1. Why is economics central to an understanding of the problems of

development?
I think because the development of a country depends uponeconomic factors
and so you can only understand how a country isdeveloping if you know
about how the economic factors are and howthe factors change. Many
problems of development stem from a lackof money and economics is all
about money so the two areas ofdevelopment and economics are related.
Problems of developmentare like not having enough money, which means
too much povertyand high unemployment rates and these aspects of the
problems arecentral issues in economics and so economics teaches us
aboutproblems in development and so we can better understand
theseproblems principally by looking at economic factors that define
theproblems. Its mainly money at the centre of economic problems or alack
of money and so it is effected largely by how money isdistributed among
people and for what purposes money uses which
are central issues in economics. I suppose you can’t understand
unemployment as well as an economist understands unemploymentbecause
economists look at unemployment all the time and pay veryclose attention to it so
economists are very good at understandingeconomic development problems for
this reason and probably otherreasons. Furthermore economics is a social science
and is concernedwith people and economic development problems also stem
frompeople so these fields are related and understanding the one helpsyou better
understand the other because you can build up a bigger picture.

 
3.What do you hope to gain from this course on development economics?
I courage to gain more knowledge of the resources availablefrom our Region, as
well as the State, for improving our communities
 
through job growth. I also look forward to networking with localprofessionals who
are working toward the same goal of promotingour Region. I am excited about this
leadership program andappreciate the opportunity.

5. Why is an understanding of development crucial to policy formulation

indeveloping nations? Do you think it is possible for a nation to agree on
arough definition of development and orient its strategies accordingly?
The word "
development
" has a number of meanings.Depending on which meaning one adopts,
there are a number ofpolicy issues which could be adopted to achieve
the goal. First, onemust ask "development for whom." If a country only
wishes to securedevelopment for the wealthiest members of its society,
then it mayspend a great deal for nothing more than law enforcement
andprojects in politically connected parts of the country. If a state wants
to gain broad based development, then you should pursue programs of
public health, education, microfinance, etc.Is it possible for an entire
nation to agree 100% on development?Nope. It's impossible to get an
entire group to agree on anything political! That being said, it isn't that
hard to get the leaders of acountry to agree on a program.

6. Why is a strictly economic definition of development inadequate?

What do you understand
economic development
to mean? Can you give hypothetical or real examples of situations in which
a country may be developing economically but still be underdeveloped?
 
Economic development is overall improvement of livings tandards.
Hence it is much more complex than economic growthwhich is basically
increase in real GDP. Economic development wouldtake health
conditions, education, security, infrustracture etc intoaccount. While
increase in GDP may help achieve the means to thesedevelopments, it doesn't
mean it will. For instance I'd say Turkey iseconomically doing well,
there is definitely economic growth howeverthere are many journalists
arrested for being opposed to thegovernment, there is high level of
corruption evident from the recentevents. So I'd say increase in GDP
does not reflect the development.
7.
How does the concept of “capabilities to function” 
 help us gain insight into development goals and achievements? Is
money enough? Why or why not?
I would like to explain this answer with an example. Suppose that a
person has a bike and does not know how to drive it. Its means his
functions abilities are very low. Amartiya Sen wants to tell us that we
should use the commodities by knowing all the functions related to it. As
Amartya Sen said, "Economic growth cannot be sensibly treated as an
end in itself. Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the
lives we lead and the freedom we enjoy. and in the next question, money
is really not enough. Freedom and self-esteem and equality to lead life and
enjoy life and use the life in the best way is also a part of development
.Money is enough only to enhance the freedom of choice but not the
development. In development, your function abilities should
be increases as much as possible.

 
Is the concept of the developing world a useful one? Why or why not?

Ans. A developing country, also called a less-developed country, is a

nation with a lowerstandard of living, underdeveloped industrial base,
and low Human DevelopmentInde !HDI" relative to other countries.
#n the other hand, since the late $%%&sdeveloping countries tended to
demonstrate higher growth rates than thedeveloped ones. 'here is no
universal, agreed-upon criterion for what ma(es acountry developing versus
developed and which countries )t these two categories,although there are
general reference points such as a nation*s +D per capitacompared to other
nations. Also, the general term less-developed country shouldnot be confused
with the speci)c least developed country. 'here is criticism of the use of
the term developing country. 'he term impliesinferiority of a developing
country or undeveloped country compared to a developedcountry, which
many countries disli(e. It assumes a desire to develop along thetraditional Western
model of economic development which a few countries, such asuba and
hutan, choose not to follow. An alternative measurement that has
beensuggested is that of gross national happiness, measuring the actual
satisfaction ofpeople as opposed to how industriali/ed a country is. 'here is some
criticism of the use of the term 0developing country0. 'he termimplies
inferiority of a 0developing country0 or 0undeveloped country0
compared toa 0developed country0, which many countries disli(e.It
assumes a desire to 0develop0 along the traditional Western model of
economicdevelopment, which a few countries, such as uba and hutan,
choose not to follow. 'he term 0developing0 implies mobility and does not
ac(nowledge thatdevelopment may be in decline or static in
some countries, particularly in southernAfrican states worst a1ected by
HI23AID4. In such cases, the term 0developingcountry0 may
be considered a euphemism. 'he term implies homogeneity betweensuch
countries, which vary widely. 'he term also implies homogeneity within
suchcountries when wealth !and health" of the most and least a5uent
groups varieswidely. 4imilarly, the term 0developed country0 incorrectly
implies a lac( ofcontinuing economic development3growth in more-
developed countries.In general, development entails a modern
infrastructure !both physical andinstitutional", and a move away from low
value added sectors such as agricultureand natural resource etraction.
Developed countries, in comparison, usually haveeconomic systems based on
continuous, self-sustaining economic growth in thetertiary sector of the
economy and 6uaternary sector of the economy and highmaterial standards
of living. However, there are notable eceptions, as somecountries considered
developed have a signi)cant component of primary industriesin their national
economies, e.g., 7orway, anada, Australia. 'he 84A and Western9urope have
a very important agricultural sector, and are ma:or players ininternational
agricultural mar(ets. Also, natural resource etraction can be a verypro)table
industry !high value added", e.g., oil etraction.An alternative
measurement that has been suggested is that of gross national