Underdevelopment

It's quite difficult to do this, since, depending on how we do it, it will have profound policy
implications.

It certainly implies a kind of teleology, where some nation-states are seen as fully developed on
one end of the spectrum, and other nation-states are seen as completely undeveloped on the other.
Underdevelopment, according to the Marxist school, is when nations seeking to develop come
into contact with Western developed countries, and hence become parasitized. Undevelopment is
a scenario which results from autarky, or the absence of trade altogether. The concept of
underdevelopment is more like an active process by which the global lesser-developed nations
are exploited by their contact with an abusively capitalist group of already-developed nations.
Not being a Marxist myself, I can sympathize with this definition still, since I believe it is rooted
in the concept of the nation and of the state that some groups of people are collected referred to
as "developed" and others are collectively referred to as "underdeveloped". It is actually entirely
irrelevant which nation and which state they belong to, although public and private infrastructure
is what generally gives rise to this misconception.

Yet taking a more optimistic outlook, and most neoliberals do this (though I'm not a neoliberal),
is to see the development of nations in terms of stages of growth. Walter Rostow from Harvard
wrote a "Non-Communist Manifesto" in which he described Hegelian-like stages of
development. Harrod and Domar in the 1970s later came upon Rostow's work and corrected it to
fit with more flexible conditions and realistic scenarios. The stages theories have several things
in common: they tend to argue for liberalizing policies, and tend to explain underdevelopment in
terms of stops and problems somewhere along the stages. The Marxists respond that this does not
take into consideration the history of exploitation and imperialism involved. Yet I think the basic
approach of the analytic modeling by the neoliberals is correct. We should think of development
in terms of stages, models, and industry rotations. Marxists who respond that there are social-
economic and socio-historical factors that the capitalist models ignore are certainly right.

However, explaining the problems pointed out by Marxists (which are, I admit, very very real
and true) is not to deny them, but to say they are not entirely truthful. The models explained by
capitalist theorists explain how economies ought to develop, and unfortunately there are
governmental, political, and exploitations involved which interfere with the general tendencies
laid out by capitalist models. An analogy to gravity is useful here. There is general tendency for
heavenly bodies to obey the laws of gravity, however, when a force like electro-magnetism
stands in the way, it gives an appearance of the body not obeying the law of gravity.

In effect, one can explain why nation-states are or are not developing while being able to also
explain the reasons and factors which stand in the way of development. A more hardline Marxist
approach is to say that global capitalist development is simply not possible, in that some
countries necessarily exploit other countries to become more affluent. In this case, our heavenly
bodies example is more like a universe where all the energy is conserved, and for one body to
accelerate it must push against another body -- sending it flying in the other direction. This
approach is completely mistaken analytically, since it altogether overlooks the notion of the co-
arising benefits from trade due to an international division of labor. Socialist and Communist
economies of scale presuppose this very idea as well. One person who trades with another does
not by necessity impoverish the other person. Each one benefits by the interaction, and
consequentially, the interaction would not take place otherwise.

To view international trade as a zero-sum game is to commit an age-old neo-mercantilist fallacy.

Submitted by Acumensch at 23.9.07

Tag Cloud: Squat the World

http://aeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/09/defining-underdevelopment.html

"Underdevelopment is not lack of or insufficient development, as many people tend to

think. It is a product or subproduct of development. Underdevelopment derives
inevitably from the colonial or neo-colonial forms of economical exploitation which still
imposes itself in many regions of our planet."

