Development Paradigm: Identifying Problems and Suggesting a Replacement

Development Paradigm 1
DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

Development Paradigm 2
DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM
Introduction
Emerging issues of global development, for example, climate change, excessive use of
exhaustible resources, political instability and recurrent food crisis, food insecurity, and poverty
hinder the assessment of the past and current development processes that are important to the
nations (Quinn et al. 2018 p.102). A comprehensive discussion on failure and achievement
could assist not only to update the new understanding of these issues but also to redesign or
design ways forward for future and ongoing processes of development. Whereas immediate
actions may reduce the severe and direct magnitudes of contingent crisis, the process of
development requires lasting policy actions and long-term visions to be sustainable and effective.
This paper helps in identifying the problems associated with the current development paradigm
in assisting developing countries. Paradigms are the name given to the collection of concepts and
beliefs. It also represents a set of ideas, assumptions, and theories that contribute to the
worldview. It may also refer to the system of thought, values in any society that are widely held
and most standard at a given period. There is also a discussion on whether the paradigm should
be modified, changed or stay the same. The paper also employs the use of the empirical case to
give additional support to the argument (Flynn and Pearcy 2001 p.78).
The current development paradigm has failed because of the following reasons:
First, it tends to treat growth as its main objective neglecting social objectives, for
example, the right to health and eradication of poverty. The focus is put on growth was due to a
simplification inherent in mainstream economic. This in the world of inequality is wholly
inappropriate and unrealistic. By focusing on economic growth and aggregate income,

Development Paradigm 3
mainstream economics illogically consider that the benefits to pauper and billionaire as the same.
Faster growth is mostly argued to be compulsory to offer more resources (Pintér et al. 2018
p.66). The available resources are to being allocated to the people according to their social needs.
However, this all process requires suitable mechanisms that will ensure that the available
resources are apportioned according to the social needs of the people (Gibson 2018 p. 105). Such
mechanisms are mostly weak in countries that are rich. Generally, they are much in active in
LMIC, and dysfunctional or non-existent at a universal level.
Additionally, the current paradigm particularly militates against such resources
distributions, by arguing for explicit redistributive measures and low tax rates because they
hinder economic growth (Ferguson 2018 p.58). This argument that explicit redistributive
measures would hinder economic is extremely questionable. But even if the argument is true, it
would be both necessary and sensible to describe some cutoff point in which reallocation takes
priority over further growth. If not resources would often be apportioned to increase growth
rather than in agreement with social priorities (Choi and Kim 2018 p. 93).
The 2nd flaw is the predominant dependent on increasing export as the main source of
economic growth, as well as the requirement that global consumption has to grow for the extra
exports to be absorbed. There exist two challenges with this, first of all, the existence of real
environmental restrictions to total global consumption (Flentø and Ponte 2017 p.167). The
second problem is that excess inequality of global economy suggests that most of the extra
consumption mainly concentrate among the small minority that is wealthy in the world’s
population, rather than among those who are poor (the poor majority). The current development
paradigm requires those who are rich to get much richer and the poor to remain poorer, this will,
in turn, destroy the environment where both the poor and the rich ultimately depend.

Development Paradigm 4
The 3rd flaw is that the current development paradigm is based on competition nations in
global markets to attract foreign investment and to secure export markets. There is also
competition between organizations within a nationwide market to enhance the efficiency of
production. In this kind of competition, there must be losers and winners. Those nations which
succeed, for example, East Asian countries, concentrate on the virtuous circle of increasing
success and competitiveness. But those that are not able to compete found themselves with a lot
of economic problems and failure. The losers are also affected by human and financial capital.
Nevertheless, unlike an uncompetitive organization, a nation cannot come to an end.
Neither can it be taken over by another country. The loser will then face some problems like
social and economic collapse (Takayama, Sriprakash and Connell 2017 p.54).
Lastly, the current development paradigm, based on commercial globalization and market
liberalization, has failed to deliver to all people the services related to Health. The rate at which
the health sector improves in middle and low-income nations has reduced dramatically over the
last few years (Buchholz 2016 p. 77).
Development Paradigm requires a replacement:
Today, challenges of development in the developing countries remain similar as they
were in the 1980s. Most of the people are still hungry and poor today, and the entire world is in
greater environmental problems (Khalili et al. 2015 p.92) Western aid and governments’
establishment has had the opportunity of helping and has mostly failed to improve conditions of
the developing countries. Debt burden is rampant in the developing countries as it was in the last
ten years back, and net financial flows continue. To facilitate economic development, doing
things right is not enough, but also to the right things. Trying harder should not be enough.
Development practitioners should act and think differently (Martínez et al. 2010 p.45). Old