M.A. - PART I

SOCIOLOGYPAPER III

SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Sanjay DeshmukhVice ChancellorUniversity of MumbaiMumbai.Dr. Dhaneswar HarichandanProfessor-cum-DirectorInstitute of Distance and Open LearningUniversity of Mumbai

Course Co-ordinator:

Professor (Dr.) S.K. Bhowmik,Dept. of SociologyUniversity of MumbaiVidyanagari,Mumbai - 400 098.

Published by : The Professor-cum-Director ofInstitute of Distance EducationUniversity of Mumbai,Vidyanagari, Mumbai - 400 098.

Reprint: August, 2015, M.A. Part I - Sociology Paper IIISOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

DTP Composed by Shree Graphic Centre28, Mangal wadi,Mumbai - 400 004.

Printed by

INDEXUnits Title Page No.

1. EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPTION OF DEVELOPMENT 1

2. STATE AS AGENT OF CHANGE / DEVELOPMENT 10

3. MODERNISATION THEORY 19

4. DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT 37

5. GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT 51

6. CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT 59

7. ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 67

8. THE GANDHIAN ALTERNATIVE "Hind Swaraj" ANDSCHMACHER "Small is Beautiful" 85

9. FOURTH WORLD DYNAMICS 98

10. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. ECOFEMINISM 102

11. PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT:ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS 112

12. SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ANDLOPSIDED DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA. 139

13. DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL PROTESTSTRUGGLES AGAINST DESTRUCTION OFLIVELIHOOD AND ENVIRONMENT 149

14. GLOBALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT 188

________________

1

1EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPTION

OF DEVELOPMENT

Introduction:'Development' has been one of the key ideas of the last half a century. Althoughthe word itself, Raymond Williams informs us, has been part of the Englishlanguage since the mid seventeenth century, the 'theory' of development ismainly a post-Second World War phenomenon.

In the course of tracing its various uses, Williams points out that the mostinteresting modern usage of a group of words centered on 'develop' relates tocertain ideas of the nature of economic change. This chapter seeks to tracethe emergence of the conception of development as also to examine theintellectual and historical background in which we can locate the use of thetern.

Origin of the Concept:The concept 'development' in one of its earliest senses referred to the oppositeof wrapping or bundling-thus unfold, unroll. It was metaphorically extended inthe eighteenth century and came to include to sense of 'developing' the 'facultiesof the human mind'. In common parlance, development describes a processthrough which the potentialities of an object or organism are released, until itreaches its natural, complete, full-fledged form, It thus went through its firstmain extension in the new biology, in close relation to ideas of 'evolution'. Hencethe metaphoric use of the term to explain the natural growth of plants andanimals.:Through this metaphor it became possible to show the goal ofdevelopment and much later its programme.

The transfer of the biological metaphor to the social sphere occurred in the lastquarter of the eighteenth century. Further, it was between 1759 (Wolff) and1859 (Darwin) that development evolved from a conception of transformationthat moves towards the 'appropriate' form of being, to a conception oftransformation that moves towards an 'ever more perfect' form. In mid nineteenthcentury the idea of a society passing through definite 'evolutionary' stages wasbeing expressed as 'Development'- which in turn was defined as,'Iatermanifestations being potentially present in the earliest elements'. Implicit inthis notion was the idea of 'progress'. During this period, evolution anddevelopment began to be used as interchangeable terms by scientists.

2

The Intellectual Context :We see then that by the -end of the nineteenth century the word 'development'had accumulated a whole variety of connotations. The founding figures ofsociology, in their separate ways, were concerned with the problem. Comte'sconsideration of social statics and social dynamics raised some problems inthe broad area of development; so also did Durkheim's notion of mechanicaland organic solidarity. Marx posed the problem in a more direct manner andhas since been a perennial influence on the growth and diversification ofdevelopment theory.

'Development', in fact, became the central category of Marx's works: revealedas a historical process that unfolds with the same necessary character of naturallaws. Both the Hegelian concept of history and the Darwinist concept of evolutionwere interwoven in 'development', reinforced with the scientific aura of Marx.

We also begin to understand the inextricable links that bind 'development' withthe set of words with which it was formed-growth, evolution, maturation.Development always implies a favourable change, a step from the simple tothe complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better, The wordindicates that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of anecessary, ineluctable universal law and toward a desirable goal. The wordretains to this day the meaning given to it a century ago by the creator of ecology,Haeckel: 'Development is, from this moment on, the magic word with which wewill solve all the mysteries that surround us or, at least, that which will guide ustoward their solution.'

In the course of time, 'development'came to be seen as a necessary andinevitable destiny of all human societies. The industrial mode of production,which was no more than one, among many, forms of social life, became thedefinition of the terminal stage of a unilinear way of social evolution. Thushistory was reformulated in Western terms. The metaphor of development gaveglobal hegemony to a purely Western genealogy of history, robbing peoples ofdifferent cultures of the opportunity to define the forms of their social life.

It is however instructive, at this point, to remind ourselves of the 'Eurocentric'nature of the 'development discourse. 'Thus, for two-thirds of the people onearth, this positive meaning of the word 'development'- profoundly rooted aftertwo centuries of its social construction - is a reminder of 'what they are not'. It isa reminder of an undesirable, undignified condition. To escape from it, theyneed to be enslaved to others' experiences and dreams.

The Wolfgang Sachs edited 'Development Dictionary' first published in 1992characterised the last 40 years as the 'age of development' while simultaneouslyasserting that "this epoch is coming to an end (and that) the time is ripe to writeits obituary".

The Historical Context Colonialism...Colonialism, that is, the subjugation by physical and psychological force of oneculture by another - a colonizing power-through military conquest of territory-

3

predates the era of European expansion (fifteenth to twentieth centuries).However, European colonialism was inarguably the most sustained thesystematic attempt in history to devalue and redefine 'other cultures' in termsof European superiority."

The perception that non-European native people of colonial subjects were"backward", or trapped in tradition gave rise to the idea of the "white man'sburden", a concept in which the West viewed itself as the bearer of civilizationto the darker races.

With the rise of modern European capitalism, state bureaucrats began to pursueeconomic growth to finance their military and administrative needs. Westernadministrative, educational and religious institutions accompanied colonial ruleto stimulate progress in the colonies, along the European path.

In the third decade of the present century the association between developmentand colonialism, established a century ago, acquired a different meaning. Whenthe British government transformed its Law of Development of the Coloniesinto the Law of Development' and Welfare' of the colonies in 1939, this reflectedthe profound economic and political mutation produced in less than a decade.To give the philosophy of the colonial protectorate a positive meaning, theBritish argued for the need to guarantee the natives minimum levels of nutrition,health and education. A 'dual mandate' started to be sketched: the conquerorshould be capable to economically developing the conquered region and atthe same time accepting the responsibility of caring for the well-being of thenatives. After the identification of the level of civilization with the level ofproduction, the dual mandate collapsed into one: development. In the post-World War 11 era newly independent states joined the world community in therush toward development, with quite varying success.

... And AfterThe worldwide decolonisation movement truly culminated in the collapse ofEuropean colonialism in the mid twentieth century, when the second world warsapped the power of the French, Dutch, British and Belgian states to withstandanticolonial struggles. However, in this world, non-European cultures had eitherbeen destroyed or irrevocably changed through the colonial impact. Newlyindependent states emerged within a framework defined by the Europeanconception of development.

From 1945 to 1981, 105 new states joined the United Nations as the colonialempires crumbled, swelling the ranks of the United Nations from 51 to 156.This global transformation, granting political sovereignty to millions of non-Europeans (more than half of humanity), ushered in the era of development.

The development era was thus intimately linked to decolonization. The adoptionof the European model across the formerly colonial world was the underpinningof the post-World War 11 'development project.' It was conceived of as anorganized strategy to overcome the legacies of colonialism. Increasingly it was

4

understood that nations gaining political independence need to pursue nationaleconomic growth strategies.' However, Iocal cultures, long suppressed undercolonialism, usually received short shrift in their move to imitate the Westernmodel since the development project was rooted in an economic model drivenby technology and market behaviour rather than culture per se.

This new paradigm produced a strategy for 'improving' the condition of theerstwhile colonies. The division between the developed world and theunderdeveloped world was generalized to be a matter of degree that could beset right by the project. First, no matter how diverse was the cultural heritage ofthe newly independent states, the Western experience became the boilerplatemodel for their development. Second, conditions in the Third World were viewedas early stages on a universal path to modern society.

Absent from this model was any acknowledgement that the colonies had madea contribution to European development or that the non-European societieshad many intrinsic merits. In a postcolonial era, Third World states would bedenied the opportunity to develop by exploiting the resources and labour of'other' societies. Development was modeled as a national process.

The Beginning of the Cold War:In the post second world war era, the United States was the most powerfulstate economically, militarily and ideologically. It was a formidable and incessantproductive machine, unprecedented in history. Its superior standard of living(with a per capita income three times the average for Western Europe), itsanticolonial heritae and its commitment to liberalism in domestic andinternational relations gave it the trappings of an ideal society on the worldstage. It was the undisputed leader of the First World and it came to be themodel of a developed society.

In his typically dramatic way Wolfgang Sachs proposes to call the age ofdevelopment" that particular historical period which began on 20 January, 1949,when the then United States President Harry S. Truman for the first timedeclared, in a key speech, the Southern hemisphere as 'underdeveloped areas'-for whom, a bold new programme, for making available, the benefits of ourscientific advances and industrial progress would be made. The old imperialism- exploitation for foreign profit-has no place in our plans."

In order to stabilize populations and rekindle economic growth in strategic partsof the postwar world; as also to certain the 'communist threat', the United Stateshoped to use financial aid to gain the newly-independent nations' allegiance tothe Western free enterprise system.

The United States spearheaded two initiatives to reconstruct the world economythe 'Marshall Plan' and the 'Bretton Woods' programme. The former was a'bilateral initiative' because it involved agreements between two states on state-to-stage activities, the latter was considered 'multilateralism', as it involvedcollective agreements by a series of member-states. The development projectemerged within the 'bilateralism' of the Marshall plan and became formalized

5

under the terms of the Bretton Woods programme.

The Marshall Plan was a vast, bilateral transfer of billions of dollars to Europeanstates and Japan aimed at fulfilling U. S. geopolitical goals in the Cold War,The Plan restored trade, price stability and rising production levels there,immediately following the second world war. It aimed at securing privateenterprise in these regions to undercut socialist movements and tabour militancy.Dollar exports, allowing recipients to purchase American goods, closelyintegrated these countries' economies with that of the United States, solidifyingtheir political loyalty to the Free World-the Western bloc of the Cold War world.

The creation of an international bank which would enable the restoration oftrade by using credit to revitalize regions devastated by colonialism was a coreidea of the Bretton Woods programme. In July 1944, the U. S. Treasury steered'the conference of 44 finance ministers (of these 27 were from the Third World)at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, toward chartering the foundation of the"twinsisters"; the 'World Bank' and the 'International Monetary Fund. 'These'multilateral' arrangements between nation-states were seen to be echoing thekey sentiments of the development project; multinational universalism, viewingnatural bounty as unlimited and a liberal belief in freedom of opportunity as thebasis of political development. Clearly then multilateral funding was ideologicallycommitted to extending the realm of free enterprise.

In their attempt to pursue a strategy of economic growth, a number of Third-World countries entered into the international economic cooperationprogrammes associated with the 'Bretton Woods' institutions. Consequently,national economic growth began to depend on the stimulus of these newinternational economic arrangements. These included foreign aid, technologyimports, stable currency exchange, robust international trade-all were deemednecessary to sustain national development policies,

Ranged against the United States were the Soviet Union and an assortment ofother communist states, primarily those of Eastern Europe. The Second worldwas considered the alternative to First World capitalism.

As the realm of free enterprise expanded, the political dynamics of the ColdWar deepened. By 1964, the Soviet Union had extended export credits to about30 newly-independent Asian and African states, even though most aid wasconcentrated among eight countries. Under the Soviet aid system, loans couldbe rapid in local currencies or in the form of traditional exports, a programmethat benefited states short of foreign currency. Not only was the Soviet Unionoffering highly visible aid projects to key states like Indonesia and India, but inits aid policies it was clearly favoring states that were pursuing policies of centralplanning and public ownership in their development strategies.

However, both Cold war blocs understood development in similar terms, evenif their respective paths of development were different. Each bloc took its cuefrom key nineteenth century thinkers. The Western variant identified 'free marketcapitalism' as the high point of individual and societal development. This viewwas based in Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy of common good arising

6

out of the pursuit of individual self-interest. The Communist variant, on theother hand, identified the abolition of private property and central planning asthe goal of social development. The source for this was Karl Marx's collectivistdicturn" from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs."It is interesting that although the two political blocs subscribed to opposingrepresentations of human destiny, they shared the same modernist paradigm:'National industrialization'would be the vehicle of development in each.

What is the Third World?At the time of decolonization, the world was subdivided into three geo-politicalsegments. These subdivisions came about after World War 11 (1939-1944) asthe Cold War set in and Europe was divided between the capitalist Western(First World) and the communist Soviet (Second World) blocs. The term ThirdWorld was coined by some French intellectuals i in the 1950s and referred tothose countries, inhabited by non-Europeans, which were for the most partcolonized by Europe. Further it was regarded as impoverished in standardeconomic terms.

Frantz Fanon added political and cultural dimensions to the notion ofimpoverishment. He termed these people "the wretched of the earth". Whereas the First World had 65 percent of world income with only 20 percent of theworld's population, the Third world accounted for 67 percent of world populationbut only 18 percent of its income. Many observers feel that much of the gap inliving standards between the First and the Third Worlds derived from colonialism.

There were, however, simultaneous's attempts by the Third World to avoidbecoming pawns in the ongoing geopolitical Cold War. While the United Statesand the Soviet Union were busy dividing the world, the countries of the ThirdWorld came together to assert their own presence in the international system.,This group advocated a policy of 'non-alignment' and tried to steer anindependent path between the First and Second Worlds. These countriesincluded Egypt, India, Indonesia and Yugoslavia. In 1955, the growing weightof the Third World in international politics produced the first conference of"nonaligned" Asian and African states at Bandung, Indonesia, forming the 'Non-Aligned Movement' (NAM). The NAM used its collective voice in internationalforums to forge a philosophy of noninterference in international relations. Inthe 1980s a Fourth World was named to describe regions that were beingmarginalized internationally.

The Career of 'DEVELOPMENT':The concept 'development', which according to Wolfgang Sachs, had sufferedthe most dramatic and grotesque metamorphosis of its history in Truman'shands, was impoverished even more in the hands of its first promoters - themodernization theorists - who reduced it to 'economic growth'. For these mendevelopment consists of growth in the income per person in economicallyunderdeveloped areas. Lewis' 1955 dictum 'First it should be noted that oursubject matter is 'growth', and not 'distribution,' reflects the mainstream emphasison economic growth which permeated the whole field of development thinking.Interestingly the emphasis on economic growth is something that left-leaning

7

economists like Paul Baran and modernization theorists, like the author of the'non-communist manifesto', Walter Rostow, both share.

By the end of the fifties though, we notice an attempt to distinguish 'development'from mere 'economic growth'. The 'Proposals for Action' of the First LINDevelopment Decade (1960-70) established that, 'The problem of theunderdeveloped countries is not just growth, but development... Developmentis growth plus change, (it added). Change, in turn, is social and cultural as wellas economic, and qualitative as well as quantitative... The key concept mustbe improved quality of people's life."

In spite of this gradual change, throughout the First UN DevelopmentDecade,'development'continued to be perceived as a definable path of economicgrowth passing through various stages, and 'integration was the watchwordlinking the social aspect to the economic aspect. In the 1960s as the UnitedNations Research Institute for Social Development (Unrisd), established in 1963,acknowledged later, social development' was se i en partly as a preconditionfor economic growth; and partly as a moral justification for it and the sacrificesit implied.'

At the end of the sixties however, many factors contributed to dampen theoptimism about economic growth: the shortcomings of current policies andprocesses were more conspicuous than at the beginning of the decade; theattributes demanding integration had widened; and became clear that rapidgrowth had been accompanied by increasing inequalities. By then, theeconomists were moire inclined to acknowledge social aspects as 'socialobstacles'. Conceptually there was a generalized revolt against the straitjacketof economic definitions of development, constraining its goals to more or lessirrelevant quantitative indicators.

The 1980s has been characterized as the "lost decade"of development for thepoorer regions of the world economy, meaning that the debt crisis set themback considerably. However we need to note that although average per capitaincome may have fallen in Latin America and Africa; in South and East Asiancountries, by contrast, per capita income rose. These Pacific Asian states weremore in step with the global economy. Along with the South Asian states, theybenefited from the oil boom in the Middle East, the most rapidly growing marketat this time. The Pacific Asian states exported labour to the Middle easternstates, from which they received monetary remittances. One particular reasonthe Pacific Asian states were relatively immune to the "lost decade" was thatthe ratio of their debt serviced to exports was half that of the Latin Americancountries during the 1970s. Besides their geopolitical advantage, they wereless vulnerable to the contraction of credit in the new monetarist world economicorder. Inspite of this however, the gap between the 'development' North andthe underdeveloped South only grew wider. Critics of modernization includingAndre Gunder Frank would assert that this is a consequence of an 'increasing'(and not the 'lack' of 'incomplete') integration of the Third World economiesinto 'the global system of production (globalisation) that is responsible for thisstate of affairs.

