The

development
What does the word development mean
to you? What words or ideas come to
mind?
 WELL-BEING / HEALTH Life

expectancy, access to healthcare,

nutrition, hygiene, social security EDUCATION / KNOWLEDGE
ECONOMY
Schools, literacy, knowledge,
wealth; growth, employment, training, access to information
industry, trade, income,
infrastructure
PROGRESS / TECHNOLOGY
ENVIRONMENT
innovation, digital technology,
Pollution, resource management, transportation, energy,
biodiversity, climate urbanization

SOCIAL
CULTURAL
Social justice, human rights,
Traditions, cultural diversity, equality, inclusion, access to
freedom, societal choices services
Why do we always associate
the same regions of the
world with the idea of
development?

Why are some countries said

to be ‘lagging behind’? In
relation to what? In relation
to whom?

Where do these
representations/ideas come
from?
 Why do we always associate the same regions of the world with the idea
of development? And why do we say that some countries are "behind"? Compared
to what? Compared to whom?

Because the idea of development was constructed from a Western model, based on
industrialization, economic growth, consumption, and modern technologies.

This model became the "norm" after the Second World War, particularly through
international institutions (World Bank, UN, IMF) dominated by rich countries.

Countries that do not follow this trajectory are considered "behind"—but this amounts to
imposing a single vision of progress. We forget that there are other ways of living,
producing, and organizing a society.

These ideas come from:

● colonial history (where colonial powers viewed other peoples as "inferior"),

● media, maps, and school textbooks that often reproduce a hierarchical
vision of the world,
● international indicators that emphasize certain criteria (income, growth,
infrastructure) but not culture, ecology, or local well-being.

In short: what we call "backwardness" is not always a lack, but sometimes a different
lifestyle choice.
Development seen through an economic lens: a dominant vision

When we hear development discussed today - on television, in the newspapers, or even at school - we often think of
the economy. We talk about developed countries because they are rich, have a lot of industry and technology, or a
high standard of living.

This vision of development is therefore closely linked to the idea of economic growth: producing more,
consuming more, having more money, more infrastructure, more businesses. This is measured by indicators
such as GDP (gross domestic product), which calculates how much wealth a country produces each year.

But this way of looking at development does not always take into account other important aspects: the
well-being of populations, the environment, culture, inequalities, or respect for different ways of life.
Definition
Development is a multidimensional concept that goes beyond mere
economic growth.

It encompasses structural transformations in various areas such as the

economy, society, politics, culture and the environment. Its aim is to bring
about lasting improvements in people's living conditions and well-being.

‘The concept of development refers to all the technical, social, territorial,

demographic and cultural transformations accompanying the growth of material
production or the improvement of human living conditions’. (Geoconfluence)
 ● Economic growth:

Distinction Increase in the production of goods and

services in an economy over a given period,

between generally measured by Gross Domestic

Product (GDP).

development and
economic growth ● Development :

Broader process that includes economic

growth but also improvements in quality of
Distinction between development life, reducing inequalities, protecting the
and economic growth It is environment and strengthening social and
essential to distinguish between political institutions, etc.
development and economic
growth
 Key concept: Development is a point of view,
not a universal truth
● Development is often presented as a single path to follow: to become richer, more
technological, more industrialised... like the countries of Europe or North America.

● This vision of development became established in the 20th century, with the international
institutions (World Bank, IMF, UN, etc.), creating a hierarchy between so-called ‘developed’
and “underdeveloped” or ‘developing’ countries.

● Since the 20th century, development theories have created a world divided in two:
"developed" countries on one side, and "underdeveloped" countries on the other. This
separation has enabled rich countries to impose their ideas of progress, often forgetting or
crushing local knowledge and cultures.
 ⚠ Be aware of your own position
Don't fall into easy moralizing or empty criticism:

● We live in a very privileged country, with access to drinking water, education, a varied
diet and so on.
● What we are criticising here is not the idea of helping poor countries, but the way we
do it, by imposing our own model.
● What's more, we often benefit from the poor development of others: our clothes,
our phones, our food... all come from production chains where the natural and human
resources of the South are exploited.

