INTRODUCTION

The difficult question of defining economic development is tackled by adopting three criteria: growth in income per head, equity of income distribution and growth in incomeearning opportunities. These are inevitably crude measures of what is here regarded as the objective of the development process: to raise the material living standards of the poor. The criterion, growth in income-earning opportunities, is chosen because of its value as a proxy measure of changes in income distribution. Given the political and administrative difficulties of redistributing income through fiscal policies in ldcs, the objective of equitable income distribution tends to be virtually inseparable from that of an increase in incomeearning opportunities. Changes in income distribution itself are hard to assess because of poor data, though point estimates of the distribution of household incomes exist. Nevertheless changes in the composition of output and the probable outcomes of government policies and expenditure programmes provide a rough indication. Obviously such criteria could be misleading if used in vacuo. The needs and problems of individual ldcs vary and will affect their development prospects-and should, hopefully, colour the donor’s approach to aidgiving. In Malawi’s case, it is important to note that, although the long-term goal of the government was to raise the material welfare of the ‘mass of the ordinary people,’ the achievement of greater economic, and hence political, self-reliance was considered of greater immediate importance. Although the pursuit of self-reliance may be both costly and illusory, in Malawi’s case it was a reasonable medium-term objective. The country’s ability to execute desired policies could have been seriously impeded by its extreme dependence and its ability to sustain any economic advance rendered vulnerable had it remained dependent on the scale of external support received in 1964.