Development as Domination/Reproduction: Postmodern Interrogations

S. Lourdunathan

What do we mean development when we mean development?

1. Development Camouflage: The usage of the term development is at once

perplexing (for me) since it is used synonymic with words/ideas such as
progress, growth, good and sometimes happiness. The question is - are these
terms equivalent in the sense of similarity (same as)? If they are used as
similarity, what do they refer to? Similarity as a notion (I hold) is so confusing
that it need not have an empirical content. One can speak of a family
members being similar in certain features but each member is specifically
different. So the case with the use of the term development. If and when
development is used as progress, as growth, as good and as happiness though
one can note a sort of family collectiveness (family resemblance), each of
these terms refer to different sensibilities. And to use all of them under the
umbrella called development is to miss boat. It is a sort of
disguised/disgusted usage where nothing specific/concrete can be
accounted. Since the very specificity of reference to development is
misleading, it does as well lead to misleading references of development
actions/agencies.
2. Development and Growth: Let us take for instance, the use of the terms
development and growth. Do these two terms mean the same? Are they similar
notions? One can speak of the growth of the butterfly in different stages like
egg, larva, pupa, adult butterfly and finally death of the butterfly. If
development means growth (economic growth), do we mean that
development is a process of having an egg stage, a larva stage, a pupa stage,
an adult stage and finally a death? One can say the child is growing from
childhood to manhood. But one cannot claim that the child is developing. To
say that the butterfly/child is growing is agreeable where as to claim that the
butterfly/child is developing is not-that-agreeable if not ridiculous.
2.1.
If you agree on this meaning-conditionality, then, the claim that
development means growth vis--vis growth means development is
rather a disguised notion if not a ridiculous notion. Growth is normally
meant the biological sense of it where as development is normally
meant the cultural (social, political, economic factors) dimension. From
the above illustration we may infer that development does not actually
mean growth and growth does not mean development and this imply
the fact that one cannot afford to situate sensibilities purely in terms of
resemblance or similarities for they are quite misleading, misleading
both in conceptual bearing and in practical application through which

Paper presented at National Seminar on, Democracy, Development and Governance: An Analytical and
Critical Quest org., by Indian Social Institute, Bangalore on November 21 st to 23rd, 2014.

Dept of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College, Karumatur, Madurai e-mail: nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com

Mobile: (0)9566477696.

the user/utterer/promulgator/performer/agent can easily flee/veil

from any sort of accountability of the practical implications of
development.
3. Development and Happiness: The other similarities, development as
happiness is also misleading. One can be happy, for instance, a robber or
corrupt agency when not punished or escapes legalities can be happy. A
Christian for instance celebrates the death of Christ in crucifixion and still be
happy because he believes death will eventually bring about resurrection.
Does this happiness of the robber or the Christian be called development? Is
the robber/corrupt developed when s/he is not punished for his crimes? Is
the Christian believer who celebrates suffering and death, though happy, can
s/he be called developed? Take for another instance, when the poor people
are gifted with free/welfare scheme aids (Food, Medicine, Kitchen Utensil,
household things, laptops in Tamilnadu, some % of reservations etc) they are
said to be happy. Does it mean they are developed because they are happy
with/about
such
welfares/charity/corporate
social
responsibility
programmes?
3.1.
I believe, happiness is psychological, connected with ones mood,
emotion, mental dispositions. It is cannot and does not mean
development. They are two different notions with differentia of
sensibilities. To combine both in terms of similarity is again misleading
and
deceptive
of
the
common
man.
The
giver/utterer/promulgator/performer/agent of welfarism induces the
psychological disposition that development means happiness, like that
of the believer who self-imposes the idea that his/her belief means
happiness and happiness is meant to belief in such and such manner.
Inducing a belief/psychological disposition through cultural practices
or political programmes however may mean a temporary sense of
happiness but surely not development either.
4. Development and goodness: If development does not necessarily mean
growth or happiness, does it mean good? Are the terms development and
good similar resonating equivalent sensibilities? The issue of good needs
some clarification. Good is predicated of the status of being moral. What is
moral is good and what is good is moral.
4.1.
A good life, hence, ought to be defined in terms of being good rather
having good with an abundance of material goods. When
development is used as good, does it refer to the idea of moral
goodness or material additions/goods? If goodness is moral
connotation then moral connotation cannot refer to material abundance
and material goods or affluence. A rich business entrepreneur may be
predicated of the affluence of material goods but this need not mean
that s/he is morally good. Many times the opposite is true. Material
affluence is tied with the notion of the ability to success by being
deceitful (we may call it Business tactics) and thereby immoral without
2

