THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
NAME: LUYANDO ALICIA MAPULANGA
COURSE COORDINATOR: DR. CHISHIMBA
TASK: ASSIGNMENT 1
Question: Economic growth has long been considered the primary indicator of
development. However, the emergence of the human development paradigm
shifted the focus toward people-centered development. Discuss the evolution of the
concept of human development from economic growth approaches to the human
development paradigm?
For over half a century, the global standard for measuring national success was almost
completely attached to Gross Domestic Product. However, the late 20th century birthed a radical
line of thought causing the emergence of the human development paradigm. This approach
asserts that the true objective of development is not just the expansion of the production of
objects of convenience, but the enlargement of human choices and capabilities (UNDP, 2022).
This essay examines the historical transition from productivist models to human centered
frameworks, defines the foundational terminology of the field, and analyzes the paradigm's
evolution in the face of 21st-century crises.
This paper argues that while economic growth is a necessary engine, it is an insufficient measure
for navigating an era defined by extreme inequality and ecological instability (Raworth, 2021).
It will begin by explaining the historical historical context of gross domestic product then,
defining it gaps to validate the reasons as to the emergence of the human development paradigm.
Finally, a conclusion will be drawn.
The debate over whether a nation's success should be measured by its output or its people's
wellbeing dates back to the Industrial Revolution. Examples of scholars that supported these
ideas were Adam Smith (1776) and Karl Marx (1844). In The Wealth of Nations, Smith
established the foundation for the Economic Growth Paradigm and based his focus on the
division of labor and capital accumulation as the engines of prosperity (Smith, 1776, cited in
Sen, 2020). Smith viewed the productive powers of labor as the primary means to increase
national wealth. In this framework, humans were essentially refered to as human capital and was
seen as a tool to drive industrial maturity. Contemporary scholars note that this perspective
continues to influence modern economic policy, though its limitations are increasingly
recognized (Mazzucato, 2021).
On the other hand, Karl Marx provided the first major critique of this accumulation-centric
model. He introduced the concept of alienation, arguing that a single-minded focus on growth
treats workers as commodities (Marx, 1844, cited in Harvey, 2018). Marx insisted that the
economy should serve the human essence or species being rather than humans serving the
economy. This perspective laid the groundwork for modern human development, with recent
scholarship reaffirming Marx's relevance to contemporary debates about worker wellbeing and
economic justice (Fraser, 2022).
Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the global community was obsessed with the
mechanics of reconstruction and industrialization. Growth was defined by a single measure wh a
percentage increase in the production of goods and services (Pilling, 2018). This paved way for
the introduction of Gross Domestic Product, which is defined as the monetary measure of the
market value of all the final goods and services produced within a country's borders over a
certain period of time (Kubiszewski et al., 2021). If a nation's factories were humming, its
exports were rising, and its infrastructure was expanding, it was perceived as development.
Recent analysis confirms that this postwar consensus created a growth imperative that has
proven remarkably durable, despite its conceptual flaws (Hickel, 2020).
Post-World War II development was dominated by the famous modernization theory and the
belief that industrial output was the universal key to success. For instance, Rostow's Stages of
Growth (1960) by W.W. Rostow proposed a linear model composed of five stages where all
nations must move through the stage of take-off to reach high mass consumption stage (Rostow,
1960, cited in Fischer, 2019). The gross domestic metric was based on the assumption that
success was measured almost exclusively by gross domestic Product. In addition, the trickle-
down theory assumed that aggregate national wealth would naturally solve poverty, a claim that
was increasingly debunked as inequality grew in successful economies (Stiglitz, 2019). This is
ideally the belief that wealth generated at the macro-economic level would naturally and
inevitably nourish the roots of society, lifting the masses out of poverty through the sheer
momentum of market activity. Contemporary economic historians note that this assumption
lacked empirical support even during the postwar boom (Piketty, 2020).
It was usually assumed, indirectly or directly, that an increase in output, or rather the growth of
gross domestic product, would eventually reduce poverty and raise the general wellbeing of the
population (Sen, 2021). This assumption was rooted in utilitarianism and the view that
production generated incomes and higher incomes, in turn, resulted in greater utility or economic
welfare. However, scholars have demonstrated that this utilitarian framework systematically
distributional concerns and non-material dimensions of wellbeing (Atkinson, 2019).
