Draft
The paper is on Post-development literature where the fundamentals of development are evaluated from the perspective of Rostow’s development theory and Wolfgang Sachs’ approach as a post-development thinker. Alongside, Implications of Rostow’s theory is also discussed with priority to understand the basic issues of the study. Discussion of Rostow’s development theory in the context of Traditional Society, Pre-conditions for Take-off, Take Off and Drive to Maturity are given importance along with discussions related to Age of high Mass Consumption. Alongside, there is appropriate criticism of Rostow’s economic development theory. However, the concept of viewing Wolfgang Sachs and Arturo Escobar as a post-development thinker makes the ultimate path for a conclusive result of the study.
Introduction
‘Development’, as a theory and concept, suffered a setback in the era following the World War II. This became more pronounced with the declarations made by the multilateral development banks, national development agencies and the academia. They all turned out to be empty promises. The various developmental programs failed to offer alternative solutions to the problems of under-development, especially those faced by the problem belonging to the Third World countries (Sylvester 2003). Wide-spread discontentment and delusion lead many to question the existing underlying foundations and principles of development. In the midst of this turmoil, a new set of scholars from different academic institutions started proclaiming “the end of development” (Sylvester 2003). This gave rise to the post-development theory in the early 1990s.
Post-development literature
Post-development, as a perspective, has emerged as a fundamental reaction to the adverse effects of development. Post-development theorists call for total abandonment of development. They consider it an absolutely Western construction which facilitates the imposition of Western values and culture thereby causing gradual destruction of aboriginal cultures (Hickey 2005). Moreover, they are also of the opinion that the development theories have brought about large-scale environmental destruction by attaching too much importance to the advancement of science and technology. According to the critics, development theorists have tried to perpetuate “a reductionist view of existence” (Pieterse 2000).
Post-development thinkers, thus, are not critical of the fact that the development theories have failed. Their basic objection is to the underlying intentions and assumptions of development. In this context, post-development may be interpreted as a way of analyzing the reasons for the failure of the development theories by adopting deconstruction as the primary tool. By employing this tool, the post-development thinkers evaluate the basic assumptions of development regarding modernity, progress, rationality and capitalist economy (Leal 2007). Since post-development literature is founded on the premises of development, the post-development perspective becomes comprehensible by comparing it with the views perpetuated by the ‘old’ development theorists.
One of the most notable figures of ‘old’ development economics is W.W. Rostow. The ideas underlying the ‘old’ development theories become prominent through the views of Rostow. Moreover, since post-development theories have emerged as a reaction to the ‘old’ development theories, an understanding of the ‘old’ development theories would prove beneficial in this context (Rostow 1990).
Discussion of Rostow’s development theory
Notable American Economic Historian, Walt Whitman Rostow, formulated his development theory with the main intention of providing an alternative model of development to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. His “Five-Stage Model of Development” (Turner 2000) traces the economic development of a nation through five stages.
The Traditional Society
This is the first stage in Rostow’s development model where the society is dominated by agriculture, has a low productivity and follows a hierarchical structure.
The Pre-conditions for Take-off
This situation is the consequence of industrial revolution where the investment rates are on the high. This stage is dominated by the growth of both agriculture as well as industry.
Take Off
This stage is characterized by economic growth that is self-sustained. In other words, growth occurs without the aid of external factors.
The Drive to Maturity
This stage is characterized by technical progress, social and economic prosperity as new forms of industry emerge and develop. Continued investments dominate this stage.
The Age of high Mass Consumption
This is the final stage in Rostow’s development theory. As is evident from the title, this stage is characterized by high mass consumption. As the societies flourish poverty is tend to get totally alleviated. People thrive in prosperity and are provided with a number of options to choose from. According to Rostow, the ‘North’ and the ‘West’ are the perfect embodiments of this stage (Desai 2008).
Implications of Rostow’s theory
A discussion of Rostow’s stages of economic development draws our attention to the concepts of ‘modernization’, ‘development’ and ‘progress’ propounded by Rostow and his colleagues. ‘Modernization’ is perceived as the exact opposite of ‘traditionalism’ which refers to a society that shuns change and is tied to traditions. The development theorists including Rostow unanimously regard the West and the North as perfect representations of modernization (Turner 2000).
‘Development’, as is evident from Rostow’s theory, is measured in terms of economic development. Poverty and underdevelopment are usually considered to be the results of endogenous factors. It is for this reason Rostow postulates that development be initiated from outside. ‘Progress’, to him as well as to most of the development theorists, is economic progress and is to be measured in terms of profit maximization (Leal 2007).
Criticism of Rostow’s economic development theory
Rostow’s theory, however, has been subject to a lot of criticism. Firstly, it has been considered to be Eurocentric as it refers to Europe as the perfect embodiment of modernization and progress. Secondly, the theory has been criticized for failing to provide an analytical base for solving the problems of poverty and underdevelopment. Rostow believes that development has to be initiated from outside. In the light of this assumption, his theory fails to explain why some countries are developed while others are underdeveloped (Desai 2008).
