Development in the Underdeveloped

The term ‘’Development’’ has been contended for a number of years. It can be simply asserted as the concept of both convergence and divergence. This means that, when the Tindiga of Dodoma defines or conceptualizes development, the concept will completely differ from that of an indigenous American economist. Consequently, the concept, ‘‘impedes thinking of one’s own objectives as Nyerere wanted; it undermines confidence in oneself and one’s own culture as  Stevenhagen demands; it clamours for management from the top down, against which Jimoh rebelled’’ (Esteva,2010,p.3). Therefore, this collective argument gives a clear preface and it introduces development as a concept of multiple definitions and theories; equally, this troubling concept can be traced far back time immemorial, but it gained momentum soon after the Second World War in 1945, the period famously identified as the turning point of the world history. Thus, in the 1950s various definitions and theories of  development emerged. These included Bourgeois, Marxist and African Nationalist theories of development.

Bourgeois theories refer to the capitalist oriented school of thought. The theory’s general concept is that, development is always a gradual movement from the poor stage to the better stage. The theory can be sub divided into two main categories; the first is called Modernization theories (1950s-1960s) and Neo-liberalism or modernization II theories (1970s-2000s).                                                           
 Modernization theories conceptualize development as a modelling phenomenon; that is, development should be imitated from the already developed countries. The proposers of this theory are Nurkse Ragner and Walt Rostow(1960). Ragner(1907-1959) came with the balanced growth theory in which he measures development in terms of  market, and heavy industrial investment. All these are a result of increased productivity in the economic system. The modernist identifies that, the problem of underdevelopment in the global south is due to low production for mere consumption and that, there is either no or present but very limited market. As a result, to him ‘’society is poor because it is poor, since there is low saving which leads to low investment which leads to low consumption’’ (Mbirigenda, 2005, p.10). Accordingly, Nurkse was aware of the poor society found in the global south. This can be viewed as a strong point in his theories, however the suggested means of combating the problem are rather skeptical as it will illustrated by the Marxist theorists. 
Besides Nurkses’ theory, Rostow’s The stages of Economic. A non-communist manifesto comes as counteract to the Marxism school of thought, ‘’Indeed early n his book, Rostow asserts that he is aiming to provide an alternative to Karl Marx theory of modern history’’ (Desai and Potter (eds), 2008, p.4). Therefore it should be clearly understood that he is against socialism. The central arguments of his theory are:

A unilinear movement in development; Rostow argues that a societal progress is like an analogy of an airplane at its fixed position, next it starts off runway surface, it takes off and soars in the sky. As a result there are five stages guiding this theory, namely; traditional societies, pre-condition for take-off, the take-off  and the age of  high mass consumption. Accordingly, in order for any country to attain the highest level of development, it should undergo these stages with the assistance of high investment and market reliability. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that, societies do not move in a uniform way like that. This fact is also addressed by Rostow himself that, ‘’the pre-conditions for take-off were actually endogenous in Britain, elsewhere they were probably the result of external intrusion by more advanced societies’’ (Rostow 1960, p.6 in Desai and Potter, 2008, p.78). This is an obvious fact that modernist were fully informed with the situation in the global south. The above statement puts it clear that colonialism intruded and disturbed third world countries’ progress.

On the other hand, a group of neo-liberalist rose up in the early 1980s. The supporters like Bella Ballasa, argued for liberation of the private sector and total free market economy. They also proposed a minimal role of state in the economy, that is, its role is to create suitable conditions for economic activities to take place; in support of this, Lal Deepak, ‘’was against all economic control or government intervention and for ‘’liberalizing’’ financial and trade  control in a return to nearly free trade regimes’' (Lal, Deepak 1980,1983, in Peter, R and Hartwick, E, 1999, p.49)   therefore, it can be assured that, neo-liberalism were modernization theories in practice because, the establishment and implementation of Structural Adjustment Programs was a clear reflection of the type of economy suggested by both classical economists (Adam and Ricardo) in the 1700s and the modernists Rostow and Ragner in the 1950s. It was the time when most of global south countries adopted to principles of SAPs such as cost sharing and currency devaluation.

Besides bourgeois theories, the other theories are Marxist, which dates back in the 1880s Karl Marx’s era of enlightenment. The central ideas of Karl are dialectical materialism and class struggle. To him, capitalism was an evil mode of production, and had to be replaced by socialism, a mode that he believed was inclusive and non exploitative, as Cleaver puts it that, Socialism ideas ‘’…contained most of the earlier socialist preoccupations with the possibilities of creating a more equal and just society’’ (Cleaver, Harry, 2010, p.268). For this reason, Marx called upon the working class to wage a revolution against the capitalist class.

