CHAPTER THREE

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Concept of Development

Development is a concept that deals with application of new ideas to practical problems. It is a
concept that is neutral with reference to meaning unless there is a clear identification of the point
from which it is being examined. But most of the time, development is been refers to as growth
and directed changes. The notion of development has been the topic of considerable controversy
and debate in recent years. Primarily, it may mean a process in which something passes by
degrees to a different stage, especially a more natural or advanced one. Surakat is of the view
that “development can be interpreted as the advancement of the management and use of the
natural resources to satisfy human need and improve quality of life” (Surakat, 2015:63). Surakat
explain further that “meaningful development must take account of social and ecological factors
as well as economics ones of the living and non-living resources bases on the long term
advantages and disadvantages of alternative action” (Surakat, 2015:63).

According to H. Miller, a development is a temporal change having a beginning and end

(Adefarasin, 2012: 168). It is unit of progress, a real unit of change. Secondly, it is a recognizable
and describable process, one that recurs again and again at different times and places. And thirdly,
it is a cumulative or directed process, one which points its course to certain definable goal or
terminus. On his part, Pearson, maintains that development is partly a process whereby a country
achieves a reasonable self-sustaining growth which facilitates and enhances industrial and
technological progress in the interest of its people. Some of the pre requisites for this type of
development according to him are: the application of modern science and technology, reasonable
political stability, and efficient administration and organization. He affirms that development
takes place when the people participate in the determination of their environment, and are allowed
to choose and use their resources to the maximum capacity.

Oyenuga is of the view that “development is a multi-dimensional concept, but without being
unnecessary technical, it is the use of available resources to bring about the dialectical
transformation of man and the society” (Oyenuga, 2015:39). In the same vein, Okwudiba Nnoli
point that:
 Development is a dialectical phenomenon in which the
individual and society interacts with their physical,
biological and inter-human environment transforming
them for their own betterment and that of humanity at
large and being transformed in the process (Okwudiba,
1981:6).
Development is the act of developing or disclosing that which is unknown; a gradual unfolding
process by which anything is developed, as a plan or method, or an image upon a photographic
plate; gradual advancement or growth through a series of progressive changes; also, the result of
developing, or a developed state. Oyenuga define it as “the combination of mental and social
change of a people which enable them to increase cumulatively and permanently their total
production.” (Oyenuga, 2014: 23) It is a terminological sensation in which the individual and
society communicate with their physical, biological and inter-human environment, transforming
them for their own betterment and that of humanity at large and being transformed into process.
It is man's progressive qualitative and continued self-improvement. Thus it is the process leading
to realization of full human and environmental potentials. In a simple expression by Iroegbu,
“Development is the unwrapping of potentials, unveiling, outgrowth or growing out of what was
enveloped, hidden or latent development is unwrapping of potentials” (Iroegbu, 1994:81). The
Frenchman Peroux, cognizant of the importance of man to development avers that:

Development is the combination of mental and social

changes of a people which enable them to increase
cumulatively and permanently, their total real production
development, achieved fully in the measure that, by
reciprocity of services, it prepares the way for reciprocity
of consciousness (Surakat, 2015:37).
From the above definition, one will understand that development revolves around the situation of
man, and it also involves advancement of their well-being. Development is simply human
development, so any sort of development devoid of regard for the situation of man is not oriented
towards the right course. Berger correctly illuminates this view when he writes that,
“development entails good growth and desirable modernization” (Surakat, 2015:37).

