CHAPTER THREE

THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT

Introduction

In this chapter we will explore the major theories of development and underdevelopment. In this
particular unit you will learn the recent historical and intellectual evolutions in scholarly thinking
about how and why development does and does not take place.

There have been continuous debates concerning the underlying causes of underdevelopment and on
the most desirable paths to change. These debates elicit different theoretical responses from social
scientists. Thus, there are many theories that blame the Third World‘s political unrest and economic
backwardness. According to many of these theories, economic backwardness has occurred because
there is a backward local, traditional and cultural value. In other words, these theories attributed to
the underdeveloped nature of Third World societies in internal factors. Most of these theories are
within the modernization school of thinking. On the opposite pole, there are theories which have
condemned western exploitation as the root cause of underdevelopment. Dependency theories and
other neo-Marxian theories are included in this thinking.

Accordingly, this unit is divided into five major sections. The first section will have a discussion on
the theoretical discourse of the modernization theory. The Marxian theory on development will be
covered under the second section. The third section will explore the different strands of the
international dependency revolution. The fourth section will analyze the neo-liberal
counterrevolution and its thinking on development. The last section is about explaining the concepts
of alternative development and post development perspectives.

Unit Objectives

After completing this unit, you are expected to:

 Analyze the different strands of the modernization theory.

 Explain the Marxian view of development.
 Explore the different discourses under the international dependency revolution on
development.
 Discuss the theoretical standpoint of the neo-liberal
counterrevolution on development.
 Explain the concepts of alternative development and post development

3.1. The Modernization School of Thought

Section Overview

This section gives you a bird‘s eye view of the modernization theory and its thinking on
development. This section is further divided into five sub-sections. The first sub-section will discuss
the general overview of the modernization theory. Walter W. Rostow‘s stages of economic
development are discussed in the next sub- section. The third sub-section will explain Samuel
Huntington‘s political modernization and development. Talcott Parson‘s Structural Functionalism
will be the issue to be explored under the fourth sub-section. The last will critically look at the major
critiques against modernization theory.
 3.2.1. The Modernization Theory: A General Overview

The modernization theory has roots from the historical North-South relations. In the years since the
late 1940‘s, two related, but far from identical discourses of development theories emerged. These
were the modernization theory and the neo-liberal development doctrine (there is separate section on
the neo-liberal doctrine). In the 1950‘s and 1960‘s, newly independent states came into existence and
hence the conceptualization of ―modernization process‖ became central. Theories of modernization
are based on the assumption that societal change is a linear process involving the transformation of
traditional, agrarian societies into modern, industrial societies.

Modernization theory was initially optimist about the prospect of development in the South. It
encompassed questions and answers of economic growth, development of social institutions,
political change, and psychological factor in the South. The theory was believed to be designed as a
problem solving theory; it is also policy-oriented towards social change and economic growth. It
offers an explanation of how and why change take place, but it is based largely on the assumption
that the capitalist model is universally applicable.

Modernization theory viewed the process of development as a series of successive stages of

economic growth through which all countries must pass. The right quantity and mixture of saving,
investment and foreign aid were all thought to be necessary to enable Third World nations to
proceed along an economic growth path that had been followed by the more developed countries.
Development thus became synonymous with rapid economic growth.

The proponents of modernization theory argue that Third World countries could and should follow a
path of political and economic development parallel to the one traveled by the advanced western
societies. To accomplish this, the theory insisted that societies of the South should create and acquire
modern cultural values and modern political and economic institutions.

According to this theory, development in developing countries would come about and would be
engineered through the diffusion of innovations, capital, technology, modern ideas, entrepreneurial
ship, democratic institutions, and values from the developed western societies. For this theory, the
diffusion of these modernizing factors faced barriers that hampered development in the South. These
barriers are traditional, cultural values of the societies of the South. To deal with these barriers,
revolution in economic and social sphere is important.

3.2.1.1. W. W. Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto

Walter W. Rostow subscribes some form of evolution. All societies go through the same stages of
economic development. He wanted to come up with a generalization which is supposed to
characterize the history of the industrialization of the developed capitalist countries. His model was
based up on a detailed analysis of the economic history of a number of major industrialized societies.

Different Stages Identified by Rostow

His theory was that all nations pass through the same five stages of economic development: the
traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, the drive to maturity, and the stage of mass
consumption. It is possible to identify all societies, in their economic dimension, as lying within one
of these stages. For him, technology, saving, entrepreneurialism, and the correct political system
were all key motors in moving countries along this path.
 He tried to define the various stages of economic growth by certain economic and social
characteristics. This theory of five stages is practically a theory of the industrial revolution
interpreted in a particular way, in which the first two stages were seen as being preparatory to the
industrial revolution, and the last two as its results, i.e. self-sustained growth. The fact of the
industrial revolution of the take-off however can only be inferred from its results, from sustained
growth. The concept of self-sustained growth is however a misleading oversimplification. No growth
is purely self-sustaining or purely self-limiting. Now let‘s dwell on the different stages proposed by
Rostow where by all societies are expected to pass.

A. The Traditional Society

A traditional society is one whose structure is developed within the limited production function. In this
stage, varying degrees of manufacturing developed, but as in agriculture, the level of productivity was
limited by the inaccessibility of modern science and its application. Because of the limitation of
productivity, these societies had to devote a very high proportion of their resources to agriculture.
Flowing from the agriculture system, there was a hierarchical social structure with relatively narrow
scope for vertical mobility. Moreover, family and clan connections played a large role in social
organizations.

In terms of history, with the phrase ―traditional society‖, societies like the dynasties in China, the
civilization of the Middle East and the Mediterranean, the world of the medieval Europe, and those
current societies that remained untouched or unmoved by man‘s new capability for regularly
manipulating his environment to his economic advantages.

B. Preconditions for Take-off

The second stage of growth embraces societies in the process of transition. The major characteristics of
the traditional society began to change such a way as to permit regular growth; its politics, social
structure, ant its values as well as its economy. However it takes time to transform a traditional society
in the ways necessary for it to exploit the fruits of modern science. This stage initially developed, in a
clear marked way, in Western Europe of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries as the insights of modern
science began to be translated in to new production functions in both agriculture and industry. Among
the western European powers, Britain favored by its geography, natural resources, trading possibilities,
and social and political structure, was the first to develop fully the preconditions for take-off.

