Resetting Our Goals?

With regards to the question of development posed by Gilbert Rist, I agree that "development" can or rather should be composed of many different meanings and levels according to whose definition is being used. From what I've learned the Western definition of "development" for the longest time has included a free market economy, social services for the less fortunate, and responsive political institutions from of strife or corruption and leads me to think the definition of development here is more attributed with success and wealth which when we examine the rest of the world, can  lead to an unfortunate of some countries as being less-developed and thus almost patronize them for their efforts to develop. Holding to a standard set by another culture and way of life can be a good first step for a country's goals but it can lead that country to become more in tune with the standard bearer's culture which leads to a stage of assimilation where new attitudes and ways of life including values become potent forces in nations whereas before they had only been minor forces. This cultural clash can result in both positive and negative consequences including on one hand, the gaining of the status of "developed" but losing some its cultural distinctness or traditions which had made it different from other countries. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that countries who do follow the standards set by more successful nations still have to deal with major social and economic problems both due to the lingering state of poverty and other misfortunes but also problems caused by development itself. It is this point where development becomes different things for different people where some see it as a necessary step in the path towards  a successful nation but this can diverge into many different paths leading towards either an emphasis on either advancement or stability. These two goals are what interest me the most in development because they are a set of opposing goals made somewhat more confusing when the definitions of development become mixed in with the priorities of a society.

Spain seems to be a country currently dealing with conflicting definitions of development within its society and there is still profound disagreement as to what should be the proper course of action. Protests have arisen criticizing the government's conservative response to the economic crisis which some feel is leading to a lack of attention from the government on the economic plight of it citizens. In response, one sees groups like Podemos (We can) advocating for a more responsive government which will be more in touch with the needs of the people. It can be seen from Podemos that their definition of development does include a government that provides aid to the people and can lead to a more equal and stable system and this attitude seems in line with other populist movements which have sprung into action in the wake of perceived government incompetence in providing for the well-being of its citizens. I have walked by many other protests including strikes by employees arguing that the local government is providing adequate wages which I feel will not stop. Not to sound pessimistic but one really cannot say something in the real world such as a person or a nation is "developed" because everything is constantly changing and the only reason things appear stable in "developed countries" is, I feel, because the amount of social and economic change has already advanced to such a point that further change happens without much notice. In the so-called developing countries, one can see rapid development and change for better or for worse which will result in externalizes which can end up changing an entire society within a decade or so. Spain is an example of a nation which has to deal with the protests that the country is not developed enough (Podemos) and face the pressure to change other aspects of society to better fit the popular definition of a "developed society". The answers to these calls for change can either be one of compromise or conflict. But what is important to keep in mind is that development by itself is not an end point for a nation but merely the completion of a change in that nation following the examples of others or not but altogether precipitating a following change, encouraging a dynamic society with certain groups believing that the state should pursue various new developments and protest when the state seems unwilling or even reneging on its commitment to the current development. In short, no one nation can ever definitively be called "developed", they are all "developing" in one way or another.