Development Studies: Socio-economic Development from an Interdisciplinary Perspective

Saleha Erdmann

home

my major

basics of development

life experience

papers

annotated bibliography

development web

web links

senior project

helpful people

The Birth of the Development Paradigm

IS: Culture-Economics--Chiappari, November 2004

The end of World War II ushered in a new era of global activity. As the world vowed not to never let such atrocities be repeated, a new system was created to rebuild what the world wars had destroyed and unite the international community. The United States and European nations led this movement and what emerged was a series of plans, theories and relationships that constitute what is now considered “development,” creating the foundation for our current global political structure. Under this new paradigm, development took on a life of its own, quickly evolving into perceived fact instead of social construct (Escobar, 5). Where development was once considered a politically created process it became seen as the natural course a nation must follow to become a desirable reflection of the Western model. While the development paradigm certainly solidified in the post-World War II era it was “not born into a vacuum (Schech and Haggis, 8)” but had deep historical roots. The development paradigm was conditioned by extensive contact with Western schools of thought and structures, specifically colonialism, leading up to the end of the world wars. Despite lack of consensus on the definition and purpose of development today, it has clearly become a stubborn fixture in our contemporary institutions. In order to understand the significant role of development in today’s society, it is necessary to understand where development has been and what preceded it.

European scholars identified development processes as early as the18 th century, explain Schech and Haggis, but the ideological foundation for development discourse came out of the Enlightenment in the 19 th century. Simplistically put, the Enlightenment emphasized reason, science and freedom (Schech and Hagin, 3-5). These ideals were applied in a highly ethnocentric fashion by European powers in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and used to rationalize their perceived superiority over the rest of the world. European colonialism is a prime example.

Philip McMichael, a prominent development scholar, defines colonialism as, “the subjugation by physical and psychological force of one culture by another—a colonizing power—through military conquest of territory (McMichael, 5).” European colonialism completely restructured the societies that it colonized. Pre-colonial societies were often “highly skilled in resource management and production to satisfy their material needs…generally did not produce a surplus beyond what was required of their immediate needs, and they organized cooperatively (McMichael, 9).” This contrasted the specialized and aggressive economies of Europe, which manipulated colonialism as a vehicle for nationalism, proof of military power and most importantly, a source of materials for European economic growth and industrialization. The colonial powers—Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands profoundly reorganized the societies that they imposed their colonial institutions upon. Schech and Haggis write that colonialism was the early laboratory for development theories—“a convenient workshop in which to invent and try out the new development doctrines (Schech and Haggis, 7).” Thus, while the development paradigm was yet to be articulated, its seeds had already been planted via the colonial system. According to McMichael, the outcomes of colonialism included cultural genocide or marginalization of indigenous groups, extraction of resources—human and non-human—to benefit the colonial power and an elaboration of ideologies that justified colonialism (McMichael, 5). This created an international division of labor under which the European powers extracted raw materials and cheap labor from the colonies, forcing non-Europeans into primary production, which undermined indigenous activities and altered the structure of indigenous agriculture (McMichael, 8-9). Meanwhile, in Europe the raw materials imported from the colonies were used to industrialize, a process that worsened the conditions of the European poor. Under colonialism indigenous people experienced extreme ethnic violence against them, gender roles were redefined, agriculture shifted to large-scale monoculture, land was divided by arbitrary political boundaries that ignored preexisting social and political groups, ethnic differences were exaggerated and conflict incited, Christianity displaced native religions and beliefs, and indigenous lifestyles as a whole were degraded and alienated. Under these conditions it was difficult for indigenous cultures to maintain material and cultural integrity (McMichael, 6).

After World War II a wave of independence swept the colonies. Decolonization gave the former colonies official control over their newly created nation states, but colonization had already established unequal relationships of power and dependencies and had undermined the skills and confidence of indigenous people to run their own countries. While the end of World War II saw the spread of decolonization, the global hegemony did not end. Even when postcolonial governments exercised certain degrees of control it was rarely on their own terms. “Newly independent states emerged, and political leaders had to operate in an international framework that was not of their making, but through which they needed political legitimacy (McMichael, 7).” New states were clearly at a disadvantage—colonialism had redesigned their societies to benefit the economic transformation of Europe and not to sustain the indigenous populations it exploited.

