Few countries seem to be as obsessed with the idea of becoming developed as Malaysia. This becomes clear to anyone who pays even cursory attention to the local media and politics. Government policies and programmes are legitimised by the extent to which they contribute to the development of the country.

This has been the overarching strategic goal of the Malaysian government since the release of Vision 2020 in 1991. This document envisaged a country fully developed along all dimensions: economically, politically, socially, spiritually, psychologically and culturally. This policy blueprint is ambitious and holistic, and was meant to guide Malaysia’s development agenda for the next three decades.

And yet, somewhere along the road, the original holistic approach to development was dropped in favour of a rather narrow one focused on income per capita.

Policy documents and government officials alike now talk about the goal of achieving ‘high-income status’ by 2020 as if ‘high-income country’ and ‘developed country’ were interchangeable concepts. They are not.

Malaysia will most likely reach high-income status within the next few years - a modest 3 percent average annual growth rate in per capita income will suffice to World Bank’s high-income threshold (currently US$12,736) by 2020, even if the country fails to reach the arbitrary US$15,000 level set by the government.

However, as most analysts - including former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, the author of Vision 2020 - have warned, it would be premature for Malaysia to proclaim itself ‘developed’ on the basis of reaching high-income status, because many of the core challenges of the country remain unresolved.

That is why it is important to revisit Vision 2020 - with its holistic, multi-dimensional concept of development, and make sure that it reflects the values, demands and aspirations of 21st century Malaysian society.

Of course, Malaysia has already come a long and impressive way toward development. Its economic trajectory has been nothing short of impressive in the last five decades. Upon independence, Malaysia was one of the poorest countries in the world, while today, it is among the most advanced emerging countries.

It won’t be now long until the country is ‘admitted’ to the clubs of ‘high income nations’ (World Bank), ‘very high human development’ (UNDP) and ‘advanced economy’ (IMF). Broadly speaking, this would imply that Malaysia now belongs to the top one-fourth of countries in terms of economic development.

But economic development is only one dimension of development. Most understandings of development include notions of good governance, peace and social harmony, equality of opportunity for all, freedom and the protection of human rights.

Russia, for instance, is simultaneously a high-income economy (per the World Bank’s criteria) and one of the most corrupt and repressive countries in the world (ranked 136 out of 172 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, and 152 out of 180 in Reporters Without Borders’ Freedom of Press Index).

Greece is classified as an advanced and high-income economy, as well as a developed country, but its dramatic economic crisis has revealed political and governance structures that have more in common with those of most ‘developing’ countries.

Developing in different dimensions

Malaysia’s trajectory is nothing like Russia’s or Greece’s, but it is also a country of contrasts in terms of how it has developed in different dimensions. For instance, its increasing prosperity has not translated into better schools: Malaysia ranked 52nd out of 65 countries in the Math section of Pisa 2012 (the largest international student survey).

Vietnam, whose per capita income is barely one-fourth of Malaysia’s, was ranked 17th while the advanced Asian economies took the first seven spots in the test.

In terms of political and institutional development, Malaysia is also far from the leading countries. Malaysia is regarded as a ‘flawed democracy’ by the EIU’s Democracy Index (rank 65 of 167) and is not classified as a ‘free’ country by Freedom House in terms of civil liberties and political rights.

Even more noteworthy is its dismal place (147 out of 180) in the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, on par with authoritarian countries such as Congo, Ethiopia and Burundi.

Malaysia should be mindful of these challenges as it continues to make progress on the economic front. The country will reach high-income status in a few years, but still has some way to go to make Vision 2020 reality.

Moreover, it is important to recognise that Vision 2020 was a top-down project from 1991, and that it may need to be modified to incorporate the values, aspirations and concerns of Malaysian society in the 21st century.

While the political temptation to somehow declare the country as ‘developed’ in 2020 will be strong, it is apparent that in many areas Malaysia is still a work in progress. This is not a sign of failure though, all countries are works in progress, and they are driven by the desire to achieve their own vision of the future.

Achieving goals is important, but they are not an end unto themselves, they are just means to realising a vision.

GABRIEL TARRIBA MARTINEZ LOPEZ is a candidate for a Master’s of Public Policy degree at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin.