1. Instead of disagreeing about terminology, should leaders work on comprehensive plans to help the poor of the world?
The answer to this question is a definite yes. Instead of leaders differing on the terminology of development policies aimed at achieving development should be put in place. Leaders argue on the segregation and division of countries in terms of development. European colonies are classified as third world countries (Lamy pg. 418). Those that were occupied by the colonies are considered to be developed or first class countries. The theory was formed by an economist in the year 1952. First class countries are those that have capitalized markets. Second world countries including China are those that have a high rate of industrialization. Third class countries are those that are considered poor. These terminologies have caused great rifts in the understanding of the term development. Only monetary value is included. Produce from subsistence farming and barter trade is not included in the final amount. According to this approach, continuous industrialism is advocated for. However the environmentalists have proved the fact that industrialism can pose serious environmental dangers. The only evident thing in the above text is the fact that economists, spend a lot of time defining boundaries in terms of development in the different parts of the world. Instead they should be investing more and more into the poor countries in order to raise their economy. The current policies are somehow biased. Investors only agree to invest if they are earning twice as much from their recipients. Thus flexible policies should be implied to ensure that all profit is not sent back to the investors. Leaving the poor countries poorer than they were before (Lamy pg. 418). The developing countries on the other hand should also be able to cooperate with their investors to enhance smooth transactions. More NGOs should be developed in order to be able to provide relief food and help to the poor countries.
2. Are there alternative views of development that might challenge the orthodox position?
There are several alternative approaches to the orthodox views on development. The first alternative is need oriented which includes both the material and non-material approaches to development. This means that all the processes of production should be included in calculating the net outcome a country. Things like subsistence farming and barter trade should be included. In other words, development should be widespread and diverse (Lamy pg. 419). Non- material things may include liquid finances whereas material items mat include cash at hand and farm products. The second aspect of the alternative development is endogenous meaning that development must encompass a society. Individual effort should be deemed in the light of a society. Meaning that development is a collective effort it cannot be achieved individually. Industries have to be in line with the needs of a specific society. The policies that worked for the United States may not work for South Africa. Therefore development practices should be endogenous. Considering the needs of a certain country or community. The third approach should be that development should be self-reliant. In terms of natural resources and human dependability. Output realized from the efforts on development should be able to support a countries budget. Deficit budgeting therefore should be minimized in the process of development. It is an attempt to reduce the overdependence of the poor countries on the developed countries. An example of a self-reliant country is the United States and Europe. Through their continuous innovation and constant development, there have been able to secure their financial resources. They are able to avail funds for lesser developed countries. With the rate of development in this country, the orthodox approach on development is extinct. The orthodox approach justifies the fact that European colonies are automatically classified in the third world. United States is a colony as well but it is very rich. The same goes for the theory that the countries of the colonialists are rich. Consider the case of Spain and Portugal. Thus rich or poor can be found on any parts of the world despite the colonial theory. The fourth approach on development is the issue on ecological soundness. Consider the case of china opting for renewable energy sources. China is among the most industrious countries in Asia as well as globally. It is the number one competitor of the United States in terms of development. However the country is also the major emitter of carbon. Which is the most dangerous