According to Henry McGurk, “development implies not only a change in time but also change
which has direction; development frequently implies advancement or improvement over some
more primitive status” (McGurk, 1975:28). Harris Dale defines development as a sequence of
continuous changes eventuating in some outcome. According to Adefarasin, “McGurk’s position
is that developmental change is not isolated incident, it must be part of a process emanating from
the past and gradually building up to the present and the future” (Adefarasin, 2012: 163). Harris
also adds that “it has as its essential components‚ the notions of a system possessing a definite
structure and a definite set of pre-existing capacities; and the notion of a system yielding
permanent but novel increment not only in structure but in its modes of operation as well”
(Adefarasin, 2012: 163). This is to say that developmental changes cannot be accidental but must
emanate from perceptible capacities, which exist in a well-structured medium. Also, such changes
result in a state that is not only different but also qualitatively more desirable than the former
state. Thus, development is not something that can be thrust upon a state or a system; it must be
something that emanates from within. A question can be asked whether a change has to be
purposive and intentional in order to be developmental. This query emanates from Sidney Hook’s
characterization of development. Hook refers to development as “any change which has a
continuous direction and which culminates in a phase that is qualitatively new” (Adefarasin,
2012: 164). Hence, the term should be used to characterize any series of events in thought, action
or institutional arrangement which exhibits a directional cumulative change that either terminates
in an event marked off by a recognized qualitative novelty or which exhibits in its course, a
perceptible pattern of growth. The suggestion by Hook that the term, development be applied only
to events in thought, action and institutional arrangement seems to suggest that every
developmental change is purposive, and intentional. But is this really the case? Is Hook correct in
limiting the application of the term to the human sphere? The problem raised here goes beyond
the scope of the present enterprise because; it raises the general question of applying human
concepts to non-human events. This notwithstanding, it appears that making a distinction between
a general concept of development and a concept of development within the human.

Besides, the term development is borrowed from biology. It describes a process through which
the potentials of an object or organism are realized, until it reaches its natural, complete, full-
fledged form (Adefarasin, 2012: 165). Development can also be defined as growth plus change.
Change; in turn is social and cultural as well as economic and qualitative as well as quantitative.
The key concept must be improved quality of people’s life. Development is the act of developing
into a form of something. To develop is to expand or realize the potentials of bringing gradually
into a fuller, greater, or better state. Development, here is progressive with the potentiality to
achieve fuller realization. Development refers to the progressive changes that take place in the
growing organism as he/she advances towards maturity. Though, this definition is biological, the
relevant point in it is that development has to do with progress, changes and maturity. Obasanjo
and Mabogunje as quoted by Adefarasin said;

Development could be defined as ‚a change or a

transformation into a better state. After tracing the
evolution of the idea of development, development now
emphasizes people as the object of attention. It is no
longer just about growth in the volume of goods and
commodity. It is now to be thought of as a process
concerned with people’s capacity in a defined and over
a defined period to manage and induce positive change
(Adefarasin, 2012: 165-166).
According to Rita Abrahmsen, the idea of development entered into epistemology immediately
after the Second World War in 1949 when President Harry Truman (0f the United States), in his
speech introduced the term, ‘underdeveloped areas’ and marks the launch of the global effort to
develop the World and eradicate poverty (Adefarasin, 2012: 166).

Again, in the existential ontology of Martin Heidegger, development can be understood as the
achievement of authentic nationhood; and underdevelopment, the inability of a nation to
overcome confidence-crisis (Adefarasin, 2012: 166). Any nation that thus refuses or is incapable
of building on its factical givens cannot be a sovereign nation where a sovereign nation is
understood to be a nation that is free from external determination and control. Any externally
determined nation can hardly acquire stature and maturity. A nation without a sound ideological
framework of its own to guide social action, a nation that goes about copying every available
piece of ideology is vulnerable, and like an edifice without foundation, such a nation easily falls
prey to the windstorm of imperialism. Such a nation is not genuine and is therefore lost in the in
authentic ‘they World’ where failure and misfortune are explained away in terms of sabotage. A
nation that keeps another in the hope that one of them would provide a permanent solution to its
social and economic problems is an inauthentic nation.

In Hegelian idealism, development is not only in terms of ideas, it is also, essentially dialectical. It
is the inescapable consciousness of the mind for progress even in the face of opposition.
Development for Hegel is therefore inevitable. It is craving, the desire of the mind to reach for the
highest level of spiritual advancement that culminates in the Absolute idea, the overall governor
of the World, of existence and of the being of man.

