As noted in the previous lecture, the rapid
process of decolonization after the end of World War II created a need to think about
development as a project. Remember also that, at that time, the Soviet
model of economic development was perceived as a viable—indeed, an attractive—alternative
to American capitalism. Given the desire of the United States to court
allies among the newly emerging developing countries, it was essential for the United
States to be able to articulate a model of economic development. This void was filled by Modernization theory. And the importance of providing a model of
development in the context of the Cold War was articulated by WW Rostow, considered the
founder of Modernization theory, in his classic text The Stages of Economic Growth. Rostow subtitled his book "A Non-Communist
Manifesto," signaling his understanding of the importance of the broader Cold War context
in development thinking. Rostow argued that,
"It is possible to identify all societies, in their economic dimensions, as lying within
one of five categories: the traditional society, the pre-conditions for take-off, the take-off,
the drive to maturity, and the age of high mass consumption... When independent modern nationhood is achieved,
how should the national energies be disposed: in external aggression, to right old wrongs
or to exploit newly created or perceived possibilities for enlarged national power; in completing
and refining the political victory of the new national government over old regional
interests; or in modernizing the economy?" Rostow thus believed it was possible to classify
countries along a spectrum of development, with every country moving from one discrete
stage to the next. Aiding developing thus meant facilitating
the transition from one stage to the next. The first stage of development was that of
"traditional society," which was defined by reliance on kinship (family) based power structures,
had an economy based primary on agriculture—and largely subsistence agriculture—relied little
on science or technology and instead had social beliefs centering on mythology. Finally, because there was little economic
activity, there was little economic surplus for savings or investment. Gradually, though countries would enter the
second stage of development, in which the preconditions for more rapid growth—something
Rostow called "takeoff" were established. During this phase, several important changes
took place to traditional societies. New groups started to emerge, particularly
those focused on entrepreneurial activities. These groups pushed for change both socially
and economically. At some point, society would reach a tipping
point. For Rostow, this tipping point was "take off"
a phase in which the preconditions for rapid economic growth had been achieved, and society
began a rapid period of economic and social development. During this phase, dramatic transitions took
place across most sectors of society. Political authority was centralized into a
modern state, and the goal of that state was to promote economic growth. The economy moved away from extensive reliance
on subsistence agriculture, broadening the economic base and promoting emergent industrial
activities. Urbanization commenced. Birth rates also started to decline, reflecting
a broader social reorganization. After takeoff, development begins to slow
as society matures. Economic growth becomes more generalized,
as there is widespread reinvestment across a wide array of industries as the economy
diversifies. International trade also expands, as does
reliance on technology in the sphere of economic production. Finally, societies reach the pinnacle of economic
development, a phase Rostow labeled as "mass production for mass consumption." This level of development mirrored the United
States in the 1960s, with widespread production of consumer goods for domestic consumption,
a continuous increase in real income for most peoples, and an expansion of state delivery
of social welfare and security goods. Put another way, Modernization theory posited
that all countries exist at various points along a similar developmental path. Countries like Afghanistan are still in the
Traditional Society category, others, like India, are in Takeoff, while still others,
like the Japan, have reached the pinnacle of development. From the perspective of Modernization theory,
every country fell somewhere along the same developmental spectrum. The challenge of the postwar development project
then, was to figure out how to speed countries along the developmental path. But implicit in the theory was the suggestion
that—even barring intervention—all countries would eventually move along the same developmental
path. The United States, in other words, is the
future of Somalia. It's just that Somalia is currently very far
behind. Modernization theory represented the primary
school of developmental thought in the West, but the school was not without critics. Among the earliest critiques of Modernization
theory were the Dependency Theorists. Emerging from the work of Latin American theorists
in the 1960s, dependency theory was a particularly interesting because it represented the first
broad theory of development indigenous to the global south. Dependency theorists like Immanuel Wallerstein
and Andre Gunder Frank argued that Modernization theory was built on a faulty premise. In assuming that all countries moved along
a similar developmental trajectory, dependency theorists contended, Modernization theory
was leaving out an important historical period; namely colonialism. Dependency theorists argued that while the
First World may at one point have been UN-developed, they were never UNDER-developed. That is, dependency theorists argued that
the development that occurred in the First World was conditioned on the extraction of
resources from the colonies in the Third World. This process, which they termed underdevelopment,
was never experienced by the First World. Consequently, First World and Third World
development had fundamentally different—indeed irreconcilable—starting points. As Andre Gunder Frank, one of the leading
Dependency Theorists put it, "Economic development and underdevelopment
are the opposite faces of the same coin. Both are the necessary result and contemporary
manifestations of internal contradictions in the world capitalist system... The historical development of the capitalist
system have generated underdevelopment in the peripheral satellites whose economic surplus
was expropriated, while generating economic development in the metropolitan centres which
appropriate that surplus." Modernization and Dependency theories presented
two fundamentally different understandings of both the nature of global system, the role
of the state, and the nature of economic development. For Modernization theorists, the challenges
of development are primary rooted in the internal dynamics of the country; inappropriate economic
and political structures, backwards technologies, outmoded beliefs, and so on. Closer ties to the global system, particularly
the global economy, could thus help to facilitate development by overcoming those traditional
barriers. By contrast, Dependency theorists believed
that the challenge of development was actually rooted in the connections between the underdeveloped
South and the overdeveloped North. Development, they contended, could only be
achieved by breaking ties with the global economy and by looking inward, a process Samir
Amin termed "de-linking." But despite all their differences, both Modernization
and Dependency theories had an understanding of development that was fundamentally the
same. Both conceived of development as a progressive
and linear process defined primarily in terms of economic growth and restructuring. By the 1970s, a whole host of new theories
of development were beginning to emerge, each drawing attention to slightly different problems
facing the global South, but most still rooted fundamentally in the problem of establishing
and maintaining economic growth. These theories, arising in the context of
the 1970s crisis of stagflation, which we'll discuss next week, tended to bring into consideration
a broader array of issues, including basic needs and poverty, environmental questions,
and gender dynamics. We'll return to all of these later in the
course. For now it's sufficient to note the evolving
thinking taking place around the question of development. More recently, development theory has tended
to focus on questions of representation and inclusion. Development has been critiqued as a "totalizing
discourse" operating on the assumption that it is equally applicable around the world
and obviating local specificities and conditions. What works in Bangladesh should work the same
way in Senegal or Uruguay. Others have question the relevance of development
more broadly. Indeed, Arturo Escobar proclaimed the "death
of development," suggesting that the concept itself is outmoded and no longer useful. In his introduction to the Development Dictionary,
Wolfgang Sachs argues that "The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and
crimes have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story:
it did not work. Moreover, the historical conditions which
catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development has become outdated. But above all, the hopes and desires which
made the idea fly, are now exhausted: development has grown obsolete." But proclamations of the death of development
are, to barrow a famous phrase, vastly overstated. Development remains a central question in
global political economy, even if we can't come to clear agreement on precisely what
we mean or how to achieve it. It also remains a central component of state
legitimacy in the developing world, as we'll discuss in the next lecture.
