In a recent commentary I suggested that, due to the confluence of the unfolding economic crisis and Peak Oil, we have now seen the last of aggregate world economic growth—forever—if the word “growth” is conventionally defined. So far no one else seems to have taken up this idea. So, in forthcoming commentaries, I will seek to sort out the evidence that might confirm or disconfirm the notion, and also unpack some of its implications.

Today I am somewhat exercised by a spate of recent articles that suggest the financial collapse may cause “developed” countries to forgo promised aid packages (i.e., loans) to “developing” ones.

For many years I have resisted using the language of “development,” as the term can mean so many things. At its base, it is a metaphor for industrialization, if it is first assumed that industrialism is the goal and destiny of all human societies. Those that are already industrialized are “developed,” while those that aren’t are “developing.”

However, if (as I believe is the case) industrialization was a consequence of the brief historical period of fossil fuel consumption, then it is not the destiny of all societies, and may not survive for long in any of them.

Moreover, as the word “development” is actually used, it means other things as well. Sometimes it is applied with regard to natural resources, as in “developing Africa’s oil resources.” In that case, the word simply means “extract,” or, to be more precise, “steal.” In other instances, “development” is used to refer to the goals of reducing hunger, disease, and poverty—conditions that in many cases are simply the consequence of the previous kind of “development.”

Because the word “development” means basically whatever you want it to mean, its use is pernicious and has masked blatantly predatory behavior on the part of banks and governments. It’s sad to see people who live in less-industrialized nations, and idealistic workers at NGOs, using the term so thoughtlessly. But it’s almost unavoidable: the word is everywhere.

If I were the resident of a less-industrialized nation, I would be inclined to apply still another meaning to “development,” as I have done in the title of this commentary.

When I write about the economic status of nations, I prefer to use the terms “industrialized” and “less industrialized,” or “rich” and “poor.” In that case there is no hidden assumption, just a statement of fact.

But back to the subject at hand. If in fact economic growth is finished, then so is “development,” at least in its nicer manifestations. Here we have UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, on tour in Africa, quoted by Business Daily as saying, “The financial crisis threatens the foundations of globalisation, which in turn underpins global growth,” and this will in turn result in the failure of the UN Millennium goals, which have to do with education, reducing hunger, and so on.

No doubt the financial crisis will devastate poor nations. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that rich nations have spent the past few decades tirelessly trying to make less-industrialized countries prosperous and powerful like themselves.

The end of growth will ultimately level the economic playing field among nations (not in an absolute sense, but to a greater degree than now). But between here and “ultimately,” there is plenty of rough terrain.

And for the rich nations, traversing that terrain will entail a great deal of un-development.

image source: mechanikat