Another criticism levelled against Rostow’s theory is that it is primarily based on countries with a huge population like Japan or abundant natural resources like Northern Europe or vast area like Argentina. Naturally, it fails to address the problems of countries blessed with none of the above features (Hickey 2005).
The drawbacks of Rostow’s economic development theory may be interpreted in a broader context as the allegations levelled against development in general. A new set of thinkers thus have come forward to challenge the very orthodoxy of thoughts and ideas of the development theorists. They have come to be known as the post-development theorists. Although they all believe in deconstructing the development models in an attempt to reconstruct a new theory of development, they are unique in their approach to the concept (Hickey 2005).
Some of the notable post-development thinkers whose names deserve a mention in this context are “Wolfgang Sachs, Arturo Escobar, Serge Latouche, Gustavo Esteva and Ivan Illich” (Leal 2007). However, the next section will deal with the ideas and views of two of the above-mentioned post-development thinkers. This will not only help in contrasting their ideas with that of Rostow and his colleagues but will also convey their distinctiveness (Turner 2000).
Wolfgang Sachs as a post-development thinker
Wolfgang Sachs is one of the more prominent post-development thinkers. An renowned researcher, a prolific writer and an esteemed teacher in the field of environment, development and globalization, his post-development theory finds resonance in his book and created a niche for itself in “Post-Development Studies” (Sachs 1992). According to Wolfgang Sachs, “The idea of development stands… become outdated” (Sachs 1992). In his ‘classic’ book, he insists that the post-development theorists and activists ought to “review the… development discourse” (Sachs 1992).
Sachs primarily criticizes the world view that is held by the development thinkers who conceive of this world as existing in binary opposites. To them, societies either are urban, industrial and modern; in other words, western, or traditional, rural and struggling to survive referring to the Third World countries. This world view of the perpetuators of development fail to explain the problems faced by those societies that stand somewhere in the middle (Desai 2008).
Moreover, the development theorists uphold the westernized version of modernity and consider the rest as backward, outdated and primordial. As the West is considered the perfect example of ‘modernization’ by the development theorists, it follows that the Western model of development needs to be emulated by all the non-Western countries. In other words, it implies an indirect imposition of Western culture and values on the non-Western societies. Sachs vehemently objects to this concept of ‘modernization’ of development theorists and their perpetuation of Western values and ideas on non-western countries (Desai 2008).
According to Sachs, this imposition of the Westernized concept of modernity by the development theorists has lead to gradual disintegration and destruction of indigenous cultures. He predicts that gradual destruction of languages is paving the way for rapid extinction of original cultures. In his book, he opines that “with the demise … in the heat of ‘development” (Sachs 1992).
He strongly resists the fast depletion of cultural diversity and the spread of monoculture. But, his greatest contribution as a post-development thinker lies in proposing alternative knowledge systems as means of power. Development has singularly emphasized the importance of science as a means of bringing about progress and development. Science has been looked upon as “an objective, impersonal, rational, and universal knowledge system” (Howard 1994).
Wolfgang Sachs suggests that alternative knowledge systems grounded in the traditions of the indigenous cultures can also be powerful means of perpetuating development. These alternative knowledge systems may include traditional methods of socialization and education, indigenous methods of healing and prophylaxis, different forms of self-government etc.
Sachs’s objection to the Westernized concept of ‘modernization’ is also reciprocated by another iconic post-development thinker, Arturo Escobar, but in a slightly different vein. The next section deals with Escobar’s views as a post-development theorist (Alfini 2007).
Arturo Escobar as a post-development thinker
Arturo Escobar, born in Manizales, Columbia, in 1952 is a prominent post-development thinker. Although Escobar initially started his career as a chemical engineering, his field of interest later has got shifted to social sciences dealing with issues like power, international development and planning (Babbington 2000).
Escobar’s ideas regarding post-development have got proper manifestation in his “Encountering Development” (1995), a treatise on which he has been working since the 1980s. Through his works, Escobar has tried to show how “development … Third World” (Escobar 2000).
Escobar’s ideas on development have been of considerable geographic interest. He interprets ‘development’ as a form of dominant discourse perpetuating the Western model of development. In fact, the ‘Western development’ has been considered as a model by the development theorists in their attempt to bring about development in the Third World countries. He considers ‘development’ as a discourse since it has a dominating influence on reality (Sylvester 2003).
The imposition of the “Western development’ on the Third World occurs in three stages. Firstly, the problems affecting the countries are identified which exposes areas for intervention. The second step is the “professionalization of development” (Escobar 2000) where different types of problems are categorized under neutral scientific terms. It is this “professionalization of knowledge” (Escobar 2000) that Escobar vehemently opposes. The third step is the institutionalization of development whereby the identified problems are treated under specific norms (Sylvester 2003).
