ABSTRACT
Few would disagree with the generic statement that “development” is preferable to “underdevelopment.” At the same time, there is considerable disagreement across individuals and nations as to what is meant by development, and, once agreed on what it is, how it is to be achieved. Development is one thing for some and another for others. Some put achieving a rapid rate of economic growth as the main objective. This characterizes countries like postwar Japan and China, which pursued neomercantilist models with low-priced exports driving economic growth. In their debate on how to reduce poverty in India, Bhagwati and Panagariya (2013) argue that the main instrument is more rapid economic growth, facilitated by further trade liberalization and an improved investment climate, notably in terms of labor laws and land ownership. Others give a great deal of importance to maintaining low inequality. This is the case in the Nordic countries and Japan in the more recent period, heavily taxing high incomes to level out social inequalities through transfers. The World Bank’s (2005) World Development Report 2006 made the case that lowering inequality is a factor not only of reduced poverty, but also, in the long run, accelerated economic growth. Others place a great deal of importance on securing access to basic needs for all, with comprehensive coverage of publicly provided health, education, and pension services. This perspective on the role of the state in delivering a universal minimum basic-needs coverage applies to much of continental Europe and Canada. Sen and Drèze (2013) argue that large public investments in health, education, and other dimensions of social welfare for the poor would not only be e ective at reducing poverty in India, but would also mobilize a badly neglected source of growth.
