Just the other week I was working on an economics assignment regarding how growth differs in the developed and developing world. As intrigued as I was at being introduced to factors describing how innovative countries can be affected such as human resource and capital formation, I was rather perplexed by the term used to describe those countries that were perhaps not as technologically advanced, underdeveloped. According to Longman dictionary, this term has two definitions.
The first definition gives no real clue as to what an underdeveloped country actually is, so it seems reasonable to combine both definitions and say that such a country is one that has not “grown” to its full or actual potential. So, the question really becomes who has the power to say what global potential and development actually is?
Now while the term underdeveloped has been formally used in mainstream economic teachings to describe various countries, its ideas are certainly not new to our time. In fact, this concept has a lot to do with M.K. Gandhi’s central argument in critiquing these fully developed, westernized powers in the early twentieth century. Through Hind Swaraj, Gandhi worked to influence those living in India to take up an internal, spiritual battle of self-improvement in order to attain home rule from western civilization. Scholar Kazuya Ishii writes that “Gandhi found materialism to be the main characteristic of modern civilization” and that through such a lifestyle “spirituality seemed to be undervalued” (Ishii 298). His argument is that becoming a modern developed country simply leads to reliance on desires that negatively affect our way of life. Our reliance distracts us from our spiritual journey which is essential to the development of any person and country.
Gandhi’s response then is to give up these earthly confinements even though they may greatly boost the economy and the gross domestic product. Instead, people should base their lives on dharma, religious duty. This will elevate each individual living in the country and thus allow it to become morally developed. Of course, the argument is that often countries that do not focus on its development will cause those living there to suffer “widespread extreme poverty and dire living conditions” (Encyclopedia.com).
Images such as the one in figure 1.2 are constantly filtered into media to show the worst parts of underdeveloped countries. And yes living in near trash may seem bad to those in developed countries it is often not a factor for those actually living with it. Although he does not talk about “living conditions” in particular, Gandhi says that poverty is essential for self-development and the eventual development of the country. In fact, a “would be warrior” for this purpose must be “satisfied with poverty” in order to find that governmental balance (Gandhi 97). This means that no amount of sanitation or development will affect the ultimate goal of self-improvement. In the end, Gandhi’s idea of a developed country has little to do with the standard of living or money.
Of course, his teachings in Hind Swaraj are not followed by the modern day economic powers and in turn, we are filled with the search for power. The biggest dilemma is whether or not this way of life is possible in today’s money-driven climate. The less than obvious idea is to simply give it all up and follow Gandhi’s instruction in the hope of ridding ourselves of material desires. But that almost certainly will not happen because the global environment is focused on money and becoming the most advanced country. So, since it is not really possible to achieve Gandhi’s plan what is the best way to value the lifestyles in “underdeveloped” countries. Perhaps a start is to recognize the development of every country no matter where they are with money or technology.
WHATTHEBLOG 