A great definition, Daniel, and one I wholly agree with. I believe that Sen is correct, societies are never fully “developed.” I think that all countries, no matter how developed they are at the current moment, need to continue developing. I liked your moving target metaphor; development needed in Nigeria is not the same as is needed in Brazil which is not the same as that needed in France or in the USA. I suppose that some would say there isn’t an need for development in countries like France or the US but I think that is incorrect. In both places development needs to occur in the lives of people who are marginalized (immigrants, Indigenous Americans, people living below the poverty line etc.) . Further growth, be that economical or individual growth, can always take place.

I agree with your definition of development. One of the things I, too, have learned from Wagner is that it is important that development and also solutions to problems are designed keeping in mind the needs and capabilities of the societies they are meant to help. Too often development and solutions have been applied in a “cookie cutter” method and have, almost across the board, been failures. I am hoping that this century will be one in which development is truly taken with a bottom up approach and that local organizations, slum dwellers etc will be actively engaged in solving their problems. I also think your belief of development as a continuous process to be spot on. I know that many members of US society would say that we are completely developed and we while we are high on the list, I feel that there are ways we can and should be improving but we seem to be stuck in a development rut not going forward and some may argue slowly sliding backward.