4.2.

the sense of consciousness that s/he is not-moral and lives by preying

on the vulnerability of the others in the society. Economic
affluence/goodness does not necessarily mean either moral or social
goodness.
Development as good does not necessarily the case of being good
morally. They are notions apart. In fact, development as modernisation
operates on the (economic cum political) rationality of human control
(domination) over nature as to provision abundance of goods, namely
the accumulation of material and technological goods. As previously
pointed out, there is a vast chasm between morally good and
developmentally good. One does not imply the other. A person may be
economically good does in no way means s/he is morally good.
Hence the argument is that what is materially and technologically
good is not necessarily morally good and by extension the action that is
developmentally good need not morally and socially good. The
ascription that development thinking as good is to covert the idea of
moral goodness. A nation may be deemed developed in the sense of
higher level of per capita income, but this does in no way mean that
nation and its people are morally good. Granted that development
means goodness, then the question is to whose goodness and at
whose expense? Does development carry the traces utilitarian
hedonism?

5. Development & Progress: The term progress seems to be more closely connected
with the idea of development. The factor that is identified as progressive can
equivalently be predicated as developing. In my school days after every
examination a progress report was given accounting my performancedevelopment that implied the idea that I am educationally developing. To a
larger extent we may agree to this usage of development as progress and
progress as development. The more one progresses into different educational
stages s/he may be considered educated or developed.
5.1.
But what is the type of education in through which someone is
considered progressive or developing? Suppose for instance, if a
person is placed in a gurugula system where in perfect utterance of
Vedic hymns and verbatim repetition of them by memory is
considered as best progress, can we say, that the person is developed?
Suppose a person is place in Biblical School where in s/he is taught to
utter the tactics of repeating biblical texts in the given varying lifecontexts, can we say, that the person is educated and thereby he has
progressed or developed? Education for repeating old is different from
education for discovering the new for the progress of mankind. The
latter is developmental and the former is anti-developmental. Are all
types of education developmental? Can we not speak of mystifying,
banking system of education (Friere) and development education itself
is one such?

6. Thus the term development seems (to me) like a camouflage. The moment I see
development I am under illusion that it is good, the moment I see good, I am
under the illusion that it is happiness. It is like seeing the snake and the rope
type. The moment I see the snake the rope evades and the moment I see the rope
the snake escapes, escapes only to poisonously bite me to the trap of concomitant
suffering. The disguised perceptions development, though alluring, compels
towards its further exploration.
7. Development and Social Change: Though rather ambiguous, the term
development has been the central issue in human history for several decades. The
concept of development is allied with the idea of social change. But not all
social change is called development. Movement in the historical backwardness
cannot be considered development. The type of changes towards modernisation
is alone called development. Movement towards economic and social modes of
existence geared through science and technology and rational control of
environment in favour of human interests is deemed development.
Development is generally perceived as synonymous with economic growth of a
nation/people measured in collective quantitative categories in terms of a higher
annual rate of growth of Gross National Product. The presupposition is that the
higher the levels of economic growth better the status of development.
Development means economic growth and economic growth is tied with the
notion of viable social change of the people who benefit development action. The
variable social change refers to increased quality of life in political, cultural,
economic and social factors. Does development bring about social change in the
case traditional structures or use them as viable medium of/for developmental
process towards the interest of the powerful?
8. Rationality of Development: The global context of education over the last four
centuries (European Thought/history) is predominantly identified with this type
education as development. Breaking away from the ancient and the medieval
patterns of education, the philosophy of education as development propelled the
ideas/ideals of human rationality (Science and Technology) as Development.
Reason cum Sense Experience as certainty of the foundations of knowledge is the
epistemological position that embedded the foundations of development in all
these period/epochs. The priority of human rationality as against illegitimate
forms of traditions and illicit rationalities came to be called Knowledge for/as
development.
8.1.
Onto theses foundations of human reason/sense experience, the
developmental categories (avenues) namely science, social sciences,
human control of nature, technology, technology with human face,
democratic politics (secularism and modern state), industrialization,
transport, journalism, net work of communications, capitalism,
transnational capitalism, Market Economy, corporate sectors,
globalisation, defence, social relations, legal systems, Human rights
discourse, one world human order, and so on are indwelling.