8

The development project has come under increasing scrutiny in the 1990slosing considerable credibility among member of the Third World states. It hashad quite mixed success, and there is a growing reaction to its homogenizingthrust. Ethnic or cultural identity movements have begun to reassert their politicalclaims in some parts of the world. Also, there is a growing movement to developalternative livelihood strategies beyond formal economic relations - to explorenew ways of community living or simply to recover older ways of life thatpreceded the specializing thrust of modern commercial systems. Thesemovements express a loss of faith in the ideals of 'the development project.

Consequences of Development:The United Nations and other institutions of the development establishmentcategorize the nations of the world into three: developed countries, developingcountries, and least developed countries. Critics of the developmentestablishment reconceptualised the division as one between the developedand the 'under' developed worlds in the late 1960s. According to them, the'backward' or 'poor' countries were in that condition due to past lootings in theprocess of colonization and 'the -continued raping by capitalist exploitation atthe national and international level: underdevelopment was the creation ofdevelopment. In 1960, the northern countries were 20 times richer than thesouthern, in 1980, 46 times.

Observers like Wolkgang Sachs object to the above critique claiming that, "Byadopting in an uncritical manner the view to which they meant to be opposed,their efficient criticism of the ambiguity and hypocrisy of the Western promotersof development (only succeeded) in giving a virulent character to 'he(development) metaphor".

For Sachs 'development' provided the fundamental frame of reference for thatmixture of generosity, bribery and oppression which has characterized thepolicies of the North towards the South. He further claims that the historicalconditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished. Thedevelopment project's inspired campaign to turn traditional man into modernman has failed. In its place there has been a tremendous loss of diversitywithin and among human societies. Market State and Science have been thegreat universalizing powers of our times. The spreading monoculture has erodedviable alternatives to the industrial, growth-oriented society and dangerouslycrippled humankind's capacity to meet an increasingly different future withcreative responses.

Conclusion:From another point of reference the rise of the Globalisation project hasinaugurated the post-developmentalist era. It did not begin on any particulardate, but it signifies a new stage of thinking about development. The debt crisisof the 1980s shifted the terms of development from a national to a globalconcern. States still pursue development goals, but these goals are less andless nationally managed. In fact several international assistance projects areincreasingly cast in terms of subnational levels - witness, for example the zeal

9

of the present Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu. The infrastructure ofeconomic development at large has been shifted mainly to the level and goalsof the globalisation project. These goals involve development of a world marketin which states expect to share the benefits. The development project hasshed its national characteristics and is now undergoing reformulation as theglobalisation project.

Questions:

1 . What do you understand by the term 'development'? How is it related tocolonialism?

2. Evaluate the project of 'development' over the last half a century. Do youagree with, Sachs contention that the age of development has ended?

--------------------

10

2STATE AS AGENT OF CHANGE /

DEVELOPMENTIntroduction:The state is arguably the most ubiquitous agency of change in the presenttimes. The nation-state has, in the modern world, come to acquire the status ofbeing the preeminent organizing principle for both local and global systems. Inthis section we intend to review the role of the state in the 'development project'.Of late, within the context of 'globalisation' and 'post-modernism', the role ofthe state has been subject to wide-ranging assessment. Some observers haveeven heralded the 'end of the state' in contemporary political practice. We will,in this section, attempt a mapping of the concept of the state in the developmentdebate.

The modern state is a set of institutions comprising the legislature, the executive,central and local administration, judiciary, police and armed forces. Its crucialcharacteristic is that it acts as the institutional system of political dominationand has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. In various historicalsocieties, the state was amorphous because the legitimate use of force wasdiffused, for example, to feudal lords, kinship groups or corporate bodies. Thevariety of institutions indicate that it may not always act as a unitary andhomogenous entity.

Almost ever since the structural outlines of the modern state became clear inthe sixteenth century, it has provoked contradictory responses. For Machiavelli,Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, J. S. Mill, Kant, Hegel and others, it was themost rational mode of organizing the collective affairs of a society and securingpeace, stability, personal autonomy, equality, justice, and all else that humanbeings most valued. Others such as the early Renaissance writers, Rousseau,Godwin, Proudhon, Marx and Romantic and Conservative writers took theopposite view that the state was an instrument of oppression, inhospitable toman's noblest impulses and aspirations and morally illegitimate.

Sociological Perspectives on the State:Sociological accounts of the state broadly fall into three categories. There arethose like Max Weber who sees the modern state, the patterns of authority andlegitimacy, the role of leadership and the nature of bureaucracy as thequintessential "rational" organization. Thus the state in both, capitalist andsocialist societies, is seen as an independent force that has its own rules ofaction-the legal-rational rules of bureaucracy - and dominates all social groups.

11

With the unification of Germany as historical background, Weber was concernedabout Germany "catching up" with the politically and economically moreadvanced England. Such "modem" issues naturally focused attention on theproblems of carving out cohesive and centralized states and on the creativerole of political leaders. For Weber then the evolution of he modern Europeanstate, while partly a product of the centralizing actions of monarchs, was anintegral aspect of the larger trend toward the rational reorganization of society- which itself was the result of modern capitalism. Weber's concept of the modernstate thus remained focused on territoriality and on elements of centralizedcontrol.

Secondly there are the Marxist accounts of the state in capitalist societies whichregard it as tied to the interests of capital and the dominant class. 'Instrumentalist'Marxism sees the state as simply an outpost of the dominant class because itspersonnel are drawn from this class. 'Structuralist' Marxism maintains that thestate furthers the interest of capital or the capitalist class even though the statehas relative autonomy of class.

It may be pertinent to point out, at this point, that the only remaining 'classical'sociologist Emile Durkheim sought to focus attention on . the process ofindustrialization, the accompanying increases in division of labour and theresulting changes in a society's value system. This image of transformation.was to inspire later theorists to formulate the well-known dichotomy of traditionand modernity and the role of the state in bringing about this transition. Howeverboth Marx and Durkheim tended to focus analytical attention on a society'ssocioeconomic, rather than its political structure.

Marx held that social and political change was propelled by capitalism as amode of production and the dynamics of surplus accumulation. Durkheimconsidered the increasing division of labour and the resulting changes in thevalue system to be a partial explanation of the vicissitudes of an industrializingsociety. For both, the drama of the great transformation was located, not in thestate, but in society. The state and politics were peripheral to the major processesof change. Although both Marx and Durkheim paid some attention to the state,they considered a state's actions and a society's politics to be largely a reflectionof the more fundamental dynamics of socio-economic change.

Thirdly, pluralist accounts steer a middle course, regarding the state as a partlyindependent force which, via the workings of the democratic process, may stillbe influenced by the different interests that are represented politically.Practitioners of modern sociology, generally speaking, adopt one of these above- mentioned perspectives.

A Brief History of the State:What we have learned to call the state today is actually the modern nation-state. It entered the world scene only really after the treaty of Westphalia in1648. Though a contractual element had already entered the civic space bythe 13", century in parts of Europe, the treaty gave formal institutional status tothe emerging concept of the state in Europe. But even then the concept would

12

never have attained the power it later did if the French Revolution had 12 notunderwritten it by linking up the story of the state to that of nationalism.

With the spread of republicanism in Europe, there also grew up severe doubtsamong European elites about the long-term legitimacy of the merging non-monarchical states. Nationalism came in, and was systematically promoted,as an alternative basis of such legitimacy. The Weberian charisma that waspreviously concentrated in the person of the monarchsupposedly mediatingbetween the sacred and secular orders- was now distributed among thepopulation and a non-specific nationalism was seen as the best guarantor ofthe stability of the state

At the beginning, the new concept of the state in Europe and its correspondinginstitutional arrangements had to contend with other surviving concepts andstructure of the state that were different from and antagonistic to the newconcept. in another context, British colonialism, though it was perfectly at homewith the concept of the nation-state in Britain, operated in India within the broadcultural framework of the Mughal empire which had preceded it. This it didexplicitly and self - consciously during the early decades of the Raj and moretacitly and partly unwillingly till roughly the First World War. Despite this earlycompromises of the British colonial state, gradually the concept of the nation-state did manage to disparage and displace all other surviving notions of thestate in the Third World as so many instances of medievalism and primitivism.The process was strengthened when, in one society after another, indigenousintellectuals and political activists confronting the colonial power found in theidea of the nation-state 'the' clue to the West's economic success and politicaldominance. The idea of a native nation-state, thus, was increasingly seen ashe cure-all for every ill of the Third World.

The State and DevelopmentThe concept of the state that emerged from the modern European experiencehad some distinguishing features. Among other things, the new conceptassumed a closer fit between the realities of ethnicity, nation and the state; itgave a more central role to the state in the society than the 'ancient regime'had done; and it redefined the state as the harbinger and main instrument ofsocial change, which in the European context meant being the trigger for andprotector of the modern institutions associated with industrial capitalism.

In the immediate aftermath of colonialism in the 1950s and 1960s there was arevival of a major intellectual concern in the nature of state - specifically, aconcern with the processes of state - and nation - building in the old societiesturned new nations. It was widely believed in the modern world that every societyhad to pass through clear-cut historical stages to finally conform to the prevalentmodel of a proper nation-state - exactly as every economy had to go throughfixed stages of growth to attain the beatitude of development. It was believedthat to go through these inescapable stages, each society had to restructure itsculture, shed those parts that were retrogressive and cultivate cultural traitsmore compatible with the needs of a modern nation-state.

13

Development was increasingly understood as a process that could be universaland should be universal and unimpeded by specific cultural patters. Its twouniversal ingredients were the nation - state and economic change. Thus, thenation state was to be the framework of the development project. Nation -states were territorially defined political systems based on the government/citizen relationship that emerged in nineteenth century Europe. Use of thisframework was a historical choice based on the West's experience, not on aninevitable unfolding of human destiny. Geopolitical decisions about postcolonialpolitical arrangements were made in London and Paris where colonial powers,looking to sustain spheres of influence, insisted on the nation-state as the onlyappropriate political outcome of decolonization. The frontiers of mostpostcolonial states are inheritances from colonial partitions which in turn arecompletely arbitrary. They do not reflect the limits of natural regions, nor thelimits of separate ethnic groups. They were shaped in their detail by the chancesof conquest or of compromise between colonial powers. Furthermore, ideasabout the limits to the nation-state organization resonate today in the growingmacro-regional groupings around the world. These macro - regions involvestates and firms that collectively reach beyond national boundaries to organizesupranational markets. Examples include the European Community (EC), theNorth American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), and Asia-Pacific EconomicConference (APEC).

The Developmentalist State :The Third World countries vitnessed the establishment of relatively strongdevelopmentalist states, advocating variants of economic nationalism. Thedevelopmentalist state was characteristic of late starters on the developmentpath.- Planning and public investment were necessary to the strategy of catchingup. Three intersecting forces stood behind the developmentalist state:

1 Development economies encouraged state planning to overcome marketinefficiencies in Third World countries (for eg., low literacy levels).

2. Post-colonial governments inherited a centralized administration fromcolonial patterns of rule.

3. Management of foreign assistance funds were centralized in the handsof the state, giving planning elites considerable leverage over their society.In fact, access to foreign aid often depended on a country's having aWestern-style state with a bureaucracy composed of ministries, careercivil servants and the like.

The developmentalist state takes charge of organizing economic growth bymobilizing money and people. On the money end, it uses individual andcorporate taxes, along with other government revenues such as export taxesand sales taxes, to finance public buildings of transport systems and stateenterprises such as steel works and energy exploration. States also mobilizemoney by borrowing in private capital markets, competing with private borrowers.Where state enterprises (financed with public monies, but run on market criteria)predominate, we have what is called 'state capitalism'. Where they complementprivate enterprise, we simply have a form of state entrepreneurialism.

14

On the people front, typically in postcolonial states, governments mobilizedpolitical coalitions of citizens from different social groups - workers, capitalists,professionals and small business people. Political loyalty was obtained by theguarantee of certain kinds of social resources to these various groups: publicservices, price subsidies, easy credit terms to small businesses, tax exemptionfor capitalists, wage increases for workers and so on. The developmentaliststate used these coalitions to support its programme of industrialization. Whenthe government integrates labour unions and business into a three-way alliancewith government economic programmes designed to stimulate privateenterprise, the result is a 'corporatist' state,

Structural Adjustment and the StateStructural adjustment policies pursued by the multilateral agencies in the ThirdWorld reveal a telling rethinking of the state's role in development initially, aspresented by the World Bank's 1981, report, the goal of "shrinking" the statewas justified as a way to improve efficiency and reduce urban bias. Structuraladjustment programmes (SAPs) directly challenged the political coalitions andgoals of the national developmental state. At the same time, SAPs strengthenedfinance ministries in the policy-making process. In other words, within the ThirdWorld, power moved from the developmental coalitions (urban planning,agriculture, education) to the financial group, which was most concerned witha country's ability to obtain international credit. The report revealed a shift inBank lending practices from providing assistance for developmental concernsto tying aid to "comprehensive policy reform."

The World Bank's premise for the shift was that the postcolonial developmentstates were over bureaucratic and inefficient on the one hand, and unresponsiveto their citizenry on the other. The solutions proposed and imposed the Bankhowever substitute growing external control of these countries in the name offinancial orthodoxy,

The Bank by advancing the idea of "political conditionality" proposed "policydialogue" with recipient states leading to "consensus forming". This is asophisticated way of constructing political coalitions and shifting the balance ofpower within the recipient state towards those who expect to gain from theeconomic reforms proposed by the multilateral agencies. This strategy is actuallya way of remaking states, through "institution building", it continues the practicewhereby the administration of Bank projects gives greatest weight to the inputof technical experts in national planning. The new phase of Bank involvementdeepens by organizing coalitions in the state that are committed to theredefinition of the government's economic priorities. The state sheds itsaccountability to its citizens, who iose input into their own government.

One clear implication of this practice is an expanding trusteeship role for themultilateral agencies. This procedure not only compromises national sovereigntybut also subordinates national policy to the demands of the global economy. Itillustrates the growth of global regulatory mechanisms that may override nationalpolicy making. Under these conditions, the World Bank, which is now theprincipal multilateral agency involved in global development financing, plays a

15

definite governing role. It dictates legal and institutional change through itslending process and since its 1989 report, it now asserts that evaluatinggovernance in debtor countries is within its jurisdiction.

The Decline of the Developmentalist StateThe debt regime shifted economic managerial power from former Third worldstates to global agencies. Countries surrendered their economic sovereigntyas First World governments and financiers, both private and public, concentratedmanagerial control of the global economy in their own hands. Governmentsand business elites in the former Third World countries certainly collaboratedin this enterprise, often for the same reasons they had promoted developmentfinancing in previous decades. They are usually well placed to benefit mostfrom infusions of foreign capital and the debt burden in borne disproportionatelyby the poor.

Treating the debt crisis as a banking crisis meant that global financial healthoverrode other considerations, including the viability of governmentmanagement of national economies. Keynesian (state interventionist) policieshad steadily eroded through the 1970s in the First World as the ideology ofeconomic liberalism spread its message of giving the market a free rein. Publicexpenditure fell; so did wage levels as organized labour lost ground becausefirms were moving off shore and/or cheaper imports from the newlyindustrializing countries were flooding domestic markets.

Under the new monetarist,doctrine in the 1980s, this trend was extended south.The debt regime directly challenged the developmentalist state. Debt managersdemanded a'shrinking'of states of the former Third World, both through reductionin social spending and through the'privatisation'of state enterprises. In order toreschedule their debt, governments sold off the public companies that hadballooned in the 1970s. As a result, the average number of privatizations in thisregion of the world expanded ten-fold across the decade.

Although there is no doubt that developmentalist state elites had pursuedexcessive public financing, privatization accomplished two radical changes:(1) it reduced public capacity in developmental planning and implementation,thereby privileging private initiative; and (2) it extended the reach of foreignownership of assets in the former Third World - precisely the condition thatgovernments had tried to overcome in the 1970s. Between 1980 and 1992, thestock of international bank lending rose from 4 percent to 44 percent of theGDP of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ratherthan losing the money they had loaned in such excessive amounts, banksearned vast profits on the order of 40 percent per annum on Third Worldinvestments alone. The restructured zones of the global economy wereapparently now quite profitable for private investment; wages were low,governments were not competing in the private capital markets and an exportboom in manufactured goods and processed foods are underway,

The debt regime, in dealing with the problem of adjustment on a case-by-casebasis, transformed the discourse of development in two distinct ways. First,

16

the conditions imposed on debtors for renewal of credit enabled the debtmanagers to reframe the national project. There was no longer a question ofpursuing the goals of the original development project; rather, wholesalerestructuring (to compete in the global economy) was necessary to guaranteerepayment of debt. Second, austerity measures, privatization, and exportexpansion renewed the global economy rather than individual nationaleconomies. Austerity measures lowered wages to encourage foreigninvestment, privatization ensured the revival of the principle of the global freedomof enterprise and export expansion sustained the flow of products to the wealthierzones of the global economy.

Each measure potentially undermined the coherence and sovereignty of nationaleconomies. Lowered wages reduced local purchasing power. Wage earnershad a tighten their belts; as a result, the market for goods produced locallycontracted. Privatization of public enterprises reduced the capacity of states.They were no longer in a position to enter into joint ventures with private firmsand lay plans for production priorities.

