2. 职称英语
  3. Development Shortly after World War II, ’development

Development Shortly after World War II, ’development

游客2024-01-09  7
问题                         Development
    Shortly after World War II, ’development’ as we now understand it was set in motion. Western governments and donors poured money into new agencies that set about trying to stimulate the economies of underdeveloped countries. Because of this emphasis, it is now widely regarded as the Growth Model. Although we might expect poverty reduction to be the central objective, planners at this stage were primarily concerned with industrial development. It was hoped that the benefits of this would trickle down to poor people through raising incomes and providing employment opportunities,  thereby indirectly lifting them above the ascribed poverty threshold of a dollar a day. The weaknesses of these assumptions were revealed, however, when poverty rates and economic growth were found to rises simultaneously in many countries.
    During the 1970s, a new trend took over—trickle-up development. Instead of focusing on macro-economic policy and large-scale industrial projects, planners shifted  attention  to  the  core  living  requirements  of  individuals  and communities. This be came know nap the Basic Needs Approach to development. It was hoped that through the provision of services such as community sanitation and literacyprogrammes, poverty could be eliminated from below. Economic growth was desirable but superfluous--Basic Needs redefined poverty fromi nvolving a lack of money to lacking the capability to attain full human potential. The trouble with Basic Needs programmers, however, was their expensive, resource-intensive nature that entailed continuous management and funding.
    Since the 1980s,  development planners have moved towards the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach,  which emphasizes good livelihoods   (materially and socially)   that,   most   importantly,   are   independent  and  sustainable. ’Sustainable’ in this sense means that people are able to recover from the shocks and stresses of daily life, absolving agencies of the need to persistently monitor their lives. This approach emphasizes view of poverty that comes not from the rich but from the impoverished themselves, who are considered to be most suitably positioned to determine the poverty indicators that contribute to the multiple facets of their own deprivation. Although the Sustainable Livelihoods  Approach  has  been  criticized  for  lacking  an  environmental platform strong enough to respond to climate change, and for disassociating aspects  of power  and  societal  status  from being  a  contestable part  of development, it is currently the preferred model for development projects.
    Though there is some linearity to the trajectory of development practice, with paradigms shifting in and out of fashion, vigorous scholarly debate persists around all approaches. The Growth Model, for example, is still defended by many theorists, particularly economists. Those who believe in the Growth Model insist  that  nothing  trumps  economic  development  as  a  tool  for poverty alleviation for the developing countries   (although there is often less enthusiasm for its applicability to the post-industrial West). Many countries that have focused explicitly on growth have managed to make considerable inroads into reducing poverty, even in the absence of a development programmed; Japan and Germany followed this route after World War II, as has China from the 1970s. On the other hand, some countries with massive inflows of funding for aid-based ’development projects’—particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa—have struggled to progress with meeting poverty reduction targets.
    There is a good reason to be skeptical about the Growth Model, however, as is evidenced by the numerous societies that have partly imploded as a consequence of prioritizing economic growth above the work of human development. The experiences of many eastern European countries with health and employment crises in the early 1990s are particularly traumatic examples of this. The Growth Model  also  suffers  from an undemocratic,  and ’technocratic’, if not  autocratic,  method--underdeveloped countries  frequently make policy decisions based on consultation with Western economists and institutions on how to generate growth. This dissolves the autonomy of communities to make their own decisions about what matters to them, and what kind of society they would like to build. The move to the Sustainable Livelihood Approach is a positive move  in this  regard,  because by operating on a principle that decisions should be made by those who are affected by them, it introduces a role for localized decision-making.
    It will be difficult, if not impossible, for any country in the near future to ignore economic growth as a development indicator while continuing to meet development targets. It is important, however, that we move away from seeing this type of growth as the prime objective for development. Development is ultimately about people, and human development must be placed at the forefront; economic growth is simply one tool out of many that can help us along the way. We also need to recognize that foreign advisers, whatever qualifications and knowledge they may possess, can sometimes be hindrance; local autonomymustbe respected for real development to occur. The Growth Model may have failed, but this does not render economic growth irrelevant. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach offers helpful and realistic alternatives. But it is folly to commit ourselves  to a strictly-defined,  systematic programmed—less  constrictive mindsets will help us break the dive lament fashion cycle.
Questions 27-33
    Complete the table below.
    Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.
    Write your answers in boxes 27-33 on your answer sheet. [br]
选项
答案 literacy
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3346388.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)