9. Development Dilemmas: Development is a relative concept constituted by

binaries categorically oppositional but inclusive of either Developed vs.
Underdeveloped. Given to the binary positioning between these two, there lies
an
operational
logic
of
strategic
hierarchy.
The
pertinent
dilemmas/questions/debate here are as follows:
o Is right for the developed countries/man to be developed while the- other
is under developed?
o Is ones development caused by the underdevelopment of the other?
o Does development means under-developed countries are increasingly
subsumed as consumers of technological invasion?
o Is the developed nation any way responsible or feel guilty of their own
development and for others underdevelopment?
o Is it morally correct to designate the other as underdeveloped simply
because the other has insufficient material goods and technological
sophistications?
o What is the relation between the possession of richness and being
humanly rich/good?
o Which are the institutions that developed countries sponsor? If so why?
Which institutions and interests do the developed countries serve? If so,
what is effect of these institutions on the underdeveloped nations?
o Can/must the developed man work/serve the interests of the
underdeveloped if so, to what extent? Even if it demands a sacrifice of
his/her privileges?
o If Developmental Aids are explored/revealed to be domestications of the
other, should development be deemed development?
o Those development agencies who have not experienced the case of
deprivation, displacement, and death, what is the legitimacy of their
representations? Can we claim the problem of casteism and its
discriminatory practice is eradicated because the untouchable has
developed within modernist models of development?
o Is development a process of perpetuating underdevelopment and
thereby retaining the economic and political power? If so, is development
a concept adhered to the principle/practice of power-relations?
Though disturbing, these questions are important to engage a postdevelopment/post-modernist debates.
10. Development as Modernisation: Development in its totality is the issue of being
scientific-rational-democratic-trans-national or global (in terms of economic and
technological advancements and abundance -either by control or manipulation of
Nature and the people of nature who are quite natural). These factors
cumulatively refer the thinking called Development. And by definition,
5

development is the human be-coming techno-logical (tactical, the tactical can

implore upon the political and the economic considerations), a movement away
from being natural and the old-cultural form of life towards a sense of being nonnatural (namely newly political, economic, and technological and differently
cultural).
10.1. The catchy and witchy phrase is then Development is Modernisation.
Modernization is trans-nationalization and Trans-nationalization is
letting us to be technologically communicative to participate in Free
Trade Market as to enjoy its benefits namely progress and happiness.
Development thinking is inclusive of the practice of (i) utilization of
natural resources towards the benefit of market forces, (ii) reorientation
of public expenditure by private entrepreneurships and carefully
targeted social expenditure, (iii) tax reformation (in practice, this
means regression of taxation), trade and financial liberalization, (iv)
trade and financial liberalizations, (v) elimination of barriers to direct
investments by foreign agencies, (vi) promoting cut-throat competitive
market
economy by privatization and International Market
Regulations (beyond the national legal sovereignty) and ensuring
human property rights (in practice human rights here is meant the
rights of market forces).1 These factors are called as economic reforms
since 1991 in India. These economic reforms/development thinking is
deemed good towards the progress of the nation and its people.
10.2. The
operational
logic
is:
Development
implies
Global
Merchantalization through Modernisation and there by human
progress and happiness is guaranteed.
10.3. However, the modernisation rationality veils the deceit namely those
(nations/People) who possess the power of modernist rationality has
the right to exist by way of manipulation strategies/ the Descartian
premise, I think therefore I am, is globally actualised in the sense of
those who think (who possess the power of economic/technological
reason) self impose the right to exist by way(s) inclusion and exclusion
or appropriation or misappropriation.
11. Social Capital or Global solidarity as social inclusion for exclusion: Allied
with the rationality of human control over nature, namely modernization, is the
principle of the global need for expansion, a sort of evangelization of the good
news of development. The evangeliser needs the evangelised for continuous
evangelization. i.e., Development as expansion. Perhaps one may call it yetanother-form of (neo) colonial control of the not/yet-developing
(underdevelopment) nations. Development thus, conceives the practical principle
of getting itself expanded beyond the borders of national and individual
integrity. That is how the very idea of development is programmed to be
developed. To be developed is to be expanded. I expand therefore I am. The language
of development for expansion is global solidarity global village one world
human order. This means that the modernised economic expansion requires its
1

