Development has been the continuing pursuit of all nations – rich or poor, western or non-western. The growth of industry, and science and technology accelerated the pace of development, creating progress in many walks of life. With the advent of industrialisation and revolutionary methods of production under the powerful and pervasive industrial capitalism, the economic growth oriented model of development generated enormous amount of wealth, professedly to eliminate scarcity and get rid of the problems arising out of want or dearth of resources. But this econo-centric approach to development has not helped the poor and the marginalised sections of society in enjoying a decent standard of living. This happened because from the very out set, benefits of development remained concentrated in the hands of small, elite groups in a few rich countries – mainly the industrialized ones. The classical economists hailed this model of development inasmuch as it increased productivity and profit.

                The development debate that began in the 1970s and continued till the end of 1990, raised some very fundamental questions, arguing whether growth is the end or means. The critics of the econo-centric model of development argued that human beings should be the end of development rather than being the mere means. They further asserted that industrial-cum-technocratic model of development is inequitous and carries elements of capitalist exploitation. The criticism was based on the ideas of such political economists like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall who in their writings had warned about the single-minded pursuit of the wealth-driven model of development. However, such views were largely set aside in the pursuit of increased production to satisfy the demands of fast-spreading consumerist culture – a product of capitalism.

KEYWORDS: Development, industrialization, human freedom, people, economic growth