Development is not just a question of will or progress. It's a complex subject that depends on
history, the global economy and power relations.
 A vision born of a system of
domination
● This vision of development stems from a capitalist and
colonial system: it is often the former colonising countries
that tell the others how to "develop".

● By talking about "primitive", "backward" or "poor" countries,

economic, political or military intervention is justified -
always on the grounds that it is to help or modernise.

● This has had concrete consequences: destruction of local

cultures, deforestation, marginalisation of indigenous
peoples, disappearance of languages and ways of life.
 Example developed: imposing a single vision of progress

When we tell a people who have lived for centuries in a forest

that they must cut down the trees to make way for 'modern'
agriculture, we are imposing a vision of progress that does not
respect their way of life.

Ecological: cutting down the forest destroys a precious

ecosystem. Biodiversity is being sacrificed for intensive
agriculture.

Cultural: these people are losing their landmarks, their

traditions and their link with nature. Their ancestral knowledge
is considered ‘primitive’ or ‘outdated’.

Social: often, only a few really benefit from the economic

advantages. The others become dependent on a system over
which they have no control.

Economic: in the short term, it seems profitable. But in the long

term, it often creates new forms of poverty, dependency and
even debt.

Were these people “underdeveloped” before they

were told what to do? Does living differently
necessarily mean being "behind the times"?
 How do we measure The most famous of these indicators is the HDI
(Human Development Index), which takes into
development? A account:

question of viewpoints ● average wealth (per capita income),

and tools ● life expectancy

● and level of education.

Indicators to measure development

This makes it possible to classify countries
statistical indicators to try and measure a
country's development. These data come from the according to their level of human development, and
countries themselves and are compiled by to represent this on a world map.
organisations such as the World Bank and the UN.
 Can we really measure everything?
But beware: these indicators are neither neutral nor perfect. There are a number of limitations:

● Reliability of data: Some countries have no recent data, or their statistics are old, not very accurate or
produced with limited resources.

● Complex construction: Indicators such as the HDI or GDP are averages constructed from other data. They
greatly simplify reality. A country may be rich on average, but have huge internal inequalities.

● World view: Choosing an indicator also means choosing what you want to measure. Today, we measure
mainly what interests the major institutions (the economy, growth, etc.), but not always what concerns the
environment, social inequalities or alternative lifestyles.
 Things to remember
● There is no single perfect indicator for measuring development.

● Statistics give a partial view of the world, and can sometimes even mask
local realities or make other models of society invisible.

● More and more researchers are looking to create new indicators that
are closer to the reality of people and environmental challenges.
 YouTube video on sustainable development :
https://www.agenda-2030.eda.admin.ch/en/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development
 Difference between "Third World" and "developing countries"

Correction:

● The Third World is a concept that originated during the Cold War. It referred
to countries that belonged neither to the (capitalist) Western bloc nor to the
(communist) Eastern bloc. The term is therefore geopolitical and
historical. It does not directly reflect the level of development, although it
has subsequently been used to designate development (although not
historically).

● The term "developing country" (DC) appeared later, to refer to countries

with a lower level of economic, social and human development than the
so-called "developed" countries. The term is more economic and social, but
it is also contested because it assumes a linear vision of development.

Today, we often prefer to speak of the South, of the Souths; but no term is
perfect, never neutral!
 What are the emerging countries (BRICS)?

The so-called "emerging" countries are those whose economies are growing
rapidly, with industrial development and growing influence on a global scale
(2000).

The BRICS are a group of five major emerging countries:

● Brazil
● Russia
● India
● China
● South Africa

On the HDI map:

● Brazil is in light green (HDI between 0.750 and 0.799).

● Russia is in dark green (HDI between 0.800 and 0.849).
● India is in light orange (HDI between 0.600 and 0.649).
● China is in yellow (HDI between 0.700 and 0.749).
● South Africa is also yellow.