John Harriss, depoliticizing development, (LeftWrod Books, Dehi, 2001)p.78.

corollary namely the liberal practice of infringement into national cum political
solidarity of nations in particular. To put it differently, the national democratic
borders must voluntarily be loosened to pave way for development expansion.
The political slogan for trans-national colonial market expansion is Social Capital.
12. The term Social Capital here needs some clarification in the recent development
thinking. Development as social capital is marked by the high sounding terms
such as Getting the Social Relations Right and Development Thinking, Civil society,
civic involvement, and building up of transnational corporate and corporate social
responsibility, communitarianism etc all geared to form a good government
which would in turn facilitate Development as a process of capitalising the
resources of other nations. According to social capitalism, a government, which
is formed, supported and governed by civil society, would generate free market
possibilities. This implies a specific sense of social inclusion, flattening of
multiplicity through strategic means or ways of calming down or domestication
of or differently voicing the voices of resistance segments or quintessence of
political and cultural pluralities. Social Capital holds the belief that Development
as modernisation is not pragmatic if it does not expand and include the-other,
namely the under-developed nations and people and their resources.
13. Principle of participation: The consequence of development thinking, is the
necessity of locating the social capital of the individual nations / people by ways
of promoting people-participation, which in other words, a sense of promotion of
local-organisational modes (associations or forms of civil society) to guarantee
development-modernisation so that all men are associated and made-toparticipate and if need be against ruling states that resist development in order
that it is developed. The vulnerability of nations is the precondition of the
practice/principle of development.
14. The vulnerability of people instance for, the low-income status, class
consciousness, and of course caste-consciousness may not be seriously
questioned by development agencies rather they are maintained in cultural
private space/realms) so that the already available social capital 2 the
privileged class, the professionally educated elites, the already
politically/economically powerful, the NGO sectors, the affluent religious, and
the so-called culturally privileged high caste segments- are used as Development
Agencies as to propagate (evangelise) development programmes and in turn they
2

Social Capital is the set of resources that inhere in family relations and community social organisation, and
they are useful for cognitive and social development. It refers to aspects of social structure that constitute a
capital asset for individual. Social capital is defined by its functions such as community organization, informal
socializing, lobbying, engagement in public affairs, community volunteerism, social trust etc . it refer to the
ways and means of creating relationships and ties and associations. Social capital is the resources that are latent
in social networks/relationships. These resources are otherwise identified as trust reciprocity, civil
responsibility, corporate social responsibility etc. Bourdieu . P, (An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology) Coleman
(Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital), Robert Development Thinking Putnam (Making
Democracy Work), are some of the chief advocates of social capital as a corollary of Development thinking.
Social capital is the way of governing market.

primarily benefit or enjoy the major share due to their own already available
social capital (the cultural conditions to be powerful) of being powerful.
15. According to social capital theory further holds that the State-led approach to
(economic) development does not favour the interests of the development
agencies (global market-economy) because State politics is essentially predatory
of development process and therefore needs to be guarded or locked inside or
kept under peoples watch. The cleavage/dividing line of State vs. Market can
be trespassed or solved by a developmental thinking namely the promotion of
social capital. Development thinking argues that State (Nation) is block to
economic development and hence needs to be strategically carved if need be
curved as to encourage peoples participation to guarantee the supply of objects
of development, namely the raw material (work force/ natural resources) for
developmental ends. To this, the social (people) needs to be identified and what
is social is the organisational possibilities (forms of civil associations/NGOs) of
the people in the under-developing countries who would act as agents of
development of that of IMFs and World Bank Organisations.
16. That the powerless have to be strategically retained powerless in order that the
pre-established cultural/social capitalists enjoy the benefits of development. This
seems to be the reason why in spite of development actions such as
industrialization and economic growth, no basic changes have occurred in class
relationships and caste cultural relations and distribution of wealth and power
and social system remains structurally exploitative in large scale in the face
development process over last several decades. What is required is the voluntary
submission of the peoples will (participation) as to allow oneself to be
developed by developmental capitalists or agencies. The lack of social capital
of the vulnerable poor people becomes the social capital of the already powerful
sections to utilise the vulnerable people to their developmental interests. The
organisational forms (cultural and political and social) of the powerful are turned
in to assets/resources (social capital) to reap the benefits of material goods,
namely of that of development practice. In other words development seems to be
working well in favour of or on the side of the already powerful people rather
than working on the side of the poor people. The poor are increasingly
subordinated towards the maximum good of the maximised sections. Instead of
destroying classism and casteism, development process seems to be either
producing new forms of class or maintaining class/caste consciousness. The lack
of consolidated social organisations set-ups, (social capital) is politically retained
towards the economic/political interests of the socially capitalised sectors.
Development thinking conceives the idea that a free-market (advocacy of the
freedom of Market as against democratic/individual freedom) and market forces
are an end in themselves which might address the issue of poverty to be
progressively taken care of.