Reduction in public expenditure generally reduced states' capacity to coordinatenational economic and social programmes. Finally, export expansion oftendisplaced local production systems.

The National State and GlobalisationAs parts of national economies became embedded more deeply in globalenterprise through commodity chains, they weakened as national units andstrengthened the reach of the global economy. This situation was not unique tothe 1980s, but the mechanisms of the debt regime institutionalized the powerand authority of global management within states'very organization andprocedures. This was the turning point in the story of development.

Internalizing the authority of global management involves two significant andrelated changes in the structure of power. First, the conditions of debtrescheduling actively reorganize states. Second, the reorganization has aprofoundly unrepresentative character to it, as bureaucrats in the global agenciesexert more and more influence on how states should conduct their economicaffairs. Reform policies are routinely imposed by the global agencies with littleor no scrutiny by the citizens of the state undergoing restructuring. The WorldBank established local agencies to administer its projects as a matter of course.Under the debt regime, this practice blossomed under the pretext of shakingmarkets loose from government regulation. Giving the market free rein isarguably a euphemism for allowing such bureaucrats, global banks, and globalfirms a stronger hand in determining what should be produced, where and forwhom.

The power of the global managers is typically institutionalized through theadministration of adjustment programmes. Throughout the Bretton Woods era,the International Monetary Fund exerted considerable influence on the fiscalmanagement of states by applying conditions to the loans it made to adjustshort-term balance of payments. But this influence involved merely financialstabilization measures. Structural adjustment loans, by contrast, restructure

17

economic initiatives in debtor countries and redistribute power within the state.The most widespread restructuring redistributes power from programme-oriented ministries (social services, agriculture, education) to the central bankand to trade and finance ministries. The importance of this shift is the loss ofresources to state agencies that support and regulate economic and socialsectors affecting the majority of the citizenry, especially the poorer classes.These resources are shifted to the agencies more directly connected to globalenterprise, where economic criteria replace the social criteria that define thenational project.

The End of the State :The relationship between culture and the state in most Third World societies istoday subject to re-evolution. A huge majority of Third World societies havefailed to walk successfully the arduous oath of 'progress', laid out soconsiderately by the dominant school of post World War 11 social science andthey have failed to develop viable nation-states along the lines prescribed bypostal In century Europe. The state in these societies often looks today likesome kind of specialized coercive apparatus or private business venture.Further, culture in these societies has shown more resilience than expected.When pitted against the needs and rationales of the state, it is often the statewhich has given way to culture. This resilience of culture, also expressed in thespirited resurgence of ethnic self-awareness in many Third World societies,seems to show hat what was once possible in the case of small tribes andminorities which were bulldozed by modernization is no longer possible in thecase of larger cultural entities without arousing stiff resistance.

There seems to be a growing inability of the nation-state to serve the needs ofcivil society in large parts of the world. Further, the institution of the modern statewas born into and presuppose a relatively stable and insular world that no longerexists today. In an age of increased mobility of labour, capital, culture and so on,territorial boundaries have become porous, no longer command old attachmentsand allegiances and cannot be the faci of individual and collective identity.

Conclusion:Responses to the failures of the state can broadly be classified into three.First, there has emerged the concept of multi-national and multi-ethnic statesas correctives to the standard idea of the unitary nation-state. Second, somepeople, noticing how the concept of the nation state seeks to pummel majorcivilizations into shape, have tried to redefine the state. Third, there have beenothers to whom the concept of a moderate or civil state promises some respite,if not a remedy. It is possible, they feel, to recover the liberal, pace-setting roleof the state through detailed monitoring of the state by those politically activeoutside the state sector, in areas such as environment, peace, human rights,feminism, alternative sciences and technologies. The enrichment of civil societyand reform of the state through such monitoring, they feet will automaticallybring about a redefinition of the scope of the modern state.

Critics of the state, however, point out that the spectacular state-controlleddevelopment processes in a society are no guarantor of the development of

18

the society, however paradoxical this may sound. There are a number of statesin the world where development means only the development of the state itselfor, at most, the state sector. In fact, in a number of cases, the development ofthe state has been the best predictor of the underdevelopment of society. Further,the state's role as the ultimate development agency legitimizes its authoritariannature and repressive policies. Some scholars have, consequently, defineddevelopment as the process in the name of which the state mobilises resourcesinternally and externally and, then, eats them up itself, instead of allowing themto reach the bottom and the peripheries of society.

Some scattered non-or post modem concepts of the state have, thus, began toemerge in respond to the crisis of the nation state in our times. For while it is anopen question what forms the post-modern state will take, there is little doubtthat the dominant concept of the state will have to be drastically altered. If notin response to intellectual doubts and criticisms, at least in response to thelarger processes of demoncratisation going on all over the world. For the crisisof the modern state springs primarily from the contradiction that has arisenbetween it and the demands for democratization of the world of knowledgeand restoration of the dignity of the peoples peripheralised during the last 200years.

Questions:I . Account for the origins and contemporary practices of the state. Focus

particularly on the notion of the 'developmentalist state.'

2. Do you agree with the 'end of the state' argument? Justify your responsewith special reference to the forces of globalisation.

____________

19

3MODERNISATION THEORY

The objective of this unit is to understand the meaning of the term modernizationto trace the origins of the modernization theory and to focus on the main tenetsof modernization theory. Finally, to critically evaluate the five major approachesof this theory namely, the Ideal Typical Approach, the Diffusionist Approach,the psychological Approach, the Historical Approach and the Marxist Approach.

Further, we try to understand Daniel learners important work the passing ofTraditional society (1958) and finally we critically evaluate the strengths andweakness of the modernization theories.

Introduction:The term 'modernisation' became very popular in western social science in the1960's. In the first development decade of the 1950s, development theory,practice and policy was dominated by the modernization approach and thiscontinued into the 1 960s. the ideological framework proposed by themodernization approach was essentially Western and pro-capitalist. It formedpart of the process of Westernization of developing countries. Before movingfurther, let us trace the beginnings of modernization theory. Conceptually,Modernization Theory was predicated on two distinctive and yet interrelateddisciplines:

A.- The Classical Evolutionary Theory

B - Functionalist Theory

(A) - The Classical Evolutionary Theory (Comte, Durkheim et all assumed thefollowing:

1 . Social change is unidirectional, from a primitive to an advanced states,thus the fate of human evolution is predetermined.

2. The movement toward the final phase is good because it representsprogress, humanity, and civilization, the latter three concepts defined inaccordance with Western European cultural parameters.

3. It assumed that the rate of social change is slow and gradual. Mostimportantly, social change, in accordance with Charles Darwin approachto biological development, was evolutionary not revolutionary.

4. From above, the process (from primitive to complex modern societies)will take centuries to complete.

20

(B) Functionalist Theory, as outlined by Talcott Parsons, 1951, had thefollowing tenets:

1 Human society is like a biological organism, with different partscorresponding to the different institutions that makeup a society;

2. Each institution performs a specific function for the good of the whole,thus there are four crucial functions that every institutions must performto maintain the social fabric:

(i) Adaptation to the environment - performed by the economy, but not anyeconomic system, only capitalism can adapt to the environment.

(ii) Goal attainment - performed by the government, pursuing liberal alms asdefined by English and French thinkers.

(iii) Integration - (linking the institutions together) - performed by the legalinstitutions and religion. But not any religion. Branches of the Judeo-Christian religions were the right ones.

(iv) Latency - the maintenance and transmission of values from generation togeneration-performed by the family as a historical basic humanorganization, an education.

Functionalist theory stated that societies tend toward harmony, stability,equilibrium and the status quo. Any behaviour jeopardizing these conditionswill be considered anti-social and therefore punishable, etc.

Functionalism, or its'related theories of Structural Functionalism (Malinowski,Talcott Parsons) and Systems Theory has been one of the most influential ofall social science theories, not only in political science and sociology, but alsoin anthropology. Much of its origins depends on analogies with biologicalsystems, and in just the way that a biologist might study the role of somephysiological aspect, some set of cells, in the maintenance of life, functionalistshave tried to understand what are the necessary "functions" that must be carriedout in any political system if it is to cope with its environment and achieve itsgoals, and to locate the "structures" (political parties, socializing agencies likechurches, family, etc.) which facilitate the functioning.

The notion of Economic Development in the Less Developed Countries (oftenregarded as synonymous with Industrialisation) is a post-World Warphenomenon. The strategy which advocated and promoted economicdevelopment and modernization in the newly-emergent nation-states of theAfrica/Asia/Latin America (i.e. those within the Western sphere of influence)was formalized in the body o Modernization Theory.

After the Second World War, the world was divided into three major groups:

(i) The socialist countries (those with planned economies) like the then U.S. S. R., China, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and others.

21

(ii) The developed capitalist countries with market economies, like U. S. A.,Canada, Western Europe, Japan, etc.

(iii) And finally, the underdeveloped countries (Third World) based on marketeconomy and comprising of Africa, Asia, South America, Latin America,etc. (which were recently decolorizing themselves were in search of anew development model).

These under developed societies, which constitute more than two thirds ofhumanity, are characterized by certain features namely;

(i) Predominance of animal and human power over inanimate power-such assteam, electricity or atomic energy as basis of production.

(ii) Low per capita income, dependency on the primary sector of the economy,use of traditional technology and inadequate growth of in-frastructural facilitieslike roads, power plants, ports, etc.

Large number of population living in the rural areas and still dependent onagriculture. Very low degree of urbanization.

Level of standard of living of the average individual is very low. There is deficiencyin the nutritional intake, basic civic amenities are absent, individuals live inunhygienic conditions and are susceptible to many diseases. Illiteracy is rampantand there is high rate of mortality.

Individuals possess a traditional, primitive, irrational, complacent outlooktowards life. They are entrenched in superstitions, have low levels of workdiscipline and no sense of achievement orientation.

But what is modernization'?

According to scholars, the process of modernization sums up the changes thatcombine to convert an agricultural or underdeveloped society with a weak stateinto an industrialized society with a relatively efficient, active government. Themodernization process embraces changes that leads up to this industrializationand urbanization.

According to Wilbert Moore, 'modernization is a 'total' transformation of atraditional or pre-modern society into the types of technology and associatedsocial organization that characterizes the "advanced", economically prosperousand relatively stable nations of the Western World'.

Similarly, Daniel Lerner defined modernization as "the process of social changein which development is the economic component".

According to the view prevailing at the time, based on both economic andsocial interpretations, the countries of the former coloniai empires could beseen as having a dual economy, comprising of two sectors, a modern sectorwhich had come into being as a result of colonialism, and a traditional sectorwhich was still based on the precolonial past, This traditional sector was seenas an obstacle to development and in order for the economy to grow and for

22

development to take place in the country, it had to be transformed and bemodernized. For economic change to take place it was believed that thereshould first be social change. This as because it was considered that the valuesystems of traditional or underdeveloped societies, which emphasized collectiveideals and action based on kinship and community, hampered developmentand prevented the mobility necessary for individual endeavour and achievementalong capitalist lines.

Based on this line of thinking, the main tenets of Modernisation Theory are asfollows:

(i) It emphasizes a high degree of structural differentiation and specialization.(ii) It is based on a mode of production that has come to be known as the

capitalist mode of production. It is implied fro this that social order isconstituted around two important classes - Capitalist, which owns themeans of production, and the Working Class, which sells its labour in thisprocess.

(iii) It is essentially a wage labour economy. It highlights the growth of a marketeconomy in which both buyers and sellers are seen as individuals capableof engaging in a rational choice and operating within a framework ofvoluntaism.

(iv) The theory basically highlights the growth of bureaucratic institutions whichthemselves are constructed on principles of rationality and roledifferentiation. It is these bureaudratic organizations that are seen as beingthe foundations of this theory, The entire gamut of institutions that maintainsand regulates social order are seen as bureaucratic.

(V) The theory also emphasizes the growth of a political system based on theprinciple' of right as crystallized within the notion of state and mediatedthrough a set of constitutional principles,

(vi) The powers of the state are absolute and there is a democratic processbased on the principle of political representation and adult franchise.

(vii) This process of democratization of society has led to the existence ofvarious interest groups within the political process who represent variouscompeting ideologies that highlight the different ways in which the affairsof the state are to be managed.

(viii) Modernisation theory also emphasizes the growth of individualism, wherein the individual and individual rights are seen as being at the center of allsocial, economic and political development.

(ix) Finally, the modernization theories is also emphasize the idea of socialprogress and through the process of democratization it is possible forsocieties to achieve higher levels of individual and social emancipation.

From the sociological point of view, the process of modernization has yielded avast amount of writing. Modernization theory is not a unified approach therefore,we will broadly analyse five major approaches which are dominant today.

(i) The Ideal-Typical Approach.

(ii) The Diffusionist Approach.

(iii) The Psychological Approach.

23

(iv) The Historical Approach of Radical Social Scientists.

(v) The Marxist Approach

The first three approaches have dominated American thought and receivedimmense support and patronage all over, especially in the fifties and sixties.There is a lot of literature available on these approaches.

The fourth approach has emerged as a challenge to the other three approachesand offers a critique of their main tenets.

Similarly, the Marxist approach is also opposed to the other four approaches.

The Ideal Typical Approach:

This approach has manifested itself in two major variants, namely;

(i) The Pattern Variable Approach. Historical Stage Approach.

(ii) The Pattern Variable Approach:

This approach is derived from Max Weber's concept of Ideal Type which waslater systemized by Talcott Parson's. According to This approach, characteristicsof development and underdevelopment must be located and then programmesand schemes of development be made whereby, underdeveloped countriesdiscard the pattern variables of underdevelopment and adopt those ofdevelopment.

The sociological model developed by Neil Smelser in 1959 was inspired by thework of Talcott Parsons, whose structural-functionalist approach to social actioncombining Durkheimian and Weberian views had been very influential in thepost-war period to about the 1960s (the pattern variables of Parsons underlieSmelser's differentiation model.

According to Smelser, the modernization process was seen as being made upof four sub-processes:

(a) The modernization of technology, leading to a change from simpletraditionatized techniques to the application of scientific knowledge;

(b) The commercialization of agriculture, which is characterized by the movefrom subsistence to commercial farming, leading to a specialization in cash-crop production and the development of wage-labour;

(c) Industrialization, which depicts the transition from the use of human andanimal power to machine power;

(d) Urbanization, which brings about the movement from farm and village tothe large urban centers.

These processes sometimes occur simultaneously and sometimes at different

24

rates. E. g. in many colonial situations, agriculture becomes commercializedwithout industrialization. Nevertheless, these four processes affect socialstructure of traditional society in similar ways.

Firstly, as a result of these changes taking place simultaneously or at ' differentrates, traditional societies became more structurally differentiated. For Smelsera developed economy and society is characterized by a highly differentiatedstructure, whilst an underdeveloped one is relatively lacking in differentiation.By 'differentiation'Smelser meant the process by which more specialized andmore autonomous social units were established. He saw this as occurring inseveral different spheres of traditional society, in the economy, the family, politicalsystem and religious institutions. For example, as cash cropping is introduced,it leas to the separation of consumption and production activities of thehousehold; wage labour undermines the family production system, which is nolonger the basic unit of production. Thus the nature and functions of the familychange. Apprenticeship within the family declines, pressures develop againstthe recruitment of labour along kinship lins, the pattern of authority is transformedas elders lose the control they exercised and the nuclear family becomesdifferentiated from the extended family. Marriage norms may also changes asmore emphasis is given to personal choice in the selection of mates and aswomen become more independent economically, politically and socially.Individual mobility increases as people are recruited to various occupational,political and religious positions based on achievement rather than as-cription.Multifunctional religious and political roles are replaced by more specializedstructures.

So structural differentiation is the process whereby one social role ororganization... differentiates into two or more roles or organizations whichfunction more effectively in the new historical circumstances. The new socialunits are structurally distinct from each other, but taken together are functionallyequivalent to the original unit.

Secondly, as these differentiated units merge into larger units of the moderntype new relationships, which are not based on kinship, develop. This Smelsercalls the process of integration. For example, the move from a pre-modernpolitical structure, where political integration is closely bound up with kinshipstatus, tribal membership and control of basic economic resources often withmystical sanctions being attached, to a modem type characterized by theexistence of specialized political parties, pressures groups and statebureaucracy formed in which people from different ethnic groups in the countryare represented.

Thirdly, Smelser shows that through such differentiation, social disturbances,such as mass hysteria, outbursts of violence, religious and political movementsmay occur, which reflect uneven processes of change. This can lead to conflictbetween the old and new orders of society. In other worlds, it produces whatDurkheim called 'anomie' or normlessness, a stae of conflicting norms in societyand a culture of discontent, where people are unable to realize their aspirations

25

and may turn to violence, crime and other anti-social behaviour or toselfdestructive acts such as suicide. As Weber also showed, at the religiouslevel, the process of secularization causes disenchantment, fragmentationbetween competing or partial worldviews, social and private worlds becomemeaningless and there is a sense of despair and hopelessness. One of thereactions to modernization has been the emergence of fundamentalistmovements that reject modern values and preach a return to traditional ones.

(ii) Historical Stage Approach:In this approach apart from identification of gap between characteristics ofdevelopment and underdevelopment, it also specifies the intermediate stagesand their characteristics. This approach is mainly associated with Rostow andhis economic model developed in 1960.

Walt Rostow was an economic historian who served as an adviser to theAmerican government. His book entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: ANon-Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1960 clearly reflected thepro-capitalist ideological orientation of the modernization approach. His modelwas neo-evolutionary in nature and derived from the idea in earlier evolutionarytheory that change and development take place according to a set of orderedsequences. Rostow's model was based on the British Industrial Revolution.

According to Rostow, the processes of change were simpler and self-sustainingeconomic growth could be achieved by following a five stage mode of growth.He suggested that 'All societies can be placed in one of five categories, orstages of economic growth".

Stage 1: the traditional society

Stage 2: the preconditions for take-off

Stage 3: take-off

Stage 4: drive to maturity

Stage 5: high consumption

The first stage: The Traditional Society:

The essential feature of this society is that output is limited because of theinaccessibility of science and technology. Values are generally "fatalistic", andpolitical power is noncentralized. Large number of people are employed inagriculture, which has very low productivity because of the factors mentionedabove. In such a society, family and clan groupings are emphasized in thesocial organization.

The second stage: The Preconditions for take-Off:

This second stage of growth is one of transition. A traditional society does notmove directly into the process of industrialization, first certain preliminariesneed to take place.

26

There are clusters of new ideas favouring economic progress arising, andtherefore new levels of education, entrepreneurship, and institutions capableof mobilizing capital like bank, etc. investment increases, especially in transport,communications and raw materials, with a general direction toward commercialexpansion. But, in accordance with Rostow, traditional social structures andproduction techniques remain. There is the presence of a "dual society".

The third stage: The Take-Off:In this stage finally the old, traditional order and resistances are overcome.New forces, which mobilize economic growth, expand and dominate the society.Agriculture is commercialized, there is a growth in productivity, because that isnecessary if the demand emanating from expanding urban centers is to bemet. New political groups representing new economic groups push the industrialeconomy to new heights. In Britain, Canada and the United States, the proximatestimulus for take-off was mainly, though not entirely, technological. The take-off period began in Britain after 1783, in France and the United States around1840, in Russia in about 1890 and-in countries like India and China around1950.

The fourth stage: The Drive to Maturity:In this stage, the growing economy drives to extend modern technology in allits economic activities, Between 10 and 20 per cent of gross domestic productis invested and the economy takes its place in the international order. Technologybecomes more complex, refined and there is a move away from heavy industry.Now production is not the outcome of social necessity but of the need ofmaximizing profits to survive in a competitive capitalist market.

The fifth stage: Mass Consumption:In this final stage, the leading economic sectors specialize in durable consumergoods and services. All this stage, economic growth makes sure that basicneeds are satisfied and more resources are allocated for social welfare andsocial security. The emergence of the welfare state is an example. Durableconsumer goods and services are diffused on a mass basis.

Rostow thought of his theory as a dynamic one Le..."that deals not only witheconomic factors but also with social decisions and policies of governments".

The assumptions underpinning Rostow's schema may be summarized asfollows:

_ Modernization is characterized by "phases", and the stages in this processare common to all societies thus, this assumption put the theory outside historicaldevelopment.

_ Modernization is a homogenizing process. As such, societies tend towardconvergence: which can justifies cultural imperialism by the central powers.

27

- Modernization replicates European/North American values/Wodd-view,The nations of Western Europe and the United States are the modelsthat latecomes would like to emulate.

- Modernization is characterized by "phases", and the stages in this processare common to all societies thus, this assumption put the theory outsidehistorical development.

- Modernization is a homogenizing process. As such, societies tend towardconvergence: which can justifies cultural imperialism by the central powers.

- Modernization replicates European/North American values/world-view. Thenations of Western Europe and the United States are the models thatlatecomers would like to emulate.

- Modernization is an irreversible process. In other worlds, once theunderdeveloped societies come into contact with the Western Europeanand North American societies, they will not able to resist the "impetustoward modernization". Towards adopting capitalist relations of production,that is.

- Modernization is a progressive process. Modernization creates agoniesand suffering for many, but that is "the right price" to pay.

- Modernization is a lengthy process. It is an evolutionary change, not arevolutionary change.

- Modernization is a transformative process, societies must abandontraditional ways of thinking, traditional ways of human relations. In a word,societies must drop traditional structures, cultures and values, and adoptthose of Western Europe and North American societies today.

Critical Examination of Rostow's Theory:(i) Rostow has been criticized by many on the basis of the teleological

approach. Teleological Approach is one where the purpose, which is notexplicitly intended by any-one, is fulfilled, while the process of fulfillmentis presented as an inevitable sequence of events. In Rostow's model,policies are the result of development and not vise versa, and this isunacceptable to many, as policies of a state should be chosen and notjust merely adopted.

(ii) Also one cannot assume that every country will have a similar past andfuture. So generalizations of any sort are not possible,

(iii) It is felt by many scholars that characteristics of stages might overlap orspill into the other stages, For example, the pre-conditions stage thingsmay continue in the take-off stage and could also get carried further beyondthis stage also.

(iv) Critics feel that Rostow plays down all the obstacles and never discusses

28

them. Therefore, it is felt by many that his approach is conceptually vagueand empirically superficial. In the take - off stage, it is felt that merely ashift from agriculture to other sectors is not enough. For example, whileDenmark, Canada and France attained this shift, in other countries likeRussia, Sweden, Germany, etc it did not take place to the extent conceivedby Rostow.

v) Similarly, it has also been pointed out by extents that Rostow failed totake into consideration other aspects, like the 'bumps, crash landingsand nose dive crashes' !in his take-off stage. He has failed to discuss:

* The hauled take-off (in which progress is limited)

* The assisted take-off (in which the economy can be catapulted by something else)

* The self-propelled take off (which as the name suggests, is a verypowerful take-off like a rocket).

(vi) Rostow also failed to consider that an economy-could reach the fifth stagewithout going through all the stages or a particular stage. For instance, ithas been pointed out that countries like Canada and Australia enteredthe stage of mass consumption even before reaching the stage ofmaturity. This was happening, in recent times, with the oil richcountries also.

(vii) Following the same argument, it has also been argued that the last stageof mass consumption may not be reached at all. This could be due to thefact that inflation can reduce the levels of consumption in a society.

(viii) There are limits to a particular country's growth, As there might be instanceswhen a particular country should be regarded as 'fully developed" eventhough it might not I have reached the standards of the Western countrieslike the U. S. A, etc. because it have exhausted all its natural resources,manpower and capital, which set the limit of growth.

ix) Finally, with respect to the less developed countries, it is felt that Rostowdid not take into account crucial factors like unemployment, under-employment, poverty, lack of infrastructure, nature of thegovernment, etc.

(11) The Diffusionist Approach:This approach view development as a process in which there is a diffusion ofcultural elements from the developed to the under developed countries. Theunderlying assumption is that the under developed countries cannot overcometheir backwardness without assistance from the developed countries. There isdiffusion of capital, technology, Knowledge, skills, institutions including valuesand so on. These scholars perceive this aid as a sacrifice on part of thedeveloped countries for the benefit of the backward and sufferingunderdeveloped countries. If still a society dopes not reach the level of modernityand development as projected by them, then it is blamed on the inherent

29

weaknesses present in the under developed-backward societies, likedemographic factors, presence of traditional institutions, beliefs, values, etc.(See characteristics of under developed societies presented earlier).

(iii) The Psychological Approach:This approach is mainly associated with McClelland, Kunkel, Hagen and others.According to McCLelland, a society with a high level of achievement will produceenergetic entrepreneurs who, in turn, will produce a more rapid economicdevelopment. This is because a high level of achievement among people makesthem behave in ways which help them fulfill their entrepreneurial rolessuccessfully. Therefore, the crucial factor for economic and culturaldevelopment, according to this approach, is the presence of achievementmotivation among members. This leads to a planned and concentrated growthand development.

(IV) The Historical Approach:This approach focuses on concrete historical studies of both developed andunder developed societies and recognizes the fact that conflicts and tensionsof various kinds are present in both, the developed and the under developedsocieties. This approach has many strands and the main postulates of thisapproach are sometimes characterized as "new sociology", "radical sociology","conflict sociology", etc. this approach is especially associated with C. WrightMills. (His Work Sociological Imagination is considered very important).

The main features of this approach can be summarized as follows,

* It emphasizes a historical study of both developed and under developedsocieties,

* It evolves policies of development on the basis of its concrete findings,and

The creative role of conflicts is highlighted. Though this is different from theapproach because here though the role of conflict is recognized, class conflic,As considered to be central. Further, the capitalist class is not considered TObe the ruling class in either the developed or the underdeveloped societies.

This approach is severely critical of the first three approaches. The followingcriticisms have been levied by this approach:

(i) According to this approach, the other three approaches are based onprinciples which tend to be abstract and formal.

(ii) Secondly, these theories perceive change not as it happens actually inhistory but as transformation of one equilibrium of ideal type to anotherequilibrium of ideal type. They tend to force reality into abstract ideal-typical social systems rather than concretely evolving social structures.

(iii) Therefore, as a result, it is felt that the critical spirit disappears in theseapproaches.

30

(iv) Finally, it is argued that these approaches have committed the fallacy oftrying to derive particulars of human behaviour in any specified givensociety on the basis of certain formulas and models that they have evolved.

(v) The Marxist Approach,

This approach accepts the fundamentals of the Marxist philosophical andsociological postulates. According to this approach, the underdevelopment ofsome countries and the development of others, is linked to the emergence of themodern capitalist system on a global scale. So the causes of under developmentand the problems arising out of this are blamed on the growth of capitalism.

According to this theory, the relationship between the developed capitalistcountries and the underdeveloped counties is not one of harmony andcooperation, instead there is a subtile and indirect subjugation of the latterunder the guise of "aid". It is argued that the developed world is transformingthe underdeveloped societies into their neo-colonial dependencies and theentire image of "aid", "assistance", 'Support" and diffusion of skills, techniques,capital and modernized institutions and values is false and deceptive. The aiditself is seen as the basic obstacle to overcoming backwardness.

Followers of this approach, further state that the policies and schemes fordevelopment pursued by the ruling class of the advanced capitalist countriesare based on a theory of development which relies on strengthening andfurthering the interests of the propertied class and the rich.

Therefore it is postulated that, a policy of development will only be successfulif it is based on achieving the reliance of the working class.

The Marxist Approach also presents a critique of the other three approacheswhich are;

* the other approaches failed to explain the true character of underdevelopment and its causes,

* they did not consider the real alternative on the path for development,which is, Socialism.

Daniel Lerner and his important work The Passing of Traditional Society (1958)

One of the most famous of early modernization studies was carried on by DanielLerner. In his major work The Passing of Traditional Society (1958), he examinedthe process of modernization in several Middle East countries, carried out asample survey in other under developed societies and supplemented all thiswith his observations of village society.

Lerner's premise is that modernization is a global process occurring in a similarmanner the world over, and the role of indices of development like mass media,urbanization, increase in literacy, etc. are responsible for the emergence of a

31

new economic order. According to Lerner, modernity is result of not merelyinstitutional changes in society but also due to changes in the personality ofpeople. He had illustrated this with his account of the grocer and the chief inthe village of Balgat situated in Turkey.

For Lerner one of the crucial aspects of modernization is the development ofa'mobile personality' which is characterized by rationality and empathy. Empathyis the capacity to see oneself in the other person's situation, and this enablespeople to operate efficiently in a changing world. Modernization, then, ischaracterized by a high degree of literacy, urbanism, media participation andempathy.

As mentioned above, Lerner had carried out questionnaires, and on the basisof the responses he had classified the respondents into traditional, transitionalor modern. He found that compared to the 'traditional' individuals, the 'moderns'were happier, better informed and relatively young, and the people placed inthe 'transitional' category were inclined to be discontented and liable toextremism, especially is their progress was blocked by a lack of suitable politicalinstitutions.

Bur Lerner was aware of the fact that although the people placed in the 'modern'category seemed happier, there were difficulties in development, for example,strains may be put on the government, there are problems of social control,etc. similarly, there are personal problems at an individual level, for example,individuals placed in the 'transitional' category may have to adjust traditionalArab and Muslim beliefs to a 'modern' setting. (His study was conducted in theMiddle East).

Lerner's basic premises can be briefly summarized as follows;

* There is a classification of society into traditional, modern (like the otherapproaches), plus an intermediate category.

* Focus on indices of modernity like urbanization, literacy, mass media,etc.

* Importance is given to specific personality types in the process ofmodernization.

THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF MODERNIZATION THEORIES:In analyzing the assets of modernization theory, it should be understood thatthis school of thought emerged in the early years of the 1950s, and began todisappear in the 1970s when belief in it started to wane. In light of this, it couldbe presupposed that the weaknesses outnumber the strengths; otherwise thetheories would still be relevant today.

The strengths are:

The main quality of modernization theory is that of its simplicity - the objectiveis already visible in the image of the West, and the path to follow is laid out bythe history of Western evolution. All that remains is for the traditional society torecognize what is needed, from examination of other 'take-off s' to modernity,

32

for their own culture to evolve. Having alleadly achieved their goal, the modernsocieties can assist in the evolution of the traditional society (although in realitythis is far from the truth), by reference to their own history, and to essentiallymodernization becomes a form of mimicking - a case of 'what works for them -hould work for us.' The same concept was already covered in the term'Westernisation' referring to the mimicking of the West), but the word'modernisation has far less -grocentric connotations, and as a result gains muchmore affection from developing societies are keen to retain some sense oftheir own history.

However, the strengths of modernization theory also lead to its weaknesses. Afew of are presented below:

(i) The straightforward approach of advancing a society byway of itself evolvinginternally is, though easy to grasp and as such has strong exterior appeal, isfar too basic to incorporate into the world system we see today. The very factthat there are modernized societies to 'look up' too entails that a communicationand possible co-operation between North and South already exists, and thatthere are therefore links and ties already in place - not necessarily to the extentthat dependency theorists would go, arguing that the South cannot grow withoutthe severing of the North's stranglehold, but nonetheless significant ties in theorganization of society - which mean that the target society cannot be solelyregarded as an internal entity; there is little hope of avoiding international factorsin today's global village. To resolve this, some thinkers have developed thetheory of diffusionism (covered earlier), which bears many of the samecharacteristics of modernization, but accepts the diffusion of ideas, product,and workforce between both modernized and traditional societies. A culturecan be changed sub-consciously and indeed overnight, in ways that may notbe intended or in a accordance with the planned evolution. Modernization maybe revolutionary, in that it replaces the traditional with the modern, but it mustalso be considered that revolutions can take some time - they are not aninstantaneous event.

(ii) Another criticism put forth is that while the developing country struggles toUpdate its social, political, and economic structures to that of the developedcountry, it is extremely likely that the modernized country will continue to growat the same, or possibly faster, rate that the developing country is, and will finddifficult to catch up. Though global evolutionary equality is not a particular goalof modernization theory, it is surely one of the aims of development as a whole,and something that is worth pursuing. If this 'closing of the gap' cannot beeasily achieved by the performance of an established theory, such as seems tobe the case with modernization, then it is clearly not a comprehensive cure forthe problem of development.

(iii) It is also argued that since modernization theory is typically a Westernphenomenon, its roots obviously must lie around capitalist society-thedeveloping world is to be a mirror image of the civilized, which generallyembraces capitalism. For example, it is automatically assumed by thinkers likeRostow that this is the correct way for all, underdeveloped society to develop,

33

without considering the implications or alternatives. (See critique of Rostow)

The most well known reaction to theories of modernization is that of its antithesis,the Theory of Dependency. Dependency theory takes a far more global viewpointpostulates that the difficulties in development are not due solely to the internalworking of the country or region in question, but are more to do with the globalimposed by the developed onto the less developed. This is best illustratedGunder Frank's conceptualization of international relations as a chain of satellite'relationships. Frank (of the socialist tradition) suggests that there unseenhierarchical structure to world relations: the chain begins with the first ropolis(usually attributed to the USA) that has no satellites - i.e. that has no strongdependencies on any other region - and continues downwards; the next layerare still strong metropolises, but still require the USA or other well-developedWestern societies in some way-, until much further down we reach the ultimatesatellite, which is dependent on everything above it for existence. Frank arguesthat these dependence links are both the key and the problem when an inabilityto develop arises. The sanctions imposed, often consciously, by the metropolisesto which the satellite is dependent, strip the freedom of the satellite society toevolve and grow, because all of their output is effectively consumed by theupper society.

This theory is actually visible in reality, with the situation revolving around aid tothe Third World, where the interest rates and terms are so harshly imposedthat the recipient country will always be at the mercy of the donor. Frank feelsthat it is tile dismantling of these dependency relations that is the solution tothe problem of development: notably, though, this is a very socialist perspective,since the release of such restrictions allows for much freer and potentially diverseglobal system, one which does not fit well with traditional capitalistcharacteristics.

The connect this has with modernization theory is simple: both have equalmerits, even though they are completely opposed in attributes, but the questionof which is most suitable is dependent on the belief to the observer-those broughtup and embroiled in a capitalist society, and who believe in the benefits ofcapitalism, may be more likely to prefer modernization theory. On the otherhand, a neo-Marxist will almost certainly stick with theories of dependency.Clearly it is only the completely impartial spectator that can truly judge the prosand cons of both, concepts.

(iv) Finally, it has been pointed out that modernization theory itself hasproduced nothing truly visible yet. This is not because there has been nodevelopment in the past 50 years, there has been evolution related to bothfields of thought-but.rather because the theories themselves are so indistinctand vague: modernization theory does not Paint a very precise picture of whatshould be happening, and more particularly, how it should be occurring. As amotivational aid, this theory is an excellent boost to the, drive of a developingsociety, but it is not the solution. What is, remains to be seen.

34

SummaryThe concept of modernization emerged after the Second World War, instigatedprimarily by the global dismantling of European empires, and was widely viewedas the most valuable development theory for around 15 years. It is concernedwith the development gap between the developed and under developedcountries, and how best to lessen this gap so that the Third World can developquicker and more effectively.

Modernization is a conceptual framework that articulated a common set ofassumptions about the nature of developed societies and their ability totransform a world perceived as both materially and culturally deficient.Specifically, modernization theorists posited a sharp distinction betweentraditional (read poor) and modern (read Western) societies. They took forgranted that economic development, from traditional to modern, proceededalong a single straight, unambiguous line. Modernization advocates expectedthat contact with vital modern societies would accelerate progress in stagnanttraditional societies.

Put simply, modernization theory is the fundamental proposition that people intraditional societies should adopt the characteristics of modern societies inorder to modernize their social, political and economic institutions. It shouldalso be noted that theories of this nature typically come from Western thinkers,not the societies in question themselves, and so we should also assume thatthe under developed societies have an aspiration to develop into a modernsociety. Whether this is an entirely compelling assumption is doubtful.

Naturally, there are many variants of modernization theory, but the mostcommonly held stems from Wait Whitman Rostow's views, popularized in the1960s volume, The Stages of Economic Growth: a non-communist manifesto.Rostow outlines five main stages of sociological growth, in an effort to definefirstly where the constituents parts of the world stand in this scheme, and thenhow best for the under developed countries to climb the ladder of development.

The first of these stages is the traditional society, which can be said toencompass all societies prior to the 17th century, which possess little of thestructural characteristics that can be seen today. Technological constraints limitproduction in this stage.

As these constraints are removed through education and changes in the valuesystem at the second stage, rational scientific ideas, infrastructure and anorientation to business assume greater importance. These changes do notendogenously as was the case in Western Europe, but from external intrusion,which forces the traditional society into changing. The next stage Rostow termsthe preconditions for take-off, which is best illustrated with respect to the thirdstage, the take-off itself. The take-off is the period whereby a society begins togrow at a steady rate, both in quantity and quality. Essentially, the political,social, and manufacturing sectors are reformed to allow growth within all aspectsof the country, and the society can be said to be emerging as a modern, typicallycapitalist, civilization. The preconditions for this are various, but can be

35

categorized as a general change in direction through all walks of society, towardthe transition from a traditional to modern society. The final two stages arenatural extensions from the take-off: the drive to maturity is the expansion ofthe newly developed ideas and technology into other divisions of society,investment increases to 10-20% and modern technology is diffused throughoutthe economy, and the age of high mass consumption, the final stage wherebythe progress made previously has been fully filtered throughout the economyand culture, and is essentially the state of a country whereby little or no growthis longer necessary to maintain itself.

As a theoretical model, Rostow's perspective on modernization is useful in thatit is, whether purposefully or not, very indiscriminate and simplistic: it requireslittle remoulding to adapt from one culture to the other, because there is no realsubstance to modify. The basis of the theory is that the ultimate goal alreadyexists and can be examined readily, and that this is what the developing countryshould strive for. Rostow makes no attempt to isolate individual cases anddiscover different ways to adapt the theory to them, because this is not thepurpose of the study - his theory, if not others, supplies the structure and groundrules, rather than the solution,

Smelser was concerned with the effects of economic development (for Smelser,economic development had the restricted meaning of economic growth) onsocial structures. Smelser distinguished four processes:

1) there was a move from simple to complex technology

2) there was a change from subsistence farming to cash crops

3) there was a move from animal and human power to machine power

4) there was a move from rural settlements to urban settlements.

For Smelser these processes would not occur simultaneously, and, more,importantly, changes would differ from one society to another. He added thatthere was a variety of pre-modern starting points and the impetus to changewould also vary, being crucially affected by tradition, thus leading to differentpaths towards modernization. National differences are also important, even inthe most advanced stages of modernization, and wars and natural disasters,can crucially affect the pattern of development.

The other theories of modernization are the Diffusionsit Approach, in whichdevelopment is seen as the diffusion of cultural elements from the developedto the under developed world. The Psychological Approach - associated withMcClelland and others, where importance is placed on the individuals personalitytrait of achievement motivation which accelerates economic growth in a country.

The other two approaches, the Historical Approach and The Marxist Approachemerged as a critique of the other three approaches. According to them, theearlier three approaches are empirically invalid when observed in the contextof reality, theoretically inadequate and policy wise ineffective in pursuing theproclaimed intentions of promoting modernization and development of

36

underdeveloped countries.

Then came the ideological, political, and economic earthquake of the 1960sand culture was conceptually pushed aside as the social sciences came to bestrongly influenced it not dominated by Structuralism, Institutionalism, Marxismand Dependency Theory. "Modernisation" theory was not only criticized, it wasultimately pronounced dead. The postwar version of modernization theory hadseriously neglected external factors, such as colonialism and imperialism, aswell as the newer forms of economic and political domination. The emergingneo-Marxist and world-systems theorists emphasized the extent to which richcountries exploited poor countries, locking them into positions of powerlessnessand structural dependence. "Culture" was replaced with the specificity of class,race and gender in the developmental process, all of which are still prominentin the social sciences as analytical constructs.

Critics alerted people to the fact that their prevailing belief that industrializationfrees them from much of the drudgery found in non-industrial societies waslargely a myth. This provided a yet another antidote to the modernization school'simplicit assumptions of Western technical and moral superiority.

References:Desai, A. R. (ed). Essays on Modernization of Underdeveloped Societies, 1971.Vol 1: Thacker and Co. Ltd., Number.

Questions:(1) What is Modernisation Theory? Discuss its main tenets?

(2) Discuss the Modernisation Theory of Daniel Lerner.

(3) Broadly analyse the five major approaches of the Modernisation Theory.

(4) Discuss in detail with criticisms the Ideal Typical Index Approach.

(5) Present a critical analysis of Rostow's'Stages of Economic Growth'.

(6) Discuss the Modernisation Theory of Smelser.

(7) What according to you are the major shortcomings of the ModernizationTheories?

_________________

37

4DEVELOPMENT AND

UNDERDEVELOPMENT

Objectives:By exploring the theories of underdevelopment and dependency, this sectionfocuses on the understanding of the precarious relationship between the FirstWorld and the Third World.

Concepta) Dependency Theory:

A set of theories which maintain that the failure of Third World states to achieveadequate and sustainable levels of development resulted from their dependenceon the advanced word.

b) World System TheoryIt refers to a historical description of the capitalist economic system, from centreto periphery and of the effects of this growth on capitalist and precapitalistsocieties alike. It is mainly associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein.

Centre - Periphery : Metropolis - SatelliteThese are spatial metaphors which attempt to explain the structural relationshipbetween the advanced or metropolitan center/metropolis and a less developedperiphery / satellite, either within a particular country or as applied to therelationship between capitalist and developing nations. It is found in the worldsystems theories of Amin, Wallerstein and Frank.

Introduction:There are a variety of approaches originating in classical Marxism whosecollective work has come to be known at various times as dependency theory,world systems theory -and underdevelopment theory. Dependency 'theory isused to designate that body of though concerning 'development' whichemanated from Latin America in the 1950s and 60s, which later led to a moregeneral view of development. Underdevelopment refers to the key features ofthe world capitalist system. Dependency theory and world systems theorydespite considerable overlap can then be seen as constitutingunderdevelopment theory.

38

Underdevelopment is a term associated with dependency theory and used todescribe the condition of poverty and economic stagnation which characterisesmany Third World countries. It implies that these societies are not simplysuffering from lack of development, but also that they have not achieved theexpected levels of development which would have occurred had they not beenexploited by the advanced capitalist states.

Underdevelopment theory is primarily concerned with economic structures,but is was developed, in part, as a direct challenge to modernisation theoryand the sociology of development. This theory offers an explanation for thedevelopment or lack of development of the Third World.

The focus in this chapter is on the theories of Paul Baran, Gunder Frank,Immanuel wallerstein and Samir Amin.

Baran's Theory of Underdevelopment:In the period after the second world war when American Social science wasengaged in explaining underdevelopment within the Parsonian framework ofsocio-economic adaptation and neo evolutionism, there were other socialscientists working on underdevelopment, from outside the establishedperspectives. By using Marxism as a theoretical framework they were alsodeveloping theoretical insights into the phenomenon of underdevelopment. Theywere putting forth perspectives that only crisis that afflicted the underdevelopedcountries in the period following their attempts to modernize along capitalistlines.

The most important of these scholars is undoubtedly Paul Baran whose famouswork: "The Political Economy of Growth" was able of offer a radically new insightinto the new phenomenon of underdevelopment.

Baran's main thesis on underdevelopment was to show how the process ofcapitalist development in Less Developed Countries (LDCs) was directly linkedwith the process of capitalist expansion in the advanced capitalist countries.He developed a concept called the Economic Surplus which he defined as thedifference between the Total Product and Consumption (similar to the idea ofsavings in Keynesian economics). He argued that throughout colonial timesthe economic surplus of the colonies was drained off to the so-called "mothercountry" and little of it was reinvested for the purpose of the economicdevelopment of the colony. He put forth that this was done with the help andcooperation of the native elites who stood to gain materially from the colonialeconomy. Baran also argued that the economic surplus could be made muchlarger by planning the total product and making consumption move towardsessential consumption.

Actual Surplus = Actual Production - Actual Consumption

Potential Surplus Actual Production - Essential Consumption, and

Planned Surplus Rational Production - Essential Consumption.

39

He said that in each Third World country the potential surplus was larger thanthe actual, and the planned surplus was larger than the potential and actualsurplus. Baran believed that the kind of capitalism that existed in Third Worldcountries was a form of dependent capitalism. The existing patterns ofinvestment, production, and consumption prevented the underdevelopedeconomy from attaining the larger surplus.

Baran argued in "Political Economy of Growth" that it was in the direct interestof the Advanced Capitalist Countries (ACC's) to maintain a low level ofdevelopment within the less developed countries. If the process of exploitationof the of the less developed countries under colonialism was direct and overtwith the emergence of free nations at the end of the colonial period, the processcontinued to be exploitative. But this time it took on a new form which on theface of it would seem as if the advanced capitalist countries through aid anddevelopment grants were helping the less developed countries to develop; butin effect these new overtures from the advanced capitalist countries guised thecontinued process of economic exploitation of the underdeveloped countries.For the advanced capitalist countries, the economies of the Third Worldcontinued to be indispensable in terms of the availability of raw materials andexistence of large captive markets for the continued growth of profits within theadvanced capitalist counties.

The process of capitalist development in Europe was essentially accompaniedby the growth of capital amongst certain classes within European societiessuch as the merchants, landlords etc, Thus capitalist accumulation accordingto Baran was instrumental in the further development of capitalist mode ofproduction, i.e. the wealth that was accrued from within the capitalist systemcould be ploughed back for further expansion and development. It was in thiscontinued state of growth that created a situation in which European capitalcould create the conditions for sustained and long term growth of capitalismwithin their society.

In the colonies however the concept of growth provided a very different picture.Here the main objective of the capitalist enterprise was essentially in makingmaximum profits that were then returned to the imperial country. This gave riseto a situation in which the process of capitalist development in the colonieswas carried out primarily not for the purpose of developing capital in thesebackward areas, but in terms of using them as appendages for the developmentof capitalism in Europe. Thus the surplus value generated by economicenterprise in the colonies was never ploughed back into the economies ofthese regions, rather it was exported directly to the imperial country that ruledthe colony. In the period following the independence of these colonies, theprocess of capitalist development became more entrenched within these newnation states.

While political independence and sovereignty might place each of the nationsas a separate entity, within the larger community, their choice to carry on thepath of capitalist development now linked them up into a global economic systemcommanded by the advanced industrial systems of America and Europe and

40

in which the less developed countries were trapped in a continued process ofeconomic exploitation. The structural conditions both internal and external weresuch that any form of economic surplus was either exported in one or anotherdevious way to the advanced capitalist countries or it was utilized forconsumption purposes. This was basically seen as economic wastage.

On a global scale it may be pointed out that certain colonies like Australia, NewZealand and Canada followed very different trajectories as compared to theones outlined by Paul Baran. From the very outset these economies werecompletely run by European enterprise and the question of them severing tiesfor nationalistic purposes did not arise. In this sense they continued to be partof a command economy or a global capital rather than parts of the backwardless developed countries. The process of capitalist development in thesesocieties Thus took a different turn than that of the Third World.

The basic feature of Baran's theory in showing how development in theunderdeveloped countries are linked up with the development of advancedcapitalist countries, is grounded on the observation that Baran made concerningthe way in which economic surplus of the underdeveloped economies getsappropriated. The development of dependent capital in the underdevelopedcountries gave rise to some degree of economic surplus. This economic surplusinstead of being ploughed back in to the economy, thus creating a greaterimpetus for capitalist growth, was being appropriated by four groups in the lessdeveloped countries. The first was the Lumpen Bourgeoise, which was a classof basically economic parasites. Their activities were essentially non productivesuch as money lending, real estate etc. The second was a class of DomesticIndustrial producers and enjoyed government protection, Their industrial outputwas limited and the profits generated were usually spent in conspicuousconsumption exported to the advanced capitalists countries.

The third group was of foreign investors and multinationals. This group operatedat the level of providing more capital and advanced technologies for the purposeof production.

They provided technology and capital intensive techniques. Their main focuswas on the markets of the less developed countries for raw materials /manufactured goods~. The profits that accrued to them were always exportedout of the less developed countries.

Finally the economic surplus was also taken by the state. Baran referred to 3types of states:

1) the directly administered colony which used is revenue to develop itsresources of raw materials

2) the comprador, agent or government which ruled on behalf of Westerncapitalism. It concentrated on developing military and ideological policiessuitable for the tastes of the rich and with little interest in the welfare of themasses.

3) 'new deal' type of government which was the sphere for competing classinterests of national bourgeoise, feudal and comprador elements. The only

41

common factor for then was nationalism.

Thus Baran felt that underdevelopment in the Third World was a direct result ofcapitalism of the West. No amount of aid or agrarian reform could disguise thisrelationship. Thus the see - saw theory of theory of development was born.Baran continued that the underdeveloped economies were fated to remainforever underdeveloped. By choosing to become part of a global capitalistsystem, these economies were now engaged in reproducing the structure ofdomination and dependence that had earlier marked their history undercolonialism and imperialism.

What Bran sought to offer as a solution for these countries was to opt out of theglobal capitalist system and develop their own economic system based on theprinciples of egalitarianism and independence in terms of the path of socialistdevelopment that they must pursue. Baran's book did not win instant approvalfrom established economists. However the book was to play an important partin the formation of Marxist and neo-marxist views of development.

Dependency Theory and ECILA:The features of development advocated by the advanced capitalist countrieswas from the very outset trapped within the structures of dependence that existedin the relationships within the advanced capitalist countries and the lessdeveloped countries. In the period after the second world war when economicmodernization was seen as the dominant model of development for theunderdeveloped countries the United Nations Economic Commission for LatinAmerica (ECLA) was one of those bodies that was monitoring the growth thedevelopment within the countries of Latin America.

The basic problem for these countries was the inability to generate capital tocarry out their programmes of industrialization. The only way that they couldachieve their objective was to shift their agricultural production from a traditionalsustenance agriculture to a modern commercial agriculture catering to nationaland international markets. Thus in the first phase of economic modernizationthese countries set out to transform their agricultural practices such that a shiftto commercial agriculture would yield capital so badly required for their economicdevelopment. This was a transformation of rural societies in these countriesleading to a situation wherein wage labour would dominate the sphere ofagricultural production.

The enthusiasm with which many countries followed this gave rise to a situationin which the global prices for primary products began to fall. These prices werenot only a result of increased supply in the commodity market but also thegrowing level of self sufficiency in agricultural production in advanced capitalistcountries. For many Latin American countries the relationship between theless developed countries and advanced capitalist countries was marked by aform of unequal exchange in favour of the advanced capitalist countries. Whileagricultural prices were low and the capital accrued from such activities was

42

low, the cost of technologies being sold to them by the advanced capitalistcountries remained high. The result of this unequal exchange was a period ofstagnation. In the underdeveloped countries, the rural countryside witnessed agrowing pauperization among the wage labour force and a large percentage ofthe population even became landless.

It thus became clear that it was risky to real on export led growth only. Thesefactors led Latin American theorists to explore the ways in which their societieswere linked to the West.

For the ECLA the basic critique of this agricultural policy was that it had toonarrow an objective and by the beginning of 1950s it was proposing to manyLatin American countries to adopt the policy of import substitution. Thus in the1950s the policy of import substitution was adopted by the United NationsEconomic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) under Raul Prebisch.

Accordingly this policy was to revitalize the process of industrialization productionwithin the less developed countries and also expand the scope of the marketeconomy. Industrial entrepreneurs were encouraged through concessions andother protection policies to undertake manufacturing of good which hithertowere imported from advanced capitalist countries. ECLA believed thatprotectionism and state planning would give rise to degree in employment levels.This would lead to more efficient use of local capital supported by foreigninvestment.

On the face of it the policy was well meaning. What the policy however failed totake cognizance of was the role of foreign capital. While indigenousentrepreneurs might take up industrial production to meet the needs of aninternal market, such a production was in most cases possible only with thehelp of foreign capital and foreign investment. Import substitution succeededin achieving larger and larger outflow of capital profits from underdevelopedcountries. This led to a condition of economic stagnation and underdevelopment.

By 1964 the ECLA realized the effects to import substitution on Latin Americancountries. There was a fall in the rate of growth, stagnation and reduction in theabsolute levels of per capita income. Thus Latin America did not achieve asteady economic growth in the post war period.

The fall in the price of agricultural exports relative to imported goods, increasesin the importation of fuel and intermediate products, rapid population growth,inadequate advances in agricultural production were all held responsible byECLA for the failure of import substitution policy. However some blamed ECLAfor not having a general theory of Latin American dependency whilst othersfocused on the internal obstacles to industrial growth.

Thus even by the ECLA's narrow definition of development - economic growthand increases in per capita income - the policies of import substitution werejudged to have failed. It was suggested that foreign capital led to greater relianceon the to an even greater dependency on the West instead of increasing exportactivities. When import substitution did occur, it tended to be of goods which

43

were not important national development and certainly did not look after thehunger needs of the people. Such kind of expenditure of scarce national re

sources on unnecessary products, even if it saved foreign exchange, served tohighlight the existing social and economic inequalities and highlighting thedisparities. ECLA economists had not taken these issues into consideration.They pointed out to the uneven relationship between the developed 'centre'and the undeveloped 'periphery' and emphasized the importance of internalstructure.

It was in this context of disillusionment and international pride that dependencytheory arose in Latin America. Although Latin American countries achievedtheir importance before the 1960s, it was felt by many that economically theyremained colonies.

Thus dependency theory developed in opposition to the to the optimistic claimsof the modernization theory which saw the less developed countries beingable to catch up with the West. Economic interests in the dominant economyi.e. the advanced capitalist countries, were able to determine the parametersof economic relations between the dominant and the dominated. Vestedinterests in both the centre and the periphery sought to maintain and extendthese power structures thus promoting and continuing the dependency.Dependency theorists argued that these distortions and overall relations wouldseriously hamper, impair and in some instance prevent economic development.Dependent states could find themselves importing costly and inappropriatetechnologies. Dependency could also have implications in the areas of highpolitics with regard to seeking allies and the construction of alliances.

Thus dependency theory had the merit of drawing attention to the internationaldimension of development.

Gunder Frank and the World Systems Theory:Andre Gunder Frank was born,in Berlin on February 24,1929. He was aneconomics professor and theorist. He is one of several writers who can becollectively categorized as theorists of the world system. Though not theoriginator of the world system viewpoint, he was the one who greatly popularizedthe theory. Dos Santos, Wallerstein, Emmanuel and Amin represent variantson the same theme. In his more recent work he focused his attention on theanalysis of the crisis in world economy and then also on global world history.

According to Frank, in the history of capitalism what colonialism and imperialismdid to the shaping of the less developed countries was not just a phenomenonof rampant greed, plunder and exploitation. If it was only that, then the end ofcolonialism would have market a return to more progressive and enlightenedsentiments within those countries. This however did not happen. This wasbecause the process under consideration was one in which capitalism laid thestructural foundations for the continued and relentless exploitation of the lessdeveloped countries, irrespective of the demise of colonialism.

What Frank proposed is a global system in which development andunderdevelopment are understood as forms of exchange relationship. Here

44

the surplus capital is moved around from the nodal point to another. Themovement of capital to the next nodal point is simultaneously acompanied by aprocess of underdevelopment for theregion from which the capital is removedand a process of development for the region in which capital is brought into.These two geo spatial economic entities were identified as being metropolisand satellite or in the case Amin: centre and periphery.

The essential features of these were as follows:

Metropolis : In the global network of capitalist relationships this was the nodalpoint within the advanced capitalist countries from which relations of economicexchange with the Third World countries were be shaped out. These relationswere always more favourable to the metropolis.

Satelite: The terrn satellite was used to indicate those large geo spatial sectionsof were once under the gro of colonialism and now constituted capitalistdevelopment.

The metropollis would earn greater profits increasing capital formation, at thecost of the satelities. Thus while satellite economies would be providing all thenecessary conditions for capitalist development - raw mate rial, labou r, markets- the final out come always a process wnereby the surplus generated by theseeconomies found their way into the xploitative exchange relationship with thesatelities.

The link between the metropolis and satellites. constituted a global network. Ateach point in this network there there were exchanges that displayed the centralfeatures of a dependency syndrome. Thus while on the one hand one couldidentify dependency between the advanced capitalist countries and lessdeveloped countries, within their respective countries both, displayed metropolis-sallellite relationships. Thus the rural countriyside would be exploited by thecity and surplus capital from the rural countryside would find its way into thecity. Like wise the city being the hub of trade and commerce" the surpluswould once again be ploughed back into the advanced capitalist countries.Thus one observes how in the name of development a continued process ofdependency and underdevelopment is maintained,

In this consideration of Latin American countries, Frank pointed out that wherethe relationship between metropolis and satellite is strongest there one observesthe highest degree of dependence and underdevelopment within the satelliteand the highest degree of capital appropriation economies. Further in timeswhen this link was broken or severed for historical reasons, satellite economiesdisplayed a high level of development resulting from their own initiaative andbased on the fact that the flow of capital to the metropolis re reduced and cannow be utilized for the country's development needs.

Such a relationship between the metropolis and satellite would also have totakeinto a! conditions within the satellite economies, In the case of LatinAmerican countries what Frank observed was the class basis of such society,

45worked towards regenerating conditions of dependency and underdevelopment.The social class that Frank termed 'lumpen bourgeoise' referred to a classmade up of ruling elite : the landed classes, chants, industrial entrepreneursetc., He was highly critical about the role of this class in development of theirsocieties. He observed that the lumpen bourgeoise had a way of life andaspirations which identified with the capitalist class of the metropolis economies.According to Frank they were the class which colluded with foreign capital inthe appropriation of FranK they were the class which colluded with foreigncapital in the appropriation Of Surplus capital from the less developed countries.This class due to its parasitic nature and inability 'to come by with an form ofself initiative for the progress of their country, was thus a major obstacle theoverall development in a give Third World nation.

Thus Frank suggested that a theory of under development would have to takeaccount the history of underdeveloped societies which goes to show that thestate of under developed countries is due to the imperial relations with thecapitalist countries These , . developed societies are now a part of the worldcapitalist system, They are not dual societies c be classified with a traditional'and modern sector, Capitalism has successfully penetrated the hinterlands ofthe "traditional" societies too. It is also not right to suggest that development inthe Third World can take place only in association with the capitalist countries.The history of underdeveloped societies cannot be a duplication of the capitalistcountries.

This it would seem that, like Baran, Frank is suggesting that the developmentof the underdeveloped nations can take place only if they can severe links withthe advanced capitalist nation.

Immanuel Wallerstein and World System Theory:Born 1930, Immanuel Wallerstein has since 1976 been Distinguished Professorof Sociology at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Binghamton. He isthe founder and director of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study ofEconomies, Historical Systems, and Civilizations in Binghamton. He haspublished countless books and articles. Wallersteiln's macro-theory of socialdevelopment, in particular capitalism.

Wallerstein viewed the world as single world system that exists beyond theboundaries of individual nations, and that is based largely on economicprocesses, The structure of individual societies would have be viewed withinthe context of the larger system.

He suggested that the modern world economic system developed in four distincthistorical stages : 1450-1640, 1650-1730, 1760-1917 and the period ofconsolidation. For Wallerstein, capitalism existed as a system from the middleof the fifteenth century. According to him the essential feature of capitalism isto produce good for sale in the market inorder to maximize profits.

He stated that the world system consisted of a single worldwide division oflabor that unified multiple cultural systems into a single economic system.

46

Because of political fragmentation, no single state could dominate the worldsystem. Therefore, the world market with its own internal logic could operatepractically free of political control. The world-system was an interdependentsystem of countries linked together by economic and political relations.According to Wallerstein, all countries in the world should be viewed as membersof a single global market held together by flows of capital and material. Thesystem came into being in the early part of the 16th century in Europe andexpanded over the centuries through improved transportation andcommunication.

Wallerstein's conceptualization of the world economy had 3 components:

core, periphery, semi periphery.

The core regions consisted of countries that had high per capita income,advanced industrial technologies, and dominated trade and overseasinvestment. They consumed bulk of the world's resources. The periphery hadunderdeveloped economics, low per capita incomes, low levels of technology,with high dependency on external trade which worked to their disadvantage. Inmore common usage these would be the Third World countries. Economicactivity in the periphery, in contrast, was predominantly in the primary sector,very labor intensive with very low wages (in contrast to the core), and whosetechnologies are not heavily capital or energy dependent. Wallerstein arguedthat the basic relationship between the core and periphery was one ofexploitation. The semi-peripheral regions lie between the core and the periphery,and they contain countries that are able to exploit peripheral countries, butthey themselves are exploited by core countries. South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia,Brazil, and India are examples of semi-peripheral countries. In other contextsthese are referred to as the newly industrialized countries,

Interchange between the three economic entities was regulated by the corebut followed a very structured pattern. Typically, the periphery supplied lowcost raw materials, unskilled labor and a compliant and social regime to boththe core and the semi-periphery. The core supplied managerial andorganizational skill, research and development, capital and cost, high quality,high tech finished goods mostly to itself but also to the periphery andsemiperiphery. Additionally, the core provided/induced political stability in theperiphery and semi periphery through direct and indirect economic leverage,and through military intervention, particularly when a critical resource such asoil (i.e., the Gulf War) is threatened.

Though there was one world system, various countries are incorporated into it,though the degree varies. This led the countries to meet the need of the system.The economic and the social system and structure then become liable to fulfillthe needs of the core. The worldsystem was an interdependent system ofcountries linked together by economic and political relations.

The capitalist world economy, as envisioned by Wallerstein, was a dynamicsystem which changed overtime. However, certain basic feature remained thesame. Perhaps most important is that when one examined the dynamics of

47

this system, the core regions of always benefited the most. Through extremelyhigh profits gained from international trade and from an exchange ofmanufactured goods for raw materials from the periphery (and, to a lesserextent, from the semi-peripheries), the core enriched itself at the expense ofthe peripheral economies. This, of course, did not mean either that everybodyin the periphery became poorer or that all citizens of the core regions becamewealthier as a result. In the periphery, landlords for example often gained greatwealth at the expense of their underpaid coerced labourers, since landownerswere able to expropriate most of the surplus of their workers for themselves. Inturn in the core regions, many of the rural inhabitants, increasingly landlessand forced to work as wage laborers, at least initially saw a relative decline intheir standard of living and in the security of their income. Overall, certainly,Wallerstein saw the development of the capitalist world economy as detrimentalto a large proportion of the World's population.

Through this theory, Wallerstein attempted to explain why modernization hadsuch wide-ranging and different effects on the world. The geographic expansionof the capitalist world economy altered political systems and labour conditionswherever it was able to penetrate. Although the functioning of the world economyappeared to create increasingly larger disparities between the various types ofeconomies, the relationship between the core and its periphery and semi-periphery remains relative to circumstances. Technological advantages, forexample, could result in an expansion of the world economy overall, andprecipitate changes in some peripheral or semi-peripheral areas.

However, Wallerstein asserted than an analysis of the history of the capitalistworld system showed that it had brought about uneven development in whicheconomic and social disparities between sections of the world economy hadincreased rather than provided prosperity for all.

The concept of the semi periphery is an innovative feature of Wallerstein'sscheme, and adds an interesting dimension to Gunder Frank's model. In anysituation of inequality a three-tier system is more stable than a two-tier system.This is because the middle tier can always be help up as an example of whatthe members of the lowest tier could accomplish. In fact the existence of amiddle tier serves the interest of those at the top.

Samir Amin and World Systems Theory:Born 1931 in Egypt. Educated in Paris. Amin is one of the most importantNeoMarxian thinkers, in development theory as well as in the relativistic-culturalcritique of social sciences. He is a better known Neo-Marxian thinker, both indevelopment theory as well as in the relativistic-cultural critique of socialsciences. He has been a promoter of the conscious self-reliance of developingcountries, particular for the Arab world.

According to Amin capitalism started initially as mercantile capitalism.Subsequently there were changes in the nature of capitalism; it becamedeveloped as in 1 9th century England, and then changed to imperialism. Inturn, he said, precapitalist peripheral countries change from primitivecommunalism to tribute paying societies and then to capitalism.Amin divided

48

the world economic system into two spheres sectors. "self-centred system"and"perilpheral systems", In the former, production was mainly for the consumptionof the masses . There was a social contract between capital and lobour. Thishelped to reduce conflict levels. The system had its own patterns of workingand dynamics, without getting affected by.

On, the other hand to role of the periphery was to fulfill the needs of the center.This was done through whatever capital was collected was siphoned off to thecenter. The periphery was characterised by low wage rates, and a vaguedistorted domestic market. Only the demands for luxurv aoods by the privilegedclasses were catered to. This led to impoverishment of the masses. As a partof the world system the periphery suffered decline of small agricultural producersand and cottage industries, the semi proletarisation of rural areas andunemployment and underemployment. Poverty in the periphery thus functionedto maintain and increase wealth at the core and among the periphery's privilegedclasses.

Amin stated that the internal workings of the periphery are similarly inhibited bythe international scenario. Though the Third World had different needs andmodes of production the spread of Western capitalism led peripheral societiesincreasingly to resemble on another. This was because they existed primarilyto satisfy the requirements of the center. Their economic systems indicatedlopsided productivity and prices and prevented the development of a nationalcapitalist class. The drive towards industrialization was thus led by thebureaucracy, possibly through some kind of state capitalism and whateversurplus remained in the periphery was expropriated by this class for its owninterest.

Amin stressed on the relationship of central and peripheral economic structurewithin a world wide process of capital accumulation. His system was the worldmade up of core and peripheral societies, everyone of which has differentarticulations of modes of production. within these modes there were polarizedclasses, simultaneously united and divided but all defined by their functions inproduction. He however, recognized that social formations are more complexthan what his two class model put forth.

For socialism to succeed, a new world system has to come about. Thus evenAmin suggests that only with a break from the center, can the periphery havereal autonomous self centered development. But this process alone will notsuffice. The creation of a "global socialist society" is needed with the initiativeand drive coming from the periphery and not the center.

Critique:Underdevelopment theory has been criticized on several grounds.

Sociologists belive that it has often been applied too uncritically, withoutrecognizing the diversity of development experiences that can be found in theThird World. Also in considering individual and collective political action itdisregards factors such as ethnicity, religion and culture in favour of the primacyof economic rationales. It does not sufficiently take into account the dynamicnature of capitalism.

49

And finally, like the proponents of modernization before them, theunderdevelopment theorists are too Euro-centred and stereotypical in theirapproach to the less development countries.

Conclusion:Frank, Walierstein and Amin reflect the sketch of what came to be systemstheory. They differ in numerous details and also focus an different areas threadrunning among them, however, is the blanket opposition to modernization

Underdevelopment theory emerged as a very important theoretical explanation,was able to root itself in the historical context of colonialism and imperialismthe so called process of economic modernization was intricately linkedrelationship a given underdeveloped nation had with the advanced capitalistcountry.

Summary:Underdevelopment theory comprises of the dependency and world systemstheory . There are quite a few common features in the theories of Baran, Frank,Amin, Lhe Dependency School, though each retains its individuality.

Baran focuses on the linkages of development in the underdeveloped countrieswith the development of advanced capitalist countries and the process in whichthe economic surplus is taken away from the less developed economy.

Dependency theory with the background of the ECLA maintains capitalistcountries have vested interest in preserving the economic advantages theyhave vis the less developed countries.

Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin discuss the world systemstheory. They relate development and underdevelopment as two sides of thesame coin. IT is a process whereby and increase in development essentiallyleads to an increase in underdevelopment. As a part of the world capitalistsystem the Third World's doors to progress are closed.

Despite the criticisms underdevelopment theories provide an interestingperspective on the slow economic progress of the less developed countries.

Additional Readings:Alavi Hamza and Shanin Teodor (Ed), Introdoction to the Sociology ofDeveloping Societies" , Monthly Review Press, London, 1982.

50

Baran Paul, The Political Economy of Growth, Peoples Publishing House,London, 1962

Harrison David, Sociology of Modernisation and Development, HeritagePublishers, New Delhi, 1988

Internet Sources:Barton Henry and Hunchuk Allan M

hftp:/www.aabss.orgfjoumal200.fO6Barton.Jmm.htmI

Paul Halsall, Modem History Source Book

1997 http://www.fordham,edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.htmi

http://www.polk.cc.fl.us/lNSTRUCT/ALSS/Carlesf/depend.

htm http://isi.uwjmona.edu.jnVsocsci/Government/GT24Anotes5a.htm

www.geog.psu.edu/courses/geogl 03/polecon2.html

Questions:1) Discuss Paul Baran's theory of Underdevelopment

2) How did the ECLA's approach in Latin America fail?

