Development as a Background

The gap in per capita income between the north and the south counties of the world, taken as two groups together, is diverging rather than converging (IMF, 2004). This economic measure could inform as the fact that there has been an increase rather than decrease in the global inequality. This could lead us to question; what causes such inequality? When did it start happening? Why it is increasing? What is the consequence of it? Who is responsible? What can be done about it? The main intent of development discourses from the beginning up until recently relays on finding solutions to such questions. At the same time, the success and failure of development discourses and praxis relate to the degree of successes in addressing the same challenges. Esteva (1992:6) noted that the era of development began on a certain date and year. On the 20th of January 1949, President Harry Truman, in his inauguration speech before congress, focusing on the condition of poorer countries, for the first time defined them as 'underdeveloped areas.' In view of the northern countries that were running economically ahead Truman saw the rest of the world with low per capita income lagging behind. The United States particularly was at the height of its power. Hence, the level of production was taken as the means of measuring a nation's civilization. Following this speech there appeared modernization theories and praxes. Modernization discourses centrally emphasised the universal and linear nature of development. For them, development is an evolutionary process in that countries that are found at the low stage of development need to follow the development pattern of developed nations. Hence, modernization theorists outlined the western model of development as indispensable solutions to the development problematic of 'third world counties' (Sklair, 1991). 'Third world' countries were advised to adopt, mimic, imitate, and import the development pattern of the 'West.' Also, for their financial crisis and development initiatives, borrowing from western financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank was prescribed as the overriding way out (Robert and Hite, 2000). Meanwhile, development that was basically conceived in terms of economic growth, industrialization and liberal democracy did not bring marked change to the problems of 'third world' countries. The establishment of infrastructures, the importation of machineries as well as adoption of western technology did not bring significant change. Eurocentric development praxis that did not take the internal situation of developing countries in to account became source of a multiple problems, rather than the solution to them (Robert and Hite, 2000). The money that 'third world' countries borrowed for development projects made them sink in to a debt crisis. Also, the imported technology made them dependent on foreign expertise. Meanwhile, development inversely served the purpose of the west. Development particularly served the economic and political motives of the United States. Politically, the United States used development discourse and practices to halt the expansion of communism from the east. Economically, it generated a double income; first, from the sale of its manufactured goods to 'third world' countries, second, from the interest of the money that it borrowed to the same (Hayter, 1990). This trajectory resulted in the abuse of the meaning of the word development. Development came to be seen as a repressive rather than an emancipative force. These conditions created the fertile conditions for the emergence of another development perspective. This was the dependency perspective (Sklair, 1991). Dependency theory was the first challenge to modernization discourses from the 'third world.' Dependency theorists gave greater focus to economic aspect of underdevelopment. They stressed that underdevelopment is the historical outcome of the functioning of the capitalist system. Colonialism and the continuing colonial structures are responsible for the underdevelopment of underdeveloped countries. The colonialists were exploiting the natural resources of developing countries. In post colonial times, the core western countries have been paying low prices for the products of peripheral countries. At the same time, they have been exporting value added products to the 'third world' countries. With in these unfair trade relations peripheral countries have been underprivileged (Frank, 1971). For some of the pro Marxist dependency theorists the extinction of capitalism was noted as a way out of dependent underdevelopment. In the meantime, other dependency theorists proposed the possibility of dependent development through the facilitation of foreign investment (Cardoso, 1972). Meanwhile, the penetration of bank and industrial capital did not change the condition of the developing countries. In areas of abundant labour, multinationals were using capital intensive methods. Also, rather than reinvesting the generated profit in the peripheries, they were transferring it to the cores. With such marginalization, the realization of development potentials became impossible. Despite the failure of the dependent development thesis, there appeared a different situation that could not be explained by ether dependency theorists or modernisation theorists. Neither applying modernization perspectives nor the dependency premise, East Asian countries succeeded in bringing economic development. Furthermore, the Sino-Soviet Split resulted in crisis of the socialist ideology that was the source of inspiration for dependency theorists. These situations resulted in the emergence of another development theory. This was the world system theory (Schuurman, 1993). Rather than the bimodal dependency analysis world system theorists introduced a tri modal world system in that they noted the existence of semi- peripheries in between the cores and the peripheries. The semi peripheries act as a medium between the core and the periphery. The semi peripheries import high technology products from the core, whereas they export semi-manufactured goods to the peripheries (Wallerstein, 1979). For world system theorists, the development of nation states is dependent upon the expansion or the spread of their market control. They noted that the origin of underdevelopment is based upon the inclusion of 'third world' countries within an unfair world capitalist system. Furthermore, the solution proposed by world system theorists was quite similar to orthodox dependency theorists. They recommended socialist world government as the solution to the development trajectories of third world countries (Schuurman, 1993). Nevertheless, despite tremendous development initiatives in the third world the gap between the 'third world' and the 'first world' widened. 'Third world' countries faced a huge debt crisis. The Socialist system as an alternative to development came to the dead end. There appeared remarkable differentiation in the level of development of third world countries. National policy which was derived from general development policy came under scrutiny. Moreover, in social science there appeared a crisis of the 'grand narrative' including the development narrative. Post modernism became the popular discourse (Schuurman, 1993). Under such circumstances, the end in Keynesian and welfare state view eclipsed the role of third world states. This heralded the hegemony of the neo-liberal perspective. The IMF's structural adjustment policies came to the front line. However, despite the increase in circulation of capital among rich investors, the structural adjustment, worsened the life of the very poor people of developing countries (Hayter, 1990). In the mean time, to validate this impasse in development theories there appeared the impasse perspectives. The basic intent of these perspectives was to deconstruct the pro-Marxist analysis. According to this paradigm, the pro-Marxist perspectives are universalistic and they have no practical and specific solutions to the problems of poor peoples around the world. Furthermore, impasse theorists insisted that dependency theories did approve the importance of development that relies on technology, innovation and growth. Hence, just like modernization theories, they regarded dependency theories as Eurocentric (Brass, 1993). The impasse heralded the end of 'grand' development perspectives. Even some scholars came to engage in anti-development discourse. Meanwhile, although the impasse analysis has contributed to refining the dependency and world systems schools of thought, it failed to include the essential of cultural analysis in regenerating the true nature of development. Meanwhile, other culturalists such as Vincent Tucker, however, went further than anti-'developmentalism' and noted the importance of a new mixture of 'critical cultural and political economy approach based on dialogue' (Tucker, 1999:26). At the margins of this debate there appeared the post impasse perspective. Post impasse perspectives are not intended to deconstruct political economy completely. Rather in reconstituting political economy they focus on deconstructing the conception of structure. Development study needs to focus on bringing practical and tangible change at the local, grass root level. Development theories should emanate from below. Hence, Post impasse ideas aim at empowering people to control their own development (Booth, 1993). Post impasse perspectives prioritize the role of actors in bringing about development. By actors it is not meant only individuals as actors or agents, but also corporations, governments, business organizations, mass organizations and local communities. The actors can bring significant change at the macro, meso and micro levels. Focusing on actors helps development studies to contribute to practical change (Booth, 1993). Furthermore, this approach rather than the reductionism of the Marxist development perspective emphasised the relevance of cultural multiplicity, heterogeneity and choice as a solution to the development problematic of underdeveloped countries (UNESCO, 1997).