The term development is wrapped in a lot of controversy, there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding this term and various writers have come up with various definitions of development, however, we cannot have any single definition for this term because of the multi- facetedness and multi-dimensional form that development takes. Development can mean different things to different people and how one views development is usually affected by their own perceptions of life. There is basically the Afrocentric and the Eurocentric views to development, thus what one can regard as development can be viewed in a different light by others.
There is no one simple straight forward way to define development.Hoogvelt(1978)defines development as a logical connection between growth and change. Allen and Thomas (2000) view development as generally implying an all-encompassing change, not just change in one aspect. Development can be viewed as a positive change but the problem is the process of change can actually be undesirable to other people who may lose or disrupt their way of life in order to pave way for development. As a result Allen and Thomas (2000) are quick to point out that it may be impossible to achieve good change on a continuous basis without destroying something previously held dear, such as traditional values and forms of livelihood or a sense of control over day to day life.
A Eurocentric definition of development could be the definition given by the Brandt Report (1980) which takes development to mean improvements in living conditions for which economic growth and industrialisation are essential. The biased nature of this definition seems to lie in the fact that industrialisation has been pointed out to be essential, so according to this definition a nation that has not industrialised cannot be regarded as developed. This seems to be development taking after Europe and America which are already industrialised. However this view can be compared to an Afrocentric definition of development. According to Kete (1988) development is viewed as progress of human personality and capacity, becoming more aware, more conscious of oneself. He goes on to say development takes place within the context of an ideal ideological commitment to harmony. In this view Africans regard development as evolutionary, which takes on gradual change and at the same time does not disrupt or cause an overhaul of the system, change is gradual.
On his presidential inaugural speech, Harry Truman introduced the idea of America taking a lead position in “developing” what he termed the underdeveloped nations. Truman talked of the need to embark on programmes for making the benefits of Americas industrial and scientific progress be available for development of underdeveloped nations ( Allen and Thomas 2000). This might seem a real noble idea for a layman, but one should wonder what Truman and America as a whole would gain in this scenario. Was it a pure heart or he had a hidden agenda? And anyway, how did he know if other nations wanted to be like America or if they were happy and satisfied with their lives and did not want to be like America? These are some of the questions which make the term development to be a controversial one for there seems to be some who seem to define how others should develop but their own development was not defined by others.
In the light or predetermining development Rostow actually came up with five stages in which states should go through during the process of development. This is a very wrong assumption that every nation is the same and should go through the same stages to develop. Rodney (1973) posits that countries vary in their ways of developing and the Rostowian linear approach to development is too mechanistic. Another major flaw of Rostows stages of development is the element of first deculturing in order to be able to develop. We can see that culture is not at all a problem in light of development as there are giant states in the world which has successfully industrialised and developed while at the same time embracing and preserving their culture, for example Japan and Korea.
Influenced by Rostows ideas and following Truman’s desire The Marshall Plan was introduced as a way of “helping” underdeveloped nations to develop. According to Shanton and Cowen (1996) the logic of this plan was that if the problem facing underdeveloped nations resided in their lack of productive investments, then the solution should lie in the provision of aid in the form of capital, technology and expertise.This help, however, still takes the form of trying to prescribe European and American solutions to African or Asian problems, for example. Still in implementing the Marshall Plan states were given tied aid by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As a result this tied aid have left the poor nations poorer because of the need to repay the loans which could have accrued high interests. This has subjected countries to large deficits. In the 1980s various African countries including Zimbabwe were victims of failed IMF-imposed Structural Adjustment Program. According to Eade (2007), this program failed because it was developed with total disregard of the cultural, social, political and traditional values of the recipient countries but it was Eurocentric.
Modernisation theory is a movement of the 1950s and 1960s which involves a complete overhaul of the traditional society in order to become modern. According to Lenin (1964) in Hoogvelt (1978), Modernisation is about Africa following the developmental footsteps of Europe. As a result of Modernisation Africa has seen the introduction of new farming methods such as the introduction of hybrids, greenhouse farming, use of artificial fertilisers and insecticides. However, these have proven to have serious negative impact and harm to ecosystem. Modernisation theory just hold the assumption that developing nations are traditional while Western countries are modern. In this light, in order to develop, those poor nations need to adopt Western values.
The dependency theory states that poverty and lack of development can be attributed to the fact that the low income countries have been exploited by high income countries. Propounded by AndreGunder Frank and others, this theory disputes the notion of the development approach that economic growth is the key to meeting human needs in society (Meredith 2005). Dependency theory argue that poor nations are caught up in structured dependency on richer nations. Dependency theory states that there is a core –periphery relationship in which those countries at the core are there because they managed to exploit the natural resources of their periphery. While the core hides behind a false pretence to want to develop the periphery, it actually stands to gain more especially by extraction of raw materials. Dependency theory states that the rich countries are rich because they managed to make their satellites poor, while the poor are as such because they aided their metropolis to become rich, robbing themselves of their own riches.
Hoogevelt (1978) postulates that the development of underdevelopment thesis is of the notion that whilst economic ascendancy in the West rooted in the pillage of overseas economic surpluses, the systematic loses of these surplusesin turn removed the opportunity for economic advancements in the territories where the West traded and so disrupted them from furthering their internal development. Rodney (1973) adds on by saying that Africa was already on the road to development but was actually interrupted by the West. The Empires of Mali, Tshaka in Zululand and Mossi to the East of Mali were some of the most powerful of that era in wealth and military supremacy. These states exhibited expertise in farming, pottery and artistry, gold and silver smiths and medicine men to mention just a few. This shows that there was really no need for the West to come and impose that they wanted to develop Africa, for Africa was already developing in its own way.
The problematic nature of development starts with the term not having a single, clear-cut definition. As a result, on the global arena some super powers would come as wolves in sheep clothing; pretending to want to help develop poor nations while they actually want to reap them off. Most solutions to problems which might have worked in Europe and America could not simply work in all countries. Development cannot be prescribed without first studying the internal conditions of any country. Development cannot be done in a one size fits all approach. Also, the problem of looking at other and then copying what they will have done means that one can never be able to reach them, as they themselves will be further developing, thereby bringing in the idea of a wild goose chase to development according to the Eurocentric view. Afrocentricity advocates for development of Africa to be done in the African manner, not as American or European.

REFERENCE

Allen, T. a. (2000). Development in the 21st Century. Chicago: University Press.
Brandt, W. (1980). North- South; A programme for Survival, Report on the Independence Commission on International development. London: Pan Books.
Eade, D. (2007). Development in practise. OXFAM JOURNAL on Human Nature, 713-715 VOL 17 NO.6.
Hoogvelt, A. (1978). The Sociology of Developing Societies (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers.
Kete, A. M. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Meredith, M. (2005). The fate of Africa; From the hopes of freedom to the heart of despair. New York: Public Affairs.
Rodney, W. (1973). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L Ouverture Publications.
Shanton, R. a. (1996). Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge.