Development: From a Demograher

By Paul Andrew Bourne

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

About a few decades ago, many countries around the world—newly decolonized and lately named unused or developing, embarked on a myriad of projects of nationwide development. Some began to develop home-grown industries for sale overseas; others stepped up industrialized production to surrogate for imports. Across the Cold War swathe—communist as well as capitalist—industrialization was thought of, by the political and economic elite, as the key to development. In this particular conception of ‘development’ as economic growth, industrialization became a race of catching up with the West or with standards almost entirely set by West-centric institutions for a country to be deemed developed. Accompanying this frenetic activity was the project of modernization.

This was seen by the presiding figures of many countries as, amongst others: infrastructural changes such as dams and highways; social changes such as getting rid of the perceived ills of traditional beliefs and practices and revamping educational systems with an emphasis on modern science and rationality; and political changes such as creating an efficient bureaucracy and State apparatus to preside over the decolonized domain. Development symbolized a whole array of change by which an entire society system is tuned to the basic needs and desires of the citizenry and social groups with that particular system. It should move away from a condition of life widely perceived as insufficient toward a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and morally better.

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

Numerous literature on economic development fall under by four major umbrellas (1) the linear-stages of-growth model, (2) theories and patterns of structural change, (3) the international-dependence revolution, and (4) the neoclassical, free-market counter revolution. In recent years, an eclectic approach has emerged that draws on all of these classic theories. Theorists of the 1950s and early 1960s viewed the process of development as a series of successive stages of economic growth through which all countries must pass. It was primarily an economic theory of development in which the right quantity and mixture of saving, investment, and foreign aid were all that was necessary to enable developing nations to proceed along an economic growth path that historically had been followed by the more developed countries.

Development thus became synonymous with rapid, aggregate economic growth. This linear-stages approach was largely replaced in the 1970s by two competing economic (and indeed ideological) schools of thought. The first, which focused on theories and patterns of structural change, used modern economic theory and statistical analysis in an attempt to portray the internal process of structural change that a "typical" developing country must undergo if it is to succeed in generating and sustaining a process of rapid economic growth. The second, the international dependence revolution, was more radical and political in orientation. It viewed underdevelopment in terms of international and domestic power relationships, institutional and structural economic rigidities, and the resulting proliferation of dual economies and dual societies both within and among the nations of the world.

Dependence theories tended to emphasize external and internal institutional and political constraints on economic development. Emphasis was placed on the need for major new policies to eradicate poverty, to provide more diversified employment opportunities, and to reduce income inequalities. These and other egalitarian objectives were to be achieved within the context of a growing economy, but economic growth per se was not given the exalted status accorded to it by the linear stages and the structural-change models. Throughout much of the 1980s and early 1990s, a fourth approach prevailed. This neoclassical (sometimes called neo liberal) counterrevolution in economic thought emphasized the beneficial role of free markets, open economies, and the privatization of inefficient public enterprises. Failure to develop, according to this theory, is not due to exploitive external and internal forces as expounded by dependence theorists. Rather, it is primarily the result of too much government intervention and regulation of the economy. Today’s eclectic approach draws on all of these perspectives, and we will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Significance of study
Haq et al (1987) in Human Development, Adjustment and Growth wrote, "The objective of development is people. Yet an analysis of the development process over the last four decades will show that one of the major obstacles to economic, social and political progress in many developing countries is the insufficient attention given to the human dimension of development" (Haq et al. 1987: 3, pp. 21). Haq analytic argument is the focal point of this paper, human development as a tool of levels of development. When one analyses Haq’s writings (Haq et al., 1987: pp. 22 – 28), the World Bank’s World Development Reports have shown that central government expenditures on health and education have declined in low developing countries between 1980-83 and 1985-86. Could that explain why many peoples within developing countries lack the food necessary for an active, healthy life? (Haq et al., 1987: pp. 29).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Adam Smith, founder of the classical school, believed that industrialization owes itself to the general nature of economic progress and particular causes of capitalistic development (The Keynesian Theory of Economic Development by Kurihara, 1959, p.13). He believed that development was possible through technological progress of capital and by laissez-faire system (the free market – "Individualistic Capitalism"). According to Kurihara (1959, p.14), "This proposition of Adam Smith anticipates Keynes’s retrospection that the slow rate of progress in the pre-capitalistic period was due to two retarding factors, namely, (a) ‘the remarkable absence of important technical improvements’ and (

‘the failure of capital to accumulate." Freidrich List (Kurihara, 1959, p.15) was another advocate of industrialization through "economic nationalism in general and through protectionism in particular." Kurihara (1959, p. 15) wrote, "His theory of economic development still has a powerful appeal to present-day underdeveloped economies that are politically independent but economically dominated by advanced economies." Based on Kurihara’s proposition of Freidrich’s perspective, development was influenced by political system, cultural change and by extension governance.

Karl Marx’s theorizing on economic development was interpreted within the construct of ‘economic interpretation of history’ and ‘the motivating forces of capitalistic development’. The latter perspective of Marx concurred with Adam Smith’s theorizing on development. Marx further his theorizing beyond that of Smith’s perspective when he that, "[Marx] ‘materialistic’ conceptual of historical evolution, according to which economic institutions, while they are products of social evolution, are themselves capable of influencing the course of social progress." Although Marx partially supported Smith’s theorizing on economic development, he ventures into non-economic explanations of development. He, however, had a casual and distant relationship with the sociological factors.

John Maynard Keynes (born 1883 and died 1946) advocates some of a Classical school perspective on development. Kurihara (1959) said that, "Keyness suggested that the future rate of economic progress would depend on (a) ‘our power to control population’, (

‘our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science,’(c) ‘our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions’, (d) the rate of accumulation of fixed by the margin between production and our consumption."(Kurihara, 1959, p.19). Of the factors that Keyness did theorize, only one is economic. Based on Kurihara’s writings, ‘our power to control population’ is governance and political, ‘our determination to avoid wars’ is social, cultural and political, and as such indicates that economic progress is highly improbable without human, social political and cultural change and development.

Professor Sir Arthur Lewis, a Caribbean scholar and Noble laureate for his contribution to the economics profession, in ‘The Review of Black Political Economy (1989)’ reviewed by James B. Steward wrote that, "Racial Conflict and Economic Development presents deceptively incisive analyses of how race affects a variety of phenomenon including discrimination, colonialism, entrepreneurship, dual labour markets, and the international economic order." Lewis’ theorizing was primarily economic and so he built his model within an economic construct. He failed just like the other Classical economists to divulge a position on cultural, social and psychological factors in regards development. Lewis a positivist was highly concerned with building scientific model. He used time series and descriptive statistics to provide the blocks upon which he derived his theorizing.

"Development economics is the study of how human economic circumstances change over time and how they can be made to change." (Hogendorn, 1987:1, pp.1). This perspective by Hogendorn supports the traditionalists’ position that development is solely economic. They argue that growth is the primary cause of development. Growth is broadly defined as an increase in output or income and the term development speaks to structural, institutional, and qualitative changes that expand a country’s capabilities. The mechanism used to measure this concept is gross national product. As such, the Classical economists (traditionalists) believe that growth can lead to development. They also suppose that development is not possible with growth. This position advocates that production is growth but infrastructural change is development. This idea supports pollution, deforestation, degradation, and depletion of the environment in support of development. Such a stance has given rise to various advocates of sustainable development as against economic development. With this new thrust, the scope of development encompasses the environment; social, economic and political factors in addition to the new emphasis on the quality of peoples’ live in the future.

