‗Development‘ is an amorphous concept that may be used in numerous contexts. In all these contexts, however, ―it denotes some kind of change‖ (Dale, 2004: 21). As chronicled by Remenyi (2004: 25), the concept of development has evolved from ―a relatively simple concern with industrialization along with increasing gross domestic product to a much more complex mix of quality of life, participation, empowerment and good governance—all of which have remained elusive to many of the world‘s poor.‖
Remenyi (2004: 25) further notes that ―growth towards self-reliance and contentment‖
underlies the concept of development. The opposite, de-development, is ―when the capacity for self-reliance and contentment deteriorates, usually because the means to be responsible for one‘s own livelihood, welfare or future has been [ceded] to war, civil unrest, natural calamity, or the [foisted] need to flee and adopt the life of a refugee‖
(Remenyi, 2004: 25). According to Adinkrah (1984: 67), development refers to ―the conscious process of a country to seek a better life for its citizens.‖ This process, says Adinkrah (1984: 67), involves the steady expansion of a large number of non-revenue yielding services such as schools, hospitals, and communication systems, which are quintessential to long-term development. In line with Adinkrah, Seidman (1966: 999)
24 Hussein Solomon and Sally Matthews, ―Transforming Ethnic Conflicts,‖ Centre for International Political Studies, Available at,
http://www.cips.up.ac.za/files/pdf/uafspublications/TRANSFORMING%2520ETHNIC%2520CONFLICTS.p df. Retrieved on 6 June 2011.
28 opines that development refers to a country‘s deliberate attempt to ameliorate the living standards of its citizens.
Now, development is sometimes defined solely in terms of economic development (Seabrook, 1993: 8; Wallis, 1989: 22). Such a conception of development tends to exclude political development and the broader idea of social development which encapsulates both political and economic aspects of development. Moreover, it reduces the degree of progress and maturity in a society to be measured by the level of its production. In this regard, the definition of development proffered by the 1986 U. N.
Declaration on the Right to Development is instructive. It sees development as ―a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom‖ (quoted in Ebeku, 2005: 369-370, emphasis added).‖
For Dudley Seers (1977), the concept of development transcends capital accumulation and economic growth to include the condition in which a country‘s population have access to adequate food and job opportunities and the income asymmetry among them is greatly reduced. In particular, development includes such core aspects of the quality of life as: social justice, equal opportunities for all, equitable distribution of income and the democratization of the development process (Agbiboa, 2010: 480). One reliable United Nations publication views development as a process that creates the environment whereby people can meet their aspirations and fulfil their potentials (Ebienfa, 2010; Ake, 1996: 125). Todaro (1982: 14) conceptualises development in terms of ―multidimensional changes involving progress or improvement in structures, institutions, and general aspects of life of a given people that entail the acceleration of economic growth, decline of poverty, and the reduction of inequality.‖
The South Commission Report shifts the focus of development to the human person when it notes that ―true development has to be people centered‖ (Museveni, 1992: 9).
To this end, the Commission defines development as
a process which enables human beings to realize their potential, build self- confidence, and lead lives of dignity and fulfilment. It is a process which frees people from the fear of want and exploitation. It is a movement away from political, economic, or social oppression. Through development, political independence acquires its true significance. And it is a process of growth; a movement essentially springing from within the society that is developing (quoted in Museveni, 1992: 9).
29 Continuing with the theme of people-centered development, Reidar Dale (2004: 21) uses the concept of development normatively in the context of human societies. So conceived, ―development is viewed as a process of societal change that generates some perceived benefits for people, or as a state of perceived quality of life attained through such a process‖ (Dale, 2004: 21; see, also, Eggers, 2000a; 2000b; 2002).
Dale (2004: 22-23) has suggested a general typology of dimensions of development which this study considers useful. A précis of the dimensions of development is given below:
1. Economic features. This involves income and income-related characteristics, expressed through phenomena such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, income distribution, rate of employment, etc., at the macro or group level;
and income, consumer assets, production assets, etc., at the level of the household or, less frequently, the individual.
2. Social features. This pertains to various aspects of social well-being, expressed through phenomena such as life-expectancy at birth, child mortality, school enrolment, etc., at the macro or group level; and health, level of literacy, social security, etc., at the level of the household or the individual.
3. Dependent versus independent position. This includes degree of bondage or, oppositely, freedom in making one‘s own choices about aspects of one‘s life or lives, expressed through features such as degree and terms of indebtedness, degree of struggle for scarce resources, degree of inequality or equality of gender relations, group relations, etc.
4. Marginalised versus integrated position. This pivots on the degree and terms of participation in markets, politics and social life, and type and strength of economic and social security networks.
5. Degree of freedom from violence. This concerns the extent to which individuals and groups may lead their lives without deliberate mental or physical maltreatment or fear of such maltreatment, within their family and in the wider society.
6. Degree of mental satisfaction. This refers to the degree of mental peace, and the ability to enrich one‘s life through intangible stimuli.
7. Survival versus development-oriented attitude. This involves perception of one‘s position, abilities and opportunities in the society, at the level of the social group, household or individual (Dale, 2004: 22-23).
For many Niger Deltans, the common belief is that development, as reviewed above, has resoundingly eluded their region. They are piqued by the fact that oil receipts are continually used to run the Nigerian state and develop areas occupied by the majority ethnic groups to the exclusion of minority groups, especially in the Niger Delta (Ebeku, 2005: 370). As Adewale (1995: 69) explains, ―members of the [oil-bearing] communities have expressed the view that it is inequitable for the government to leave their communities underdeveloped and utilize the proceeds of the oil extracted from their communities for the rapid development of other parts of the country.‖ Ikein (1990: 39)
30 supports the Adewale‘s explanation when he attributes the developmental stasis in the Niger Delta to the fact that ―their wealth is ripped away to benefit other areas.‖ Even the former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo agrees with the point made by Adewale and Ikein above. He frankly declares that ―it is unfair for south-south [Niger Delta]
states, the producers of the nation‘s wealth to languish in penury while the resources from their areas are used to develop other parts of the country‖ (This Day, September 10, 2002). Crucially, the major contention of community leaders in the Niger Delta, as noted by Adewale (1995: 69), is that development ―should start from the oil-producing area and spread to other parts of the country and not vice versa.‖