Third World countries are underdeveloped not because of natural reasons but mostly because of
historical facts - because of the power of circumstance. Unfavorable historic circumstances,
specially political and economical colonialism which kept these regions aside from the rapidly
growing world economy.7

Underdevelopment is not the lack of development. It is the result of an ill-guided kind of

universal development. It is the abusive concentration of income - specially during this historic
period dominated by capitalist neo-colonialism, which is responsible for much of the
underdevelopment in the world today: the regions that are direct political or economical
colonies.8

Underdevelopment is a product of misuse of natural and human resources which will forcibly
deviate regions from economical expansion and avoid social changes needed to join human
groups in a integrated economical system. Underdevelopment and hunger can only be eliminated
from the face of earth through a global development strategy which will mobilize production
means in the interest of the community.4

One of the greatest mistakes was to consider that the process of development everywhere should
be equal to the model of the rich western countries. A sort of ethnocentrism made development
scholars base their theories on classic economy, which ignored regions with different social-
economical realities from those of western capitalist economies; ignored a growing socialist
economy and a supply and sales network every else in the world. Whatever remained, was left to
sociologists and folklorists.7

These immense social differences between people divide the world economically in two: the rich
world and the poor world; the world of well developed and industrialized countries and the world
of the proletariat and underdeveloped countries. This economical gap splits humanity in two
groups that are unable to understand each other: the group that doesn't eat, made of two-thirds of
the world's population and that lives in the underdeveloped areas and the group made of the
remaining one third, in the rich countries, that doesn't sleep, afraid of the uprising of the
hungry.6
One of the most constant and permanent facts of the terrible social tension predominating
nowadays is economical unbalance with its many consequences of social injustice. One of the
greatest threats to world peace is the economical difference between economically well
developed countries on one side and insufficiently developed countries on the other. This
discrepancy becomes greater each day, intensifying social unconformity, giving way to
restlessness and uneasiness and promoting political and ideological conflict.6

Underdevelopment is not exclusive to these countries: it is an universal matter which can only be
solved with universal solutions. To live in wealth while two thirds of the world are plunged in
misery is not just dangerous - it is a crime! The social tension experienced today is mostly a
result of social injustice, for the dominated people became aware of the social-economical reality
of the world. We are living through a special period in human history. A period of explosive
changes, where the psychological explosion of the exploited population is almost as dangerous as
an atomic explosion.8

It is pressing that a new economical balance be established in the world, for the gap has to be
closed. Without this, it will be very difficult to reach a true and reassuring peace among men.
There is no other international task as hard, but on the other hand there is nothing as promising
for the world's future then the economical development of the areas where geographical and
natural resources are relatively unexploited.6

More then ever world peace depends on economical balance. Social security is more important
then arms-based national security.8

Development cannot be assessed only on the basis of expansion of material wealth or economical
growth. Development also means a succession of deep social changes which should inevitably
accompany the technological transformations. The concept of development is not merely
quantitative. It includes qualitative features of the human groups touched by it. To grow is one
thing; to develop is quite another. In more general terms, growth is easier. To develop in a
balanced way is much harder.9

A very common question is if development means becoming less human. The formula
championed by the western economies is to maximize profits through a frantic search for wealth,
but maximizing mental power would enrich and enlighten the life of men faster then anything
else.8

The developmental issue in Third World countries - and even in the other countries which are
still underdeveloped in many aspects - is more of a matter of the character of man. If industrial
revolution dominated the nineteenth century, today we should be under a cultural revolution,
which could create a culture capable of finding true solutions for the great problems of
humanity.8

Underdevelopment is a kind of uneducation. Uneducation not only of the Third World, but the
whole world. To bring it to an end, people have to be educated and their community spirit has to
be well developed. They have become deformed everywhere. Only a new kind of mankind will
dare to think, dare to reflect and dare to take action against injustice. Only then will men be able
to develop an economy truly based on human development and balance.8
The development contradictions are many. Development means mutation and discipline at the
same time. But discipline will often jeopardize mutation. Societies that reached high degrees of
development take conservatism as the ideal models upon which other societies should base
themselves, thus stagnating the will to change.8

To face the aspects of the fight against underdevelopment in isolation seems outdated, for the
traditional formulas, the isolated measures and the limited concessions do not suffice. The
seriousness of the problem requires the approval of urgent global and convergent strategies on
the part of developed countries as well as by those undergoing development.7

There is only one true development: the development of man. Man as an agent for development;
man as a beneficiary of development. Human brain is the producer of development. It is the life
of man that will blossom through the use of products made available through development.8

http://www.josuedecastro.com.br/engl/development.html

Will You Tell Me About The Concept Of Underdevelopment Economy?