3) Examine's the terms metrolpis and satellite as used by Gunder Frank.

4) Discuss Amin's theory of underdevelopment.

5) Explore Wallerstein's world systems theory.

___________________

51

5GENDER AND DEVELOPMENT

Introduction:The debate and discussion regarding Women and Development has gainedmomentum during the last few decades. This theme has assumed importancebecause two major areas of research are concerned: the status of women andeconomic development. Recently, development has been viewed as a cure forthe problems of less developed countries. It has been advocated that once amodern infrastructure is created, the economy will develop bringing about asolution for all ills and ameliorating the lives of people. In spite of this view, itappears that in most developing countries and among all classes, developmenthas brought little relief to the conditions of women, especially in relation to thatof men.

The concern about women in relation to development has let to several researchprojects being undertaken, seminars and conferences being organized atnational and international levels. All these have pointed towards a need for amultidimensional definition of development. This must include political, socialand human aspects along with economic aspects of development, It is alsoseen that development has widened the gap between the incomes of men andwomen and has had a negative effect on the lives of women. This is largelydue to a lack by development planners in recognizing women's dual roles andthe continuing use of old stereotypes as a base for development plans.

The concept of women and work also needs to be understood morecomprehensively, especially the changing patters of women's participation inthe labour force as development takes place. In this chapter, we will look atsome theories on Women and Development, the pioneering views of EsterBoserup and Maitreyi Krishna Raj on the subject, Women's relation todevelopment and development indicators and women.

Theories: Women and Development:Women secondary status in modern society and their subordination to menhave been traced to the beginning of history and culture. Today, as societiesare following the path of development, it is seen that the position of women hasnot improved obviously and significantly. The benefits of development havegone mostly to the male population in society whereas it seems that womenhave been adversely affected by is. The role of women in development and theimpact of development on women are undergoing serious consideration. Whilethis points to the need for new theories, methodologies and research, it isnecessary to understand and analyse earlier intellectual traditions andperspectives. We shall therefore briefly outline some theories regardingdevelopment and its relationship with women. Some of these theories are:

52

(i) Cultural dualism used by Simone de Beauvoir to look at the position ofwomen?

(ii) Social evolutionary theory which gave rise to both modernization theoryand the Marxist analysis of stages in the development of capitalism;

(iii) Developmentalism, which identified obstacles to women's participation innational development; and

(iv) Dependency theory which examined the nature of development andunderdevelopment.

(I) Cultural DualismThe theory of cultural Dualism may be attributed to Simone de Beauvoir whouses it to explain woman's secondary status in society. According to her, theorigin of woman's subordinate status lies partly in her relationship to natureand partly in nature's relationship to culture. Human societies have a universalopposition between and culture. Human beings, by their very constitution, makegreat efforts at overcoming the limits of nature through culture. In the processof attempting to control nature man is more free than woman who is naturallyrestricted in this by her tasks of reproduction and sustaining life. At the sametime, man cannot live without woman, just as he cannot do away with nature.As a result, man regards woman with contradictory and opposed feelings. Hereverse her and also degrades her. He wishes to control her but also refrainsfrom completely quashing her creativity. In some cultures such as the Hinduculture, this ambivalence is all prevalent. In some others, women do play adominant roles in regulating nature and sexual behaviour. In evaluating suchdualistic theory, it must be accepted that there are some universals in the socialand cultural position of women butting across almost all known societies.However, such a theory does not throw much light on the question of womenand society, as it pays little attention to differences of fundamental patterns ofhuman existence nor is it concerned with change.

(II) Social Evolutionary TheoryThe Social Evolutionary theory has viewed societies as undergoing progressivechange as a result of changes in population balance and in increasing divisionof labour and differentiation. The question of changing status of women andtheir roles has also been perceived from the Point, of social evolutionary theory.

According to this theory, societies range from simple, where the some personsperform several tasks, to complex societies where there is higher level oftechnology, formal institutions and greater occupational specialization. Bycharacterizing societies on the basis of division of labour, social evolutionarytheory has tried to explain inequality both among and within societies. Asspecialization increases, each labouring group becomes more specialized andproductivity also increased. Thus societies moving toward specialization havea higher level of productivity. And, simple societies with less specialization remainless productive and therefore poorer. Within complex societies those groupsperforming less specialized tasks are also less productive and 'thereforedisadvantaged. This is how inequality is explained by the social evolutionarytheory. Extending this argument and applying it to the sexes shows that sincewomen are normally found to be relegated to backward sectors of the economy,

53

they suffer inequality. The same argument has been used to explain the effectof social differentiation on political participation. With increasing differentiationbetween domestic tasks and those of politics and governance, woman wererelegated to domestic chores and kept out of participation in public decisionmaking. The subordination of women increased as society became morecomplex with the growth of a specialized state, professional armies andbureaucracies.

(III) DevelopmentalismThe developmental approach has perceived that modernization has affectedmen and women differently and seeks to locate the causes preventing womenfrom participating in the development process. The developmental perspectivebasically views social change differently from the modernization theorists. Thisdifference can be found in three basic ideas:

(i) Society is not seen as a single unit so that changes in one area willgenerate changes in other areas. Therefore technologies introduced toraise productivity as part of development planning does not benefit womenas it does men.

(ii) There are contradictions in the process of social change thus women'sexploitation may I increases if only employment is increased and not wagesand working conditions.

(iii) Conscious policies are necessary to move society in a particular direction.In this external forces and national leaders play a positive role.

The failure to implement development programme has led to-developmentaliststaking a modified approach to the problem of women in development. Theyfeel that it is important to look at women as rational decision makers. Theypoint out that by concentrating on increasing the value of the GNP, the fullproduction of a society is undervalued and the question of distribution is ignored.The contribution of women is hidden sectors is not taken into account. Thisinvolves neglect in non-market work done in households, subsistence agricultureand the informal labour market, all of which is done more often y women thanmen. It has also led to policies which impade its productivity. Women suffer anincreasing narrowing of social roles and capacity to generate income as littleattention is paid to upgrading non market work. Eater Boserup and others haveproposed expending of the GNP to include women's work as a strategy toinclude assessment of their costs in the formation of development goals.

(IV) Dependency TheoryDependency theory developed as a result of the dissatisfaction of thedevelopmentalists's explanation of poverty and backwardness in Third worldcountries. Their investigation pointed to constraints on development in thesecountries caused by international forces. Even after formal colonization declined,former colonial powers controlled Third World Economies in a new garb ofneocolonialism, The backwardness of these countries was perpetuated througheconomic dependence on industrialized nations. As regards women, thedependency theory disagreed with conservative Marxists. While the latter argued

54

that power relations between men and women cannot be understood except inthe context of the mode of production, dependency theory points out that howthe mode of production affects Third World women is part of an internationalsystem based on dependency. The classic Marxist explanation that women'ssubordination is due to women's relegation to the domestic economy and denialin the opportunity to participate in production of goods for exchange in thelarge society has been belied by different case studies. Dependency theoryexplains that if industrial capitalism places women on the edge of the economy.Third world capitalism makes their position even more difficult. Capitalism independent nations finds women holding a disproportionate number of jobs insectors such as agriculture, domestic servants, street vendors and prostitutesand the like, in short, the informal labour market. The significance feature ofthe dependency theory regarding women is that it does not distinguish betweensocially productive and domestic work, All women's work is taken as one andconsidered uniformly. It does however (ink the role and status of women to theeconomic position of the whole society which is ultimately determined by theinternational system.

Women and Development Ester Boserup:The study of women and Development owes a great deal to Ester Boserupwhose contribution in this area has been very significant. Through her pioneeringwork'Women and Development' she first drew attention to how the process ofdevelopment and related social change was affecting the lives of women. Shestates that status of women and economic development are two significantareas in which research is needed and is rightfully being conducted especiallyin the Third World. Studies on women in these countries has shown that theproblems of women in the labour force are peculiar. Women are over burdenedwith work while their efforts are partly wasted because they have less trainingand even more primitive equipment than the male labour force in theircommunities. This brings about a need for more research to improve the workingconditions of women in the Third World, especially women in domestic workand in rural areas and to provide them with better access to the labour market.Boserup states that there has been objection to studies on women anddevelopment as they largely stress on the Problems of labour market andproductivity which is not seen as a major problem confronting women. Studiesshow that women in developing countries are actively involved in agriculture,crafts, trade or construction and support themselves and their families by suchwork. In spite of being wholly engaged in labour activities, their social statuscontinues to remain low. There fa,ra- the study of women's status especially inrelation to male family members is the main issue and should take priority overlabour market studies.

However, in Third World countries, the subordinate position of women derivesfrom legal or customary rules which women are unable to change. As a result,economic self-support exists along with interior status. In some countriesimportant changes have taken place in the legal status of women by givingwomen the right to divorce, guardianship of her children in the case of divorceor widowhood. But, these have not brought about a corresponding change in

55

the real family status of women. Economic change is also occurring in mostdeveloping countries. This change however is making it more difficult for womento support themselves. Women's work is mostly in the informal sector or in thehousehold. If women do not have opportunities to earn money their dependenceon men will increase and their social family status will -, acrease in spite of theirlegal dependence.

Studies on women and development must be integrated with studies of thedeveloprnerl process itself. In this process, some groups get a large share ofdevelopment benefits while others may become victims of development becausetheir products activities or skills may be replaced by newer, more productive orefficient activities. Both men and women may become victims of developmentbut it is mostly women who suffer from the adverse impact of development.This happens because women find it more difficult to adapt to new conditionsbecause of the following reasons. (i) They are less mobile than man due tofamily obligations; (ii) traditionally their choice of occupations is more narrowlylimited; (iii) they usually have less education and training; and (iv) They facesexual discrimination in recruitment. Also, in developing countries, a much largerpercentage of the female labour force is involved in traditional occupationswhich are gradually replaced by newer enterprises in economic development.This generally points in large numbers of women in Third World countries beingadversely affected by development.

The speed of modernization and economic growth in the different Third Worldcountries is at great variance. The occupational opportunities available to womenare related to the differences in natural resources, the stock of human andphysical capital, foreign relations, and government policies. In countries whereeconomic growth is rapid attitudes toward women's work outside the home arealso changing swiftly and women are joining the labour market, Conversely, incountries where economic growth is slow and population growth is rapid, womenfrom economically weaker sections are forced into already crowded occupationssuch as market trade and domestic service, to help support their large families.Therefore, in order to help women improve their status in developing countries,the patterns of development to be applied must take into account the economicconditions, institutional patterns and attitudes to women's work in that specificcountry. It would make little sense to merely apply the development models,either'Western 'or' alternative' to the developing country.

Women and Development Maitreyi Krishna Rai:Yet another perspective on women and Development has been put forward byMaitreyi Krishna Raj. According to her, the process of underdevelopment anddevelopment has had much significance for women. The impact of developmenton women's status in society can be understood only if one accepts the factthat the oppression of women is completely linked to the exploitative worldsystem of which development is a part. She asserts that real developmentsmeans ending the exploitative system and reducing the vast gulf between therich and poor nations. The adverse affect that development has had on womencan only be altered if ;he nature of development itself is changed. The worldConference of the U. N. Decade for women held at Copenhagen in 1980 hasdefined development as follows, "Development is here interpreted to mean

56

total development in the political, economic, social cultural and other dimensionsof human life as also the development of economic and other material resourcesand also the physical, moral, intellectual and cultural growth of the humanperson. The improvement of the status of women requires a change in theattitudes and roles of both men and women. Women's development shouldnot only be viewed as an issue in social development but should be seen as anessential component in every dimension of development."

Development and Women's Dependency:Maitreyi Krishna Raj states that the process of development has in fact led tounderdevelopment and greater dependency of women. This is especially so inthe case of developing countries such as India.

In pre-colonial and pre-industrial and pre-capitalist India there was an advancedtechnology and adequate resource management to provide's people with asimple way of life. There was also a great deal of technology transfer from Eastto West which has been completely reversed today. Today, India has a smallmodern and developed sector of the economy which is the organized sectorwhile the larger sector remains scattered in small units of production called theunorganized sector. Women, due to their subordinate status and special socialresponsibilities are mostly drawn into the unorganized sector. Developmentalprocesses have also destroyed the earlier balance with nature, loading toenvironmental degradation creating special problems for women. Due topressures of foreign trade, women are used as cheap labour in export-orientedindustries,

Krishna Raj further reiterates that the political economy of women has beensubjected to the continuing ideology of patriarchy. This ideology perpetuatesthe unequal, discriminatory and oppressive relations between the sexes. Theserelations derive their strength from a material base through production wherebythe woman's role in labour and family leaves her in a state of dependence, Thediscrimination against women and their subordination is further encouraged inIndia through socialization, customs and practices. The model used fordevelopment has not tried to change these structures and provide a base forinvolving women in developmental participation. The continuing structures ofmale dominance has prevented women from receiving any benefit ofdevelopment. Moreover, commercialization imposed on traditional values hasbrought tragic consequences for women. Increasing violence against womenand general devaluation of women through various forms of exploitations arethe expressions of these new disorders. The older anti-social practices againstwomen such as sati, child marriage or female infanticide have been replacedby new ones such as bride burning for non-fulfillment of dowry and femalefeticides.

Discrimination against women has been persistent despite and even becauseof development. This affects women, of all classes, but more so poor womenwho have little access to social resources essential for effective humanexistence; education, health and employment. They are also denied access topower and authority and thus deprived of the opportunity to speak forthemselves. Changes brought about by development have increased thecontradictions for women thought their forms vary in different classes and

57

cultures.

Strategies for improvement in the position of women adopted until now havehad little impact because they do not attempt to change the conditions thatcause subordiration of women but simply aim at alleviating some of the glaringnegative expressions. The alleviation too have not been effective as is shownby the increasing marginalization and pauperization of women in the countryand the increasing violence against women.

Women's Relation to Development:Development is today accepted as meaning the creation of conditions by whichthe potential of all human beings can be fulfilled. This of course includes women.However. it seems that development has not only missed women but has alsohurt and exploited them if the process, Women have yet to become partners inthe development process. Development literature from developing countriesin Asia Africa and South America point to two trends, (1) that disparities exist inopportunities for survival and growth between men and women, (ii) thatdevelopment is bringing about new forms of oppression and subordination ofwomen, The status of women still remains secondary. She is essentially adependent being suffering exclusion from decision making and devaluation ofher personality. The emancipation of women has been hindered by patriarchyand make domination. This is seen in society's refusal to recognize women'scontribution and independent identity.

Women support a large part of the world economy by their services in thehome and the community. Women have always worked and been part of theeconomy though much of their work is not included in the definition of work.Women's work,is plagued by low status, low pay and low skills. For reasons ofbias and prejudice in statistical and conceptual analysis, much of the workperformed by women has been officially described as non-economic activity.

A glaring discrepancy is seen in the fact that though women are the maingrowers, providers and distributors of food, it is the men who always receivemore food than women, Women, by are excluded from ownership of land andalso from access to technological developments. Development has yet to drawwomen equally into its process.

Development Indicators and Women:Women differentially affect the process of socio-economic, growth and aredifferentially affected by the changes brought about by this development.Conventional measures and indicators have failed to capture adequately bothwomen's contribution to development as well as the impact that developmenthas on women. Therefore, it is necessary to have gender sensitive developmentindicators.

In recent years the HDI (Human Development Index) has become adevelopment indicator of choice. The HDI has three components, namely, adultliteracy, life expectancy and purchasing power parity. Of the three, the first twoare non-economic indicators. The use of the HDI in ranking countries has shownthe huge gap that exists between men and women, everywhere, particularly ineducation. The inequality of access at all levels of education (primary, secondary,

58

university) is only one discriminatory factor against women.

As early as 1980, there was a demand that women's work should be countedand included in GNP (Gross National Product). This was raised at theinternational level in Copenhagen during the mid-term evaluation of the LINDecade for Women. During the last twenty years, several attempts have beenmade to include women's work in the calculation of the GNP of various countries.However, the prerequisites of these calculations were focused "on non-economicactivity" which includes seventy five percent of women's work not recognizedin official statistics.

The World Bank's World Development Report of 1991 defined economicdevelopment as "a sustainable increase in living standards that encompassmaterial consumption, education, health and environment." The report alsopublished nine indicators, including the GNP in which there was an attempt todesegregate data by sex. All other development indicators, namely, education,labour, force participation, access to health, number of seats in parliament,had data desegregated by sex over a period of twenty years for a large numberof countries. By using these indicators women were included for the first timein the 'parameters of development.'

1 . Boserup, Ester: Women & Development2. Krishnaraj, Maitreyi:3. Women and Development. Indicators of their changing role (UNESCO

1981)4. Women in Development (World Bank Pub. 1990)5. Women in Development (World Bank 19896. Commission on Status of Women (UN 2000)

________________

59

6CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT

Introduction:The cultural dimension of development has been identifiedas a major area ofstudy in recent years. This is especially so in the last two decades since theUnited Nations General Assembly declared the period f rorn 1988 to 1997 asthe "World Decade of Cultural Development." However, the genesis of thisidea may be traced to the International Conference on Cultural Policiesorganized by UNESCO in Venice in 1970. The United Nations resolutionheralded the importance of culture as an essential element in development.Italso encouraged the increase of cultural cooperation at the international level.Since the resolution, UNESCO has taken keen interest in promoting studiesrelating to the cultural dimension of development. In this chapter, we will attemptto understand briefly the concept of development, how it has undergone changesto includes different aspects of social life and the relation and importance ofculture and development.