Factors that Accelerate this Stage

The factors that accelerated this stage in other societies are not endogenous, but also external intrusions
by some advanced societies. This invasion shocked the traditional society and set in motion ideas and
sentiments which initiated the process by which modern alternatives to traditional society was
constructed out of the old culture. The ideas spread not merely that economic progress is possible, but
that economic progress is a necessary condition for some other purpose. At this stage, education
expanded. New types of enterprises come forward willing to mobilize savings and to take risks in
pursuits of profit. Banks and other institutions for mobilizing capital appeared. Investment increases,
notably in transport, communication and in raw materials. The scope of internal and external commerce
widens. Here and there, modern manufacturing enterprises appear that use the new method. But still the
society is characterized by traditional low productivity method, and by the old social structures and
values. In any case, the precondition for take-off is a transition between the traditional society and the
take-off.

C. The Take-off Stage

This stage is the interval when the old blocks and resistances to steady growth are finally overcome.
Growth becomes its normal condition. In many societies, the proximate stimulus for take-off is mainly
technological. During this stage, the rate of effective investment and saving rise. New industries expand
rapidly yielding profits, a large proportion of which are reinvested in a new plant. These new industries
in turn stimulate the service sector and a further expansion of urban areas. The whole process of
expansion in the modern sector yields an increase in income. The new class of entrepreneurs expands,
and it directs the enlarging flows of investment in the private sector. The economy exploits hitherto
unused natural resources and methods of production. New techniques spread in agriculture and industry,
and agriculture is commercialized. The radical change in agricultural productivity is an essential
condition for successful take-off.

D. The Drive to Maturity

After take-off, there follows a long interval of sustained fluctuating progress, as the now regularly
growing economy drives to extend modern technology over the whole front of its economic activity. The
economy finds itself in the international economy; goods formerly imported are produced at home, new
import requirements develop, and new export commodities are produced. The economy becomes
increasingly efficient, adapting rapidly to further technological innovations. The economy, focused
during the take-off around a relatively narrow complex of industry and technology, has extended its
range into a more refined and technologically often more complex processes. This is a stage in which an
economy demonstrates that it has the technological and the entrepreneurial skill to produce not
everything, but anything that it chooses to produce. It may lack the raw material and other supply
conditions required to produce a given type of output economically, but its dependence is a matter of
economic choice or a political priority, rather than a technological or institutional necessity.

E. The Age of High Mass Consumption

At this stage, the leading sectors shift toward durable consumers‘ goods and services. Real income per
head rose to a point where a large number of people gained a command over consumption which
transcended basic food, shelter and clothing. The structure of the working force changed in ways which
increased not only the proportion of urban to total population, but also the proportion of the population
working in offices or in skilled factory job. In addition to these economic changes, the societies ceased
to accept the further expansion of modern technology as an over-riding objective. The emergence of
welfare state is one manifestation of a society‘s moving beyond technical maturity.

3.2.1.2. Samuel Huntington’s Political Modernization and Development

Modernization theory makes its philosophical tenet in the comparison between modern and traditional
society. The essential difference between the two lies in the greater control which modern societies have
over natural and social environment. This control, in turn, is based on the expansion of scientific and
technological knowledge. These differences reflect differences in fundamental attitudes towards and
expectations from the environment.
Huntington’s Differentiation between Modern and Traditional Societies

At the intellectual level, modern society is characterized by the tremendous accumulation of knowledge
about man‘s environment and by the diffusion of this knowledge through society by means of education
and mass communication. In contrast to traditional society, modern society also involves much better
health, longer life expectancy, and higher rates of occupational and geographical mobility. It is
predominantly urban than rural. Economically, there is diversification of activity as a few simple
occupations give way to many complex ones. Agriculture declines in importance compared to
commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural activities; and commercial agriculture replaces
subsistence agriculture. The geographical scope of the economic activity is far greater in modern society
than in traditional society.

Process of Modernization and its Characteristics

The bridge across the great dichotomy between modern and traditional societies is the grand process of
modernization. The broad outlines and characteristics of this process are described as follows:

i. Modernization is a revolutionary process. This follows directly from the contrast between
modern and traditional society. The one differs fundamentally from the other, and the change
from tradition to modernity consequently involves a radical and total change in pattern of human
life.
ii. Modernization is a complex process. It involves in changes in virtually all areas human thought
and behavior. At a minimum its components include: industrialization, urbanization, social
mobilization, differentiations, secularization, media expansion, increasing literacy and education,
and expansion of political participation.
iii. Modernization is a systemic process. Changes in one factor are related to and affect changes in
the other factors.
iv. Modernization is a global process. Modernization originated in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-
century Europe, but it has now become a worldwide phenomenon. This is brought about
primarily through the diffusion of modern ideas and techniques from the European center, but
also in part through the endogenous development of non-western societies. In any event, all
societies were at one time traditional; all societies are now either modern or in the process of
becoming modern.
v. Modernization is a lengthy process. The totality of changes which modernization involves can
only be worked out through time. Consequently, while modernization is revolutionary in the
extent of changes it brings about in traditional society, it is evolutionally in the amount of time
required to bring about those changes.
vi. Modernization is a phased process. It is possible to distinguish different levels of phases of
modernization through which all societies will move. All societies will move essentially the
same stages.
vii. Modernization is a homogenizing process. Many different types of traditional societies exist.
They have little in common except their lack of modernity. Modern societies, on the other hand,
share basic similarities. Modernization produces tendencies toward convergence among
societies.
viii. Modernization is an irreversible process. A society which has reached certain levels of
urbanization, literacy and industrialization in one decade will not decline substantially lower
levels in the next decade. The rates of change will vary significantly from one society to another,
but the direction of change will not.
ix. Modernization is a progressive process. The traumas of modernization are many and profound,
but in the long run modernization is not only inevitable, it is also desirable. Modernization in the
long run enhances human well-being.
Huntington defines development more specifically as the ability of society to cope with changes caused
by modernization, arguing that it was therefore necessary top develop institutions capable of controlling
the modernization process. This would, in certain circumstances, mean authoritarian or totalitarian
regimes are necessary for the Third World for them to achieve some form of development. He, thus,
shifted the focus of development and modernization from a progression toward ‗democracy‘ to a
concern with political stability and the role of the government in the modernization process.

3.2.1.3. Talcott Parsons Structural Functionalism: Pattern Variables

Modernization theories attempt to identify the social variables which contribute to the social
progress and development of certain societies and seek to explain the details of social evolution.
French philosopher Emile Durkheim, who is considered one of the founding fathers of sociology,
developed the concept of functionalism which stresses the interdependence of the institutions of a
society and their interaction in maintaining cultural and social unity. His most famous work is The
Division of Labor in Society which described how social order was to be maintained in a society and
how "primitive" societies would make the transition to more economically advanced industrial
societies. Durkheim suggested that in a capitalist society, with the complex division of labor, such
economic regulation would be needed in order to maintain order. He stressed that the major
transition from a primitive social order to a more advanced industrial society could bring about crisis
and disorder. Furthermore, Durkheim developed the idea of social evolution which indicates how
societies and cultures develop over time-much like that of a living organism, essentially saying that
social evolution is just like biological evolution in reference to the development of its components.
Like organisms, society‘s progress through several stages can generally starting at a simplistic level,
and then developing into a more complex level. Societies adapt to their surrounding environments,
but they interact with other societies which further contribute to their progress and development.

