Can Complexity System

“We are told that socialism is the road to development. We are told that laissez-faire
is the road to development. We are told that a break with tradition is the road to
development. We are told that a revitalised tradition is the road to development. We
are told that industrialisation is the road to development. We are told that increased
agricultural productivity is the road to development. We are told that an increased
opening to the world market (export oriented growth is the road to development.
Above all, we are told that development is possible, if only we do the right thing. But
what is this right thing?”

(
Wallerstein, 1994:3)

1. Introduction

What is curious in the international development practice is that notwithstanding the

fact that empirical evidence has proved spurious some of the key assumptions of
the ideologies and paradigms that have instrumental formulation of policies and
strategies, there has been no change in the explanans and consequently the
solution proposals have remained the same.

There is a set of reasons which explain why there has been, so far, no serious
challenge to continued practice. The economic discipline occupies the key position,
and rightly so, in the analysis of development. Adelman (1999) has stated that the
culture of the (economic) discipline, serves to structure the art of discourse and
manner of argumentation in the discipline. The discipline of economics has
enshrined the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) principle into an overarching tenet.. This
principle demands simple explanations and universally valid propositions (Adelman
1999). The KISS principle has led to three fallacies about international development
which are: (1) single-cause theories of underdevelopment; (2) single-figure-of-merit
criterion of development; and (3) log-linear process of development.

Rihani (2002): Arthur (2005) respectively argue that the main flaw of orthodox
economics in the study of international development is the assumption of linearilty
and equilibrium. Early development theory, development economics as expressed by

1
Lewis and modernisation by Rostow (1960) presented development as a linear
process leading to a single destination- that of the level of developed achieved by
the industrialised countries of Europe. Empirical evidence from both developed and
developing countries elucidate that the reality of economic progression is a non
linear process and that economies of developing countries are more often than not
out of equilibrium. This suggests that orthodox economic approached employed in
the search for economic development solutions for developing countries have been
inclined towards idealism as opposed to the reality of the situation of the developing
countries.

Debate on the efficacy of the orthodox economics in addressing international

development is well documented and given rise to competing theories ranging from
Marxism to structuralism and dependency theories. What has been noted in this
debate is that the competing theories have been ideology laden just like orthodox
economics, and therefore subjective. It can therefore be argued that the scientific
claim about economics is suspect. It is rather an ideology that has successfully been
entrenched in the study of allocation of resources in society, continually advancing
its mathematical methodologies, that has become almost unassailable. As such it
has been economic theories that have been advanced in the attack of ideologies or
system deemed hostile to capitalism, most notably Marxism, or not capitalist enough
such as mixed economies. Development economics was savagely attacked in the
1960s and 1970s only because it dared challenge orthodox economics,
notwithstanding, it’s not only development economics, who saw the limits of orthodox
economics in developing countries. Wan (1971) stated that growth theory is not
appropriate for developing countries saying developing countries operate under
different ‘regimes’ than developed countries “just as ordinary physics and
cryogenics are directed to different sets of environment” (Wan 1971:2) Wan clarified
the difference between growth theory and development theory saying the latter aims
at both the working a developing economy and the critical transformation process
that may metamorphose a development economy into a developed economy (Wan
1971ibid). This is the precise argument that earlier development economist
Hirschmann (1957) sought to argue against..mono-causal
.

Introducing complexity

2
The emergence of complexity in economics ( see Foster ) :Arthur provides as
opportunity to address international development with a different explanans which
might alter the explanandum and re-define the concept of development, but not in
the single - issue case of development studies. Complexity in economics, arguably
broadens the development discourse beyond the arbitrary time line set from the
1950s, for no other reason than the fact that it is when de-colonisation of became. As
such international development has been confined to the development of the post
colonial era. To this end, it has been noted that both development economics Lewis
1952: modernisation, Rostow have been ahistoric in their analysis, therefore leaving
out the path - dependence set by the colonial system which might contribute to the
structural weakness impeding development.

Complexity allows the study of international development from experiences outside

the narrow confines of the post colonial, trawling through events such as the Russian
development in the 1920s (Bukharin vs Peogr...) and Stein-Rodan’s seminal work
on the question of development of then Eastern and Southern Europe.
revisit the works of Myrdal (1957) and then Arthur, Foster .

More significantly, complexity systems approaches is a major shift from the notion
inherent in the study of international development, that developing countries are a
homogeneous entity and instead see individual countries as independent units,
each with autonomy, but performing a function (s) in the aggregate economic
system.

