Development, a term laden by ambivalence and ambiguity has been characterized by a bewildering assortment of policy that have made it enormously abstract and difficult to coin quantitative measures capable of capturing the various components of well being and development across national boundaries.

A paradigm in itself, development, it is essential to have an understanding of its main objectives, before any quantitative measure can be ascertained. The primary objective of development is to benefit the people . Human development is a critical component when looking at the aggregate developmental progress of a nation.

Longevity, the importance of life is one that should never undervalued. Life expectancy at birth as well as infant mortality rates, are two important indicators in capturing longevity, especially as there exists no comprehensive information about people’s nutritional state and health .

Knowledge, captured on a basic level by literacy indicators should also not be undermined. It serves as a gateway to societal empowerment and technical progress hence not only should we consider it at a tertiary level, but also elementary education, should serve as an indication of a nations development.

Command over the resources needed for a decent living is a third key component of development. This indicator perhaps posses the greatest difficulty in quantifying as it requires data such as credit, income, access to land and other resources the scarcity of which presents all sorts of problems.

In a nut-shell all factors considered development and well being can be taken to be the participation or control of people over the goals, direction and the pace of change processes. There is a natural inclination to equate development and well being to economic growth, but this is nothing more than a reductionist view, as there is clearly need for a multidimensional take that incorporates all the above mentioned realms.

For as long as people have pursued the quest of development, many quantitative measures have been developed to help give a qualitative understanding and as a means of keeping track with progress. Furthermore advances in statistics and economic models over the past century have created comfort with such takes. However it is evident from the burgeoning movement to construct new development indicators that there is dissatisfaction in these prevailing modes and growing need for better measures to aid the understanding of this complexity called, ‘development’.

Income is indeed a means not an end, GNP and GDP growth measures are indeed necessary but not sufficient measures of development. They only capture one side of development and well being but not in its entirety. It is a valid argument that higher income can indeed be a gateway, to better education, health system e.t.c. but just an aggregate count does not take into account such things as distribution of wealth and resource. Hence there is no justification of judging a countries development based on their GDP, and GNP growth, similar problems are encountered when purchasing power and per capita adjustments are made.

The dilemma posed above points to the need to try and compute or construct a composite index for development. Having too many indicators will smudge and make difficult to use this single complex indicator. An example of such an indicator that is of great importance when measuring growth is the Human Deprivation and Development index. It balances the virtues of the broad scope in which we look at development but at the same time retaining the sensitivity to critical aspects.

Cross-sectional and time series analysis with the later being the more important are also good ways of analyzing a broad range of factors that we consider as helpful in indicating a nations growth. Correlation analysis, graphical plots, and face off comparisons as in tables 1 and 2 give a trend picture and relative comparison juncture. This is important for policy distribution when deciding in which way you would like move in so as to balance out the broad spectra of factors that determine development and well being.

All that has been said up to this can serve as platform to a broad view on development economics and philosophy, but when narrowed down to a single county there is no question, the measure has to be tailor-made.

National accounts measures to start off with generalize and support the notion that rapid industrialization and improvements in material possession evoke a better life and social improvements for the people. The price of their attainment is at times overlooked examples of which are, massive pollution, urban congestion and monumental waste resources . Growth does indeed involve a trade-off the value of what is given up versus what is gained varies from community to community.

Sub-Saharan Africa, cultural forces tend to sustain high fertility, and this is of great importance to the locals . However common development models would suggest that this weighs down on development, which brings me to an all most important question, on whose terms? Economic, the social ingredient and political dimension can all be generalized to some extend when we look at development measure. Culture on the other hand confers identity and self-worth of a people .

Policy recommendations promoted for ‘growth’, range from tightened credit, budget discipline, wage freezes and export expansion . These are very stringent and limit how individual countries can function within their own confines and hence taking away part of their overall well-being. Debt accrued in pursuit of economic growth also increase dependence of developing countries on the lenders making them liable and accountable to them, hence flouting the notion of economic freedom. These are some factor often overlooked but if we are really to measure development and well being in the context that we have defined it, they are very important.

The question of what the best measure for a country’s development is, is one indeed that raises many conflicting ideas, model compete in defining the good life and the definition of development is one to which a straight answer can never be given. On the other a lot can be agreed upon as far as subtle indicators are concerned. Conclusively what can said is that the development and well-being of a nation can be measured based on a true understanding of the community values society, in addition to the prototypical views on development.

I doubt very much, if you were to collectively put all these things in mind you would write an article in the same exact fashion. Rewrite your article and this time convince us, that aid forms such as for humanitarian benefit, in times of hunger, national disasters or aiming and rehabilitating health delivery in Africa should be done away with, as a gateway to a better tomorrow.

certainly learning how to make the fishing rods, and then fishing ourselves, to borrow your metaphor, is a good notion-the question, however, is do we have the capital to invest in such projects??

However, some of the loans that nations have received from the IMF and the structural adjustment programs(SAP) they force fed us are to blame for some the woes that some African nations like Zimbabwe face today. have been imposed to ensure debt repayment and economic restructuring. But the way it has happened has required poor countries to reduce spending on things like health, education and development, while debt repayment and other economic policies have been made the priority. At this point though I feel that we beging to blur the lines between debt and AID, and that is indeed incorrect.

he also needs to understand that as he is an African himself and know what it's like to live in Africa he could have stated how Africans can then become self dependant