisions as well as capability and
income distribution), organizational setting (relation structures or networks), and
socio-institutional capabilities (network quality and public-private relations).26
Specifically, the notion of socio-institutional development emerged in the
1990s when several authors began to argue that development necessarily required
society’s widespread reliability and trust, as well as the certainty resulting from
stable rules (across all institutional levels). This implies the citizens’ commit-
ment to collaborate in the pursuit of a shared view of the common good. It also
hinges on the institutional guarantee that all individuals can use social goods,
such as communal places and public institutions unthreatened by opportunistic
behaviors. Thus a multiplying effect further enhances overall trust levels. The
works by Douglas North and Elinor Ostrom contributed to advance this notion
of socio-institutional development.27
Fourth, the millennium development goals, set in 2000 by the initiative of the
United Nations, are targets for “addressing poverty in its many dimensions—in-
come poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion—while
promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They
are also basic human rights—the rights of each person on the planet to health,
education, shelter, and security.”28
This view apparently follows the human-centered view of Sen and the socio-
institutional view of institutionalists such as North and Ostrom. However, it
has intrinsic contradictions given that it includes proposals such as abortion,
which means not respecting the basic human right to live, as both medicine and
law testify, on which the other human rights could be fulfilled. These types of
contradictions ask for a richer view of development, which is summarized in
the next section.
Toward a Comprehensive Approach with People
as the Focus of Development
The views on development discussed so far rely on a number of assumptions about
human nature, interpersonal, and cross-organizational relations, thus leading to
different corporate and public policy designs that spawn dissimilar—even op-
posing—outcomes. For instance, those who assimilate development to economic
growth and shareholders’ return maximization take a materialistic view of devel-
opment and believe in an automatic trickle-down effect from wealthier segments
onto more disenfranchised groups. Those who consider human development as
the cause and end of development subscribe to a human view and the need for
cooperative efforts by the people and organizations involved in the development
process. Another example, which is circumscribed only to material dimensions
in the dominant paradigms, is related to the definition of poverty.
Most importantly, the underlying assumptions are not only implicit but also
prioritized without making explicit any meta-criterion. For example, in the
economic views of development (either economic growth or economic develop-
ment), the economic criterion was the meta-criterion given the context in which
those views were formulated. The same reality showed that this prioritization was
wrong, as the poverty outcomes of the 1970s have shown. However, the current
dominant view of development does not provide a meta-criterion for judging
why some people have the right to decide over the life of other people (as in the
case of abortion), which openly contradict the view of development as freedom
as proposed by Amartya Sen.
Thus a combination of the notion of human development and socio-economic
development seems more comprehensive, as centering on both people and con-
text, and focuses on creating both physical and spiritual development conditions.
In particular, the concept of human development is strongly aligned to the idea
of overall human development for all individuals, including both physical and
technical dimensions, such as culture acquisition, respect for others’ dignity, and
the acknowledgement of supreme values, such as the right to live.29
Figure 2 encompasses all development dimensions discussed in this article.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Avenues
for Future Reflection and Action
This article takes a look at major development notions, considering the importance
of this phenomenon, both on account of the efforts to fight poverty—a paramount
challenge in our time—and the time devoted by public, private, and third-sector
officials to promote it. From a historical standpoint, this review of the notions
and paradigms embedded in development approaches leads to a richer view of
the development phenomenon, integrating its diverse dimensions.
The focus of this article is on reviewing and making explicit the assumptions
underlying the dominant paradigms on development and an integration of their
core dimensions in order to create the conditions for a fruitful dialogue among
practitioners, social scientists, philosophers, and theologians engaged in promot-
In this regard, this article suggests at least five paths for future reflection,
integration, and action, both for organization leaders and academics. First, it is
necessary to explicitly establish the assumptions, together with their prioritiza-
tion, underlying development views. This article shows how approaches based
on paradigms such as growth, economic development, and human development
lead to different results. Therefore, future studies and proposals should make
their assumptions explicit, describing their prioritization and impact on expected
outcomes, so that they can be subject to public scrutiny.
Second, to prioritize assumptions, integration among the economic and in-
ternational views, the social sciences, philosophy, and theology is needed. The
reason is that each of these realms has its own autonomy, but there are also
strong areas of interdependence. One of these areas is the criterion for prioritiz-
ing assumptions, given that each realm cannot provide for itself the criteria to
prioritize its own assumptions.
