ABSTRACT
Theoretical and empirical research studies and academic attempts at theorizing the concept of development in the past, present, and future have had to encounter the highly complex, dynamic, multivariate, multidimensional , and protean nature of development, resulting in scholars facing dilemmas related to its conceptualization. It would do well , therefore, to keep in mind the complex nature of development. Although it is true that the term development per se was not always used either in academic discourses, debates, and discussions or as the specific objective, goal , and value of governments' policies and administration, that does not mean that the human mind was unaware or unconscious of its need or importance. As a matter of fact, until sociologists (the first among social scientists) consciously and deliberately used the term development in their writings, scholars referred to the same notion by different names, such as progress, evolution, civilization, welfare, prosperity, and well-being. Even sociologists grappling with the problem of societal development gave up the usage of the " more dangerous" concept of development in favor of the " less dangerous" concept of social change. Since the eighteenth century four different concepts have been used to denote change in human society: progress, evolution, development, and modernization (Bava, 1993)*.