This shows that they do not all have the same level of human development,
but that they play an important role in the world economy.
 What does HDI mean? Definition

The HDI stands for Human Development Index.

It is an indicator created by the UNDP (United Nations Development

Programme) to measure a country's level of development more
comprehensively than GDP alone. It takes three dimensions into
account:

● Health: measured by life expectancy at birth.

● Education: measured by the average number of years of

schooling and the expected number of years of schooling.

● Standard of living: measured by gross national income (GNI)

per capita in PPP.

The HDI is an indicator ranging from 0 (very low) to 1 (very high).

 Commentary on the map

Description: The map shows the HDI of the world's countries according to the UN in 2019. The countries are coloured from dark
green (high HDI, above 0.900) to dark red (very low HDI, below 0.399). There is a strong contrast between North and South:

● The countries of Europe, North America, Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), and some Asian countries (Japan, South
Korea) have a high HDI (in dark green).
● The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are in orange, red or dark red, i.e. with a low to very low HDI.

Analysis:

● The map highlights the inequalities in development on a global scale. The global North generally has a high HDI, while the
global South has a lower HDI.
● But beware: the North/South divide needs to be qualified! Although there is a North/South divide, the map does not
show a homogenous South. Some countries are said to be in the South or to have relatively high HDIs:

Chile, Argentina, Mexico in Latin America,

Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East,

Malaysia, Thailand, China in Asia,

Mauritius, Algeria, South Africa in Africa.

→ We show that cross-referencing indicators provides a more nuanced view and also prevents us from making generalisations
when talking about ‘the South’. The HDI helps to qualify the idea of a binary "rich/poor" world, by showing intermediate situations.

● The HDI in the context of current transitions: the map also raises the question of the sustainability of the dominant
development model: Countries with a high HDI are often those that consume and pollute the most. Countries with a
low HDI, on the other hand, suffer more from the ecological and economic consequences (droughts, food insecurity,
forced migrations);
 Commentary on the map

Description: This drawing depicts two symbolic figures:

1. Uncle Sam, the emblematic figure of the United States, in a red-white-and-blue striped star-spangled suit.
2. A woman personifying Europe, wearing a white dress and a blue and gold "EUROPE" headband.

These two figures seem to want to move forward by jumping on blocks decorated with the flags of emerging countries:
Mexico, Colombia, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, etc. The ground below is muddy or unstable, with mud splattered all over the
blocks.

The two figures appear to be off balance, on the verge of falling.

Analysis:

● The blocks with flags represent emerging countries: here, these countries serve as temporary or unstable
supports for the Western powers. The mud symbolises unstable, uncertain, even dangerous ground, suggesting
that the foundations on which the Western powers rest are fragile.
● The attitude of the characters: the imbalance could symbolise the loss of self-confidence of these two
economic giants perceived as ‘unshakeable’ - the fact of being above these countries could also symbolise the
form of domination or exploitation that is being called into question by the new so-called ‘emerging’ countries.
● The drawing offers a subtle critique of the current world order: It denounces the way in which Western
powers use emerging countries as springboards without really seeking to establish equitable partnerships.
● It also points out that this strategy is risky, because the ground is unstable: emerging countries can also
challenge their position in the world system (rise of the Global South, criticism of the G7, etc.).
● The likely collapse of the EU and the USA may be a reflection of the European Union's internal difficulties
(economic crises, disunity, energy dependency, etc.) and also of the current policy changes under Trump.
Documentary
section
fishing and
development
 Do you know these
products?

Have you ever eaten

them?

Have you ever wondered

where the fish really
comes from?
Fish is everywhere: in canteens,
fast food outlets,
supermarkets, restaurants,
ready meals...

It's a commonplace food, but

behind this banality lies a
complex, globalised
production chain that is
sometimes violent and
destructive.

This course draws on this

everyday experience to ask a
simple question:

What do we really know about

the origin of the fish we eat?
Why talk about fish when you're talking
about ‘development’?
The word ‘development’ is often associated with ideas such as ‘progress’, “modernisation”, aid
to ‘poor’ countries... But what does it actually mean? And for whom?