Third, one of the above-mentioned criteria is distinguishing between de-
velopment means and ends. For instance, Latin America’s experience proves
that taking economic growth as an end and viewing capability development
as a means leads to rising inequality, as Latin America has become the world’s
most unequal and inequitable region as a result of the pursuit of policies aimed
at economic growth. On the contrary, when development is viewed as an end,
with growth deemed as a means, as seems to have been the case of nations such
as Taiwan and South Korea, the outcome tends to lead to a more harmonious
development in comparison.
Fourth, a realistic, objective historical review is needed to build development
proposals. This article also traces the historical circumstances that have influ-
enced the focus of development views on some dimensions over others. Thus,
a consideration of the historical developments and theoretical assumptions that
serve as a basis for development views will contribute to more sensible, reality-
grounded development approaches.
Finally, if underlying paradigms are made explicit and prioritized, historical
developments are taken into account, and ends and means are clearly differenti-
ated, it is possible to build more consensual, realistic approaches to develop-
ment, drawing away from unilateral formulas supported on ideologies that only
contemplate development’s economic and materialistic dimensions.
This article features a number of limitations. Considering its scope, three
of its limitations are key and point to future research opportunities. First, this
article focuses on the assumptions and notions underlying development ap-
proaches proposed by devoted economists and leaders. It is necessary to further
explore how development tenets influence reality transformations. For example,
several studies show that the impact of policies such as the ones outlined by
the Washington Consensus in 1993 are grounded on assumptions that equate
development with economic growth. Similarly, other studies and reports issued
by the United Nations’ Development Program and Global Compact track the
outcomes of policies based on notions focusing more on human development.
Drawing a comparison among assumptions and streamlining outcomes, it may
be possible to gain a better understanding of how different underlying concepts
lead to dissimilar policies and results.
Second, the method used in this article is more inductive and historical than
deductive, philosophical, and disciplinary. It will prove convenient to delve into
the ontological and epistemological roots of development, incorporating them
to the rather practical approach of this article. For instance, narrowing in on the
realms of economics and political economics, it may be useful to take a closer
look at the approaches spanning from Adam Smith’s to Amartya Sen’s views,
from focusing on the nature and causes of prosperity to zeroing in on human
Third, considering the body of work on development found in the Catholic
Church’s social doctrine, a more in-depth analysis will reveal how the assumptions
and criteria contained in papal encyclicals on development compare to economists’
and international agencies’ plans to promote development.31 For example, the
notions explained in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate share
significant agreements with the United Nations’ view on development as inferred
from its Millennium Goals with people, societies, and the environment deemed
as objects of development. However, sharp differences separate both views in
terms of development dimension priorities and consistency in action paths.
For instance, these approaches differ in how they weigh human development
as compared to the environment, and as a result, they have different proposals
regarding human life.
1. World Bank, available at www.worldbank.org.
2. Muhammad Yunus, Creating a World without Poverty: Social Business and the
Future of Capitalism (New York: PublicAffairs, 2007), 238.
3. Pope Paul VI, encyclical letter Populorum Progressio (March 26, 1967), 76.
4. Adapted from United Nations, “Millennium Development Goals: 2010 Progress
Chart,” available at http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/
5. See M. P. Cowen and R. W. Shenton, Doctrines of Development (London: Routledge,
6. See Manfred Spieker, “Development of the Whole Man and of All Men: Guidelines
of the Catholic Church for Societal Development,” Journal of Markets & Morality
13, no. 2 (2010): 263–78.
7. Based on Héctor O. Rocha and Sumantra Ghoshal, “Beyond Self-Interest Revisited,”
Journal of Management Studies 43, no. 3 (2006): 585–619.
8. This section lists the bibliography recommended to explore the disciplines that
influenced the development notions and experiences discussed in this article. The
ideas and criteria developed by the Catholic Church’s Social Doctrine provide a
rich corpus and, given the aims and scope of this article, are not analyzed here but
are related to the definitions offered by economists and executives. For example,
the notions on overall development for all men expressed by Pope Paul VI in
Populorum Progressio, furthered by Pope John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Sociales
and Pope Benedict XVI in his latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, are included in
the development concepts that surfaced in the 1970s, as noted next. For analysis of
the Catholic Doctrine of the Church on development, see Spieker, “Development of
the Whole Man and of All Men.” In particular, for cross-disciplinary approaches to
Caritas in Veritate, see Domènec Melé and J. M. Castellà, El Desarrollo Humano
Integral. Comentarios Interdisciplinares a La Encíclica “Caritas in Veritate” De
Benedicto XVI (Barcelona: ITER, 2010).