A similar proposition is made by Talcott Parson. Parsons constructed a set of variables that can be
used to analyze the various systems. For him, human behavior follows two dichotomies. These are
the categorization of modes of orientation in personality systems, the value patterns of culture, and
the normative requirements in social systems. These became a way of describing and classifying
different societies, and the values and norms of that society. All of the norms, values, roles,
institutions, subsystems and even the society as a whole can be classified and examined on the basis
of these patterned variables.

For Parsons, these were necessary to make the theory of action more explicit and to develop clearer
specifications of what different contingencies and expectations actors were likely to face. The patterned
variables are set up as polar opposites that give the range of possible decisions and modes of orientation.
Any actual role or decision may be a combination of the two, between the opposites. For Parsons
though, these provided an ideal type of conceptual scheme that allowed analysis of various systems of
parts of systems. The five pattern variables are as follows.

a. Ascription and Achievement: Ascription refers to qualities of individuals, and often inborn
qualities such as sex, ethnicity, race, age, family status, or characteristics of the household of origin.
This best characterizes the traditional societies. Achievement, on the other hand refers to
performance, and emphasizes individual achievement. For example, we might say that someone has
achieved a prestigious position even though their ascribed status was that of poverty and
disadvantage. This is, according to Parson, typically a characteristic of modern societies.
b. Functional Diffuseness and Functional Specificity: These refer to the nature of social contacts and
how extensive or how narrow are the obligations in any interaction. For example, in a bureaucracy,
social relationships are very specific, where we meet with or contact someone for some very
particular reason associated with their status and position, e.g. visiting a physician. Friendships and
parent-child relationships are examples of more diffuse forms of contact. We rely on friends for a
broad range of types of support, conversation, activities, and so on. While there may be limits on
such contacts, these have the potential of dealing with almost any set of interests and problems.
Accordingly, in traditional societies there is functional diffuseness. There is no strict delimitation of
functions. In modern societies, institutions and individuals have very specific functions.
c. Affectivity and Affective Neutrality: Neutrality refers to the amount of emotion or affect that is
appropriate or expected in any given form of interaction. Again, particularism and diffuseness might
often be associated with affectivity, whereas contacts with other individuals in a bureaucracy may be
devoid of emotion and characterized by affective neutrality. Affective neutrality may refer to self-
discipline and the deferment of gratification. This is a characteristic of modern societies. In contrast,
affectivity can mean the expression of gratification of emotions, which characterizes traditional
societies.
d. Particularism and Universalism: These refer to the range of people that are to be considered,
whereas diffuseness and specificity deal with the range of obligations involved. The issue here is
whether to react on the basis of a general norm or reacting on the basis of someone‘s particular
relationship to you. A particular relation is one that is with a specific individual. Parent-child or
friendship relationships tend to be of this sort, where the relationship is likely to be very particular,
but at the same time very diffuse. In contrast, a bureaucracy is characterized by universal forms of
relationships, where everyone is to be treated impartially and much the same. No particularism or
favoritism is to be extended to anyone, even to a close friend or family member.
e. Collectivity or Self-oriented: These emphasize the extent of self-interest as opposed to collective or
shared interest associated with any action. Each of our social actions is made within a social context,
with others, and in various types of collectivities. Where individuals pursue a collective form of
action, then the interests of the collectivity may take precedence over that of the individual. Various
forms of action such as altruism, charity, self-sacrifice (in wartime) can be included here. In contrast,
much economics and utilitarianism assumes egoism or the self-seeking individual as the primary
basis on which social analysis is to be built. In general, in modern societies behavior is
individualistic (self-oriented), it is collective in traditional societies. The pattern variables provide a
means of looking at various forms that norms and social actions can take, and what their orientation
is. These can describe the nature of societal norms, or the basic values that guide, and form the basis
for decisions in, the personality system. Perhaps these pattern variables can be thought of as a way
that people do relate to situations they face, the type of orientation they have, and how they are likely
to interpret meaning in each social action.
f. Expressive and Instrumental Variables: These variables can generally be categorized into
expressive and instrumental. Parsons regards the first half of each pair as the expressive types of
characteristics and the second half of the pattern as the instrumental types of characteristics.
Expressive aspects refer to the integrative and tension aspects. These are people, roles, and actions
concerned with taking care of the common task culture, how to integrate the group, and how to
manage and resolve internal tensions and conflicts. This may take many different forms but often is
associated with the family, and more specifically with the female role in the family. The
instrumental characteristics refer to the goal attainment and adaptation aspects. These are the
characteristics, people, roles, and actions associated with ideas, problem solving, getting the task
done. These tasks are often associated with male roles, public activities, the economy, or politics.
These can also be used to refer to the type of society. Social action and interaction in early forms of
society were more likely to be characterized by expressive characteristics. In contrast, in modern
societies, with a more complex division of labour and differentiation of statuses and roles, much of
social action and interaction is characterized by instrumental characteristics.

3.2.1.4. Critiques against the Modernization School of Thought

Although the modernization thinking has been influential in areas of academics and policy making,
it has been criticized by different theories at different times. Some of the major criticisms waged
against the modernization school are the following.

One of the structural problems of the modernization theory was that it has uncritically accepted the
relations between the North and the South. It visualized the North as culturally, politically and
economically modern. As a result, it is racist.

A related critic argues that modernization theory is Eurocentric. It draws too heavily on American
experience and tends to look at the world from an American point of view.

It was too optimistic and simplistic. The proponents of the modernization theory expected that
countries of the South can easily achieve greater economic growth, equity, democracy, stability,
etc… simultaneously and smoothly. As it is observed from different experiences, economic growth
proved to be no guarantee to democracy and other elements of political development. This was
against the expectations of the modernization theory proponents.

Rostow‘s model in particular is ahistorical. Meaning it is not really historical. His stages of
economic growth do not actually reflect the reality of a single developed capitalist society.
Modernization theory made all poorer countries seem the same. But in reality, there is diversity
within this large category.

Modernization theory also wrongly assumes that a process of societal change that was open to one or
more societies in the past is open to all societies in the present or future. It blames only the internal
conditions of societies of the South for their lack of development. It disregarded the external factors
that have continued to hamper the development of these groups of countries.