By the 1970s and 1980s, a troubling paradox began to emerge across the Global South and North
alike. Although many countries were reporting sturdy GDP growth, their citizens remained
embedded in illiteracy, malnutrition, and preventable disease (UNDP, 2021). The access to social
services deteriorated in many countries including some industrialized nations while at the same
time, economic production was expanding. This proved as an indication that economic growth
did not automatically translate into human wellbeing. This disconnect birthed the human
development paradigm, a revolutionary departure that challenged the hegemony of the
marketcentric view (Fukuda-Parr, 2019). Recent historical analysis confirms that this period
marked a fundamental turning point in development thinking (Jolly et al., 2021).
In simpler terms, human development is much more than the rise or fall of national income: it is
about creating an environment where people can develop their own potential and direct their
productive and creative lives in line with their own needs and interests (UNDP, 2022). Since
people are the true wealth of nations, there must be progress in expanding people's choices to
lead the lives they choose, and this is much more than economic growth. The 2022 Human
Development Report reinforces this perspective, emphasizing that human development is about
expanding the richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy (UNDP,
2022, p. 3).
Leading this intellectual charge were economists Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen. They argued
that "people are the real wealth of a nation" (Haq, 1990, cited in Fukuda-Parr, 2020). They
sought to shift the focus from the means of income and production to the ends of development,
which is the wellbeing and the freedom to lead a life one values. This was not simply a change in
accounting but rather it was a philosophical return. It reminded policy makers that the economy
exists to serve humanity, not the other way around. Contemporary development ethics continues
to build upon this foundational insight (Drydyk & Keleher, 2019).
Furthermore, Amartya Sen argued that development is the expansion of substantive freedoms and
the freedom to lead a life one values (Sen, 2021). He defined poverty not as a lack of income, but
as a capability deprivation to live a life they value (e.g., being unable to read, being unhealthy, or
lacking political agency). A person might have a high income but suffer from a lack of political
freedom or chronic illness, which limits their capability to live a life they value. He distinguishes
between means such as income, and ends such as the freedom to lead a long and healthy life.
Modern social work and public policy now focus on what real opportunities young people have
to lead the lives that they value, rather than just providing financial resources (Robeyns &
Byskov, 2023). The capability approach has become increasingly influential in policy evaluation
and social justice advocacy (Alexander, 2022).
It is important to note that while Sen provided the philosophical capabilities approach, Haq
provided the pragmatic human development index as a tool to compete with gross domestic
product in the public eye (Stanton, 2019). The capabilities approach is a theoretical framework
pioneered by Amartya Sen which argues that wellbeing should be assessed based on what people
are actually able to be and do. For instance, the freedom to be healthy or the freedom to
participate in community life rather than just what they possess.
Mahbub ul Haq's other contribution was to stand development theory on its head by insisting
that the quality of growth mattered more than the quantity (Haq, 1995, cited in Fukuda-Parr,
2020). Haq argued that the link between growth and human lives must be created consciously
through public policy, as the automatic workings of the marketplace often marginalize the poor
(Haq, 1995, cited in UNDP, 2021). Their focus on the wellbeing of humans led to what is called
human development. The 2023 Global Human Development Report confirms that countries
investing heavily in human capital show greater resilience to economic shocks (UNDP, 2023).
Throughout the early 2000s, Beyond gross domestic metrics and initiatives continued to
proliferate. The UN presented the Millennium Development Goals in 2001. Eurostat began
working on Sustainable Development Indicators in 2005 (European Commission, 2023). The
OECD's Better Life Initiative, launched in 2011 and continuously updated, represents a major
institutional commitment to multidimensional wellbeing measurement (OECD, 2023). These
efforts have gained momentum, with the 2023 beyond gross domestic product conference at the
European Parliament calling for systematic integration of wellbeing metrics into policy
formation.
