'" (p. 262) This characterization helps to clarify what Stewart sees as the reciprocal relationship between security and all aspects of civil solidity. In today's parlance on the subject, security is frequently assumed to relate directly to military and defense matters. And certainly, this is military domain is a dominant function of 'security' as an objective. But Stewart also speaks of security as an objective of development on the whole, extending its definition to imply the presence of infrastructural soundness; the establishment of a government, peacekeeping and law-enforcing presence that is stable and fair; the creation of an economy that is dynamic and efficient; the provision on suitable public programs in education, employment, etc.; and the general pursuit of a higher threshold for living and resource distribution.

This is a valuable point to stress, as Stewart's article captures well the need to better define the goals and expectations...

With free-trade, globalization and international terror campaigns confounding the landscape of economic development, we must be careful not to conflate the economic gains of a select few with the developmental progress of whole nations. The use of security as a major lens through which to evaluate the strategies and practices leading to development progress seems to effectively dissuade from that approach. Accordingly, Stewart captures the question of development with the complexity and susceptibility to distortion that have often allowed for the continuity of exploitation and inequality under constantly shifting global policy orientation. This suggests that the impasses of the global economy might best by overcome through a more nuanced discussion on global security.
Works Cited:

Stewart, F. (2004). Development and Security. Conflict, Security & Development, 4(3), 261-288.