I think there are (at least) two ways to approach "the idea of development", which we may broadly and imperfectly classify as the "internal" and the "external" one. 

The first approach tries to answer questions like the  following ones: why did development economics start (or re-start) as an autonomous field after WWII,  which interests and/or ideology did it serve, etc. 
The second one would lead one to ask if and, in case, which insights it provided and /or can still provide in order to understand how countries develop,  suggest policy instruments, etc. In the latter approach, it would also be of interest to study how the subject changed in its evolution (e.g. from the traditional macroeconomic and structuralist approach, to an 'institutionalist' perspective in recent years). 

Of course , the two approaches may be related: for instance some commentators have argued that the recent emphasis on social capital, or lack thereof, as well as the allegation of crony capitalism for less developed countries were means in the strategy of pushing forth liberalizations in the interest  of  developed countries. 
Both approaches are worth exploring, as well as their reciprocal links. However,  in order to develop a clear research strategy, I think it would be useful  to distinguish between the two sets of questions.
 
May I add that I do not think that the very etymology of  the word "development" (and hence, perhaps, the field in its  "substance") reveals a teleological prejudice of the type suggested by Daniele: you may wish to promote " the growth and unfolding of what is in the germ" (according to meaning 3 in OED as you reported it, Daniele), respecting exactly what is in germ in the country, i.e. by  taking into account and respecting its specific characters, strengths, problems, and the ends expressed by its population .
Best,
Lilia Costabile


On 10/feb/2011, at 15.54, Sumitra Shah wrote:

> At the risk of making comments unworthy of this august body of scholars, I would like to say that "development economics" developed (no pun indented) as a sub-field of economics in distinct ways in the fifties, sixties and seventies and continues to evolve as we know from its adoption of the experimental method. The term may have ancient origins, and the classical economists appropriately concentrated on growth and capital accumulation, but that does not contradict the fact that a body of theory and practice emerged after the break-up of colonial empires. I remember the excitement we felt in studying development theory in India way back when, even embracing central planning as an antidote to reckless emulation of industrialized societies. [By the way, recent liberalization there has indeed led to rapid growth, but also increasing and unconscionable income inequalities.] I think the original query about the idea of development and its origins is very valid for historians of economic thought.
> Best, Sumitra