To answer the question is every change or anything new development; one must first be able to define the terms change and development and then having these definitions as a platform ,attempt to answer the posed question. For the purpose of my presentation I will use the Webster’s definition of change and describe it, as making the form , nature, content , future course of something different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.( A slight deviation from my topic but Change, many would argue is constant, as former United States president, Kennedy once put it, change is the law of life.) Whereas change arguably could easily be defined, Development though was not and this was due to the many economic ,sociological and socioeconomic definitions that were available. However, I have opted to use this definition of development as “ the process in which someone or something grows or changes and becomes more advanced” due to its simplicity and because with some tweaking, can be used to encompass other definitions of development out there. With change and development having been defined it is my contention that not all change is development.
Firstly, from a political perspective, there has been many instances throughout history where changes in government or changes in ideological style of governance have not, in my humble opinion meant an advancement in the lives of the people or the society where such change has taken place. Indeed, one recent case in point is the political situation in Libya, where a change from a Gaddafi led “Dictatorship” , to a more Western Democratic style of government in 2011, has led, according to Havard based researcher, Garikai Chengu, to Libya being to one of the most advanced and developed states in all of Africa to a failed state with its economy in shambles. His assertions are based on the fact that prior to Gaddafi’s ousting Libya was the wealthiest African nation; Not only did they have the highest GDP per capita and the highest Life expectancy in Africa but also education was free for both men and women and literacy rates were reportedly as high as 90%. In fact, according to the Human Development Index ( which is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide ) Libya under Gadaffi was one of the highest ranked nations in the world at 54. Now with the change in leadership Libya is now a nation in turmoil with many schools being closed down and a civil war that has accounted for countless lives. Also, Libya’s chief exports oil , which according to a recent article published in Uk’s independent newspaper have fallen from 1.4 million barrels a day on average during to Gadaffi’s regime to a mere 235 000 barrels a day in comparison, after. Libya certainly illustrates one instance where change has not meant development, well at least not for the Libyan people. Bringing it closer to home, one can argue sometimes that when we Caribbean people change the political party that governs our respective nations; these changes don’t always mean progress or advancement. In fact , one can argue that what occurs is simply a continuation of policies from one governing political party to the next. Change in this instance , does not result in advancement but a continuation of what was. For instance, if we use GDP as a measurement of development; for the past twenty years some Caribbean countries have experienced pretty much the same level of growth regardless of which party governs. There is the same reliance on tourism as the main source of income, the same aim of boosting tourist arrivals as the main economic strategy; pretty much the same policies being employed by different parties; debateable maybe? But as French crtitic, Jean-Baptiste Karr once said the more things change the more they remain the same and this is arguably the case for those we have charged with governing our Caribbean nations.
Additionally, from a social standpoint, one can find many examples which further illustrates that all change is not a form of advancement or development. History once again would provide enough evidence to support these claims. For instance,when Christopher Columbus arrived in the Caribbean the changes that resulted from his arrival forever altered the lives of the Amerindians; we all know the story of how an entire race of people were wiped out as a result of change. In Germany, Hitler’s desire for change to create the perfect Aryan workforce foresaw the mass murders of thousands of Jews. Change in these two cases, cannot be seen as developmental but rather as destructive. Sociologist Don Martindale , in his social behavioristic theory of change further supports this assertion by stating that change throughout human history consists of both the formation and destruction of societies and civilisations. Moreover, the industrial revolution, which resulted in the change from agrarian societies to industrialised ones in Europe, although, did bring about an increased volume and variety of manufactured goods and an improved standard of living for some, it also resulted in often grim employment and living conditions for the poor and working classes. The family especially suffered during this period, where absent parents who worked in factories were unable to care for their children; many of these children in turn resorted to delinquent behaviours resulting in many crime syndicates being formed. Another period of change which Caribbean people are all too aware of is that of the change from indentured servitude to slavery which did not result in advancement but instead in one of the cruellest forms of human rights infringement in all of history. Interestingly though, the Industrial Revolution , Columbus’s arrival in the new world, and Caribbean slavery seems to illustrate that change or rather the effects of change can be simultaneously beneficial to some whilst detrimental to others. Indeed, both the African slaves and Amerindians toiled under harsh conditions to ensure the development of Europeans and their societies. All these examples illustrate quite vividly that change does not necessarily mean advancement or development. The Agricultural revolution as its name suggest is another example of an occurrence of change. The transition from gathering and hunting to sedentary agriculture made possible a significant increase in the human population and the development of settled communities. However, this widespread adoption of agriculture resulted in more physical toil? The question is, can this transition be considered a form of progress or development. To get a clearer picture of this subject one needs to understand the nature of human existence prior to this revolution and as well as what led to such a revolution. Indeed, prior to this agricultural epoch, human existence consisted of following their sources of food around all over the world. Human beings were as a result nomadic, forced to endure long trips literary battling their way for survival. However, be it as a result of overhunting or warming of the earth , food sources dwindled and so early man had no choice but to find a way to ensure their survival. They were forced to alter their way of life, working longer hours, toiling the lands , developing new strategies to ensure that they were able as far as they could, to maximise the amount of food produced. This in my humble opinion represented progress , because it demonstrated a form of ingenuity and the human capacity to adapt to ensure survival. In fact, it can be argued that the alternative to not toiling the lands so arduously would have been extinction or death. Additionally, by switching to agriculture, early man was able to specialize into other different roles. For instance some became priests that prayed to the gods for favourable weather, whilst others focussed on developing tools that would better aid their quest for food and ultimately survival. Therefore, progress, one can argue does involve some degree of hard work and an ability to adapt to ensure survival.

Try to include : Since change is slow and steady maybe there is a period of transition before change is effective.