9. For more on the notions and theories underlying the definitions in this section, see Tim
Allen and Alan Thomas, Poverty and Development: Into the 21st Century (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000), who provide a framework for development mean-
ings and views; David Coates, Models of Capitalism: Growth and Stagnation in the
Modern Era (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2000), who explores economic growth
theories; Cowen and Shenton (Doctrines of Development), who make a distinction
between “imminent development”—a spontaneous, unconscious development pro-
cess that flows from within—and “intentional development”—deliberate efforts to
advance a number of given objectives; the US Department of Commerce, “What Is
Economic Development?” classifies economic development theories according to its
basic categories, development definition, key dynamics, strengths, weaknesses, and
applications, quoted in Kenneth E. Corey and Mark I. Wilson, Urban and Regional
Technology Planning (New York: Routledge, 2006), 197–98; Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, Sustainable Communities for the 21st
Century (London: HSMO, 1997); Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999); Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008); Jeffrey D. Sachs and John W. McArthur, “The Millennium
Project: A Plan for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals,” Lancet 365, no.
9456 (2005): 347–53; and Michael Todaro, Economic Development, 7th ed. (Essex,
England: Addison-Wesley, 2000), who compares the development theories that have
emerged since World War II.
10. Cf. Héctor O. Rocha, “Entrepreneurship and Development: The Role of Clusters. A
Literature Review,” Small Business Economics 23, no. 5 (2004): 363–400.
11. This definition is drawn from the United Nations’ Global Commission on Environment
and Development, created by the UN’s General Assembly in 1983.
12. The United Nation’s Program for Development (UNDP) expanded this metric in
2010 to measure insufficiencies not only involving health and education but also
key utilities, such as drinking water, sanitation, and electricity, revealing not only
how many people are poor but also the composition and intensity of poverty. For
example, a person with unmet needs in 70 percent of these metrics is clearly in worse
condition that an individual lacking in 40 percent of these metrics. For more on this
topic, see www.undp.org.
13. Amartya Sen, “Development as Capability Expansion,” in Human Development
and the International Strategy for the 1990s, ed. K. Griffin and J. Knight (London:
Macmillan, 1990), 41–58; idem, “Development Thinking at the Beginning of the
21st Century,” Development Economics Research Program, STICERD, LSE, no.
DERP No 2 (1997); idem, Development as Freedom.
14. D. C. North, ed., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Elinor Ostrom, Governing the
Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990).
15. Héctor O. Rocha, “The Entrepreneurship and Cluster Foundations of Development:
Theoretical Perspectives and Latin American Empirical Studies,” in Entrepreneurial
Strategies: New Technologies in Emerging Markets, ed. A. Cooper, S. Alvarez,
A. Carrera, L. Mezquita, and R. Vassolo (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009), 114–59.
16. United Nations, “Report of the International Conference on Financing for Develop-
ment,” A/CONF. 198/11 (New York, 2002), http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/
17. Extended from Héctor O. Rocha, “Entrepreneurship and Development.”
18. T. Allen and A. Thomas, Poverty and Development into the 21st Century.
19. While Cardinal Henry Newman was a pioneer in the use of the term development
(see Cowen and Shenton, Doctrines of Development), US President Harry Truman
was the first leader to use it in the twentieth century’s international setting as part
of his policy to fight poverty.
20. M. Todaro, Economic Development, 7th ed. (Essex, England: Addison-Wesley, 2000).
21. Even the World Bank, after championing “economic growth” as the goal of develop-
ment in the 1980s, joined the new wave. Currently, its mission focuses on a “poverty-
free world” (www.worldbank.org), stressing that development means “quality living”
and “fighting poverty.” Cf. World Bank, World Development Report 1991 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991).
22. United Nations Program for Development, Human Development Report 1992
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Todaro, Economic Development.
23. The Washington Consensus amounted to a set of economic policies that during the
last decade of the twentieth century Washington, DC—based international financial
institutions promoted for Latin American countries in order to boost their growth.
24. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Sustainable Communities
for the 21st Century (London: HSMO, 1997).
25. Amartya Sen, “Development Thinking at the Beginning of the 21st Century.”
26. Héctor O. Rocha, “The Entrepreneurship and Cluster Foundations of Development.”
27. D. C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
28. Jeffrey D. Sachs and John W. McArthur, “The Millennium Project: A Plan for Meeting
the Millennium Development Goals,” Lancet 365, no. 9456 (2005): 347–53.
29. See Paul VI, Populorum Progressio.
30. Adapted from Rocha, “The Entrepreneurship and Cluster Foundations of De-
31. See Manfred Spieker, “Development of the Whole Man and of All Men”, 263–78;
and Melé and Castellà, El Desarrollo Humano Integral.
Editors' note: It has come to our attention that there is an
error in Figure 1 on page 10 of this article. The word
"Archive" should be "Achieve." We regret the error and
appreciate any continued quality control from our authors