“The manager is the man who decides among alternative choices. He must decide which choice he believes will lead to a certain desired objective or set of objectives. But his decision is not an abstract one, because it creates a type of reality”, so wrote C. West Churchman [2, p. 17]. Neither, of course, is this decision objective and value-free. In fact, the decisions made, and the types of realities created by them, are liable to depend on the manager’s own reality, whether he acknowledges that fact or not. Among the tricky aspects of a manager’s reality are his assumptions – not those that are explicitly formulated, but those that Gouldner called “background assumptions” [5]. These assumptions are usually taken for granted, yet they decisively affect a manager’s choices, especially inasmuch as they determine the perspective from which a problem or situation is viewed. This point has far-reaching implications for the management of development. Today, much policy making in the development area fails to make it to implementation. Why? Because it is based on certain unacknowledged background assumptions, through which policy makers create a kind of reality that is out of touch with, or too far removed from, the experienced reality of those on whom the policies and decisions impinge. The difficulties may become apparent at the implementation stage, when policy objectives meet with opposition or disbelief. Or when it becomes clear that harmful consequences are associated with their implementation. Or, again, even at the formulation stage, when the failure to conceptualise the experienced reality of development thwarts the inclusion of implementation as part of the policy formulation process. Two assumptions, in particular, often lurk in the background of policy making for development. The first assumption is that development is a matter of attaining certain levels (for instance, reaching a minimum level of per capita Gross National Product). This assumption has a long history and lies at the basis of the earlier monolithic indices of development, such as the GNP, as well as the more recent composite measures such as the Human Development Index (which takes into account education levels, longevity, as well as GNP) [9]. The second assumption is that development is primarily a material (e.g., economic) issue. Two practical results stem from these assumptions: (1) the management of development is viewed as a macroeconomic concern, and (2) international comparisons serve to evaluate performance. It is time, however, to shake off both these simplifying assumptions. Not only do they not hold up against the complexity of development, they may also help to defeat the purpose of development itself. For example, a macroeconomically healthy country is not necessarily linked to the eradication of poverty or excessive inequality. More specifically, the attainment of a certain level of GNP, education, or health care does not guarantee the reduction of violence, the sustenance of creative intelligence and constructive social dialogue, or the implementation of policies that engage values generally recognized as vitally important [4]. Moreover, by making development the object of international comparisons rather than an issue in and of itself, imitation rather than management is encouraged. The reality of development forces us to see that, contrary to these assumptions, development is an ongoing process (rather than a matter of levels to be attained) – one that is multi-dimensional in nature and,