Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Contents:
6.) Conclusion 7
1
(Aristotle, (1912); Book 1. pp 16-17)
omitted by the World Bank’s econometricians in the previous quote above 7. These
arguments run counter to the views expressed by Rostow’s capitalist ‘take-off’
model for sustained economic growth 8, which laid the foundation for the World
Banks subsequent developmental involvement in the ‘Third World’.
As Sender suggests in his paper, “Africa’s Economic Performance:
Limitations of the Current Consensus”. The development linkages between the
‘first’ and the ‘third’ worlds are characteristically complex and the danger of
focussing too narrowly, on either a solely capitalist or Marxist critique, means that
much of the socio-economic complexities of these linkages are not appreciated. In
order to highlight some of these complexities, Sender focuses on the new
economic developmental agenda of the World Bank, termed the ‘post-Washington’
consensus. With regard to this ‘post-Washington consensus’, Sender identifies a
predominant philosophical ‘dichotomy’ in developmental thinking, which he terms
on the one hand, a ‘people friendly’ approach and on the other, a ‘tragically
optimistic’ approach’ 9.
This paper therefore, seeks to discuss the way in which one or the other of
these approaches, could impact on social science research into development in
the ‘third world’. It will do so by initially providing a brief historical account of the
‘post-Washington consensus’ from which Sender draws many of his arguments,
followed by a discussion of the ‘people friendly’ and ‘tragically optimistic’
development approaches. After which it will attempt an analysis of the possible
impact of these approaches on social science research.
7
(Foster-Carter, (1978); pp 49)
8
(Rostow, (Undated))
9
(Sender, (1999); pp 90)
10
(Leys .C, (1996), pp 6)
11
(Sender, (1999); pp 101)
(IMF) and The World Bank), was to apply a series of conditional loan agreements to
further developmental or financial assistance offered to the ‘third’ world. As a
result of these conditional loan agreements, or ‘structural adjustments’, there was
a subsequent reduction in the numbers of bureaucrats in African countries, a
situation Sender argues, that led to a brain drain of talent from Africa 12
.
Therefore, according to Leftwich, although ‘third’ world government involvement
in the development process was seen as essential, they were encouraged by the
World Bank not to interfere in their functioning markets 13
. With respect to this
institutional governance manipulation, achieved by ‘development’ of the ‘third’
world and the Washington consensus. Wallerstein comments in Brenner, “It is the
social achievement of the modern world… to have invented the technology that
makes it possible to increase the flow of the surplus from the lower to the upper
strata… periphery to the centre… majority to the minority, by eliminating the
‘waste’ of too cumbersome a political structure” 14
.
Supposedly recognising that the ‘Washington consensus’ had led to a
number of unintended structural consequences. The ‘post-Washington’ consensus
was defined by its architect in chief at the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz as, “An
Agenda for Development for the Twenty-First Century”, where, “The Bank itself
recognizes its capacity to influence policy [and] it now emphasizes its central task
as providing the “knowledge” to devise development strategies” 15
. Whether or
not this was in fact an admission of any kind of failing on the part of the World
Bank, or indicative of a real ideological shift, is a moot point. Supposedly, a new
consensus, it still called for the governments of the ‘third world’ to match their
‘capability’, and once again, rather than focus on hampering the operation of the
free market. Focus on the fundamentals such as, infrastructure, primary education
and health care etc. However, In attempting to measure the impacts of their ‘post-
Washington’ consensus development interventions. The World Bank, according to
Sender, is predominately influenced by its own analytical and empirical
instruments, and therefore accordingly somewhat blinkered in its views (an issue
that will be raised in section 5 of this paper) 16
. That being said, it is to this ‘post-
Washington’ consensus period, which Sender attributes the ‘people friendly’ and
‘tragically optimistic’ development approaches that are discussed in the following
two sections.
12
(Sender, (1999); pp 106)
13
(Leftwich, (2005); pp 580)
14
(Brenner, (1977); pp 56-57)
15
(Sender, (1999); pp 103)
16
(Sender, (1999); pp 103-108)
17
(Sen, (2004), pp 315)
18
(Chambers. R, (2005))
19
(Sender, (1999))
not historically occurred without, as Marx puts it, “… dragging individuals and
peoples through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation” 20
in the process
of capital accumulation and development. Therefore, this approach explicitly
assumes that the capitalist development process in the ‘third world’ (as in world
history), is; ‘uneven, unstable, crisis prone, oppressive and brutal’. A reality that
institutions like the World Bank are less likely to present as a marketing vehicle,
but, which more adequately describes the way in which ‘third world’ development
has until now progressed.
There are a number of ways in which the ‘people friendly’ and ‘tragically
optimistic’ approaches, ought to impact, on research into ‘third’ world
development by the social sciences. Broadly, in regard to these approaches being
rooted in the capitalist mode of production, and thereby to the capitalist path of
development. Firstly, as suggested by Foster-Carter , the capitalist mode of
21
production does not automatically imply that development within this mode alone
can and will automatically occur. On the contrary, he suggests that capitalist and
pre-capitalist forms, are likely to co-exist and even to ‘buttress’ one another. A
situation that in the case of the ‘third’ world and Africa in particular is highly likely
to occur, given the continent’s widespread rural reliance on pre-capitalist
agricultural subsistence. Secondly, although as suggested by Moore, a substantial
portion of the ‘third’ world seems to be currently positioned somewhere between
‘permanent’ and ‘accelerating’ primitive capitalist accumulation. These
states/stages of capitalist development are suggested to provide the ‘foundation’
for the economic relationship between the ‘first’ and ‘third’ worlds, allowing for
substantial flows of wealth from the ‘third’ to the ‘first’ 22
. Would it really be,
therefore, in the economic interest of the ‘first’ world, or the ‘compradors’ in the
‘third’ world, to shift the status quo by allowing social scientists to research this
relationship in the name of development? Thirdly, according to civil-society, the
capitalist mode of production is highly extractive and overly protective by nature,
especially in the case of mineral wealth in the ‘third’ world, particularly Africa. As a
20
(Sender, (1999); pp 109)
21
(Foster-Carter, (1978))
22
(Moore, (2004); pp 92)
23
(Butler & Hallowes, (2005))
24
(Sender, (1999); pp 94)
the neoclassical orthodoxy [read tragic optimists] had simply failed to appreciate
‘the complex causal nature of the social world [read people friendly], assuming
that components and processes of the economy are the same across countries’”
25
.
Most importantly for Sender however, is the claim that ‘tragic optimists’ are
more likely to generate a ‘clearer idea’ of the interconnections between politics
and power, than the ‘people friendly’ approach. As a result, the social science
research in this regard is also more likely to substantiate an enabling environment
for the ‘free market’ in the ‘third’ world. Whereas the people friendly’ social
science research on the other hand, is more likely to encourage a more active and
increased role by ‘third’ world governance structures in the welfare of its people
and state enterprises. An approach that is not conducive to the aims and
aspirations of the ‘post-Washington’ consensus (which seeks to privatise and
minimise the role of ‘third’ world governance structures in the functioning of their
economies), and thereby, an approach that functions as moral window dressing for
institutions like the World Bank 26
.
6.) Conclusion
examining this paradigm alone, and its developmental impact on the ‘third’ world .
Secondly, attempting to balance ones views of the complex social interactions
within development processes, by considering either a ‘people friendly’ or a
‘tragically optimistic’ development approach alone, while attempting social
science research. Represents a narrowing of focus that while enabling a more goal
directed research outcome. Also represents a limitation, in as far as understanding
the intersection of societal agents and their combined impacts on development is
concerned.