The modernization theory blindly suggested that the western model of development is the only path
of development that the South should adopt. It ignored other alternative paths to development. The
other criticism is related to pattern variables. The critiques argue that there is no as such strict
dichotomy as far as behavior is concerned. There may be elements of traditional behaviors in
modern societies and there may also be modern behaviors in traditional societies. There is
interpenetration of behaviors.
Development Theories and Practices

3.3. The Marxian Concept of Development

Section Overview

This section will try to explore the Marxian conception of development. In this section, you will
learn how Karl Marx theorized the possibilities of development in a society. This section is further
divided in two sub-sections. Giving the general overview about the Marxian theory will be the major
task of the first sub- section. Economic theories of Marx will be elaborated in the next sub-section.

3.3.1. Marxism: A General Overview

In 1867 Karl Marx published Das Kapital (The Capital), a work that systematically and historically
analyzed the capitalist system. His theories would provide much of the material for arguments that
have opposed development models based on capitalism and the laissez faire system. Marxism is the
best-known strand of structuralist thought. The ideology put forward by Karl Marx termed as
Communist Ideology advocates that history proceeds by means of a historical dialectic or clash of
opposing ideas (thesis versus anti-thesis) with a resulting new order (synthesis). Marxism also holds
that the economic material order determines political and social relationships. Thus, history, the
current situation, and the future are determined by the economic struggle, termed dialectical
materialism. Thus, the material dialectic was transformed from domestic class struggle into an
international struggle between bourgeois and proletariat. According to Marx, the state is a creation
and tool of the rich capitalist class and he holds that the state will no longer exist once communism
is fully realized.

3.3.2. Marxian view of Development

The Marxian view of development emphasizes the role of classes and class antagonism in society. In
this system, vested class interest can inhibit overall development of society. The question of poverty
in society is seen as the exploitation of the poor working class. Property relations in the society
create and accentuate the problem of poverty and development. Since land and other productive
assets are privately owned and concentrated in the hands of few, the problem of inequalities remains
unsolved. From a Marxist perspective, development is a process of class struggle.

9
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

3.3.3. The Continuous Struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat Class

Marx believed that just as the bourgeoisie (the capitalist middle class) had relied on revolutionary
movements to wrestle power from the nobility, so, too, could the working class, called the
"proletariat," eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the eventual fall of the bourgeoisie
was not only desirable, it was inevitable. He reached this conclusion based on his economic theory
of labor. Specifically, he developed the doctrine of surplus value. At the heart of the doctrine was the
conclusion that the worker was being robbed. The worker received only a fraction of the value of the
product which his labor produced. The remainder was kept by the capitalist class. This theft
eventually led to an economic crisis caused by overproduction-the vast majority of the population
could not afford to consume the products that the owners of capital produced.

The capitalist's answer to this problem was the continual creation of new markets. According to
Marx, the government was a tool used by capitalists to perpetuate them-selves in power. Marx saw
capitalism as an historical necessity because it was the most productive and flexible economic
system in human history. It could move capital and labor to meet demand faster than any of the
previous systems that it had replaced.

Does this mean that Marx accepted Capitalism as a System?

Absolutely not! Marx, however, refused to accept capitalism as the ultimate mode of production
(economic system). He believed the system was plagued with internal contradictions that would
inevitably lead to its destruction and replacement by a more advanced system. According to Marx,
the relations of production (the way people interact in a particular economic system) create different
economic classes. For example, under the feudal economic system, two classes existed: the nobility
and the peasantry. The dominant class, the nobility, created a system to maintain its position.
Religion, government, laws, and morals reflected the needs of the dominant class and were used to
perpetuate its position of power. As capitalism emerged, a new dominant class, the bourgeoisie,
began to appear. The nobles and the bourgeoisie eventually clashed and the latter was victorious.

Marx theorized the Inevitable Downfall of Capitalism

Marx believed that the advent of capitalism set in motion its own final downfall. He reasoned as
follows. The capitalist system cannot exist without workers. As more factories are built, more people
will be forced to work in them. Thus, under capitalism, the army of workers will continually expand.
With the expansion of capitalism around the world comes the global creation of a working class.

This system is ruthless, however. In order to survive, capitalists must continually strive to out
produce one another. But not all capitalists will be able to compete. Capital will become
concentrated in fewer hands. Those bourgeoisies that are unable to compete will be forced to join the
working class or perish. This process will continue until one day the proletariat masses will be able
to take control of the system by overthrowing the bourgeoisie, resulting in a classless society. No
new class will arise because class arises from economic differences, and capitalism will have
eliminated these differences by making everyone a proletariat.

10
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

Since the concepts of state, religion, morality, and laws were mechanisms to maintain class
differences, they, too, will disappear. Government will not be eliminated immediately, however. A
limited form of government (a proletariat dictatorship) will be put in place to prevent a possible
attack by any surviving bourgeoisie. This dictatorship will eventually become useless, and when it
does, it will "wither away." At this point, socialism will have been achieved.

For Marx economic development was tied to class struggle. Economic development could only be
achieved as a class; individual achievement was not emphasized. Trust in the government and
cooperation with its goals was also viewed as betrayals of the class struggle. The government's
involvement in social reform was nothing more than an attempt by the bourgeoisie to appease the
workers and thereby force them to abandon the struggle. Since the government reflects the will of
the dominant class, it would never enact any law benefiting the subservient class.

3.3.4. Economic Theories of Marx

The various economic theories he put forward are 1) The theory of work 2) The theory of self-
alienation 3) The labor theory of value and 4) the Theory of surplus value.

The Theory of Work

Marx believed that work is the way in which people might express their creativity. By interacting
with nature or labor individuals develop and change their own character. The essence of human
beings therefore, becomes closely related to work. To Marx, work is a form of self-creation. In other
words, the product of our labor is part of us and something of us is definitely there in the things we
produce through our work. For example, an academician gradually looks into whatever he or she
sees or experiences from an academic angle. It becomes part of the academician.

The Theory of Self-alienation

Human self-alienation occurs because of three factors. First work is a form of self-creativity it
should be enjoyable. Because the capitalists squeeze every cent of profit from the workers, they
make the conditions of work intolerable. Hence instead of enjoying the work, the members of the
proletariat grow to hate the very process by which they could refine their own work. Consequently
they become alienated from their own selves. Secondly, as capitalists exploit the workers in order to
produce profit they force the workers to sell their product and then use that product against the
workers to exploit them further. This forces the workers to regard their own product as alien and
even harmful to them. Thirdly, the capitalists are criticized for mechanizing production because this
process robs laborers of their skills and reduces them to little more than feeders of machines. This is
the ultimate alienation. In the third factor, Marx claims that socialism was the coming economic
system and that it could produce even more than capitalism which is paradoxical.