The post-war era gave rise to new vocabulary, new institutions and new plans that all fell under the guidance of the development project. This paradigm imposed economic values onto social systems, saw development as a unidirectional linear path and held up the Euro-American countries as the ideal (and inevitable) end result (So, 18). Ethnocentric and economically focused values were nothing new to the Western world, but in the post-war era these views cumulated into an influential new theory—modernization theory. In his book Social Change and Development Alvin So reviews different theories of development in depth. According to So, modernization theory emerged in the 1950’s in response to three main factors: the rise of the United States as a superpower, the strengthening of the world communist movement and the collapse of colonial systems (So, 17). Schech and Haggis add that modernization theory was a response to the state of the postcolonial Third World (Schech and Haggis, 8) and Escobar also emphasizes the West’s new perception of its neighbors, “One of the many changes that occurred in the early post-World War II period was the ‘discovery’ of mass poverty in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Escobar, 21).” All these factors contributed to the formulation of modernization theory. Along their linear spectrum of what was considered modern and not modern theorists placed the Western countries at the end point and assigned it a positive value: “The ultimate goal was to achieve Western levels of affluence (McMichael, 33).” Modernization theorists proposed that the West would do the rest of the world a favor by exporting its superior modern institutions. The transition that the Third World was expected to undergo was predicted to be a revolutionary process that completely restructured their societies (Schech and Haggis, 11, Escobar, 4).

Modernization was to be achieved by economic growth, which in turn was to be achieved through national industrialization, urbanization, foreign aid, foreign investment, and neoliberal economic policies in general (Escobar, 39-41, So, 29-30, Schech and Haggis, 11). These outcomes came to be understood as development. Achieving these economic goals often required an overhaul of political institutions (Schech and Haggis, 11) and the shifted focus from agriculture to industry drastically reorganized social structures (McMichael, 31). So writes that the major results of modernization theory were: the justification for the “asymmetrical power relationship between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ societies,” the push for economic development, displacement of traditional values, institutionalization of democracy, and the legitimization of United States foreign aid and policy (So, 36). Modernization theory permeated policy and programs of the time and even up to the present. Today, Schech and Haggis still write, “Modernization theories are the most widespread and persistent theories of development (Schech and Haggis, 9).”

Modernization theory was influential in the creation of global institutions as well American policy. At the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944 world leaders met to address the reconstruction of the global economy with a focus on the recovery of Europe that pushed the fate of non-Western countries to the periphery. Out of this conference emerged two new multilateral financial institutions—the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank was meant to specifically fund development projects that would build infrastructure and encourage large-scale cash-crop agriculture through grants and loans (McMichael, 48-49). The IMF on the other hand gave credit to any country in attempts to stabilize currency and trade and foment national economic growth (McMichael, 47-48). While the IMF was not specifically designed to fund development, the lending policies of both institutions shaped the course of development.

A new perception of the world came out of the post-war era and was defined by a new set of vocabulary that reinforced the boundaries between the former colonial powers and their subjects. Terms like First, Second and Third World and developed and underdeveloped segregated the planet into the haves and the have-nots. Until then the difference between Western and non-Western nations had not been so dramatically defined. This new language ignored the diversity of the Third World by lumping all non-Western countries into a single category that was characterized by impoverishment and helplessness (Escobar, 6). A 1949 speech by president Harry Truman was the first to divide up the world in terms of the “developed and underdeveloped” states. His speech implied that development was a linear process that all countries could follow to eventually achieve the wealth and lifestyle of the First World (McMichael, 24).

I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the aspiration for a better life…What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealings…Greater production is the key to prosperity and peace. And the key to greater production is a wider and more vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge (Truman, cited in Escobar, 3).

For many scholars, Truman’s speech marked the beginning of the development era. Esteva writes that,

Underdevelopment began, then, on January 20, 1949. On that day, two billion people became underdeveloped. In a real sense, from that time on, they ceased being what they were, in all their diversity, and were transmogrified into an inverted mirror of others’ reality:…a mirror that defines their identity…simply in terms of the homogenizing and narrow minority (cited in McMichael, 24).

Escobar writes that this new language afforded the Euro-American states a kind of spatial-power that delineated them as the superior side of a geographical dualism (Escobar, 9).

