My process of commentary is first to highlight and extract those parts of a paper which “speak to me” and seem most likely to be the parts I will retain and may use for future reference.  Then, based on those extracts, I will publish my own reactions to the paper in this blog – which reactions may be subjective (whether I like the paper or style) or objective (commenting on particular points made or views taken).

Thomas, A. (2000) ‘Meanings and views of development’ in Allen, T. and Thomas, A. (eds) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century, Oxford, OUP and The Open University, pp. 23–48.

Thomas 2000 is a sobering return to study.  As the first paper in a new module it is long, complex and somewhat intimidating in attempting to define development through multiple perspectives.  I guess my main takeaway is that development reflects at least as much about the developer as the developee.  I retain most strongly the (negative) ideas of development being a way to manage the disorder arising from development of capitalism (spontaneously or intentionally) or the colonial attempt to impose established European (class system) or US (money = class) attitudes on the rest of the world, as if such attitudes were automatically aspirational.

Various cuts of development definition are presented –

• A vision, an historical process, explicit actions.  Of these I relate most to the concept of actions to realise a vision (but whose?) rather than a longer, more passive historical process.
• Market interventions, humanitarian interventions, enabling interventions.  Ignoring the market for education, I would choose enabling interventions over direct humanitariam interventions because this allows the inherent cultural influences and limitations to influence the direction and destination of travel.  This encompasses Trusteeship – to be working on behalf of beneficiaries, not imposing upon them.
• Interventionism vs people-centred development.  My problem with the people-centred approach is (like communism) it is idealistic rather than practical.  Progress is not achieved one person or one village at a time, it has to be part of a larger process, supported by resources at regional/national level.  So I guess I am an interventionist but with sufficient research and consultation to ensure that the intervention is needs/demand driven rather than idealism/supply driven.