Development in a Historical and Conceptual Context

I found it refreshing that the 2007/2008 NHDR for Guatemala tied into historical concepts that we learned from our readings. I feel like the history of Guatemala is often ignored when considering development. The authors of this report seem to agree with Sen especially, for they make the statement, “The second part includes an overview of…human capabilities, freedom to produce, freedom to work, freedom to have, freedom to consume worthy goods…” (7). These ideas are a direct reference to the concept that development is freedom, the very title of Sen’s book. I am also reminded of Lovell and Carol when the report states, “The third part presents an analysis of the different actors shaping the Guatemalan economy over the past decades: the State, entrepreneurs, workers and the mass media” (7). The reference to the State could be indicating the many changes in government due to the Liberal and Conservative parties, as is described in Lovell’s novel. The terms entrepreneurs and workers makes me think of the essay written by Carol, and the effect of being ladino or indigenous in the work field.

The NHDR also brings in new topics to consider about Guatemala. The report mentions in Chapter 6 that an increase in life expectancy will occur “20 to 50 years later than it was achieved in developed countries and other countries in Latin America” (25). It’s astonishing to hear that Guatemala is toward the bottom of the list in terms of development in Latin America. Why is this so? A few reasons, in terms of life expectancy, can be the lack of access to healthcare and also poverty. Before we can consider improving the economy, we must work backwards and think of the factors that affect economy. The amount of labor force affects the economy, but if people are unhealthy and have short life expectancies then the size of the labor force is significantly lowered, as Grace also pointed out earlier. Of course, since so many factors directly relate to each other, it makes the process of improving development infinitely complex. However, I think the NHDR takes a thoughtful step closer to the solution through well represented statistics and diagrams. I would not say that statistics themselves can accurately describe the inner details of a country, but they can certainly help us gain an overview of the country.

Another topic of interest in the report is that of nutrition. “The percentage of the Guatemalan population suffering from obesity (5.4%) is greater than the Latin American average” (27). Once again, Guatemala is significantly set off from other Latin American countries, and according to the report Guatemala has actually increased in its obesity rate. I find it interesting that the consumption of sweeteners and vegetable oils has increased since 1990 and that the consumption of beans and corn has gone down. This may be because there are less people producing corn and beans, in other words less people spending their time on farming. More people are leaving their homes, immigrating to other nations for the sake of finding a job. Moreover, the necessity to leave behind one’s family arises from poverty. As we can see, the factors that affect development each have a root source. It seems that the common root source may be poverty, but to fix poverty one must attain a decent level of education, obtain a well-paying job that can provide for health care and prevent the necessity of split up families, which may lead to a better economy in the end. However, if income is too low to begin with, then the first step of education cannot be accomplished. Therefore, it’s a vicious cycle between poverty and economy, the two “ends” of the circle; each one leads to the other and at the same time each one is affected by the other.

Which leads me to the ultimate question: can Guatemala be more developed by the standards derived in the 2007/2008 NHDR?