United States foreign policy was simultaneously influenced by and an influence on modernization theory. Despite Truman’s lofty rhetoric, Escobar argues that the United States’ involvement in development at that time was meant to improve its own economic interests, not to aid “peace-loving peoples” (Escobar, 32-33). Truman’s plan for transforming the newly baptized “developing” nations required mainly capital, science and technology—a resurfacing of Enlightenment ideals. Under the Marshall Plan the United States transferred billions of dollars to other countries to foment development (McMichael, 46). However, the focus was clearly on transforming Europe—by 1953 the Marshall Plan had provided an impressive $41.3 billion to the First World but only $3 billion to the Third World (McMichael, 46). Thus began a pattern of preaching development to the Third World but demonstrating a clear priority for Western nations. Escobar points out that while the Marshall Plan affected Third World countries, there were lesser programs that specifically addressed the non-Western states. One was Truman’s Point Four Program, which sought to introduce modern technology and capital to these underdeveloped nations (Escobar, 36). However, the Marshall Plan took clear precedence over all other programs of assistance to other countries.

Just as colonialism had restructured the Third World, the development paradigm sought to restructure it again. Thus while a whole new system defined global relationships in the post-war era, a colonial like power structure endured and was reinforced by the spread of Western values. In the development era the Third World was often perceived as a child in need of parenting by “modern” societies. This perception became embedded in the Third World, which “began to think of themselves as inferior, underdeveloped, and ignorant and to doubt the value of their own culture, deciding instead to pledge allegiance to the banners of reason and progress (Escobar, 52),” writes Escobar. However, the Third World did not always passively accept the Western standards imposed upon it. Escobar is correct in that much of the Third World did take on an inferiority complex, but there were also cases of resistance in which states sought to define their own development path. For example, India spearheaded the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which refused to side with either the First or Second World in the Cold War. India did, however still operate within the framework established by the former colonial powers (McMichael, 54).

The current and emerging development paradigms may differ drastically in many respects from the original development project. For example, concern for the environment is becoming increasingly present in development discourse and indigenous techniques are more and more incorporated into development strategies for specific regions. However, the original development project is still evident in current policies and programs. The development paradigm that emerged in the 1940’s and 1950’s was a reaction to the world wars and a new perception of development and underdevelopment, it was based in the context of Western values (strongly influenced by the Enlightenment), institutions and preexisting power relationships. Marginalized groups may be incorporated into development discourse more often, but the ethnocentric assumption that Western models are better is still prevalent. Perhaps it is true that democracy and free markets truly do make all humans better off, but we must understand that that perspective is not an objective one. This perspective has been conditioned by a value system that became deeply embedded in our society after World War II and was manifested in development discourse.

What has preceded is a rather cynical critique of the roots of development, and it should be pointed out that many scholars, politicians and economists are much more positive about the post-world war era. It is true, afterall, that it was a time of independence for many former colonies and saw the beginnings of the global human rights movement, as well as other positive outcomes. However, it cannot be overlooked that the development project drastically altered the social, political and economic structures of non-Western societies, resulting in at least as many negative consequences as positive ones. The spectrum of opinions on development is broad, as is illustrated by a brief survey of development literature: Harvard economist Stephen Marglin entitled a 2003 article, “Development as Poison” while Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in economics, entitled his 1999 book Development as Freedom. However, whether one criticizes or supports the contemporary development paradigm, it is essential to recognize the socially constructed roots of development that continue to be influential today. It is impossible to achieve a greater understanding of contemporary development issues without their roots in history.

Works Cited

Escobar, Arturo. (1995). Encountering Development: the making and the unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Esteva, Gustavo. 1992. “Development.” Cited in McMichael, Philip. (2000). Development and Social Change: a global perspective, 2 nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Marglin, Stephen A. (Spring 2003). “Development as Poison, Rethinking the Western Model of Modernity.” Harvard International Review, pp. 70-75.

McMichael, Philip. (2000). Development and Social Change: a global perspective, 2 nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Schech, Susanne & Haggis, Janes. (2000). Culture and Development a critical introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.

Sen, Amartya. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

So, Alvin. 1990. Social Change and Development: modernization, dependency, and world-systems theories. Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA.

Truman, Harry. ([1949] 1964). “Public Papers of the President of the United States: Harry S. Truman. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Cited in Escobar, Arturo. (1995). Encountering Development: the making and the unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.