According to Hegel, “development is fundamentally mental; it is prima facie, an idea before it can
be concretized” (Shamim, 2018:5). Ake Claude, argues that development can only be related to
and driven by social will in the context of democracy. It is only in this context that the people can
be a means and the end of development. Put differently, development is best initiated internally
and nurtured by the people in need of a particular development, otherwise, there can never be
development. Development can also be described as‚ the mind leading to a complete mastery over
nature in which can be the humanity of man is no longer subjugated to nature. Udoidem Iniobong
maintains that “development can be defined as a process leading to the realization of full human
and environmental potentials” (Udoidem, 1992:14). If, therefore, in our thrust toward community
development, the full human and environmental potentials are not realized, then the community is
yet to be developed. Also, Ogundowole (1998:92), opines that meaningful development is self-
realization. This implies the use of the resources of geosphere, imagination and unprecedented
ingenuity to achieve overall societal objectives. It entails the increasing expansion of what a
purposeful self realiancist mind, poised at full realization and recovery can do with simple objects
of his immediate geographical and historical environment. Hence, it may be said that
development is not so much a matter of what we have, but of what we do with what we have; how
we do it and how well. He goes further to say that development, thus, is the desire and ability to
use what is available to continuously improve the quality of life, liberate people from the
hazardous power and influence of natural geophysical, socio-historical and World environment.
In a nutshell, development must begin with the desire to improve lot through our own efforts.

According to Oduwole, “development requires the ability to learn how to improve one’s own
well-being. It involves the ability to act and while acting to apply knowledge thoroughly in all
spheres of activity” (Adefarasin, 2012:168). He goes further by stressing that development as a
process and as a concept is broader and is multi-dimensional. It may mean a mechanical motion,
the spatial displacement of objects. It may mean a forward, backward, sideways, upward and/or
downward movement. It may mean rectilinear, rotatory, oscillating, etc motion. He goes on to say
that for Frantz Fannon and Nkrumah, both hold that development means decolonization, and
Nyerere who insists that development is liberation.
3.2 THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT
In addition to the meanings, definitions and dimensions of development earlier discussed, the idea of
development will not be fully comprehended without a discussion of the theories of development. To this
end, our concern here is to delve into the two prominent theories of development viz:, growth and
modernization theories respectively. The foremost representative of the growth theory is W.A. Lewis,
while that of modernization theory is W.W. Rostow. The two theories will now be fully explained

DEVELOPMENT: THE GROWTH THEORY’S PERSEPCTIVE

W.A. Lewis, like other growth theorists, regards per capita income, gross domestic product, etc., as
indicators of the level of development. He claims that three ‘proximate causes’ are essential to an
understanding of growth and developmental issues. These are (1) the effort to economies (2) increase of
knowledge and its application and (3) effort to increase the amount of capital (Lewis, 1963:11).
On the issue of capital, Lewis examines capital requirements, main sources of savings and process of
investment. Any country which desires economic growth needs to increase its capital per head, among
other things. He distinguishes between countries whose national income per head is not increasing and
those with progressive nationals income per head. The former invest four or five percent of their
national incomes or less whilst the latter invest twelve percent per annum or more. It is, however,
possible for a ‘5 percent saver’ to convert to ’12 percent saver’. According to Lewis, this conversion is
intelligible not merely in terms of increasing thrift, and of better use of savings but essentially in terms of
immense increase in the share of profits in national income engineered by newly emergent class of
profit making entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs are ‚a small group of persons, private investors or
public officials, who are disposing of large sums of capital, which employ large numbers of other people.
(Lewis, 1963:265).
Lewis claims that savings can be obtained through domestic and external sources. Domestic sources
mainly include ‚hoards, taxation, banking and profits‛, etc. On the other hand, external finance is
provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (I.B.R.D.),World Bank,
International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.), etc. The necessity of saving to growth is inferred from the
necessary of investment to economic growth. This is explained by the fact that ‚investment has to be
matched by saving. Lewis maintains that inadequate savings constitute impediment to greater
investment in underdeveloped nations. Too low tendency to save, according to him, explains the
inadequacy‛. He affirms that ‚three-over-riding shortages which determine the shape of most production
programmes are the shortage of capital, the shortage of skilled labour and the shortage of foreign
exchange’’.
Other factors which cause decline in investment include decline of risk-taking, the growth of monopoly
and the slowing down of population growth. Lewis recognizes two chief institutional requirements for
an easy flow of savings from lenders to borrowers. They are limited liability and easy marketability of
assets. Assets are principally grouped into two; namely, liquid assets such as shares, bills of exchange,
bonds, etc. and physical assets such as machinery, land, jewellery, factories, stocks, etc. (Lewis,
1963:266-268). Lewis enumerates the benefits of economic growth as follows:

