DEVELOPMENT:    
A  LOOK  AT  DEFINITIONS  AND  MODELS  AND    
THE  PHILIPPINE  EXPERIENCE  
By  Mark  Anthony  Siason,  MPA  
August  2012  
 

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216
 DEVELOPMENT: A LOOK AT DEFINITIONS AND MODELS AND
THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE
By Mark Anthony Siason, MPA

The concept of development has, over the years, been changing in scope and
meaning as well as on the manner of attaining it. As such, various definitions of
development have emerged along with so called models or theories of development that
explains conditions of underdevelopment and prescribe perspectives on development
and the ways of attaining development objectives with their some specific criteria and
parameters for measuring the same (UNDESA 2003). This is so, as government’s
perspective on development will determine the strategies to be undertaken together with
the types of programs to be carried out that would be relevant to the context of the
country and the development objectives sought for. The trend is seen that parameters
for measuring development have been from purely economic indicators to more social
and environmental, and recently towards rights-based. However, this paper argues that
a convergence approach is necessary since economic growth is needed to propel a
development along social and environmental spheres. In addition, the ideas evolved
about development find congruence and convergence in the UNDP’s sustainable
human development model. But central to achieving the same are necessary
institutional and governance reform especially in the public sector.
Definitions of Development
It must be emphasized that there is no single agreed-upon definition of
development, as development theoreticians, scholars, or organizations would each
have their own definition and ways of representing and interpreting the related concepts
into a “model”, and that there is close connection between “definitions” of development
and the “models” of development. Arbitrary choice for discussion must take note of the
evolutionary and historical context of the concept of development as it has been
changing and conditions that brought about such change. From these definitions and
models therefore can be isolated 2 models for discussion and its application to the
Philippine context.
Early definition of development is based on the classical economic growth or
“diffusionist” (Khan 2003) model of development, which focuses entirely on
macroeconomic indicators of progress in terms of overall and per capita GNP. Hence
development in this term has been denoted in the United Nation’s First Development
Decade as having a GNP increase of 5-7%. Development in the classical
“diffusionist” perspective purely means economic growth. But as to where the
economic growth is invested or utilized is largely unclear in this early definition so that
while there has been substantial growth in terms of aid, capital, technology and
investments, there hasn’t however been substantial reduction in poverty incidence and
increase in the economic conditions of the poor and underprivileged sectors of society.
The assumption that the growth would provide for a “trickle-down” effect to the masses
has been largely unmet.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216
 The failure of the First Development Decade to bring about qualitative changes in
the human welfare and improve the levels of living of the masses of people brought
about a rethinking of the concept of development. Notable scholars provided the
initiatives and influence to redefine what development is. Among those who are
considered to have a profound influence in redefining development are Seers (1969),
Dag Hammarskjold Foundation (1975) and Todaro (1977) whose ideas on
development emphasized social dimensions and espoused the centrality of man not
only as recipient but as active participant in development.
Dudley Seers (1969) averred that “development” is the “realization of the
potential of human personality” which necessitates substantial improvements in
eradicating 1) poverty, 2) unemployment, and 3) inequality. Hence, based on this
definition, for a country like the Philippines to be able to claim that it has attained
development it must somehow be able to justify that there is dramatic decline in poverty
incidents, should be able to provide adequate opportunities for productive employment
and that unemployment rates are substantially down historical levels, and that there isn’t
much disparity between levels of income of the rich and the poor. Apparently, Seers
definition is a complete departure from the classical-economic-growth view of
development, which only points to the centrality of growth in income of a country. The
model or perspective advanced by Seers can be lamped into what Khan (in UNDESA,
2003) characterized as “Basic Needs Model” of development as it puts forward the
significance of developing human capital through provision of basic needs to address
poverty, unemployment and inequality.
Michael Todaro (1977), on the other hand, stressed that development must be
regarded as “multi-dimensional process involving major changes in social
structures, popular attitudes, institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic
growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolute poverty.” He
further explained that development must represent the whole gamut of change by which
the entire social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and
social groups within that system, moves away from a condition greatly perceived to be
unsatisfactory toward a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually
“better”. Todaro emphasized the “good life” that individuals and societies ought to
pursue as based on three (3) core values : 1)life sustenance, 2) self esteem, and 3)
freedom from servitude. Todaro here, thus provide a normative philosophical and
humanistic dimension to development but taking on a much holistic integrative
perspective by emphasizing the need for accelerated economic growth along with social
and institutional component. By this, he points out that the problem of
underdevelopment and inequality is largely structural in nature and proliferated by
existing institutions in society the promotes rather than prevents inequality, inadequate
redistribution of wealth, blocks access to basic services, and are the very cause of
deprivation thereby impeding attainment of development objectives on top of efforts and
interventions being done. Thus, he defines development as a holistic cultural, social and
institutional transformations (multi-dimensional) largely brought about by substantial
changes in existing institutions into ones that takes cognizance of the importance of the
human person and thereby provides adequate services to support life-sustaining, basic
human needs, promotes self-respect and dignity thru the entire society’s and including