17. The rationality is that development as Modernisation is practicable in the form of

neo-liberalism and Neo liberalism is practicable both by State-led cooperation
and if the State is proved to be predatory, then simultaneously by promoting
social capital namely people participation (the social condition for development)
so that world markets are left to themselves to undue expansion/exploitation
(development) and such economic expansion/development might in the long
run address the problem of poverty and if possible discrimination.
18. Social inclusion/Social Capital on the other hand, demands or suppliers of raw
materials towards development process and consumers of development
products. In other words, the concept of development is pitched continuously on
the maintenance-practice of underdevelopment in the catchy word called social
capital.
Though
seemingly
paradoxical,
development
requires
underdevelopment and underdevelopment requires development and the
process is sort of a Hegelian dialectics, and Hegelian Dialectics would literally
mean negation of any opposition in the most sophisticated (so called the
historical-natural way). To put it sharply, the vulnerability of people is a
necessary precondition to development and the logic of development thinking is
domination per se.
19. Development and Progress Trap: The issue of development as progress for
happiness, scholars identify, conceives the problem, technically known as the
Progress Trap3. A progress trap is the condition human societies experience
when, in pursuing progress through human reason and technology, they
inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will
to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life. This
prevents further progress and sometimes leads to collapse or what is known as
progress trap. The Progress trap implies the idea that large scale human
exploitation of nature and people, depletes the natural resources and deprives
human accessibility to natural resources and causes ecological crisis and
ecological crisis in turn affect living conditions of people which in turns
pronounces death penalty of human kind at large.
20. Trapped in progress, those in positions of authority are unwilling to make
changes necessary for future survival. To do so they would need to sacrifice their
current status and political power at the top of a hierarchy. They may also be
unable to raise public support and the necessary economic resources, even if they
try. Since development as modernisation is counter-active to human
development, scholars are of the opinion that development as modernisation is
but a practice of human domination over natural resources and the vulnerable
3

The term gained attention following the historian and novelist Ronald Wright's 2004 book and Massey
Lecture series A Short History of Progress, in which he sketches world history so far as a succession of progress
traps. With the documentary film version of Wright's book "Surviving Progress," backed by Martin Scorsese,
the concept achieved wider recognition. The syndrome appears to have been first described by Prof. Walter Von
Krmer, in his series of 1989 articles [1] under the title Fortschrittsfalle Medizin (Medical Progress
Traps).Daniel O'Leary's proposal for The Progress Trap and how to avoid it was accepted by McGill Queen's
University Press in 1992. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_trap)

people. To start with, one of the suggested alternative to Development as

modernisation and there by domination is to counter-act it in an unconditionally
manner is morally good, socially relational, and economically sustainable.
21. Postmodern/post-development inferences for discussion
21.1. There are those who believe that development as modernisation is the
way towards human progress.
21.2. There are those who hold development is western, and not Indian, and
hence tracing the golden- Indian is the way of indigenous
development action.
21.3. There are those who hold that development as modernisation has not
favoured the development of the vulnerable nations and people and in
fact it has continued to propagate old forms of domination in a newer
fashion and hence arises the need to engage a post-development
discourse in favour of the vulnerable people and in so doing seek
alternate ways of engaging development.
21.4. There are those who argue that development belong the culture of
scientism, economism and a form totalitarianism, the forms of the
dominant medieval colonial traditions in newer-vessels. Hence,
proclaim incredulity towards meta-narratives(Lyotard, Derrida).
21.5. There are those who argue that development as modernisation is
contingent to socio-historical constructs of power and domination and
hence must be seen from the point of view of power relations
(Foucault4). Foucault, a critique of the modernist rationality raises this
issue: Is it not necessary to draw a line between those who believe
that we can continue to situate our present discontinuities within the
historical and transcendental tradition of the nineteenth century and
4