Countries as complexity systems

�Connectivity & interdependence

� Emergence
� Feedback
3
� Self-organisation
� Co-evolution
� Far-from-equilibrium
� Exploration-of-the-space of
possibilities
� Path dependence
� Historicity

but in the process provide a more realistic perception about both the impediments to
development looking at bother, internal and external factors.

Foster,

Arthur

visors, policy makers and the researchers in the area of economic development
research are still dominated by the Western intellectual hegemony. They have been
hesitant to development credible research methodologies which can counter the
assumption of the Western counterparts, in the same mode as Raul Prebisch which
led the construct of the structuralism and dependency theories. If anything the key
international institutions central to international development, notably IMF and World
Bank have intensely schooled development countries technocrats and policy makers
into their methodologies, thus become unable to construct theories frameworks that

4
look at the development problems from within as opposed to the approaches
informed by the theories constructed in developed countries.

Adelman stated that KISS principles has brought three major fallacies into the
international development discourse, which are:(1) single-cause theories of
underdevelopment; (2) single-figure-of-merit criterion of development; and (3) log-
linear process of development. The single causality theory has dominated the
international development discourse. Pre-Washington Consensus, state intervention,
and lack of liberalisation, and flirting with socialism was blamed for development
failure of stagnation. Post Washington Consensus, with most countries having
opened their economies, poor governance, notably alleged corruption has been
currency of criticism against the developing countries. While this criticism has been
justifiable, there are more factors to underdevelopment which have impeded
development but have remained outside the mainstream radar, only because they
are unique to developing countries. These facts are far from, hitherto, being
unknown. Some have transcended all the periods of change in development theory
beginning with development economics of the 1950 right up to the present. Others
are emerging problems as developing countries are caught up in the dynamics of
international evolution and revolution. The issues Arthur Lewis (1954) theory of
"Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour transmuted into the problem of
uneven development. The dependency theory paradigm of a world hierarchically orders
between core-periphery states remains valid and the logic of comparative advantage has
failed to materialise. Seeking to explore solution to these issues using the mainstream
economic approaches has proved cumbersome (ZImbabwe and ESAP) if not infeasible
Unlike in the past when these political ideology liberal democracy versus socialism, was
applied to discuss these perspectives, using complexity theories go beyond the limits of
symbiotic framework of neo-liberalism and mainstream economics.

This paper is divided into ..sectoR. The first part reviews on international development
literature which has sought to go beyond the neo-classic economy theory and and hinted at
the notion of complexity. The second defines complexity and its concepts which are relevant
to international development.

The thirds presents a case study, Zimbabwe, and analyse its development trajectory through
complexity

5
2 Literature Review
Rosenstein-Rodan
Myrdal
Dependensia

It is almost a decade the Brentwood Institutions abandoned structural adjustment as

an economic development panacea to developing countries. In between there have
been major initiatives aimed at giving impetus to international development
especially in Sub Saharan Africa, such as NEPAD, yet the recommended or
prescribed policies are those deemed as consistent with doctrine that free market
economies are the key to economic development.

Empirical evidence on the limitation of the policies attendant to neo -liberalism in

some developing countries especially Sub Saharan Africa has not provoked
sufficient debate to question the validity on neo-classical economic theory in
describing and analyzing the economic condition in developing countries. There is
no suggestion that there is stagnation or an impasse in the area of theorising on
international development. Indeed there is evidence of sophisticated approaches to
economic modelling in varied areas of economics. It appears that the restraint in
attacking the neo-classical approaches to underdevelopment is the ideological
conviction among those practicing neo classical economics. As such the primacy of
the market economy is held in sanctity. After all, the counter-point, Marxist analysis,
suffered a humiliating demise with the domino collapse of communist regimes in
Central and Eastern Europe at the onset of the 1990s.Yet it is the very article of faith,
the pursuit of free economies since the 1980s as the economic development model
that proved problematic to most developing countries. Key policy measures, such as
currency devaluation has seen the countries debts growth exponentially, trade
liberalisation has seen an increase in import goods and domestic industry unable to
compete go under, and removal of labour and price control, resulting in a rise in
unemployment and increase of price basic goods.

Complexity Theories and Economics

There are a set of factors impeding a broader understanding of the problems of
underdevelopment. The first of these and possible the most dominant is economics.

References

6
Wan, Harvey (1971) Economic Growth, New York , Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Inc.