…It increases the range of human choice… It gives man greater control over his environment and there
by increases his freedom.(It) gives us freedom to choose greater leisure… it is economic growth which
permits us to have more services as well as more goods or leisure… (It) also permits mankind to indulge
in the luxury of greater humanitarianism. (In) societies where political aspirations are currently in excess
of resources,… growth may forestall what might otherwise prove to be unbearable social tension.
(Lewis, 1963:420- 424).
DEVELOPMENT: MODERNIZATION THEORY’S PERSPECTIVE
Rostow, among other modernization theorists, regard ‚the process of development as the business of
the acquisition by the underdeveloped countries of the traits and characteristics of the developed
countries‛. In other words, development is determined by the rate at which a country accumulates
social, cultural, industrial or technological and other artifacts. This view tends to suggest that the
development of countries such as Britain, Germany, etc. can be explained by the abundance by these
artifacts. Another corollary of this conception of development is that countries which are
underdeveloped remain so because they have not obtained enough of these artifacts. If they wish to
develop, therefore, they need to acquire the traits and characteristics of the economically advanced
countries. (Preston,1982: 17)
In his theory, Rostow maintains that economic growth spans through five stages. They are the
traditional society; the pre- conditions for take- off; the drive to maturity; and the age of high mass
consumption. As he puts it:

Traditional societies, evolved within limited production functions… limitations of technology decreed a
ceiling beyond which they could not penetrate. They did not lack incentives and innovations. … (But)
they lacked… the tools and the outlook towards the physical World of the postNewtonian era. (Rostow,
1960:307)
3.3 MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Moral Development is one of the vital aspect of development. Any development process initiated
by man at the exclusion of moral will eventually generate chaos and calamity. No aspect of
development can really

Morality is indispensable to development. The recent call for moral regeneration by scholars
admits the quest for development, reinforces the importance of moral development. In fact, it can
rightly be said that moral development is the basis for a well-rounded development. In other
words, the prosperity of a society depends on the moral disposition of its members. Put
differently, a state or society can never experience true development when the citizens are
morally deficient. This position is akin to Omoregbe’s conception of development when he
opines that: moral development on the part of the citizens is therefore a condition sine qua non
for the development of any nation.

It must precede the economic development through modern technology. Neither science nor
technology can develop a country, if its citizens are not morally developed. It is the moral
development of the citizens that constitutes the development of the country.

Moral development, a crucial aspect of human psychology, is a topic that has intrigued
philosophers, psychologists, and educators throughout history. This discussion aims to explore
various theories of moral development, emphasizing the contributions of key thinkers such as
Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Carol Gilligan. By examining the nuances of moral
reasoning and the factors influencing its progression, we can gain a deeper understanding of how
individuals construct their ethical frameworks.

Jean Piaget's influential cognitive developmental theory posits that moral development is closely
intertwined with cognitive development. Piaget identified two main stages in moral
development: heteronomous morality and autonomous morality (Piaget, 1932). In the first stage,
children adhere to rules rigidly, viewing them as externally imposed. As cognitive abilities
mature, individuals progress to the second stage, where morality becomes more flexible and
based on mutual agreement.
While Piaget's theory highlights the cognitive foundation of morality, critics argue that it may
underestimate the role of social and emotional factors in moral development (Santrock, 2019).
Subsequent theorists, such as Lawrence Kohlberg, expanded on Piaget's work, providing a more
nuanced perspective.