Foucault's critique of modernity and humanism, along with his proclamation of the death of man' and
development of new perspectives on society, knowledge, discourse, and power, has made him a major source of
postmodern thought. Foucault draws upon an anti-Enlightenment tradition that rejects the equation of reason,
emancipation, and progress, arguing that an interface between modern forms of power and knowledge has
served to create new forms of domination. In a series of historical-philosophical studies, he has attempted to
develop and substantiate this theme from various perspectives: psychiatry, medicine, punishment and
criminology, the emergence of the human sciences, the formation of various disciplinary apparatuses, and the
constitution of the subject. Foucault's project has been to write a critique of our historical era' which
problematizes modern forms of knowledge, rationality, social institutions, and subjectivity that seem to be given
and natural but in fact are contingent socio-historical constructs of power and domination. Nietzsche provided
Foucault, and nearly all French poststructuralists, with the impetus and ideas to transcend Hegelian and Marxist
philosophies. In addition to initiating a postmetaphysical, posthumanist mode of thought, Nietzsche taught
Foucault that one could write a genealogical' history of unconventional topics such as reason, madness, and the
subject which located their emergence within sites of domination. Nietzsche demonstrated that the will to truth
and knowledge is in-dissociable from the will to power, and Foucault developed these claims in his critique of
liberal humanism, the human sciences, and in his later work on ethics. Foucault was also deeply influenced by
Bataille's assault on Enlightenment reason and the reality principle of Western culture. Bataille (1985, 1988,
1989) championed the realm of heterogeneity, the ecstatic and explosive forces of religious fervor, secularity,
and intoxicated experience that subvert and transgress the instrumental rationality and normalcy of bourgeois
culture. Foucault as a profoundly conflicted thinker whose thought is torn between oppositions such as
totalizing/detotalizing
impulses
and
tensions
between discursive/extra-discursive
theorization,
macro/microperspectives, and a dialectic of domination/resistance.

10

21.6.

21.7.

21.8.

those who are making a great effort to liberate themselves, once and
for all, from this conceptual framework? The postmodern question is
What is the rationality of development paradigm that enforces the
vulnerability5 of nations and people?
In other words development looked from the point of view of the
vulnerable is newer form of power domination and thereby
exploitation of the weaker sections of people. Since Development as
modernisation relies on the principles of modernist rationality and
peoples vulnerability, the very foundations of development must be
seriously eroded and suspended.
There are those who argue that, one cannot modernise and acclaim
development without losing sight of power- relations. If so,
development is meant to share/contest for social power.
Within Indian Diaspora, the paradigms of alternate ways of perceiving
development include:
(i)
Development as modernisation but without losing sight of the
past i.e., development as modernisation cum Indian Tradition,
(ii)
Development as modernisation but for reproduction of the old
patterns and forms of life
(iii) Development as modernisation which privileges the
enlightenment eschatology/Morality
(iv) Development as Project Engagement as to involve social
capital of the people which might in turn mystify any viable
political protest against the politics of development and
development agencies.
(v)
Given to the fact that there are pre-established power relations
in culture/traditions (casteism), development benefits are
reaped by those who are in upper layer of hierarchy and hence
such cultural practices of hierarchy and discriminations must be
annihilated however without losing sight of the benefits of
modernity.
(vi) Some others augment for Development as Liberation but what is
meant by liberation is yet another overloaded debate.
------x----------x----------

Vulnerability is the position and exposure to forces that one finds it hard to control if not resist. Vulnerability
is the inability (of depressed societies like Dalits and the Tribal) to determine the outcome of responses to
pressing economic-political and social forces. Vulnerability provides a frame for viewing underdevelopment
and social deprivations. Social Vulnerability refers to the social and low-income status to meet the demands of
development goals.

11