11
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

The Labor Theory of Value

This theory is concerned with the intrinsic worth of an object. Value is a complex concept. The value
most modern economists are concerned with is the exchange value of an item that is the amount of
money one can get for an item in the market. Sentimental value is another kind of worth. Sometimes
there is sentiment attached to a product although the market value of it would be high. Use value is
the third measure of worth. Even if the sentimental value is low and the market value is high, the
product serves the purpose. Esthetic value is yet another measure. The gracefulness of beauty of an
old building may far exceed its commercial value or its usefulness. The labor theory of value is
concerned with establishing a standard for measuring intrinsic value. It assumes that there are two
kinds of value brought to the production process. Resources, machinery, and finance are one which
is termed as constant value. These when applied to the production of an item cannot add any value
greater than their-own intrinsic worth. The labor is the only variable value because only labor
produces something of greater worth than itself. Hence Marx pays tribute to the genius of human
creativity. A watch can be produced by a machine but until human creativity is there the watch will
not be a good one. Therefore, the intrinsic value of an object is determined by the amount of labor or
human creativity needed to produce it. The price of an object is determined by supply and demand.
However, the value of the project is determined by the labor time needed for its production.

Theory of Surplus Value

This theory is based on the labor theory of value, which is Marx‘s most important discovery.
Capitalism enslaves the proletariat because people have to work to survive while the capitalist has a
monopoly on the means of production. Hence the workers must sell their labor at whatever price the
capitalist will pay. The capitalists will pay their workers only subsistence wages just enough to feed
themselves and their families because that much is necessary to bring them back to work the next
day. Thus the capitalists pay only meager wages regardless of how much value they may produce.
The capitalists by this method force workers to produce an excess, or surplus value, and they keep
that sum for themselves as profits. Actually, this surplus value belongs to the labors. But since it is
not given to them, the capitalists are exploitative. They are parasites that live by sucking the
economic lifeblood of the proletariat and must be erased from the society when the proletariat takes
over. Marx did not oppose capital as such but he rejected the capitalist. He did not condemn profit,
he opposed private profit. He knew that capital was necessary for production, but he rejected the
notion that it should be controlled by private individuals. Capital was created by all and it should be
owned by all.

Does this mean Marx oppose surplus value?

Absolutely not! Marx certainly did not oppose creating surplus value to be used to invest in
increased productivity. What he argued to was that private citizens should not be allowed to
monopolize the means of production and use that power to force workers – the creators of value to
surrender their goods in order to survive. In other words, no one should be allowed to profit from the
labor of another.

Marxism characterizes capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production and the
existence of wage labor. It believes that capitalism is driven by capitalists striving for profit and
capital accumulation in a competitive market economy.
12
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

Labor has been disposed and has become a commodity that is subject to the price mechanism. In
Marx‘s view these two key characteristics of capitalism are responsible for its dynamic nature and
make it the most productive economic mechanism yet. Although its historic mission is to develop
and unify the globe, the very success of capitalism will speed up its passing.

The origin, evolution, and eventual demise of the capitalist mode of production are, according to
Marx, governed by three inevitable economic laws.

The first law, the law of disproportionality, entails a denial of Say‘s law, which (in oversimplified
terms) holds that supply creates its own demand so that supply and demand will always be, except
for brief moments, in balance. Say‘s law maintains that an equilibrating process makes
overproduction impossible in a capitalist or market economy. Marx, like John Maynard Keynes,
denied that this tendency toward equilibrium existed and argued that capitalist economies tend to
overproduce particular types of goods. There is, Marx argued, an inherent contradiction in capitalism
between its capacity to produce goods and the capacity of consumers (wage earners) to purchase
those goods so that the constantly recurring disproportionality between production and consumption
due to the ‗anarchy‘ of the market causes periodic depressions and economic fluctuations. He
predicted that these recurring economic crises would become increasingly severe and in time would
impel the suffering proletariat to rebel against the system.

The second law propelling the development of a capitalist system, according to Marxism, is the law
of the concentration (or accumulation) of capital. The motive force of capitalism is the drive for
profits and the consequent necessity for the individual capitalist to accumulate and invest.
Competition forces the capitalists to increase their efficiency and capital investment or risk
extinction.

3.4. The International Dependency Revolution

Section Overview

This section will discuss the theories under the international dependence revolution. During the
1970‘s, international dependence model gained increasing support especially among Third World
intellectuals as a result of a growing disappointment with the modernization theories. This is because
these are theories of underdevelopment. Within this general approach, there are three major streams
of thought. Accordingly, this section is further divided in to three sub-sections. The dependency
theory and its theoretical viewpoints on development will be explained in the first sub-section. The
second sub-section is about the false paradigm model and its views on development. The last part is
about the dualistic-development model.

3.4.1. The Dependency Theory

Whereas the modernization sets itself to theorize and explain as to what make the North rich and
what the South has to do to become rich, the task of dependency theory is to give explanations as to
what made the North rich and what kept the South poor. The dependency theory tries to analyze and
explain the extent to which the political economies of the South have been exploited and by a global
economy dominated by the advanced capitalist countries.

13
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
The principal tenet of the dependency theory is that underdevelopment is not a stage on the road to a
capitalist society, but a condition or symptom of capitalist domination.

Focuses of the Dependency Theory

The dependency theory focuses on the unequal economic and political exchange that takes place
between the developed capitalist countries (described as the ‗core‘) and the South (described as the
‗periphery‘). Proponents of this theory strongly believe that the economies of the periphery are
conditioned by and dependent up on the development and expansion of the economies of the core.
The cause of the backwardness of the periphery is the dynamics and contradictory growth of the
world‘s capitalist system. Whenever there is growth in one part of the world, it is compounded by
backwardness of the other. This is the contradiction in the growth of world capitalist system. Just as
development in one part of the world goes hand in hand with underdevelopment in another, so
underdevelopment in the periphery has contributed to further development of the core.

Challenges of Dependency Theory against the Modernization Theory

The dependency theory challenges the most fundamental assumptions of the modernization theory.
The modernization theory believes that some people are destined to develop, whereas others are
destined to be poor. But this assumption is refuted by dependency theory in the sense that
underdevelopment does not result from some original state of affair. The same world historical
process that enabled the North to develop has also underdeveloped others.

