Sumber ilustrasi: Pixabay
10 April 2026 09.55 WIB – Umum
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [10.04.2026] Has development become something “given,” or has it always been that way? When the problem of poverty arises—one that degrades human dignity—how does development perceive it? What does it identify as the source of poverty? Do development authorities organize public discussions to address it? How is this done? Or do authorities define the problem themselves and then formulate what they consider to be the correct and effective measures?
What about issues that can be described as environmental degradation—those that have already caused harm and threaten the future of the nation? How does development respond? Does the machinery of development examine these problems and make corrections when it discovers that the pursuit of high economic growth also contributes to environmental damage and reduces ecological carrying capacity? Or does it act differently?
These two questions are, in fact, simple examples of how fundamental issues are overlooked in discussions of development performance. Why is this the case? Perhaps such matters should become part of the public agenda, so they can be discussed openly and in depth. What is the aim of such collective reflection? It is to calmly reassess what development actually means as it is currently practiced. Is development a socio-ecological and cultural phenomenon, or merely an economic one?
If we return to economic discussions related to the performance of authorities, what appears is a stream of figures—growth, investment, consumption, exchange rates, and other related indicators. More recently, public discourse has focused on the “public purse” and how it is managed. War and its implications have broadened the discussion, particularly regarding the capacity of this “public purse” to provide essential goods such as energy and food.
Those accustomed to reflection will understand that these figures are not merely numbers. To a certain extent, they are no longer treated simply as indicators but as proxies for life itself. In other words, reality is assumed to be adequately represented through aggregated quantitative measures. For this reason, the assessment of development performance becomes indistinguishable from the acrobatics of statistical figures.
If this is the case, a new problem emerges. Economic statistics—perhaps unintentionally—operate on a separation between subject and environment, between economic activity and the ecological conditions that surround it. The economy is understood as an autonomous system that can be analyzed and intervened upon without inherently considering its connection to the broader system of life. As a result, the knowledge produced is partial, since it ignores from the outset the very relationships that determine the continuity of life.
This reduction has serious methodological consequences. When the complexity of life is simplified into measurable variables, qualitative, contextual, and long-term relationships lose their place in analysis. Ecosystem destruction, social degradation, or the decline in life-supporting capacity only appear as variables once they are converted into economic values. Thus, measurement methods are not neutral; they shape the boundaries of what can be recognized as problems and solutions.
Within this framework, development becomes an activity detached from its material base and ecological reality. Economic activity can continue to increase as long as it is recorded as growth, even while it erodes the ecological foundations that sustain it. Here, a contradiction becomes evident: development depends on the system of life, yet simultaneously destroys it without recognizing that destruction as part of its own failure.
It is clear that this fundamental problem cannot be resolved through partial corrections, such as adding indicators or refining measurement techniques. Such efforts remain within the same epistemological framework—that reality can be reduced to economic measures. Thus, the issue is not merely a lack of data, but a limitation in the “way reality is recognized.” This calls for a shift at the level of paradigm.
This paradigm shift leads to an understanding of development as a socio-ecological and cultural phenomenon. Within this framework, development is no longer seen as a self-contained economic system, but as part of a network of life relations. The economy is positioned as a subsystem within a broader social and ecological system, rather than as an autonomous center.
Ontologically, the socio-ecological paradigm affirms that humans and their environment form an inseparable unity. Every act of development is an intervention in this relational system. There is no neutral economic action, as every action carries implications for social and ecological balance.
Epistemologically, this paradigm demands forms of knowledge capable of capturing relationships, not merely measurable entities. Knowledge is no longer based solely on quantification, but also on contextual, historical, and ecological understanding. In this way, lived experience, local conditions, and ecosystem dynamics become sources of knowledge equal to statistical data.
Normatively, the goals of development undergo a fundamental redefinition. Development is no longer directed toward the accumulation of economic outputs, but toward the sustainability of life relations. Success is measured by the ability to maintain balance between human needs and ecological carrying capacity, and to ensure that social relations do not produce exclusion or systemic vulnerability. Without a serious redefinition, development will continue to operate within a logic that appears statistically rational, but substantively leads to ever-deepening crises.
Compiled from various sources. (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring knowledge on development closer to everyday life and to inspire curiosity in its readers.