King (2001) in Social and Economic Studies wrote that, "The budgetary allocations to the health sector also have implications for social equity." It is clear from Dr. King’s postulation that government spending on health care influences the quality of life of peoples within a country. This determinant of the quality of life is not limited to health but spans education, defence, political system and governance. King (2001) forwarded that position that, "One fifth of the education [Jamaica] budget is being used on tertiary education, which does not benefit the lowest quintile." Although King’s finding was as stated, the actuality is that the quality of life of peoples who attain tertiary educational institutions and by extension the society benefits there from. It appears that Dr. King is incognizant of the multiplier effect of single dollar spent on educating one university graduate. Milton Freidman (1955) in an article titled The Role of Government in Education posited that:

"A stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens. Education contributes to both. In consequence, the gain from the education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but to other members of the society; the education of my child contributes to other people's welfare by promoting a stable and democratic society. Yet it is not feasible to identify the particular individuals (or families) benefited or the money value of the benefit and so to charge for the services rendered. There is therefore a significant "neighborhood effect."

Friedman’s (1955) position, therefore, contradicts Dr. King’s (2001) stance. If democracy is highly improbable with a minimum degree of literacy, then public spending on education in and of itself is a factor of improvements in the quality of peoples’ lives. This position concurs with noble prize winner Professor Michael Todaro’s (200) three (3) objectives of development. Dr. Friedman in his article "The Role of Government in Education" argued that the value of educating a child does not end with the individual but extends to the society a factor Dr. King failed to "ingredientized" in his position forwarded earlier.

Professor Todaro credited Adam Smith for being the first development economists (Michael Todaro, 2000). He wrote that, "his Wealth of Nations [Adam Smith], published in 1776, was the first treatise on economic development, the systematic study of the problems and processes of economic development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America." Although Friedman lauded Smith for his pioneer work he cited that "I disagree with this viewpoint" (Todaro, 2000: p. 7). He [Todaro], although an economist, believed that development spans a plethora of other factors beyond the traditionalists view on the subject. The distinguished modern economist cited that, "there are non-economic variables, values, attitudes and institutions" (Todaro, 2000: pp. 13). It is this perspective that will forge shift away from the economic stance of development to a sociological perspective.

According to Musgrave (1970) who edited "A Model for the Analysis of the Development of the English Educational System from 1860" by P. W. Musgrave wrote, "the development of the educational system of a country is one specific but central example of social change’. If educational system is a mechanism of "social change, then spending thereon must increase of quality of the human capital to society. Any change in the social position of an individual’s life transforms his/her social status – development. It is through the educational system that a society transforms itself. This socio-political transformation is a change in the degree of development of this society. Professor Munroe (2000) in "Introduction to Politics" forwarded the position that democracy and governance are critical indicators of development of a society. Dr. Orville Taylor, a developmental sociologist, argued that social institutions are yardstick in measuring the development of a society. Therefore, both distinguished academics have forwarded a position that clear indicate that development goes beyond the traditional definition of development. Professor Todaro in "Economic Development" (Todaro, 2000: 1 and 2) outlined this position.

Sociologists agree that school, church, peer group influence socialization and political institution, therefore, any modernization of the education system will enhance an improvement in the human and social capital (Haralambos et al., 1996). Education is a process of transformation and so although it may not be cost in regards to its benefits to the recipient, any value added to individual by this process therefore modernized society. This modernization is referred to as development (Munoz, 1981:1 pp.1). Munoz (1981) wrote that, "The end of World War II marked the beginning of fundamental transformations in world affairs. The defeat of the Axis powers and the devastating toll which the war had exacted on Britain and the European allies propelled the United States into a position of economic and military preeminence." Munoz’s arguments concur with Todaro’s stance and further strengthen the position that development is multifaceted. Based Munoz’s writings, political education, political transformation and social change are ingredients in development.