The dependency theory also rejects the claim that the peripheries should follow the same path of
development pursued by the core. It is argued that there were particular political and economic
conditions that enabled the core to industrialize which was based on the domination and exploitation
of natural and human resources in the West colonies. Whereas, the core development was based up
on expanding resource bases in the colonies, societies of the periphery are confined with very limited
resource base for development. The process of colonialism integrated the periphery into the world
division of labor by which the major function of the South remained in the production of raw
materials for the European industries. This had facilitated industrialization in the core at the expense
of the periphery.

The Assumptions Shared by many Dependency Theorists

There are many perspectives that are included in the dependency theory. But certain ideas that are
common to the majority of the proponents of dependency theory are the following.

Underdevelopment is closely connected with the expansion of industrialized capitalist countries.

Development and underdevelopment are different aspects of the same universal process. That
universal process is the expansion of industrial capitalism and the creation of the world division of
labor. In this division of labor, countries of the periphery are forced to remain in the production of
primary commodities and the core to remain major producers of manufactured commodities.
Underdevelopment cannot be considered as the original state of affair. It is something created by the
domination and exploitation of the South by the North.

14
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
The relation between the Core and the Periphery: This has created a dependent relationship
between the core and the periphery. This dependence has three major features. These are:

The technological dependence: Most of the technologies required for development are produced in
the West. The countries of the North determine the price and availability of these technologies. But
most of these technologies are capital intensive and expensive. The Third world countries have no
option except to borrow financial capital to obtain these technologies. This makes them dependent
on external economic forces that are beyond their control. This ultimately weakens the aspiration of
development.

The South relies up on foreign investment for a number of reasons: This is to accelerate the
development process, to access new technologies and to gain new markets. These have forced
countries of the South to adopt export-led economic policies and strategies. They are also forced to
produce cheap food for export, cheap raw materials and cheap cash crops.

The relation of the core and the periphery in neo-colonialism has created an international
division of labor. In this division, the core remains the major producer and exporter of manufactured
goods and the South to remain in the production and export of primary goods. As a result, there is
unequal exchange between these groups of countries. The terms of trade, therefore always benefits
the core at the expense of the periphery. This has helped the North to become richer and richer and
has made the South poorer and poorer from time to time.

Generally, the dependency theory attributes the existence and continuance of Third World
underdevelopment primarily to the historical evolution of highly unequal North-South relationships.
Underdevelopment is, therefore seen as an externally induced phenomenon.

3.4.2. Suggested Solution for Third World Society’s Development

Some dependency theorists also argue that the only way for the Third World societies to break out of
the circle of underdevelopment is to pursue a policy of import substitution strategy as a means of
autonomous capitalist development. This means developing indigenous industries in order to prevent
the need import manufactured goods. However, efforts to implement a policy of import substitution
have not proved to be successful. Because of this reason, many dependency theorists asserted that
only revolutionary struggles or at least major restructuring of the world capitalist system are
therefore required to free dependent Third World nations from direct and indirect economic control
of Western industrialized nations. Some like Samir Amin advocated a self-reliant development
strategy.

3.4.2.1. The False Paradigm Model

This model of development attributes Third World underdevelopment to faulty and inappropriate
advices provided by well-meaning but often uniformed, biased, and ethnocentric international expert
advises from developed country assistance agencies and multinational donor organizations. These
experts offer sophisticated concepts and elegant theoretical structures that often lead to
inappropriate or incorrect policies. While in government policy discussions too much emphasis
is given to such concepts and theoretical structures, desirable institutional and structural reforms are
neglected or given only cursory attentions.

15
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

3.4.2.2. The Dualistic-development Thesis

Dualism is a concept that represents the existence and persistence of increasing divergences between
the rich and the poor nations and rich and the poor people on various levels. Specifically, the concept
of dualism embraces four key elements. These are:

Different sets of conditions, of which some are ‗superior‘, and others ‗inferior‘ can coexist in a given
space. Examples of this element of dualism include the coexistence of modern and traditional
methods of production in urban and rural sectors.

This coexistence is chronic and not merely transitional. The international coexistence of wealth and
poverty is not simply a historical phenomenon that will be rectified in time.

Not only do the degree of ‗superiority‘ or ‗inferiority‘ fail to show any signs of diminishing, but they
even have an inherent tendency to increase from time to time.

The interrelations between the ‗superior‘ and the ‗inferior‘ elements are such that the existence of
the superior element does little of nothing to pull up the inferior element, let alone trickle-down to it.
In fact, it may actually serve to push it down to develop its underdevelopment.

3.4.3. Critical Comments on International Dependency Revolution

The international dependency revolution has been enthusiastically by scholar of Third World. This
school of thought suggested that underdevelopment is not the fault of the least developed
countries. It is rather the problem of foreign domination and exploitation. The dependency theory in
particular helped to the redefinition of the concept of economic development to have a wider
perspective. Whereas the modernization theories focused on economic growth, the dependency
theories give emphasis to the importance of the redistribution of economic wealth and social
justice. Important pillars of the western establishments like the World Bank reoriented their focus on
growth and redistribution which has never existed in their activities.

Despite such praises, the different theories of the international dependency school of thought are
criticized. Among the dominant criticisms, the following are the major ones. These theories
attributed all the Third World‘s problems to the external economic factors. They have never been in-
ward looking.

Modernization theories have always been optimists about the possibilities of development in the
South. But theories within the International dependency theory school of thought have remained
pessimists about the possibilities of development in the South. Actually they have their own reasons.
Andre Gunder Frank, for example argued that Third World nations produce non-industrial goods and
ruled by unrepresentative governments; they are doomed to continue to be backward.

16
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
3.5. The Neo-Liberal Counterrevolution

Section Overview

This section is about the neo-liberal counterrevolution. It will explain and analyze the neo-liberal
economic doctrine and assess its relevance to the situation of the economies of the Third World
countries.

3.5.1. An Overview of Neo-Liberal Counterrevolution

The establishment of neo-liberalism as the new development orthodoxy/convention is part of a

profound shift in power in the global political economy. The economic liberalism that had become
the dominant global discourse of development after the industrial revolution was regarded with great
skepticism. The loss of faith in economic liberalism was also a crisis of capitalist hegemony, in
which the fundamentals upon which capitalism depended were challenged and denied.

After the last quarter of the 20th Century, however, liberal principles were reasserted. The re-
imposition of the liberal principles-or neo-liberal revolution was accompanied by a restructuring of
the relationship between capital and the state, and between the state and society, with the aim of
restoring the unregulated operation of the market forces.

