There is no universally accepted definition of development, but a neutral definition as a process of innovative structural change in the economic, political and cultural fields, gives many advantages. It allows historical interpretation of past processes and understanding of current ones, constantly calling attention on the true motor of development: internal innovation (something that no external aid can replace). Globalization tends to be reified by many authors: one hears that “globalization does this or does that”. It is not so, globalization, like any other development process (such as the agricultural “revolution” of the Neolithic or the Industrial Revolution) by itself does nothing. Rather, globalization is moved by the innovative activities of dynamic actors, it is not in itself a prime mover, although it may act as multiplier of these activities. Last but not least, a neutral definition leaves space for the negative sides of development, as no one can guarantee that innovations will not have adverse outcomes.