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

the government’s respect of rights and liberties of individuals and thereby changing the
attitudes and culture of a mass of people, rendering them free and capable to live
productive meaningful lives or what he refers to as the “good life”.
The same theme of improved quality of life is carried by the Dag Hammarskjold
Foundation’s (DHF) “Another Development”. ‘Another Development’ ‘is people-
centred, geared to the satisfaction of basic human needs for all – both material and,
in its broadest sense, political; it is self-reliant, endogenous, ecologically sound and
based on democratic, political, social and economic transformations which alone will
make possible the attainment of the other goals. Another development also
encompasses the search for societies overcoming discrimination of any kind – be
they social, sexual, ethnic or economic. It is a participatory and pluralistic process
(DHF 1975). The definition provides a wider more integrative and holistic meaning than
earlier proposed but on the other hand build from these earlier conception especially on the
social and humanistic component of development thereby putting the human person and
the human condition as the primary gauge of whether development is attained or not. It
departs from the classical and “diffusionist” definition which supports massive importation of
technology capital and cultural elements from developed to non-developed countries even
as “Another Development” gives importance to “self-reliant” or “endogenous” change—that
is, harnessing the core of the country’s rich cultural heritage, resources, and human
energies and creativity. Most importantly, this definition of development mainstreams the
importance of the environment (which is not present in previous definitions) as it advocates
for sustainable utilization of existing natural resources such that society does not transgress
the regenerative limits or “carrying capacity” of the environment. The definition of
development advanced by DHF builds from Todaro’s institutional perspective by grounding
development on democratic, political and social transformation. Meaning, it also advocates
substantial change and restructuring the way existing institutions operate to serve
developmental aims and thus also calls for dramatic change in popular attitudes guided by
democratic principles of participation and political and social transformations based on
human rights. These various elements of the definitions apparently flows thru current
conceptions of rights-based approach to development as well as sustainable human
development and also informed the various “models” of development that have emerged in
last coupe of decades.

Models of Development

Various models of development exist, as there can be various permutations of

classifications that can be arrived at. According to Khan (in UNDESA, 2003), the
“models” of development may be lumped into three : 1) The “Diffusionist”, 2) The
“Basic Needs” Model, 3) and the “Political Economic” or “Entitlements” Model.
Under this broad classification, two important models shall be discussed one is the
Classical Economic Growth Model which belongs to the “Diffusionist” Model based on
Khan’s, and second is the Sustainable Human Development Model, which has
elements characteristic of the Basic Needs and Political-Economic Models combined.
Then on, the applicability of the Classical Economic Growth and Sustainable Human
Development Models to Philippine Government conditions shall be discussed with the
perspective that development strategies ought to be context dependent and the choice
of development models must be based upon sound analysis and choice of the elements

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

that can be beneficial or practicable to an existing country’s socio-economic and political
conditions. This is so, as the various models have their set of setbacks.

Classical Economic Growth Model

The “Diffusionist” Model was the dominant development model during the
1950s until the mid-1970s. What this theory basically propounded was that developing
countries were poor because they were technologically, resource-wise, and culturally
poor and backward. The solution was to export the technology, the capital, and even the
norms and values of the developed countries to the developing countries. The theory
was that these transfers would then automatically generate a process of upward
transformation, lifting the developing countries from a state of underdevelopment to a
state of development. In pursuance of this theory, most developing countries witnessed
an inflow of second grade technologies, advisory services and some capital to promote
“development.” Nyilas (1977) explained how the scheme worked. The diffusionist model
perceived “development” and “underdevelopment” by means of a summary of certain
typical features or factors that hindered development. These typical factors were then
compared with the static features of the developed countries, together with a number of
socio-economic indices.