A key conclusion in this regard therefore, is that development research
would be better described/understood by considering a wider range of social
science disciplines. Which would as a matter of course include the combined
adoption of both the ‘people friendly’ and ‘tragically optimistic’ approaches.
Viewed within the larger understanding of a range of pre-capitalist and capitalist
25
(Leftwich, (2005); pp 588)
26
(Sender, (1999); pp 110)
27
As evidenced by the works submitted as references and bibliography to this paper.
Ahriweng-Obeng .F & McGowan .P, (1998), “South Africa in Africa”, Parts One and Two,
Journal of Contemporary African Studies, XVI (1 & 2), pp 5-38 & 165-196.
Baran .P, (Undated), “On the Political Economy of Backwardness”, Idem., pp 75-92.
Brenner .R, (1977), “The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique”, New Left Review,
No. 104’ (July – August 1977), pp 25-92.
Bundy .C, (Undated), “The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry: - The Herschel
Peasantry: A Case Study”, pp 146-165.
Butler .M & Hallowes .D, (2005), “The Groundwork Report 2005: Whose Energy Future? Big
Oil Against People in Africa”, Pietermaritzburg: Groundwork.
Crankshaw .O, (1996), “Changes in the Racial Division of Labour in the Apartheid Era”,
Journal of Southern African Studies, XXI.
Cumings .B, (1984), “The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political
Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequences”,
International Organisation, Vol. 38, No. 1, (Winter 1984), pp 1-40.
Daniel .J & Lutchman .J, (Undated), “South Africa in Africa: Scrambling for Energy”, Sakhela
Buhlungu et al (eds), State of the Nation: South Africa 2005-2006, pp 484-509.
Fine .B & Rustomjeee .Z, (1992), “The Political Economy of South Africa in the Interwar
Period”, Social Dynamics, XVIII (2), pp 26-54.
Foster-Carter .A, (1978), “The Modes of Production Controversy”, New Left Review, No. 107,
(January – February 1978), pp 47-77.
Kemp .T, (Undated), “South Africa: Gold, White Supremacy and Industrialisation”, Tom
Kemp (ed), Historical Patterns of Industrialisation, pp 177-190.
Leftwich .A, “Politics in Command: Development Studies and The Rediscovery of Social
Science”, New Political Economy, Vol 10, No. 4 (December 2005), pp 573-607.
Leys .C, (1996), “The Rise and Fall of Development Theory”, London, James Curry, pp 3-44.
Marx .K, (1973), “Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy”, Translated
by Nicolaus .M, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
Moore D., (2004), “The Second Age of the Third World: From Primitive Accumulation to
Public Goods?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, (February 2004), pp 87-109.
Moll .T, (1991), “Did the Apartheid Economy ‘Fail’?”, Journal of Southern African Studies,
XVII (2), pp 271-291.
Pollard .S, (1965), “Economic History – A Science of Society”, Past and Present, No. 30, pp
3-22.
Rostow .W.W, (Undated), “The Take-off into Self-Sustained Growth”, Agarwala and Singh
(eds), The Economics of Underdevelopment, pp 154-188.
Sen .A, (2004), “Elements of a Theory of Rights”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 32, No.
4, (December 2004), pp 314-356.
Sender .J, (1999), “Africa’s Economic Performance: Limitations of the Current Consensus”,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer 1999), pp 89-114.
Simkins .C, (1981), “Agricultural Production in the African Reserves of South Africa”, Journal
of Southern African Studies, VII, pp 256-283.
Simmons .C, (Undated), “Economic Development and Economic History”, Ingram and
Simmons (eds), Development Studies and Colonial Policy, pp 1-99.
Wightman .D, (Undated), “Why Economic History?”, Susan Strange (ed), Paths to
International Political Economy, pp 23-32.
Wolpe. H, (Undated), “Capitalism and Cheap Labour: From Labour to Apartheid”, Wolpe
(ed), The Articulation of Modes of Production, pp 289-319.