These terms are synonyms and convey identical meaning. An underdeveloped country is one in
which per capita real income
is low when compared with the real per capita income of the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and
Western Europe. " Under developed countries are those which when compared with the advanced
countries are under equipped with capital in relation to their population and natural resources." "
A more useful definition of an underdeveloped country is that it is a country with good potential
prospects for using more capital or more labor or more available resources, or all of these to
support its present population on a higher level of living.

"The under developed country is that in which people have low level of living (poverty, poor
health, low education and other social services), low self esteem (low respect honor, dignity) and
limited (freedom of choice etc.). All these three factors work in a cause and effect cumulative
process and increase under development."" A country is said to be under developed which is
characterized by the co-existence in greater or less degree of un-utilized or under-utilized man
power on the one hand and of un-exploited natural resources on the other characteristics of an
under developed country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdevelopment

Underdevelopment is the state of an organization (e.g. a country) that has not reached its
maturity.nderdevelop

It is often used to refer to economic underdevelopment, symptoms of which include lack of

access to job opportunities, health care, drinkable water, food, education and housing.

The term "underdevelopment" originated in the mid-1950s. In October 1955, Gunnar Myrdal
gave a series of lectures in Cairo at the invitation of the National Bank of Egypt, later published
under the title Development and Under-development: A note on the Mechanism of National and
International Economic Inequality (Cairo, 1956). A revised version was published as Economic
Theory and Underdeveloped people" (Duckworth, 1957). However, the term was popularized
especially by Andre Gunder Frank in the late 1960s.

Overview
Underdevelopment takes place when resources are not used to their full socio-economic
potential, with the result that local or regional development is slower in most cases than it should
be. Furthermore, it results from the complex interplay of internal and external factors that allow
less developed countries only a lop-sided development progression. Underdeveloped nations are
characterized by a wide disparity between their rich and poor populations, and an unhealthy
balance of trade.[1]

Extended overview
The economic and social development of many developing countries has not been even. They
have an unequal trade balance which results from their dependence upon primary products
(usually only a handful) for their export receipts. These commodities are often (a) in limited
demand in the industrialized countries (for example: tea, coffee, sugar, cocoa, bananas); (b)
vulnerable to replacement by synthetic substitutes (jute, cotton, etc); or (c) are experiencing
shrinking demand with the evolution of new technologies that require smaller quantities of raw
materials (as is the case with many metals). Prices cannot be raised as this simply hastens the use
of replacement synthetics or alloys, nor can production be expanded as this rapidly depresses
prices. Consequently, the primary commodities upon which most of the developing countries
depend are subject to considerable short-term price fluctuation, rendering the foreign exchange
receipts of the developing nations unstable and vulnerable. Development thus remains elusive.[2]

History
The world consists of a group of rich nations and a large number of poor nations. It is usually
held that economic development takes place in a series of capitalist stages and that today’s
underdeveloped countries are still in a stage of history through which the now developed
countries passed long ago. The countries that are now fully developed have never been
underdeveloped in the first place, though they might have been undeveloped. [3]
Examples of Underdeveloped Countries and Regions

Political map as the Human Development Index.

Africa

Africa is the second-largest continent on the planet (after Asia) in both land area and population
—with more than 800 million people living in fifty-four countries. With a total land area of more
than 30,221,532 km2 (11,668,598.7 sq mi), Africa accounts for 20% of the land on the planet; its
population accounts for one-seventh of the population of earth. It is also the most
underdeveloped continent. [4]

Afghanistan

Historically, there has been a deficiency of information and dependable statistics about
Afghanistan's economy. The 1979 Soviet invasion and consequent civil war destroyed much of
the country's limited transportation infrastructure[citation needed] and disrupted normal patterns of
economic activity[citation needed]. Gross domestic product had fallen significantly because of loss of
labor and capital and disruption of trade and transport. Continuing internal conflict
disadvantaged both domestic efforts at reconstruction as well as international aid efforts. The
country today however is beginning to make some progress. [5]