Records suggest that such a strategy did not work. Based on the centralist, or
dirigisme, doctrine of state intervention, the diffusionist model of development relied
heavily on three principles: production first and distribution next; change of
cultures and values; and, the state to act as the main intervener in the
transformation process. In this scenario, it was assumed that rapid industrialization
was the answer to development and that, with the help of the West, industrialization
would create a spiraling effect in the economies of the developing countries, spreading
the benefits of development right across the board.

Most developing countries accepted this theory and jumped into the bandwagon
of industrialization without much consideration to the market, the issues of
complementarities (i.e., the agriculture-industry linkage), human capital, and local
institutions and traditions. The result was that many unsustainable industries, often with
second grade technologies, were built and unsustainable products were produced at a
very high cost. Many governments had to pay heavy subsidies to maintain these
industries. Furthermore, these initiatives, undertaken within the framework of market
restrictions, licensing and control, often contributed to patronage distribution, corruption,
and other anomalies. These actions, for obvious reasons, also contributed to inefficient
allocation of scarce resources, growth of rent-seeking behavior, and rising inequality in
and stagnation of the economy.

Under the “Diffusionist Model would fall the Classical Economic Growth model
that guided the thought of the UN First Development Decade in the 1960’s. Hence,
concept of development in the 1960’s (regarded as UN First Development Decade)
was purely economic-oriented and therefore gauged on increased overall or per
capita national economic output ideally around 5-7%. With this, it has been strongly

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

posited that the manner of attaining development is thru extensive industrialization and
together with development aids and loans from multilateral and bilateral aid institutions.
Earlier theories and conceptions of development show this focus as in the Rostow’s
Stages of Economic Growth and the Harrod-Domar Growth models.
The general assumption then was that the economic growth would have a
“trickling down” effect on the quality of lives of the people and therefore would cause
standards of living to increase dramatically. The logic was that industrialization would
increase job creation and dramatically increase economic output and income thereby
raising the amount available to propel further growth and investments in infrastructure
projects and services that improves lives of the people. The setback of this development
model however, was that there was very slight qualitative improvement in the human
welfare and the “trickle down” effect was not substantial as proportion of income
between rich and poor have instead drastically widened.
In summary, during this time many countries witnessed two emerging trends:
firstly, rising inequality as the poor became poorer and the rich, richer; and secondly, an
increasingly arrogant and insensitive public policy institution with little or no
accountability. As a result, most public institutions and the public policy processes
became reclusive, elitist and highly authoritarian, serving mostly the interests of the rich
and the elite. This is the same condition that the Philippines have been before, during
and after the Marcos regime.

The Sustainable Human Development

The Sustainable Human Development is an offshoot of the Basic Needs and

Political Economic or Entitlements model, such that discussion of these two broader
classifications would be necessary.

The Basic Needs Model came into prominence during the mid-seventies.
Pioneered by Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Mahbubul Haq, the Pakistani
economist, this perspective for the first time focused on human resources development
as a key component of economic development. It argued that human capital was as
important as financial capital for sustained economic growth and poverty reduction
(Haq, 1970; Haq and Burki, 1980). It was also during this time that the issue of poverty
started to find a place and legitimacy in the development literature. Hence, the condition
of the human person, his capacity to meet basic life-sustaining needs became the focus
of development and development programs were implemented aimed at directly
addressing these concerns.

On the other hand, the Political Economic or “Entitlements” model argues that the
poor are poor because the existing institutions disadvantage them. It further argues that
the poor are very capable and, indeed, are very keen to change their lives, but the
institutions that govern their existence function against their interests. This school
asserts that the legal system, land tenure arrangements, the financial systems, etc.
have evolved in societies to serve the interest of the haves and not of the have-nots. It
also argues that these are the systems that put constraints on the poor in the exercise

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

of their free choices, thereby impeding their (poor’s) ability to make progress.