In his later works, Escobar has tried to offer alternative solutions to address the problem of development in the Third World. He stresses on the importance of indigenous/autonomous social movements at the local level. In his works, he reiterates the fact that social movements are powerful in bringing about significant changes in the communities (Babbington 2000).
The geographical aspect of his work originates from the fact that he aligns the indigenous social/movements with the struggle for territory. Efforts to save territory are essentially culturally struggle for autonomy. This is because indigenous cultures are defined by territories. Again, the political aspect of his work finds manifestation in the fact that the struggle for territory also involves struggle for region-territory which is nothing but the political struggle for bringing about emancipation and development (Sylvester 2003).
Escobar’s development theory also addresses the issues of nature and environment from the point of view of political ecology. While analyzing the man-nature relationship in the larger context of history and power, Escobar identifies three specific yet overlapping nature regimes. One is the organic regime where nature is the representation of a culture that abounds in local knowledge. This regime is commonly found in non-industrialized societies (Peet 1999). Another is the regime of capitalist nature where nature acts as a commodity that brings economic prosperity. Yet another regime is the technonature (Rist 1997) is the regime where nature is artificially created through biotechnology and engineering.
According to Escobar, a developed nation must address the issues of nature and environment in a balanced manner. On the one hand, nature must be a representation of indigenous culture. On the other hand, nature must also represent itself as it is, in its true existence.
Escobar’s view regarding nature is basically an amalgamation of nature and culture. He insists on the formation of nature-culture. This way of approaching nature is unique and this is what sets Escobar’s study of nature apart from others (Schech 2000).
Point of view of Arturo Escobar
The following are the three key features of post-development theory as represented from the point of view of Arturo Escobar:
- Rostow’s five-stage economic theory assumes that modernization is indispensable to the process of development and that all underdeveloped economies must strive to follow the Western modernity which is the ultimate stage of development. Escobar vehemently objects to this assumption of the development theorists. He, like other post-development thinkers, opines that development need not always emulate the Western model. His post-development theory emphasizes the fact that local/autonomous social movements can also prove to be equally effective in the emancipation of the underdeveloped economies.
- According to Rostow’s theory, progress and development of a nation are determined primarily in terms of investment and consumption. This very idea of determining the development of a nation in terms of its material well-being has been opposed by many post-development theorists including Escobar. They believe that this assumption totally ignores the cultural aspects of a nation that impact the development process considerably.
- Rostow’s five-stage model of economic growth is universal in its application (Schech 2000). It is this universality of approach that doesn’t find acceptance with Escobar who believes that this universality stifles the growth of indigenous cultures.
Conclusion
The above discussion has thus, provides an overview of the basic tenets of the development theory as propounded by Rostow and the reasons for the emergence of post-development. It becomes clear that the criticism of the development becomes all the more profound in the face of the utter failure of development models in bringing about emancipation of the Third World (Alfini 2007).
Post-development, as a theory takes its course from the point where development departs. Hence, an understanding of the development theories aids in the understanding of post-development.
Many eminent post-development thinkers have emerged in the recent past and they have approached the subject of ‘development’ from different perspectives. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of them due to the expansive nature of the subject (Desai 2008).
This paper concentrates on the works of two of the notable post-development thinkers- Wolfgang Sachs and Arturo Escobar and their views as post-development theorists. Although both of them have been critical of development, they have addressed the issue differently (Sylvester 2003).
Thus, this paper not only sums up the salient features of the ‘old’ development theory from the point of view of Rostow but also presents the characteristics that distinguish different post-development thinkers. Although post-development has also been subject to adverse criticism, its success lies in its efforts to propose alternative development solutions.
Reference list
Alfini, N., 2007. Words count: taking a count of the changing language of British aid, Development in Practice, 17 (8) pp.154-165.
Babbington, A., 2000. Re-encountering Development: Livelihood Transitions and Place Transformations in the Andes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90 (3), pp. 495-520.
Desai, V., 2008. The Companion to Development Studies. London: Hodder Education.
Escobar, A., 2000. Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post-Development and beyond, Society of International Developement. Web.
Hickey, S., 2005. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change, 36 (2), pp. 237-262.
Howard, P., 1994. The Confrontation of Modern and Traditional Knowledge Systems in Development. Canadian Journal of Communication, 19, (2), pp. 757-779.
Leal, P., 2007. Participation: the ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in Practice, 17 (4-5), 122-135.
Peet, R., 1999. Theories of Developemnt. New York: Guilford Press.
Pieterse, J., 2000. After post-development. Third World Quarterly, 21 (2), pp. 175-191.
Rist, G., 1997. The History of Development. London: Zed Books.
Rostow, W., 1990. The stages of economic growth: a non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, W., 1992. The Development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed Books.
Schech, S., 2000. Culture and Development. A critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sylvester, C., 2003. Development Studies and Postcolonial Studies: Disparate Tales of the “Third World”’, Third World Quarterly, 20 (4), pp. 703-721.
Turner, B., 2000. A Companion to Social Theory. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.