As stated by Andy Sumner and Michael Tribe in their book International Development Studies, there are three different definitions of development. It can either be a long-term process of structural transformation, a short-to-medium term outcome of targets, or a Western discourse. In Armatya Sen’s well-regarded book Development as Freedom, development is expansion of the five freedoms listed by him. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson propose in their book Why Nations Fail that development entails inclusive political and economic institutions. These are some theoretical understandings of development. Some of these theories overlap and complement with each other while others disagree with one another. An easier way to understand development for the general public is to observe the global reality. In the beginning of their book, Acemoglu and Robinson depict the drastic difference in all aspects of life between the US side of Nogales and the Mexican side of Nogales. The vast disparity is hard to neglect and is also the cause behind many global crises.

In my opinion, the origin of the field of development is embedded with many historical problems, such as the legacy of colonialism. As Acemoglu and Robinson have argued in their book, different colonial experiences lead to different political and economic institutions that shape the societies in various ways. Without colonialism and the exploitation and human abuses that it has brought upon societies, our world today would have looked quite different. It is unfortunate that the world system today is perpetuating the same power dynamics as colonialism, with the former metropoles in the powerful situation to provide aid to former colonies. This prevents international development from becoming more inclusive. Whether it’s development as a long-term structural change, as short-term outcomes, as five freedoms, or as inclusive political and economic institutions, the mainstream development discourse indeed reflects Western countries as ideal models, and grant these countries the legitimacy to tie development aid with conditionality. This is not to say that the experience and practices of more developed countries do not have anything to offer or that all donor countries are post-colonial. I am simply suggesting that we should also value the perspectives from the developing world on the matter of their own development. In order for development practices to become more inclusive, development theories have to first include more ideas. The alternative path to development offered by developing countries such as Russia, China and Brazil, is seen as a threat by many Western governments because of ideological differences and competition over spheres of influence. In a multi-polar world, this inevitable collision opens up room for choices in development and helps make development more inclusive by incorporating different and even conflicting ideas. Development theories and practices today should reflect the multi-polar international society and should include more actors from the developing world.