3.5.2. The Major Argument of the Neo-liberal Counterrevolution

The central argument of the neo-liberal counterrevolution is that underdevelopment results from
poor resource allocation due to incorrect pricing policies and too much government intervention.
Many writers of this school of thought like Peter Bauer Deepak Lal and Ian Little argue that it is this
very state intervention in economic activity that slows the pace of economic growth. Adopting free
market policies will guide efficient resource allocation and stimulate economic development.
Liberalization (opening up) of national market draws additional domestic and foreign investment and
thus increases the rate of capital accumulation, which is important for economic development. They
argue that by permitting free market to flourish, privatizing state owned enterprises, promoting free
trade and export expansion, attracting investors, and avoiding the plethora of government
intervention and regulation, both economic efficiency and economic growth will be stimulated.

It was then possible by the 1990 for the World Bank to claim a consensus in favor of market-
friendly policies. This new doctrine overturns the assumptions from which development studies
emerge that domestic and international policies that worked against market forces were essential to
bring about development. It virtually abolishes the idea of development as a specific concern, in
favor of a universal set of prescriptions applied to developing and developed economies alike.

3.5.3. The role of Government as Envisioned by the Neo-liberal Counterrevolution

This economic doctrine assigns governments (states) having a limited economic role. The theory
argues that the state should provide certain fundamental public goods such as police protection,
national defense, judicial and educational services, and physical infrastructures (road, railways,
airports, etc) when only when the private capital is incapable of providing these services. The state
otherwise should have a secondary role.

17
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
The theory believes that most Third World governments injured their economies by moving far
beyond these limited roles, i.e. governments excessively intervene in the economy. Free market
forces should determine production decisions, and should set prices without government
intervention. Because of the influence this theory has, governments of the South have been forced to
liberalized their and economies by deregulating the private sector, removing trade barriers, freeing
prices, reducing subsidies to consumers and privatizing state enterprises.

Moreover, the doctrine of neo-liberal counterrevolution believes in international economy and

international trade. It argues that if Third World countries opt to modernize and develop, they have
to take part in the international economy on the basis of their comparative advantage. By so doing,
this theory advocated the pursuit of open-door policies towards trade and investment. It is in this
way that Third World countries would receive technology, capital inputs and finance.

3.6. Alternative Development and Post-Development

Section Overview

This section explores the concepts of alternative development and post-development. It is further
divided in two sub-sections. The first section explains the major issues in alternative development.
The second sub-section examines the concept of post-development.

3.6.1. Alternative Development

The Major Concern of Alternative Development

Development is an economic, social and political process which results in a cumulative rise in the
perceived standard of living for an increasing proportion of a population. The theory of alternative
development is concerned with how the living condition of the poor be improved. The failure of
other major theories of development to address poverty and improve the living condition of the poor
necessitates developing another way of thinking. That is alternative development.

Alternative development begins from criticizing mainstream development theories, which include the
modernization theory, the dependency theory, the Marxian theory and the neo-liberal doctrine. Most of
the theories of development have failed to bring the desired change due to the following major reasons.
These are:

 Their emphasis on rapid cumulative growth which was not accompanied by equity: Most of them
were urban biased because of their single-minded emphasis on industrialization. But majority of
the poor live in rural areas.
 Because of their emphasis on industrial growth, they are not environmentally friendly.
 They emphasize on the quantities aspect of life, not the qualitative aspect of.
 They also focus on reducing the economic gap between the rich and poor countries. Reducing the
gap between the rich and poor people within the society is ignored.
Alternative development is an attempt to come up with a new humanistic, people centered and pro-
poor development thinking as a response to these failures. Alternative development places high
emphasis on people‘s autonomy, empowerment, local self-reliance, environmental sustainability and
direct participatory democracy. By doing so, alternative development is concerned with improving
the quality of living of the poor by empowering the power. It is also concerned with introducing
alternative development practices and redefining the goals of development so that development is
geared toward improving the qualitative aspect of life.

18
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)

3.6.1.1. The Different Approaches that can be included in Alternative Development

Alternative development has a multiplicity of different approaches. These approaches have been
popular in different policy decisions and in different international organizations. These approaches
include:

 Redistribution growth
 Basic needs strategy
 Human development
 Women in development/Gender in development
 Sustainable development
Now let us briefly dwell on these approaches turn by turn.

Redistribution Growth

The World Bank was a key advocator of this approach. The Bank made an assessment that there had
been growth, rise in productivity, higher growth rate per capita GNP in underdeveloped countries. In
spite of this growth, however, poverty and inequality have not been changed. Those who were poor
remained poor and even much poorer. Because of this, the World Bank began to advocate a
redistribution growth strategy.

Redistribution growth strategy involves identification of who are the poor and where are they, and
formulation of policy packages specifically targeting the poor, particularly the rural poor. The
adoption of a policy of integrated rural development package is one manifestation of the
redistribution growth strategy.

Redistribution growth is an incremental approach dictating that resources should be diverted to the
poor by trying to increase their productive capacity so that their income would rise and by providing
socio-economic services which the poor cannot afford to buy like education.

Basic Needs Strategy

The redistribution growth strategy was replaced by a basic needs strategy because it did not bring
about changes as expected. The basic needs approach has the idea that development has to focus on
the satisfaction of basic needs. Institutions like International Labor Organization (ILO) had been
advocating this approach. According to the ILO classification, basic needs involve two major
elements. These are:

 The satisfaction of minimum requirements of food, cloth and shelter

 The satisfaction of essential services like pure drinking water, education, health, public
transport, etc…
In addition to these elements, human rights like civil and political, and socio-economic rights (like
land ownership right) of citizens were included. There was recognition that there has to be
empowerment in decision making of groups who are socially marginalized like women.

19
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
Human Development

It is an approach developed by a Pakistan economist called Muhbud Ul Haq who was once the head
of the UNDP. This approach argues that development as a practice has to focus on increasing human
capacity (potential). To measure human development, the proponents of human development
approach came up with a measurement called Human Development Index (HDI). This measurement
is based on human development indicators like life expectancy, literacy rates and purchasing power
of the people.

Women in Development/Gender in Development

These approaches focus on the role of gender in socio-economic development. They argue that the
contribution of women in socio-economic development is totally ignored. Therefore, the
contributions of women in development activities have to be added in development measures. Policy
packages have to be implemented that focus on the contribution of women in development.

Sustainable Development

There is a realization that development in general and industrialization in particular have brought
about changes in the environment. Production is expensive and consumes a lot. The accelerated
development of countries is damaging the environment in one way or another. Economic growth is
being promoted at the expense of the environment and thereby affecting the future generation. By
definition, sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present generation
without compromising the abilities of future generations to meet their own needs.