Although Dr. King’s (2001) findings revealed a particular position and it appears that his position does not support investment in tertiary education, Dr. Milton Friedman’s (1955) postulation clearly showed that there are benefits to be had from investment in education. This investment in educating a populace transforms the peoples’ social position. Any improvement in the social position of peoples’ lives influence the quality of their lives. In order to emphasis the limitedness of traditionalists approach to development, a quotation from Hogendorn will be used that summarizes that scope. According to Hogendorn (1987), "The standard measures of output and income are gross national product (GNP), gross domestic product (GDP), and national income. These tools are universally used. But there are problems with measuring output and income. Even greater difficulties beset the employment of these tools to measure well-being or satisfaction or the standard of living or to judge the "progress" of different countries." It follows therefore that political system and governance must affect of the quality of peoples’ existence. In that, a particular political system may contract the quality of peoples’ lives. The examples here are political system in Haiti. This system often times curtails education, health care and democracy that are components of development.

Rasheed (1998) in "development" wrote, "Generating and sustaining high growth rates, eradicating poverty and promoting human development require deliberate far-reaching transformations that go well beyond the standard economic reform measure. " This position is shared by Professor of development economic Michael Todaro. He (latter) argued that although economic progress is significant for development, development also relies on political system, social characteristics, governance, integration, investing in human development and boosting self-reliance. Although Todaro is a development economist and Rasheed a developmentalist, they converge on new approach to development as against the Classical economists (including the founder of development theory, Adam Smith). In reference to Rasheed’s position, development is simply not a simple one variable linear model (the one variable being, economic growth) but a multiple regression model of many components include human social development. When one reads Rasheed’s theorizing it may be understood that this is limited to Africa but the same was said by Todaro an American, and as supported by other nationalists in this paper. From a Caribbean perspective, Dr. Marie Freckleton et al (1993) wrote, "development strategies for the 1980s [included] accelerating programmes for the development of human resources in every relevant field."

"We shall take by way of illustration here probably the most influential model, propounded by Walt Rostow (1962). In it emphasis on the psycho-cultural prerequisites of development . . ." (Vicky Randall et al 1998: pp. 24). Rostow’s theorizing, Modernization Theory, is a clear position that development is primarily not economic but multi-faceted, and that it includes psychological as well as cultural factors as ingredients

Although Rostow’s theorizing clearly showed "sociological thinking", modernization theory showed the stages through which an economic travels before development is possible. Those stages are indication that development is not a one linear model as purported by Adam Smith and other Classical Theorists. The classical school’s theorizing can be contrasted with contemporary developmentalists’ perspective on the issue of development. John Toye (1987) a contemporary developmentalist wrote that, "It is important not to confuse economic growth, the expansion of the measured output of goods and services, with development." He continued that, "For example, output can be produced by the severe exploitation of labour – the payment of mere subsistence wages, bad health and safety conditions and the unfair treatment of workers – with the resulting profits being channeled to private bank accounts in foreign tax havens." The perspective forwarded by developmentalists is wider in scope of the subject matter than forwarded by classicalists or neo-classicalists. This is so because subsistent living, poor health and unsafe environmental conditions may result in economic growth.

The various theorizing and past research findings are sole reason why this paper is forwarded a perspective that human development is directly related to levels of development. In order to ascertain whether development’s scope is beyond economic development, the researcher will use public expenditure on health and education and other variables with the human development index to establish causality. The researcher chose not to use GDP or GNP as theorizing has indicated that they are unable to adequate measure welfare.

tutorials

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Join Date 10/2001

+21

BX is simply unable to get the point of this article ...

He is not that much genious ... !!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

SirSmiley

Join Date 06/2005

+38

The subject matter is interesting (at least to me) but, the spelling/grammatical mistakes are not impressive in this day & age. So, I've decided not to grade this on a percentage or grade point average. You get a C-. Re-read, edit, re-write.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just a thought...but what does this have to do with Windowblinds...SkinStudio, or any of the other titorials posted under this catagory. this looks like the beginning of an indepth and well researched thesis...Again, why here?..Just a thought
Drzues. PS: I meant to misspell titorials.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.