Two important researches and the experience of an important action-research

program demonstrated how institutions remained at the core of the debate on poverty.
By following the political economic perspective, Robert Chambers (1983), through his
seminal work, “Putting Last First,” argued that the poor were poor because they were
caught in a “deprivation trap” and that the elements of deprivation, namely, vulnerability,
powerlessness, poverty, remoteness, etc. were inter-linked and institution related and
keep the poor in poverty in a self-perpetuating way. To overcome the malaise,
according to him, is to bring about fundamental changes to the existing institutions,
especially those that relate to the powerlessness of the poor— the access to resources,
the access to the decision-making processes of the state, etc. The “entitlement theory of
development,” by implication, prescribes development strategies that can enhance the
“entitlements to livelihood” through the creation of income earning opportunities, and not
by giving handouts to the poor as seemed to have been the practice until recently.

The Sustainable Human Development capitalizes on important elements of these

important development models and rightly finds congruence with development
definitions advanced earlier by Todaro (1977), Seers (1969), and DHF (1975). This
model puts people at the center of development; regards economic growth as
means and not an end; protects the life opportunities of the present as well as the
future generations, and respects the natural systems on which all life depends.
Development under SHD involved the development of the total well-being of a
person—economic, cultural, social, political—within the context of ecologically friendly
and future-minded development activities. It is integrative and inclusive in that it
recognizes the importance of economic growth put forward in the classical model, but
also integrates the social dimension of poverty alleviation, increased employment and
provision of social safety nets for the poor and underprivileged and as in social
development, recognizes as well the people as participants, especially the women and
thereby promotes not just equality and equity between genders. But as in sustainable
development, equity is advanced in terms of the right to access to natural resources by
present and even future generations—otherwise known as inter-generational equity.
Therefore, Sustainable Human Development is pro-people, pro-jobs, pro-
nature, and pro-women in that Sustainable Human Development gives the highest
priority to poverty reduction, productive employment, social integration, and
environmental regeneration.
According to UNDP, there are five aspects to sustainable human development -
all affecting the lives of the poor and vulnerable:

Empowerment - The expansion of men and women's capabilities and choices

increases their ability to exercise those choices free of hunger, want and
deprivation. It also increases their opportunity to participate in, or endorse,
decision-making affecting their lives.
Co-operation - With a sense of belonging important for personal fulfillment, well-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

 being and a sense of purpose and meaning, human development is concerned
with the ways in which people work together and interact.
Equity - The expansion of capabilities and opportunities means more than income - it
also means equity, such as an educational system to which everybody should
have access.
Sustainability - The needs of this generation must be met without compromising the
right of future generations to be free of poverty and deprivation and to exercise
their basic capabilities.
Security - Particularly the security of livelihood. People need to be freed from threats,
such as disease or repression and from sudden harmful disruptions in their lives.

Hence, countries adopting the model focus on four critical elements of

Sustainable Human Development: eliminating poverty, creating jobs and sustaining
livelihoods, protecting and regenerating the environment, and promoting the
advancement of women. Developing the capacities for good governance underpins all
these objectives.

Applicability of the Models to the Philippine Development Situation

It is worth mentioning that path toward development is context dependent. That
is, not all aspects of the models that have been successful in one country may be
readily applicable or practicable to another country on account of varying social,
political, and economic condition therein and therefor there should not be a “one size fits
all approach” to Development (UNDESA 2012). Thus in assessing the practicability or
non-practicability of the aforementioned models to the Philippine condition, certain
important characteristics of the Philippines and the Philippine government environment
have to be put into consideration.
For one, it must be emphasized that substantial and accelerated economic
growth is essential to provide for the financial requirement of redistribution, of
infrastructure ad institutional capabilities for better public social services (Midgley 1995).
Therefore, along with economic growth should be establishment and enabling reforms
of institutions of society to better carry out governmental and other pubic functions that
provides services to the people, protect they human rights and provide for security.
Central to this according to the United Nations, is a government that’s serves and a
Public Administration and Governance that is participative, transparent, future-oriented,
predictable, promoting the rule of law and human rights, and empowered to serve.
Hence, while the Philippine government, the pubic sector, and perhaps society as a
whole have been ranked as most corrupt in Asia, any model would seem to be doomed
to fail and rendered impracticable. Hence reforms in the public sector is imperative even
as the UNDP sees governance and therefore public administration being part of the
wider governance environment as underpinning the success of sustainable human
development.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

