DEVELOPMENT EQUILIBRIUM AND INTEGRATION 2من اصل6

Densification of an urban area, for example, might increase its capacity of
inhabitants, but it also reduces its built-up footprint to allow the
development of different land-uses such as greenery or entertainment
facilities. The difference between growth and development is not limited to
this, but the main take away is that fairness is not essential in growth while
it is a must for any type of development.
Analyzing the revolutionary movement that Egypt went through in 2011, helps
emphasize the huge difference between growth and development. Despite
the high rate of economical growth that Egypt accomplished for several
consecutive years, it did not prevent the public’s desire to translate that
growth into fair development. The economic growth was channeled to a
thin layer of the society, not distributed fairly (not equally) across the
country’s different segments. The majority neither reaped the benefits of
inflation, nor got better services and facilities; on the contrary, the services
provided by the state diminished and the infrastructure deteriorated. That’s
why people initiated a correction movement to impose fairness that growth
had missed while development requires.
If the concept of developmental fairness is related to the equal distribution
among various segments of the society, then the equilibrium of
development is related to its distribution among different economic fields.
Temporary priority could be given to a specific field, solely to act as a
locomotive that opens the path to other fields, but equilibrium should
always be the targeted result on long term. Equilibrium does not mean
absolute equality, it is the fair distribution relative to each fields’ demand;
accordingly, it is not necessary that industrial development for instance
matches the development in agriculture, but should be relevant to the needs
of each sector and its baring capacity.