As we move through the mid-2020s, this paradigm faces its most taxing trials yet. The global
COVID-19 pandemic, the accelerating climate emergency, and the widening chasm of wealth
inequality have forced a re-evaluation of what development actually means (UNDP, 2022). In an
age of digital transformation and environmental tipping points, the human development approach
has evolved from a progressive alternative into a survival imperative (Raworth, 2021). The
following sections will provide the necessary conceptual tools to understand this evolution, trace
the paradigm's core foundations, and evaluate its relevance in our current geopolitical landscape.
The traditional reliance on economic growth as the primary indicator of progress has faced
rigorous academic scrutiny in the early 2020s. Critics argue that gross domestic product is a
blind metric (Stiglitz et al., 2020). According to recent findings, the correlation between gross
domestic product per capita and the Human Development Index is strong but not absolute;
approximately 9% of the variation in human wellbeing cannot be explained by income alone
(Ranis & Stewart, 2022). This gap represents the crucial impact of public policy and social safety
nets. Furthermore, the growth-at-all-costs model often ignores the economic bads which is
ideally the negative externalities such as pollution and the depletion of natural resources
(Dasgupta, 2021). The Dasgupta Review (2021) comprehensively demonstrates that conventional
gross domestic product accounting fails to capture the depreciation of natural capital.
Economic growth, measured popularly through gross domestic product, is a complementary
indicator to development, but not an adequate indicator when considered on its own. When
dissociated from social progress, economic growth will inevitably result in less inclusivity
(International Growth Centre, 2023, p. 4). In the period between 2020 and 2024, the human
development paradigm has evolved to incorporate sustainability and equity more aggressively.
The UN's sustainable development goal 8 (SDG 8) specifically calls for sustained, inclusive, and
sustainable economic growth (United Nations, 2023).
Sustainable Development can be defined as a type of development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,
integrating economic, social, and environmental pillars (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987, cited in Sachs et al., 2022). The 2023 sustainable development goals report
indicates that the world is significantly off-track to meet most SDG targets by 2030, with
particular deficits in environmental sustainability and inequality reduction (United Nations,
2023).
Recent research emphasizes that market-driven economies often exacerbate wealth concentration
unless balanced by robust regulatory frameworks (Chancel et al., 2022). The concentration of
income in the hands of a few poses a threat to social stability. Academic literature from 2024
highlights that even as global GDP rebounded post-pandemic, informal employment remained
high at 58%, and disparities across gender persisted (International Labour Organization, 2023).
The World Inequality Report 2022 documents that the richest 10% of the global population
currently takes 52% of global income, while the poorest half earns just 8.5% (Chancel et al.,
2022).
Moreover, scholars now argue that traditional industrialization models are fundamentally
unsustainable (Hickel, 2021, p. 5). The depletion of natural resources means that developing
countries cannot simply replicate the carbon-heavy growth paths of the 19th century. Instead,
they must find a decoupled path where human capabilities are enhanced without exceeding the
planet's ecological boundaries (Raworth, 2021). The concept of planetary boundaries has become
central to contemporary development discourse, with scholars arguing that human development
must operate within Earth-system limits (Rockström et al., 2021).
The transition from an economic growth centered model to a human development paradigm
represents one of the most significant intellectual shifts in modern history (Fukuda-Parr, 2019).
The work of Sen and Haq continues to provide the bedrock for this movement, but the challenges
of the 2020s e.g. inequality, climate change, and technological displacement, demand that the
paradigm remains adaptive. Recent contributions have extended the capability approach to
address intergenerational justice, artificial intelligence, and the rights of future generations
(Caney, 2021; Floridi, 2022).
Ultimately, the success of a nation should not be judged by the volume of its stock market, but by
the extent to which its citizens are free to pursue a life they have reason to value. As we approach
the final years of the 2030 Agenda, the integration of equity-driven economic models will be the
true yardstick of progress (United Nations, 2023). The 2023 Human Development Report
concludes that renewed emphasis on human development such as investing in people, expanding
opportunities, and safeguarding the planet, is the only viable path forward in our uncertain world
(UNDP, 2023, p. 12).
In conclusion, this essay has examined the historical transition from productivist models to
human-centered frameworks, defined the foundational terminology of the field, and analyzed the
paradigm's evolution in the face of twenty-first-century crises. The evidence presented
demonstrates that while economic growth remains a necessary engine for development, it is
fundamentally insufficient as a compass for navigating an era defined by extreme inequality and
ecological instability.