 But for purposes of discussion, we can assume that a condition where
institutional reforms in the public sector have been met, and a synthesis and integration
of aspects of the two models discussed above are highly practicable to the Philippine
government sector if also only to address and mitigate internal weaknesses of the
system.
1. Need for Sound Microeconomic Management. The Classical Economic
Growth model is very much relevant and practicable to the Philippine
development condition based on the need for sound macroeconomic and
fiscal management of the country’s economy. The classical theory on
increasing capital resources for accelerated growth of the industrial sector
(Harrod 1939, Domar 1946) may be necessary to provide for higher value
added products and services that create jobs and provide for higher returns
and increasing capabilities of local industries. But, industrialization has to be
in balance with the need to create according to Reyes (1992), middle-ground
industries, that takes cognizance of the need for labor-intensive growth in a
rather high unemployment rate of the country and a backdrop of increasing
population.
2. Knowledge Transfers and Attitudinal Changes. Knowledge and
technology transfers and attitudinal changes (based on Modernization theory,
Knowledge, technical know-how, and even institutions and policies from more
industrialized countries, as espoused in the classical model and
Modernization theory (Parsons 1964), is also relevant for replication to the
Philippines insofar as resources and the socio-political context warrants. But
great caution must be taken as to their effect on local socioeconomic and
political condition. Issues on trade liberalization and the WTO for example
have had potential flashpoints for conflict, which has had detrimental
implications on the local economy of the Philippines. Liberalization is based
on the assumption of Smith’s “invisible hand” to be taking place that would
benefit consumers and improve people’s living conditions. Accordingly
markets operate on perfect information and that markets don’t fail. But in fact,
in reality, markets have imperfect information causing prize instabilities and
steep fluctuations as in presence of cartels and speculators and in fact
markets do fail as in the financial crisis of the late 90’s.
3. External Inducement and Cooperation. Also due to the global and
interdependent nature of the world economies, the classical economic growth
theories in terms of the significance given to external conditions (technical
and resources) and the effects and responsibility that industrialized countries
have to aid less developed countries makes sense as the world has been
witness to how vulnerabilities in one countries can affect the entire world
economy as in the case of the “global financial melt-down” and hence, the
need for less developed countries like the Philippines to join regional
partnerships like ASEAN as well as on the “global partnership and
cooperation” for development in order to gain better expertise and support to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

 cope with internal and external development challenges such as meeting the
Millennium Development Goals (UN 2001).
Hence, classical economic growth models are practicable to the Philippines in
the sense that it better provides for explanation and expertise into the creation of
broader financial base needed to finance public infrastructure and social services and a
government that is able to serve the people. However, it itself it is incomplete even as
economic growth have to be tied up with social and cultural, as well as environmental
aspects of development. There are also aspects of the classical economic growth model
that would not be practicable:
1. Market Mechanisms will not lead to development. As earlier mentioned the
assumptions that markets operate on perfect information and they are never
vulnerable to failure are completely inapplicable concept in the Philippines were
markets are vulnerable to monopoly and often price fluctuations and movements
are easily influenced by speculation. Adam Smith’s invisible hand has never
moved in the way of serving the interest of all but those of the producers big firms
and therefore with the effect of widening disparities in income and thus
increasing incidence of inequality. What is needed therefore is an effective
governance environment for the operations of market guided by a public sector
that serves the interest of the people to ensure that indeed markets would not fail
and that if they do, it mitigates its impact on the vulnerable sectors.
2. On Comparative Advantage. Classical models speak of zeroing in growth on
some commodity industries that are the strength of a country’s economy since it
can’t be replicated by other countries and would be a source of economic
advantage. This concept has greatly failed in the Philippines even as it made way
to capitalize on its agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector as sources of
comparative advantage to the detriment of the environment and at the end
leaving the country even agricultural insufficient to provide for its own people.
According to Schumpeter, a country only achieves development when it has
developed innovative ways of endogenously reorienting production by utilizing
advances in knowledge and technology even as a country receives foreign
technical and financial aids from other countries.
On the other hand, assessing the Sustainable Human Development model, it can
be readily perceived that it is very much practicable in the Philippines based on the
values being maximized in the model pertaining to widening choices and opportunities
and respect of human rights (political and civil liberties), the rights of women and the
disadvantaged sector for greater or more equitable access to public services on account
of the Philippines’ status as a developing country and a “restored democracy”.
The five aspects of SHD provide for sound theoretical bases for its practicability
in the Philippines.
1. Empowerment. On account of “empowerment”, the democratic values highly
inculcated among the people could make for solid foundation for people and
community empowerment into advancing development aims as in Community-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