As a response to Marxist school of thought, dependency theories emerged in the 1960s with Latin American scholars trying to theorize development basing on their home context. The notable figures in this theory were Raul Prebisch, Dos Santos, Celso Furtado, and Andre Gunder Frank. Together with the world system theories, dependency theories came as a critic to modernizations addressing as failed narratives to solve the third world countries’ poverty. The central arguments of this school of thought are explained herein:

Recognition of two worlds; the popular theorist Andre Gunder ‘’development of underdevelopment’’ depicts clearly the core-peripheral relation, in which the core, exploits the periphery, he holds that, ‘’capitalist dynamics both developed the core and caused greater levels of underdevelopment and dependency within Latin America’’ (Gunder, Andre, 1967, in Desai and Potter, 2008, p.93), consequently the north-south relation is fatal to the south and a blessing to the north.
Next, the dependency theorists hold that, there is unequal commercial arrangement between the satellites and the core, the so called comparative advantage as advocated by the supporters of modernism was not there! Conway and Heynen holds that, ‘’…core countries, particularly Britain and the United States, benefiting at Latin American expense’’ (Conway and Heynen, 2008, p.93). On the whole, the economic ties between Latin America and USA brought tremendous negative upheavals on the former. For instance, Prebisch, Raul (1958) addressed the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America as being disadvantageous to Latin America.

Moreover, the dependency school of thought analyzed the problem of underdevelopment in the global south as a historical phenomenon, that is, the past relation which existed between third world countries and core countries. In short, the theorist addressed slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism as core factors for poverty in the south.

In the meantime, World System Theories came to rectify what was referred as the misconception of both modernizations and dependency theories. The supporter of World System theories, Immanuel Wallestein (1979) as a Marxist scholar identifies material thing such as classes, labour and state as the main concern in the development process. Immanuel divides the world into three zones but all of these zones reside in the same world system. He identifies the first zone as core, led by USA, the second semi-peripheral led by China and Periphery; but in the single system as opposed to two worlds of the dependency. His integral part of the theory is, ‘’…on class, the state, imperialism and control over the means of production and labour power’’ (Wallestein, 1979, in Klak, 2008, p.102).
Having explored the theories above, it is high time to analyze the criticism of dependency theories (Marxist) theories against Modernizations (bourgeois) theories:

When the modernists talk about development on the basis of technological advancement, on the contrary, the dependency theorist acknowledge the reasons for technological backwardness in the peripheries; during the trans-Atlantic Slave, in fact many skilled and innovative men were taken to the new world as slaves, thus technology stagnated in Africa, Gustavo Esteva  puts it obvious that, ‘’the backward or poor countries were in that condition due to the past lootings in the process of colonization and the continued raping by capitalist exploitation at national and international level’’ (Esteva, 2010, p.7). In response to this contention, the dependency theorists hold that, development should not be discussed on the basis of technology only, but by looking far in history and evaluating the ugly relation between the north and south.

While the modernists emphasize on the market as way to development, on the contrary, the dependency theorists pinpoint the kind of market that most of the periphery has. The market is a forced practice to them; it is an import-export oriented market. Under this scenario, poor countries are forced to export raw materials and import finished goods which cripple the economy of these countries. So, what the modernist believe that underdevelopment in the periphery is caused by limited market is a fallacy that need to be challenged with heavy weight. Thereupon, Gunder, postulates that, ‘’ by conceptualizing Latin America’s underdevelopment as a function of feudal Or traditional structure, the dualist perspective failed to truly comprehend the historical significance and transformative impact of capitalism’s penetration of the continent’s economic, political and social structures’’ ( Gunder, 1967, in Esteva, 2008, p.94). Thus, it is quite inconceivable and misleading to emphasize on the market for development while there is a trap pre-set by the capitalist to harvest from the poor countries.

The other disagreement between the two theories is about the way societies develop, when the modernists suggest the trickle-down progress; the dependency theorists argue for bottom-up development. In this dispute,   Rostow   believes that underdeveloped countries ought to model themselves to modernity through imitating the already developed countries such as USA and Britain. In contrast, dependency theorists suggest a viable way of dealing with the problem of underdevelopment, which is from the grassroots to the higher level; Escobar argues for this, that, ‘’the remaking of development must start by examining local constructions ‘’ (Escobar, 1995, p.98, as cited in Briggs, 2008, p.107). This is quite right for the reason that poverty in third world countries clearly manifests itself to people in the lower class.

What's more, on education and expertise the modernists proposes that, a country progresses only if there is a well advanced group of elites, but the Marxist explains how this group of elites operates in the periphery, it is generally for the interest of the core, (Baran, 1957, as cited in Conway and Heynen 2008) illustrates that:

Latin Americas underdevelopment is a consequence of advanced nations forming special partnerships with powerful elite class in less developed countries which benefited from the minority class of Latin American elite rather than economic development more generally[...]core’s monopoly powerrew from the unequal commodity exchange(p.93).