Nowadays, many argue that if all countries become industrialized, the planet earth does not have the
capacity to support such development. Therefore, development has to take in to consideration the
environment for future generations. There should not be development at the expense of future
generations. Generally, the strength of alternative development is its regard for local development
and social agency from grass root groups and social movements to non-governmental organizations
(NGOs). The most important elements of alternative development are participation and
empowerment.

3.6.2. Post-Development

Post-development is a criticism of development and a development theory arising in the 1980s that
holds that all 'development' is a reflection of Western/Northern hegemony over the rest of the world.
It criticizes the idea and discourse of development.

The logic behind post-development refers to development as both on the ground development and
development theory, and follows as such: Development theory is held to be generated by academia in
tandem with political ideology. The academic-political nature of development theory means it tends
to be policy oriented, problem driven, but efficacious relative to most social theory. On the ground
development is initiated by both governments and NGOs according to the advice of development
theory. But development theory needs to follow framework set in place by government and political
culture. There is then a strong socially constructed aspect to development theory; where Western
interests are guiding how that knowledge is generated. This would mean that development reflects a
pattern of Western hegemony.

20
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
Does this mean that post-development is anti-development?

Absolutely not! A post-development approach is not anti-development; rather, it is a political

acknowledgement of the injustices and unequal power relationships of the practice of development,
and a view that development cannot offer sufficient tools for transformation. Instead, it suggests
resistance to globalization provided by grassroots organizations and non- governmental
organizations, alternative forms of livelihood, and local forms of knowledge and practice.

3.6.2.1. Position of Post-development Thinking toward Development

A number of theorists challenged the very meaning of development. According to them, the way we
understand development is rooted in colonial discourse depicting the North as advanced and
progressive and the South as backward, degenerate and primitive. They point out that a new way of
thinking about development began in 1949 when President Harry Truman declared: ―The old
imperialism—exploitation for foreign profit—has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a
program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealings.‖ While claiming that the
‗era of development‘ began at this point, post-development theorists do not suggest that the concept
of development was new. What was new was to define development in terms of escaping from
underdevelopment. Since the latter referred to two-thirds of the world, this meant that the most of the
world had to define themselves as having fallen into an undignified condition called
underdevelopment and to look outside their cultures for salvation. Development, according to them,
was now a euphemism used to refer to United States hegemony, and it was ideals and programs from
the perspective of the United States and its (Western) European allies which would form the basis of
development everywhere.

Leading members of the post-development school argue that development was always unjust, never
worked, and has now clearly failed. The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual
landscape and it is time to dismantle this mental structure.

What is this mental structure?

To cite an example, they would point how the concept of global poverty is entirely a modern
construct. The idea that we can measure poverty at the level of entire nations and hence label certain
countries as poor on the basis of their GNP (Gross National Product) per capita is quite new. While
in pre-industrial societies, poverty applied to certain individuals and generally did not carry any
implications of personal inadequacy, with the advent of modernity entire nations and continents were
led to believe that they were poor, and in need of assistance, only because their per capita income
was below a universally established minimum.

3.6.2.2. The Assumption of the Post-development Thinking

Among the starting points and basic assumptions of post-development is the idea that a middle-
class, ‗Western-style‘ of life and all that goes with it, is not a realistic or a desirable goal for the
majority of world‘s population. In this sense, development is seen as requiring the loss of indigenous
culture, or environmentally and psychologically rich rewarding modes of life. Formerly satisfactory
ways of life become dissatisfying because development changes the self- perception of people.

21
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
Development is also seen as a set of knowledge, interventions and worldviews (in short, discourses)
which are also powers-to intervene, transform and to rule. Related to the concept of postcolonial
criticisms, post-development is, above all, a critique of the standard assumption about progress as to
who possesses the key to it and how it may be implemented.

Post-development also challenges the notion of a single path to development and demands
acknowledgment of diversity of perspective and priorities. The politics of defining and satisfying
needs is a crucial dimension of development thought, to which the concept of agency is central. In
other words, who voices development concerns, what power relations are played out, how do
development experts‘ (World Bank, IMF officials, etc.) interests rule the development priorities, and
which voices gets excluded as a result? Post-development attempts to overcome the inequality by
opening up spaces for the agency of non-Western peoples.

Do the proponents of post-development deny the need for change?

Absolutely not! Post-development does not deny the need for change. What they argue is that in
order for change to be undertaken differently, it needs to be conceived literally in different terms.
While social change has probably always been part of the human experience, it was only within the
European modernity that ‗society‘, i.e. the whole way of life of people, was open to empirical
analysis and made the subject of planned change. And while communities in the Third World may
find that there is a need for some sort of organized or directed change-in part to reverse the damage
done by development-this undoubtedly will not take the form of designing life or social engineering.
In this long run, this means that categories and meanings have to be redefined.

What is to be done directly?

Some admit that it may be true that majority of people whose life has in fact greatly deteriorated do
want change. But the answer they suggest is not development but the ―end of development.‘ The end
of development should not be seen as an end to the search for new possibilities of change, for a
relational world of friendship, or for genuine processes of regeneration able to give birth to new
forms of solidarity. It should also mean that the inhumane and the ultimately destructive approach to
change is over. It should represent a call to the good people everywhere to think and work together.‖

Critics have complained that post-development is not really beyond or outside of development
discourses. Post-development is merely the latest version of a set of criticisms that have long been
evident within writing and thinking about development. Development has always been about
choices, with losers, and winners.

There are a number of more fundamental objections to post-development school. The first is that it
overstates its case. For, to reject all development, is also seen as rejection of the possibility for
material advancement and transformation. Or it is to ignore the tangible transformations, in life
chances, health and material well-being that has been evident in parts of the Third World.

22
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)
Unit Summary

The different theories presented in this particular unit are basically divided on the issue of how to
bring development and what causes the underdevelopment of the economies of Third World
countries. Some theories attributed the underdevelopment of these groups of countries merely to
internal factors, while others attributed to external factors. Such finger pointing on both sides is a
common theoretical debate.

The arguments that support a staged wise and free market based economic growth believe that these
can be a better efficient in resource allocation and economic growth. The problem is that many Third
World economies are so different in structure and organization from their western counterparts that
the behavioral assumptions and policy percepts of western theories are sometimes questionable and
often incorrect. Competitive market do not simply exist; and given the institutional, cultural and
historical context of many least developed countries, these competitive markets would not
necessarily be desirable for long term economic and social perspective. It is not, therefore simply an
either-or-question to choose appropriate policy action. Rather it is a matter of assessing each
individual country‘s situation on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, each of these theories and
approaches to understand development has something to offer.

23
Development Theories and Practices (WKU, CSSH, Department of Civics and Ethical Studies 2015)