 Based Resources Management Programs. However certain institutional and
policy reforms have to be improved on aspects of people’s and institutions’
adherence to rule of law and human rights. Broadening the base for participation
across all governmental levels would allow for greater empowerment leading to
more transparent governments and better service delivery able to listen and
respond to peoples needs.
2. Cooperation. SHD provides for a wider agenda for development and may be
much more relevant and practicable to Philippine government condition. While
empowerment is needed, so too is “cooperation” both internal and external, of
consolidating efforts and resources to advance the plight of the vulnerable
enabling puny lives towards productive income and better living conditions even
as SHD shifts the focus from income to outcome in terms of change in the quality
if life of the people.
3. Equity or increasing access to basic services and governmental programs for
the disadvantaged entails institutional and policy reforms initiated by an
empowered people who are educated and who knows their basic rights. This too
is clearly potentially practicable in the Philippine situation even as the Philippines
has among the highest literacy rates and able to comprehend some basic
political issues of the day. What may be needed are reforms in government that
makes it responsive to the people through truly decentralized and empowered
governmental services that truly funnel in the views, the aspiration and needs of
the people in order to render them capable to cope with their economic
situations.
4. Sustainability. SHD also promotes the value of sustainability; of future-oriented
progress and ensuring inter-generational equity—that the present and the future
generation have the right to access to the bounties of nature. The Philippines is
among those that has been poor in the management of its natural resources with
more than 90 percent of its forest cover lost only within the century. Therefore
values on sustainability of growth, of protecting and regenerating the
environment is applicable to the Philippines, but as to practicability it has been
showing progress with the increase of environmental NGO’s and Community-
Based programs for sustainable environmental management and provision of
alternative livelihood and closing open-access to protected areas.
5. Security. Overall, what SHD seeks to create is a secure life for the people. And
for a country like the Philippines, which is constantly plagued by political
instabilities, calamities, peace and order problems, high incidence of poverty and
unemployment, price hike and high inflation, and even shortages in food, security
becomes an overarching objective of the government, and a goal to be worked
for.
Hence, values and principles of Sustainable Human Development finds
congruence with the Philippine government situation. While it presently lacks
transparency and accountability, the movement towards more participative means of
tackling society’s problems provides some hope into better implementation that also

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216

empowers the people and the community. This then also improves implementation of
policies since it involves the people from formulation to implementation and thereby also
raising adherence to the rule of law and human rights rendering the people secure and
able to ventilate their concerns to a government that responds and serves. Institutional
reforms that integrate the Sustainable Human Development model has to be reworked
however in the Philippines and this entails a great deal of financial resources base
which can only be attained if the Philippine macroeconomic and fiscal policies are
sound. And this is when the classical economic growth theories which are in actuality
economic development theories, can greatly inform the technical and external aspects
of growing the economy to provide for “allocative effectiveness and efficiency” (Chenery
and Srinavasan 1988).

References
Cheema, G. Shabir; Maguire Linda. Democracy, Governance and Development: A
Conceptual Framework, UNDESA, 2002.

Cheema, G. Shabir. Reconceptualizing Govenance, United Nations Development

Program. 1997

Chambers, R., Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Reality Counts? A Policy Paper
Commissioned by UNDP for the 1995 World Summit for Social Development,
Copenhagen. 1995

Huq, M. and Burki, J. Meeting Basic Needs: An Overview. The World Bank:
Washington. 1980

Khan, M. Adil. Pro-Poor Policy Processes and Institutions: A Political Economic

Discussion. UNDESA, New Delhi, India. 2003
Khan, M. Adil. Economic Development, Poverty Alleviation and Governance: The
Asian Experience. Avebury: UK. 1996

The Dag Hammarskjold Foundations, Another Development for Burma. 2003

United Nations Development Program. Governance for Sustainable Human

Development: A Policy Document. 1996
United Nations Public Administration Network. Realizing the Future We Want for All.
2012

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130216