There may be no question with Baran’s idea, just at the glance of an eye, but why this has been so common ever since? Since, the elites being talked about in here were/are people with doctorate degrees but are sometimes controlled by not so much educated Europeans, why? Is it because of the so called inferior race?Once and for all, modernist argues for heavy industrial investment which would back up development, this contradicts with dependency theorists in that they address colonial and the subsequent neo-colonial relation as the hindrance towards sustainable investment because the  foreign investment persisting cannot answer the question of underdevelopment. So, given that reality, the case of vicious circle of poverty as proposed by Ragner is likely to find a permanent home in the periphery. A careful examination can be made on SAPs’ conditional ties with the south, a condition like allowing the private sector to operate; this alone proves the fatal impact to poor country’s economies. The impact it had far created are; instead of creating employment opportunities, it has resulted to unemployment; also it has resulted to land alienation to the indigenous and many numerous associated impacts like hunger.

On the other hand, it is indisputable that, any contest ought to have a winner; so, in the context, the Modernization theories are the victor because their ideas started to be implemented in the 1980s hitherto. This is clearly manifested by multiparty politics, shared cost of social services, free trade and the devalued currency in the global south. As a result, (Ghosh, 2001, in Conway and Heynen, 2008) outlines the areas in which the dependency theory operates:

                                                        i.            Aid dependency

                                                      ii.            Technological dependency

                                                    iii.            Dependency for foreign capital investment

                                                    iv.            Trade dependency

                                                      v.            Dependency for better human capital formation. (p.133)

This clearly indicates the failure of the dependency theories which places the modernization theories in practice.

Meanwhile, the truth that sometimes the problem of underdevelopment is caused by poor countries themselves should not be underestimated. Taking Africa as a case, poverty is caused by internal factors like civil wars, tribalism, religious conflicts, corruption and natural hazards, ‘’who could believe that Kenya with her big population fighting over food and thousands other landless, would attempt to lease over 100,000 acres in the Tana River delta to Qatar to grow food for its population?’’(Mhango, 2009) this is certainly astonishing; it is widely known that charity begins at home ,but on the contrary, Kenya is enriching the neighbours  leaving  her children starving. Thus, will there be development under these circumstances? A capital NO is relevant; the goals won’t be realized unless pigs fly!

Despite preceding facts about third world countries, there are still some hopes for them. The following suggestions may be useful if are taken into consideration:

Foremost is to kick imitation and assume for a suitable way to deal with the internal challenges in each individual country. Big Results Now is a reference which need to be discouraged by any cost, simply because of its irrelevancy in Tanzania today; given the material conditions of Tanzania, the program cannot work sufficiently, it was designed for Malaysia-Kuala Rampur, not for Tanzania-Dar es Salaam. Though it may be fiercely disputed, a simple observation may be helpful to clear any criticism; take the economic status of Malaysia against that of Tanzania today and think if they can be cooked in the same pot, if the conclusion is that, they cannot, then there is nothing much to expect with BRN. 

Further, it is high time to define development on the basis of basic needs, when Seers Dudley hold that development should be weighed in terms of basic needs such as food, health and education has a practical approach because there is no way development can be defined on the basis of industrial investment in the satellites.

Besides basic needs, development should be rethought from the lower level of household, community and regional levels. It is always true that there is no top-down development; this is an unacceptable fallacy which needs to be denounced altogether, since it had miserably failed to answer peoples’ needs in the global south. Regional groupings like East African Community are very helpful if the stated goals are implemented.

Moreover, it sounds great if people rely on what Gerald argues, ‘’what must be universalized through development is a cultural complex centred around the notion that human life, if, it is to be fully lived, cannot be constrained by limits of any kind’’ (Gerald, 2010, p.77)

If anyone has a doubt with this, then has to face these questions; how does a penguin of Antarctica make a living?   What does the Tindiga of Dodoma misses as so does the Mbuti of Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

On the whole, there might be a lot to explain about development, it will always be an unfinished business; generations will come and perish but the term is immortal and so it will live. In brief, it is this generation of the 21^st century have the mandate to define and theorize development in reference to individuals’ societies.

                                                          References

Cleaver, H. (2010). Socialism. In Sachs, W (Ed.), The Development Dictionary. London, Zed Books.

Desai, V and Potter, R. (Eds) (2008). The Companion to Development Studies. London, Arnold

Esteva, G. (2010). Development. In Sachs, W (Ed). The Development Dictionary. London, Zed Books.

Peet, R and Hartwick, E. (1999). Theories of Development. The Guil Ford Press.

Mhango, N.(2009, January 7-9). The African Executive. Africans must Brace for Neo-agro-

            Imperialism. Retrieved December 10, 2013 from http:www.africanexecutive.com/

            modules/magazine/articles.php?article=3962.