Fishing is an excellent example of all the tensions surrounding development:

● Environment: Overfishing, plastic pollution, destruction of the seabed, extinction of species, etc.

● Social: Abusive working conditions, exploitation of workers, small-scale fishing threatened, etc.

● Economy: Competition between small-scale local fisheries and large-scale globalised industries, with
profit/money as the only value system put forward

● Inequality: Countries in the South overexploit their resources to export to the North (continuing to reinforce
global inequalities so that it is always the so-called ‘rich’ countries that benefit from the exploitation of the
so-called ‘poor’ countries)

● Power: Control by big business, corruption, weak international regulations.

Fish thus become a mirror of the global development system:

shows the imbalances between countries, the relationships of domination, the impact of mass consumption,
the inequalities of access to resources, the tensions between ecology and economy...
 Critical contextualisation of the film Seaspiracy
Understanding the link between development, the environment and global inequalities
 Development: a concept that needs to be questioned

Since the second half of the twentieth century, the word development has often been presented as a
universal and positive objective: helping all countries to ‘progress’, to produce more, to improve living
conditions, to catch up.

But in class, we learnt that this vision of development is actually situated, controversial and shaped by
Western history. It is based on the idea that:

● producing more = progressing

● exploiting nature = mastering the world
● consuming = improving quality of life

However, this model has also created numerous ecological and social imbalances on a global scale.
 Seaspiracy: a case study in development thinking
The documentary Seaspiracy is part of this critical reflection. It doesn't talk about development in theory, but through a concrete
and familiar example: fish. The film investigates the global fishing industry, which is supposed to:

● feed the world's population

● create jobs
● contribute to the economic development of countries

But what the film shows is a very different reality:

● massive overexploitation of the oceans,

● irreversible destruction of marine ecosystems,
● forms of modern slavery,
● the disappearance of traditional local fisheries,
● and the opaque role of certain organisations and companies that profit from this system.
 An invitation to take a fresh look... but also to keep a critical mind

Seaspiracy is not a neutral documentary: it takes a stand, But like any committed documentary, Seaspiracy has also
adopts a militant tone, and forcefully denounces certain received criticism, some of it significant, which you need to
practices of the fishing industry. It raises fundamental be aware of to better understand the debate as a whole:
questions about the link between our way of life and the
destruction of the planet:

- note any criticisms you may have of the documentary

- never adopt a ‘passive’ attitude to knowledge!
➤ Can we really call “development” an
economic model that destroys the very - note doubts, questions, astonishment, emotions, etc.
foundations of life on Earth (biodiversity, - Does everything that is said seem credible?
natural resources, social balances)?
Questionable? Why or why not?
- We'll come back to these questions together after the
film, to think about how information is constructed
It's an invitation to think differently about development, to
imagine alternatives that are more sustainable, fairer and and how we can think critically about development
more respectful of all living things. issues.
 ⚠ warning: a difficult but essential documentary: a concept to be
explored ⚠

Before you start watching the film, it's important to be warned:

● The film shows some difficult images: injured animals, brutal fishing
practices, evidence of human violence.

● Some passages may shock or upset: they speak of suffering, death,

destruction, and sometimes of lies or corruption.

● This is not a light-hearted or happy film, but it touches on important realities

of the world we live in.
 Critical warning - Netflix and the documentary

The documentary Seaspiracy is produced by Netflix, a

private and commercial platform that operates according to
the dominant logics of digital capitalism.

By broadcasting it, an economic model based on mass

consumption and digital capitalism is indirectly supported.

This paradox does not negate the film's interest, but it does
remind us that :

➤ Knowledge tools and media are never neutral.

➤ Even critical documentaries can be

instrumentalised or recuperated by the logics they
denounce.

This film is therefore also an opportunity to learn to read

images, discourses and media with a critical eye.
A similar subject but for the meat market