Concept of Development:The concept of development assumed importance in the second half of thetwentieth century. Initially, all thinking about development was dominated byeconomics, There was a tendency to apply a single model based on theexperience of the West and a failure to recognize and accept diversities,Development only meant economic development. Economic growth anddevelopment were synonymous. The assumption was that once a countryachieved capital formation and increased productivity growth would inevitablyfollow and the distribution system would become equitable. This concept ofdevelopment remained valid until the relationship between economicdevelopment and social change began to be emphasized. Development beganto include various aspects of human life and goals. The new concept ofdevelopment fuses the earlier objective of economic growth and the lateremphasis on the quality of life freely chosen by each society in the context ofits particular traditions, problems and aspirations. Today, development can beunderstood at two levels: (i) fulfillment of basic needs of existence (food, shelter,health and security) and (ii) the larger pursuit of life's quality beyond the basicneeds of survival.

Objectives of Development:In general, the search for development is marked by the pursuit of the followingobjectives:

i) Wiping out poverty in all its forms of extreme want and misery, i.e. hunger,

60

insecurity, ignorance and ill-health.

(ii) Establishing identity; personal identity of individuals as well as the culturalidentity of local groups;

(ii) Fulfilling potentials; individual fulfillment and social harmony

(iii) The free choice and meaningful pursuit of quality of life for the 'individua'and society;

(iv) Participation in the movement towards a new world order and the solidarityof mankind.

In the late 1980's, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDO)asserted that human development is a process essentially concerned WithIncreasing, levels of social and a process of enlarging people's choices. Themost important of these choices are (1) to live a long and health life; (2) to beeducated and have access to resources needed for a decent standard of lliving(3) additional choices includes political freedom, guaranteed human rights andpersonal self-respect.

The 1993 report of the UNDP explained that human development is alsoconcerned with personal fulfillment. Therefore, an important goal of developmentis to allow for the active participation of people to realize their full potential andmake their best contribution to society. It is through participation in the socialand economic fields that individuals can widen their choices and move totowards a life of self-respect and social dignity, There is also increasing thecultural dimension of development in recent years.

Thus, economic growth, social justice and quality of life form the triangle ofdevelopment, balancing universality and diversity of cultures. Each society musthave the freedom to choose its way of life and its values according to its owncultural patterns derived from its own notions of llife's meaning. The extent offree chooice is however somewhat limited in the interdependent world of todya.

What must be aimed for is the plurality and diversity of cultures along with theuniformity imposed by science, technolgoy and communciation.

Development is the need of all humanity. For the developing countries, initialstress must be on the fulfilment of basic needs. But quality of life cannot beignored even for the poor. Inextreme poverty too the human spirit strives andoften finds some form of llife's quality and its meaning. For the developedcountries, it is necessary to regulate growth and to seek life's real qualityshedding waste and exceesive consumption in order to go beyond the superficialtowards a richer quality of life and uplifting culture.

61

Concept of Culture:The culture of a particular society is comprised of thre distinct elements; ideas,aesthetic forms and values, largely moulded by the traditions of the past. Ideasgive rise to habits and beliefs thereby perpetuating themselves through socialinstitutions that provide stability. Aesthetic forms reflect the artistic expressionof a culture in its visual arts, poetry as well as a sense of beauty seen in thedaily lives and social groups, The values of culture are formed by the interplayof both ideas and aesthetic forms and provide norms of behaviour code ofconduct and faith and vision. Of these, three elevements of culture the valuesare most important. Values help in developing wisdom and discrimination, ethicsand morality in a particuaIar culture. They also provide the dynamism for changeand impart vitality and quality to the life of the people. In order to understand aspecific culture, one must look into the values, aesthetic forms and ideas whichform the basis of its culture.

Cultural Dimension of Development:Culture has been included in development along with economic and socialfactors intact today it forms an integral part of the understanding of development.The cultureal dimension of development refers to all the cultural factors of asociety such as values attitudes, beliefs and social behaviour which have animpact on the process of development it also takes into account the effect ofscience, technology and economy on traditional values attitudes, values andbehaviour of society.

Humanistic Conception of Development:The idea of cultural development considered to be an essential aspect ofdevelopment in general is directed to ensuring a creative renewal on the basisof the broadcest possible participation. In the first place, the too narrow economicview of development is being broadened by introducing culture both as a formof behaviour with its own specific needs and system of values imposing its ownspecific needs and of a general moral demands. This new conception ofdevelopment marks a decisive and very satisfactory step forward in our thinkingabout civilization.

Economic growth is undoubtedly an essential and fundamental factor but it iswhen that growth is directed to the satisfaction of the needs and communitiesand individuals that the human significance of development materialsises.The direction and use of growth for social and cultural processes result frompolitical choices. The word political may be understood in the broadest sense,i.e. going much further than mere economic considerations. Generally, in allcircumstances, and even in the most extrement, poverty, the improvement ofthe condition of mankind cannot be reduced to simply increaseing resources.It requires above all, an improvement in the "quality of life". We can sum up thisidea very aptly in the well-known saving: "It is not a question of having more bybeing more."

The terms "quality of life" or "being more" are meaningful only in relation to asystem a of values which provides the only means of measuring the use man

62

makes of his existences. Culture provides these values and is also the sourceof its continuous renewal. Man is both the agent and end of development.Culture can be seen from two angles, as the starting point of developmentand its culmination. This is also because man becomes rnotivated as a culturalbeing; he therefore acts and sets himself goals making his activity purposeful.This humanistic conception of development does not deny the necessity ofeconomic growth, but on the contrary, embraces it and puts it in the forefront.However, at the center is man's culture and its importance for developmenttoday and this is what should dominate efforts for development.

UNESCO's Activities in Culture for Development: For the past twenty-one years UNESCO has been focussing primarily on theimpact of cultural factors on development in its research programms. Theemphasis has been on spreading awareness and understanding of theimportance of culture for development. UNESCO has advocated towards thispolicy of "endogenous development". It has also commissioned research, heldseminars and published studies. Several international conferences on culturalpolicies were between 1970 and 1982 bringing new aspects of the subject tolight. All these activities led to the World Conference in Mexico City in 1982. Atthis conference, a declaration was adopted which provided a detailed andindepth relationship between culture and development and provided freshdirection to further activities in this area.

The World Conference - Mexico City 1982:For the first time, the concept of development (which until then has beenidentified with economic growth alone) was explained as "an infinitely morecomplex, comprehensive and multi-dimensional process, effective only if it wasbased on the independent will of every society and if it truly expressed itsfundament identity, at an international forum. It therefore "had to be engenderedfrom within realized by all the vital forces of a nation" and "incorporate alldimensions of the life of a community within which every individual, veryprofessional category and every social group was called upon the make acontribution and share in the benefits". The declaration also enlarged upon theconcept of culture. It stated that "culture may now be said to be the wholecomplex of distinctive spritual, .material, intellectual and emotional featuresthat characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts andletters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, valuesystems, traditional and beliefs."

Further, the Declaration also dealt with the problem of the cultural dimensionof development. It explained that "growth has frequently been conceive inquantitative terms, without taking into account its necessary qualitativedimensions, namely the satisfaction of man's spiritual and cultural aspirations"."Balanced development can only be ensured by making cultural factors anintegral part of the strategies designed to achieve it; consequently, thesestrategies should always be devised in the light of the historical, social andcultural context of each society."

After the World Conference of Mexico City and as a result of its deliberations,

63

several works have been published on this topic and many studies and researchprojects undertaken on the specific relationship between culture, industry,commerce, scientific and technological development, demography, urbandevelopment, communication, agriculture, food health and so on. With the helpof UNESCO studies have also been conducted regarding the preparation andevaluation of development strategies at regional, interregional and internationallevels. Most of the studies conducted and projects undertaken on culture anddevelopment have focussed on the developing countries, especially Africa andsome Asia and Latin America.

UNESCO has put in great efforts at attempting to bring about the widespreadawareness of the concept of cultural dimension of development. However, thisides was not easily accepted by the international development community. Theearlier quantitative perspective towards development put forward by scholarssuch as rostow and other modernization theorists perceived that all societiesgo through the same stages of development. This approach gave us tounderstand that development essentially meant growth in accordance withdevelopment along the lines of advanced, industrialized Western Countries.Such a notion of development also presupposed that traditionalism would bean obstacle to modernization. This view was reinforced by Bernard Hoselitzwho stated that to become advanced or developed, a country had to change itsvalue orientations from functional diffusiveness to functional specificity or divisionof labour and from particularism to universalism.

International Development Policy: A Historical Overview:An international Development Policy has evolved through many phases as aresult of discussion and debate between theorists and policy makers. Duringthe 1920s development entailed mainly industrialization and increased capitalformation. Two strategies were devised to help developing countries ability toearn sufficient resources from exports to finance import requirements. Thesewere high levels of development assistance and import substitution policies. Inthe 1960s there was a corrective emphasis on market oriented systems. Thislet to greater focus on liberalized trade rationalization of exchange rates andexport promotion strategies. The trend in development policy began to focuson agricultural de!velopment rather than industrialization. By 1970s there wasa review of the nature of development taking place in the developing countriesand a realization that while growth was emphasized it did not bring aboutequitable distribution and reduce poverty.

Development shifted from the earlier quantitative approach to a new qualitativeone. There was now a concern for meeting basis human needs along witheconomic growth. Greater priority was given to -rural development projectsand social issues such as health, education nutrition and population. Thisapproach was reinforced by UNESCO in its efforts at promoting the culturaldimension of develoment. The UNDP through its Human Development reportsalso widened the scope of development to include social factors in thedevelopment of human beings, Some issues have also been identified for overalldevelopment policy planning and implementation. They are: (1) protection ofthe enviroment as there is a link between environment and sustainable

64

development, (ii) the impact of development interventions on women; (iii)increased role of non-govern mental organization in development planning andimplementation; (iv) the need to take cultural and social factors into account.

The cultural dimension of development approach differs from the humandevelopment approach. While for both the focus of attention is the human being,the latter deals with the satisfaction of human physical needs. This involvesdevelopment plans to improve the welfare of the people in social sectors such aseducation housing, democratic government and guarantee of fundamental humanrights. As against this strategy, the cultural dimension of development approachadovates development taking into account the beliefs, values, attitudes andperceptions that effect the behaviour of the group undergoing development. The1999 report of the South Commission. the Challenge to the South, shows theincreasing focus on cultural factors ind evelopment. It states: "Culture must be acentral component of development strategies in a double sense; on the onehand, the strategies must be sensitive to the cultural roots of the society, to thebasic shared values, attitudes, beliefs and customs; on the other, they mustinclude as a goal the development of the culture itself, the creative expansion,depending and change of the society's cultural stock."

Traditional Culture and development:The relation between cultures and development is only now being

understood and explained. Earlier, since development focussed on economicgrowth, socio-cultural data was not included in development approach believesin a thorough udnerstanding of the exact relationship between social and culturalfactors and economic activities. Cultural factors may e said to include values,bellief systems, attitudes and specific behaviour patterns. Social factorscomprise among other things institutional factors such as patterns in interactionsand roles, positive and negative sanctions and so on. Cultural and social factorsare not completely separate from each other and can therefore be termed associo-cultural factors. A recent work by Thomson, Ellis and Wildavsky suggestthat "values and social relations are mutually interdependent and reinforcingand that institutions generate distinctive set of preferences and adherence tocertain values legitimizes corresponding institutiona rrangements." Individualbehaviour and action is both constrained by institutional arrangements andheld together and modified by them.

The cultural dimension of development approach aims to find an answer to abasic question put forward by denis Gaulet: "How does any human communitypreserve the value esential to its identity and cultural integrity while changingits social conditions to improve the quality of life of its people?" This approachbasically follows the premiss that each society has its own culture, its ownrationality and reality. Any development policy, programmed and implementationmust take into account the given society's culture and rationality system. Thisapproach does not hold that culture is static, nor does it glorify poverty or culturesthat have failed to improve the conditions of their people. development musttake place within the given socio-cultural framework of a society.

There has been a tendency to broadly generalise that traditional culture, beliefsand practices, have been obstacles in the path of economic growth. However,empirical studies have shown this to be quits invalid. One widely accepted

65

view has been that extended family systems hinder economic developmentand reduce individual incentive because such systems tend to absorbe surpluscapital of the most productive and because they are controlled by older memberswho are conservative. However, two studies conducted in India have shownthe contrary. One study conducted in rural areas showed that farms cultivatedby extended families produced much more crop that those worked by smallfamily units. Another study conducted in industrial areas showed that extendedfamilies played an important role in industrial development. Inf act, extendedfamilies showed enterprises and innovation in business activities, in aresettlement project in senegal, it was found that settlement took placedspontaneously as a result of extended family networks. This benefited manymore people that was anticipated by the project. Traditional cultures have thusshown to be beneficial to development rather than hinder economic growth.

Yet another factor cited as an obstacle to economic growth has been the lackof social mobility ecause it restricts the movement of individuals into otheroccupations. Traditional cultures in many cases do not encourage social mobility.It is also seen as preventing the maximum and best utilization of humanresources. However, it has been pointed out that social constraints in Japanwhich did not allow merchants and their sons to join the administration or becomelandlords provide beneficial to economic development. It actually helped inencouraging private enterprise and business growth. It can therefore safely beconcluded that culturs and institutional differnces do not hinder economicdevelopment. Infact, they may actually serve as positive factors in development.Development policy makers must therefore perceive these factors in aconstructive light and rather than view them as obstacles, transform them intospearheads of growth.

Role of Social & Cultural Factors in Development:The evaluation of importance of development projects have demonstrated therole of cultural and social factors in development. there have been manyinstances where projects did not succeed because socio-cultural factors werenot taken into account. Projects regarding development ina grculture, medicine,population planning especially in African countries, have revealed that localcultural traditions play a determine role in their success or failure. Introductionof new technogies in developing regions also require sensitivity to lcoalsociocultural realities.

As a part of the development and economic assistance projects, collection ofsocio cultural data is essential. Two major development assistance institutions.the United States Agency for International development (USAID) and the WorldBank have had muc experience in collecting socio-cultural data. USAID usedSocial soundness Analysis (SSA) to increase the potential for the project benefitsto spread and for an equitable distribution of project benefits among the affectedgroups.

The World Bank on the other hand, used 'Beneficiary assessment' to improvethe design and implementation of the Bank's projects. In this method, the Bankhired a consultant to provide important feedback on the target groups' valuesand attitudes that would help improve the project. The assessment of thebeneficiary was done throught he use of participant observation and qualitive

66

interviewing. This method has been used in several projects in various regionsof the world in such diverse sectors such as education, rural settlement,population and industry.

In conclusion, we may say that definite lessons could be learned from the useof socio-cultural variables. Attention to issues of socio-cultural compatibilitywere economically beneficial. Those projects that had incorporated socio-cultural factors into development project planning and implementation had muchhigher economic rates of return. Further, "successful projects were those whichdid not over-innovate but rather tended to incorporate indigenous culturalpractices and social structures for implementation.

1 Culture and Development - UNESCO\

2. Maheu Rane: Culture in the Contemporary World (UNESCO 1973)

3. Culture in sustainable Development (UNESCO 1998) Ismail SerageldinJoan Martin - Brown (Ed)

4. Kirpal Prem Culture and Development (Har - Anand Publications 1993)

___________________

67

7ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

The objective of this unit is to get a better understanding of the relationshipbetween environment and development and the impact of such a relationship.

Focus is on the fact that environment and development are not isolated arehas of political and social dispute. They are part of a comprehensive system oflocal, regional, national and international interdependencies of political andeconomic power structure.

Whatever happens somewhere on this planet will have an impact on ourindividual and communal living conditions.

Thus, the aim is to become aware and hopefully more responsible and educatedcitizens of the world.

Introduction :Historically, the term environment is a rather new linguistic buzzword and refersto different sectors of social reality. We speak of social, personal, cultural,economic, political and, of course, biological and physical environments.Environment, to a certain extent, has replaced the terms nature, society andcommunity. Ecology has replaced ideology - so it seems.

As a political concept, environment is closely linked o the concept ofdevelopment. Economic growth and technological progress of all kinds arebasic approaches of industrialized societies. It is assumed that the developmentof a society depends on the improvement of the socio-economic conditions,i.e. on economic growth and the improvement of existing, and the invention ofnew, technologies to rationalize production processes and services. Researchand development are key economic sectors of industrialized societies. Theproduction of knowledge and skills to develop, implement and controltechnologies lies at the heart of these societies. While traditional societies arebased on agriculture, post-traditional societies (Giddens 1991) are based ontechnology and on those traditional societies which provide them with resourcesof food, raw materials and inexpensive labor.

Development refers to two different processes which happen simultaneously:the improvement of socio-economic living conditions in industrialized countriesand the political, economic, technologies and military control development intraditional societies, The development of industrialized countries is based onlower levels of development in other parts of the world. According to classiceconomics, development has always been linked to economic

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

--------------

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

----------------------

98

99

100

101

---------------------

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

---------------------------

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

--------------------

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201