South Africa

It is argued that South Africa’s … dualist qualities of a 1st & 2nd economy. The 1st (wealth
producing sector) being one that is integrated in the global economy through modern
industrialization, mining, agricultural & financial services, and the 2nd a structural manifestation
of poverty, underdevelopment & marginalization. With indicators such as GDP/capita at PPP of
$11 240 in 2001, placing it as one the 50th wealthiest countries in the world , and on the other
hand social indicators that rank it 111th in terms of HDI for the same year. [6]

Some of the causality of the underdevelopment is attributed to the institutionalized apartheid

practices in South African politics, society and economics. The reforms that were introduced in
1994, have furthered the increase of inequality and uneven wealth distribution in the nation. As
“Hoogeveen andO¨ zler (2005: 15) conclude that ‘Growth has not been pro-poor in South Africa
as a whole, and in the instances when poverty declined for certain subgroups, the distributional
shifts were still not pro-poor’.” Through the notion of adverse inclusion versus social exclusion
du Toit draws attention to the fact that the present dynamics of the nation are not simply a result
of being left out of mainstream economy, rather from the terms under which individuals are
incorporated, . The individuals who find themselves incorporated are often not those that make
up the majority of the population that lives in considerably unfavorable conditions. [7]

[edit] Theories
Modernization Theory

Modernization theory is a socio-economic theory, also known as the Development theory. This
highlights the positive role played by the developed world in modernizing and facilitating
sustainable development in underdeveloped nations. It is often contrasted with Dependency
theory.[8]

The theory of modernization consists of three parts:

• Identification of types of societies, and explanation of how those designated as

modernized or relatively modernized differ from others;
• Specification of how societies become modernized, comparing factors that are more or
less conducive to transformation.
• Generalizations about how the parts of a modernized society fit together, involving
comparisons of stages of modernization and types of modernized societies with clarity
about prospects for further modernization. [9]
• Dependency Theory
• Dependency theory is the body of theories by various intellectuals, both from the Third
World and the First World, that suggest that the wealthy nations of the world need a
peripheral group of poorer states in order to remain wealthy. Dependency theory states
that the poverty of the countries in the periphery is not because they are not integrated
into the world system, but because of how they are integrated into the system.
• These poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labor, a destination for obsolete
technology, and markets to the wealthy nations, without which they could not have the
standard of living they enjoy. First world nations actively, but not necessarily
consciously, perpetuate a state of dependency through various policies and initiatives.
This state of dependency is multifaceted, involving economics, media control, politics,
banking and finance, education, sport and all aspects of human resource development.
Any attempt by the dependent nations to resist the influences of dependency could result
in economic sanctions and/or military invasion and control. This is rare, however, and
dependency is enforced far more by the wealthy nations setting the rules of international
trade and commerce.
• Dependency theory first emerged in the 1950s, advocated by Raul Prebisch whose
research found that the wealth of poor nations tended to decrease when the wealth of rich
nations increased. The theory quickly divided into diverse schools. Some, most notably
Andre Gunder Frank, adapted it to Marxism. "Standard" dependency theory differs
sharply from Marxism, however, arguing against internationalism and any hope of
progress in less developed nations towards industrialization and a liberating revolution.
Former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso wrote extensively on
dependency theory while in political exile. The American sociologist Immanuel
Wallerstein refined the Marxist aspect of the theory, and called it the "world system." [10]
• According to Brazilian social scientist, Theotonio Dos Santos, dependence means a
situation in which certain countries economies’ are conditioned by the development &
expansion of another to which the former is subject. He goes on to further clarify that the
interdependence of two or more economies, and consequently world trade, assumes the
form of dependence when dominant countries can create dependency only as a reflection
of that expansion, which can have a negative effect on the subordinate’s immediate
economy. [11]