Compare the definitions of ‘development’ articulated by Jagdish Bhagwati, Atul Kohli, and Amartya Sen. Illustrate your comparison with reference to any two countries in South Asia (except India).

The case of ‘development’ has broadly been discussed by many scholars, with many focusing of different aspects of ‘development’ around South Asia. As countries in South Asia, such as South Korea and Afghanistan struggle they’re way to achieve their goals and develop their countries, many scholar analyzed different definition for its development. Atul analyses the importance of economic growth while studying development in comparison to Jagdish, who looks at the importance of democracy, whether there is an internal link with development. In analyzing the corresponding definitions of development by Jagdish, Atul and Amartya, we will be able to understand how certain authoritarian regime countries developed and established themselves.

The systematic political and economic study of development countries began only after the Second World War and grew rapidly thereafter. For some two or three decades the organizing framework was to seek generalizations about the developing world as a whole, with an emphasis on determining how this world, the “Third World,” was distinct from the one composed of more advanced and industrialized political economies.

The old thinking view of development put by Jagdish was, “The quality of democracy greatly affects the quality of development” (2002: Page 2). This gives a great insight about the relationship between democracy and development. It is a relationship that has been the subject of considerable commentary over the years. Jagdish initial thinking was that democracy depends on development and that a certain level of income enjoyed by a large urban middle class was required before democracy could take hold. Jagdish argued that the foundation of development does not depend of democracy; rather it is the other way around. Economic growth and creation of export industries fundamentally reinforces democracy. He claimed that ‘democracy handicap development because democratically elected governments could not display the economic discipline to generate the national saving necessary to fuel development’ (Jagdish: 1995). However, Amartya had argued against this opinion of democracy depending on development. Amartya new proposition is that perhaps development depends on democracy. Over time, Jagdish illustrated new thinking that has emerged on the relationship between development and democracy. The quality of democracy affects the quality of developments. Within the new thinking view, Jagdish connotes that democracy is necessary, or better for development, only that democracy can be consonant with, even promoting development (Jagdish 1995: page 4).

While Jagdish studies the concept of democracy in relation to development, Amartya have taken a different path to understand and explain development. Amartya argued that the object of the entire economic exercise and that enhancement is an integral part of the concept of development (Sen: page 11). Atul and Amartya both looked at the economic growth and used this concept to define and explain development in South Asia.

At the heart of South Korean development, Amartya main objective was to understand the economic growth in order to define ‘development’ within this country.

“The French grow too fast’’ wrote Sir William Petty in 1697, a part of one of the earliest discussion of development economic (Sen 1988: page 10). Using Petty analysis Amartya draws up his concept of development. Early writing in economic there was noticeable congruence of development economics and economics in general is a matter of some interest, especially in the context of investigating the nature of ‘the concept of development”(Amartya 1988). Using the perspective of economic he argued the basic development economic is, in some way, related to the details of the concept of