Lawrence Kohlberg's theory built upon Piaget's groundwork and proposed a six-stage model of
moral development, organized into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional (Kohlberg, 1958). Individuals progress through these stages as they mature, with
moral reasoning evolving from a focus on self-interest to consideration of universal ethical
principles. Real-world applications of Kohlberg's stages can be observed in educational settings,
where educators aim to facilitate moral development by promoting discussions that encourage
students to think beyond personal interests and consider broader ethical perspectives.

Carol Gilligan challenged Kohlberg's predominantly male-centric perspective by introducing the

ethic of care as an alternative framework for moral development (Gilligan, 1982). Gilligan
argued that women often prioritize relationships and care in moral decision-making, providing a
counterpoint to Kohlberg's emphasis on justice.

Gilligan's contribution prompted a reconsideration of gender differences in moral development.

While some criticize her theory for potentially reinforcing gender stereotypes, it undeniably
broadens the conversation about the diverse ways individuals approach ethical decision-making.

Moral development is not only shaped by individual cognitive processes but is also deeply
influenced by cultural factors. Different cultures may emphasize distinct moral values, affecting
how individuals perceive right and wrong.

The concept of cultural relativism reminds us that what is deemed morally acceptable can vary
widely across cultures. This relativism challenges the notion of a universal moral framework and
underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity in discussions about moral development.

To comprehensively grasp moral development, it is essential to integrate various perspectives.

While Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gilligan offer valuable insights, a holistic approach recognizes the
interplay of cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural factors in shaping moral reasoning.
Understanding the intricacies of moral development has profound implications for education and
ethics. Educational programs can be designed to foster moral growth by incorporating diverse
perspectives and promoting critical thinking about ethical issues.

Moral development, a multifaceted process influenced by cognitive, social, and cultural factors,
remains a dynamic area of inquiry. As we continue to unravel the complexities of how
individuals construct their moral frameworks, the insights from Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and
other theorists provide a foundation for fostering ethical reasoning in both personal and societal
contexts. Ultimately, an ongoing dialogue between philosophy, psychology, and education is
essential for cultivating a more nuanced understanding of moral development and its
implications for human flourishing.
 REFERENCES

Adefarasin, V.O. (2012) Beyond Walter Rodney’s Development Discourse: Idealism to Praxis,
Lagos: Thesis Submitted to University of Lagos, P.163.

Adefarasin, V.O. (2012). Beyond Walter Rodney’s Development Discourse: Idealism to Praxis,
Lagos: Thesis Submitted to University of Lagos.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development.

Harvard University Press.

Iroegbu, P. (1994). Enwisdomization and African philosophy, (Owerri: International University

Press)

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Lewis, W.A. (1963), The Theory of Economic Growth, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

McGurk, Henry, Growing and Changing. London: Methuen & Co, 1975, P.28.

Okwudiba, Nnoli. (1981), “Development/Underdevelopment: Is Nigeria Developing?” In Nnoli

(ed.) Path To Nigerian Development. Dakar: CODSRIA.

Oyenuga O.F. (2015) "Culture and the problem of globalization in Nigeria" in S. Ade Ali and
E.O. Akintona (eds) Readings In Philosophy: Problems and Issues. (Lagos: Truimph
Books Publisher).

Oyenuga, O.F. (2014) Dewey's Pragmatism As A Foundation For Political Development In

Nigeria. Thesis, Ago Iwoye: Thesis Submitted to Olabisi Onabanjo University, 2014, P.23.

Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Preston, P.W. (1982), Theories of Development, London: Routlegdge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Rostow, W.W. (1960), The Process of Economic Growth, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Santrock, J. W. (2019). Life-Span Development. McGraw-Hill Education.

Shamim, Syed Jazib. (2018). Hegel’s Concept of Intellectual Development in Human History.
Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences. 5. 10.9734/ARJASS/2018/39629.

Surakat, A. M. (2015). "African Philosophy and The Challenge of Development" in S. Ade Ali
and E.O. Akintona (eds) Readings In Philosophy: Problems and Issues. (Lagos: Truimph
Books Publishers)