References:
Alexander, J.M. (2022) 'Capabilities and social justice', in Drydyk, J. and Keleher, L. (eds.) The
Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics. London: Routledge, pp. 87-102.
Atkinson, A.B. (2019) Measuring Poverty Around the World. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Caney, S. (2021) 'Climate change, intergenerational justice and the capability approach', Journal
of Human Development and Capabilities, 22(3), pp. 441-459.
Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E. and Zucman, G. (2022) World Inequality Report 2022.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dasgupta, P. (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. London: HM
Treasury.
Drydyk, J. and Keleher, L. (eds.) (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics.
London: Routledge.
European Commission (2023) Beyond GDP: Measuring Progress, True Wealth and Wellbeing.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Parliament (2023) Beyond GDP: From Measurement to Policy. Brussels: European
Parliament Policy Department.
Fischer, K. (2019) 'Rostow revisited: Modernization theory and its contemporary relevance',
Development and Change, 50(4), pp. 987-1010.
Floridi, L. (2022) 'The ethics of artificial intelligence and the capability approach', Philosophy &
Technology, 35(2), pp. 1-18.
Fraser, N. (2022) Cannibal Capitalism: How Our System Is Devouring Democracy, Care, and
the Planet. London: Verso.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2019) 'Keeping out extreme inequality from the SDG agenda: The politics of
indicators', Global Policy, 10(S1), pp. 61-69.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2020) 'Mahbub ul Haq and the human development paradigm', in Clark, D.A.
(ed.) The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 315-322.
Harvey, D. (2018) A Companion to Marx's Capital: The Complete Edition. London: Verso.
Hickel, J. (2020) Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. London: William
Heinemann.
Hickel, J. (2021) 'What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification', Globalizations,
18(7), pp. 1105-1111.
International Growth Centre (IGC) (2023) Is GDP an adequate measure of development? IGBlog
Series. London: London School of Economics.
International Labour Organization (2023) World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2023.
Geneva: ILO.
Jolly, R., Emmerij, L. and Weiss, T.G. (2021) UN Ideas That Changed the World. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Kleine, D. (2021) 'The capability approach and ICT for development', in Oosterlaken, I. and van
den Hoven, J. (eds.) The Capability Approach, Technology and Design. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.
45-67.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T. and Aylmer, C.
(2021) 'Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress', Ecological Economics,
93, pp. 57-68.
Mazzucato, M. (2021) Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. London:
Allen Lane.
OECD (2023) How's Life? 2023: Measuring Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Piketty, T. (2020) Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pilling, D. (2018) The Growth Delusion: The Wealth and Well-Being of Nations. London:
Bloomsbury.
Ranis, G. and Stewart, F. (2022) 'Success and failure in human development: A new measure',
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 23(1), pp. 87-112.
Raworth, K. (2021) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist.
London: Penguin Random House.
Robeyns, I. and Byskov, M.F. (2023) 'The capability approach', in Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
[Link]
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. (2021) 'Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe
operating space for humanity', Ecology and Society, 14(2), pp. 32-45.
Sachs, J.D., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2022) Sustainable Development
Report 2022. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlosberg, D. (2019) 'Environmental justice and the capability approach', Environmental
Politics, 28(2), pp. 201-221.
Sen, A. (2020) 'The concept of development', in Chenery, H. and Srinivasan, T.N. (eds.)
Handbook of Development Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 9-26.
Sen, A. (2021) Development as Freedom. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stanton, E.A. (2019) 'The human development index: A history', Working Paper Series No. 127.
Amherst: Political Economy Research Institute.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2019) People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of
Discontent. London: Allen Lane.
Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.P. and Durand, M. (2020) Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for
Economic and Social Performance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
UNDP (2021) Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier—Human Development and
the Anthropocene. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP (2022) Human Development Report 2021/2022: Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives—
Shaping our Future in a Transforming World. New York: United Nations Development
Programme.
UNDP (2023) Human Development Report 2023/2024: Breaking the Gridlock—Reimagining
Cooperation in a Polarized World. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
United Nations (2023) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. New York: United
Nations.
World Bank (2023) World Development Report 2023: Migrants, Refugees, and Societies.
Washington, DC: World Bank.