I could not agree more emphatically with the author that development should be a dynamic and never-ending process. I think taking it a step further and instutionalizinginternal mechanisms to provide regular feedback to let the powers that be know how their constituency is perceiving their efforts would be an innovative move. The second point I also champion is the mention of redistributive policy and institutions which intend to reduce the disparity between the impoverished and the elite. Regardless of how effective economic stimulus is from the private sector, public or combination of the two, if the channels are not equitably distributed, only those with the means will reap the benefits. And without a happy, healthy and well-fed working class, there is little chance of high-ranking well-being for an entire country.

I think it's obvious that NaHae encompassed all the pertinent aspects of truly holistic and considerate development projects. I think that we all agree that well-being is more important than GDP to an extent, and to focus on one and not the other will leave us with either unhappy or broke citizens. But my personal conflict is that after all the considerations of culture and geography and the economic history of any country, we will still be making mistakes as we implement new programs and projects, each time thinking, "This is it!! Utopia is around the corner!!" and then being disheartened. I think the most apt nuance of effective development may be a communication mechanism that will solidify the lessons learned with each project. To have a medium where best practices can be reviewed, suggested and critiqued by not only professionals/experts but also those being developed, will be the deliverable arrived at by the qualitative insight mentioned by Ms. Kim above.