A MAJOR NEW

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
TEXTDOOK

o Provides a comprchensive,
multi-disciplinary and up-to-date
account of development theory
as it has evolved over the
past generation.

Organised around four major

themes: economic development
and underdevelopment, politics
and the state, socio-economic
development and the state,
and civil sodety and the
development process.

The only textbook to pre.~ent

critically the full range of
theoretical apprnaches and
current debates.

Pays special attention to the

contributions ofThird World
intellectuals.

The author raises fundamental

questions about the nature of
development theory and the
increasingly differentiated nature
of countries in the South.

UNIVERSITY PRESS
D/rnka, Ba11gfodes/J

FERNWOOD PVBLISH!NG
Hal({ax, Nova &otia
978-1-895686-72-2 Pb

HSR.C/RGN
s,,ut/1 Africa
978-0-7969-1795-9 Pb

ZED l300KS
Lourfo11 & Ncu, York
978-1-85649-441-0 Hb
 CHAPTER I

Development Studies as
a Subject Area

There is no consensus on what the subject of development reseatch covers.

In fact there is not even agreement that development research is a distinct
', subject with its own approaches, methods and theories. Furthermore, many

,I
ii 1
researchers have claimed that development studies in the last decade have
been caught in a serious crisis, because mainstream theories have not been
'
able properly to explain the patterns of transformation and stagnation in the
:'1'i':i: developing countries. Moreover, there is disagreement on just how large a
,, part of the world development research can or should cover - and in
1,, connection with this, to what extcnt it still makes sense to talk about a Third
!'! World, or about developing countries as a special category of countries.
'1. j
It is necessary to examine these issues in order to outline a framework for
a review of the various developm.ent concepts, theories and strategies. This
is what the present chapter is about. A separate section of the chapter
:;11 !i
describes the method of analysis and presentation applied in the book.
.11.1,
,
1' 1 What is development research?
,:i'11 1 It is common in internacional developm.ent co-operation to regard develop-
11::i ment research as synonymous with developing country research, i.e. a
111
collection of all types of research which have to do with developing countries
- regardless of subject atea. Based on this conception, botanical studies in
1

tropical ateas, for instance, becomes developing country research and thus
,:1:1! i
development research.
.,,,,1 A different, though not necessarily opposing concept, is found among
:i:1:
1
lnany representatives of basic research, especially within economics. They
rl!! l1 take their starting point in the established disciplines and claim that the
jil: 1!;
lnethods and theories of these disciplines are essentially valid for all societies
throughout the world. They thereby dismiss theory and method which give
!111;,ij developing countries or the Third World a separate status. To them there is
no development cconomks or any other form of theory construction with
''11, special validity for what others call developing countries, the Third World, or
Pcripheral societies (in this regard, see also Chapter z below).
)1i i I ln itself it is understandable that the aid agencies - the multilateral as well

l
i..1l'I
':1
:11,
''
 4 INTRODUCTION
a,; thc hilntcrnl - in a prngmatic way choosc to regard devclopment research
~nd dc\'doping country research as the sarne subject arca. This follows logically
from thc gcographic arcas of particular intcrest to thcse organisations.
Problcms arisc, however, whcn thc aid agencies' work and strategy recom-
mcndations are bascd on the assumption that the theorics, mcthods and
stratcgics that havc been shown to bc useful in highly industrialised countries
can bc applicd, without modifications, to countrics with totally diffcrent
,;tructures, interna! conditions, and rclations to the international system.
Thcsc atc exactly thc diffcrences onc would expect to be discussed
thoroughly in basic rcsearch at universities, in connection with deterrnination
of the arca of validity of thc theories. Unfortunatcly this is not always the
case. On the contrary, there is a widespread tendency to assume a kind of
uni,crsa! applicability and validity, again especially within cconomics, Views
likc thesc sccm open to criticism and thcy app'ear as cthnocentric, because
th.cy a pri?'.i give prcc~dcnc: to mcthods and thcories which are developed
with cmpmcal fotmdatlons tn \v'estern societics and culture.
Evidently, other socicties in .the world may devclop and change under
differcnt conditions anel according to othcr 'laws of motion' than thosc
which apply to the highly industrialiscd societies. This could be the case for
'I'hird \''<'orld countries or diffcrent catcgories within that group. The sarne
could apply to thc prcviously centtally planned economies of Bastem Europe
and thc formcr Soviet Union. These possibilitics are ignore.d if it is asserte.d
flt thc start that thcorics and methods based on cxpericnces from the North-
\'(/cstcn~ rcgion of the w~dd, in Europc and North -4-mcrica, are applicable
and vali.d cwrywhcre. It ts thercby also asserted, albcit implicitly, that the
developmg countrics' own traditions and inhcrited economic, social and
political struc:1rcs a~1d institt1tions are of littlc importance as determining
foctors for thcir soc1ctal development.
!t secms more rcasonable, as a starting point for dcfining the core ateas
of dcvclopment rcscarch, to procccd from thc hypothesis that the special
featurcs of thc developing countrics are of critica! importancc - until the
oppositc has bccn show11 to be the case. This forms the basis in the presem
account, which more preciscly defines the subject arca of dcvelopmcnt studies
anel rcscarch as lhe .rodeta/ reprod11ction and fran.iformation prceues ef the developing
co1111lri~.r, in ~'Ot[i~tnclion Jl'ifh lhe i11tematio11al factors that influence these processes.
'I'hts dchmtton does not neccssarily embody an assertion that the con-
ditions and laws governing devclopment and change in Third World countries
diffcr qualitativcly from thosc which apply to thc highly industrialised coun-
tries. Bt1t thc de6nition does imply a nced to bc aware that the geographic
and cultural foundations of thc cxisting thcorics may reduce or even eliminatc
thcir applicabilit:y to socictics outside the North-Westcrn region. That the
methods and theories of the cstablishcd disciplines within the North-Western
rcgion may hc rclcvant and valuablc in the various parts of the Thitd World
is not precluded, but the suggested definition underlincs that it remains an
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
open and cmpirical question just how far and in what respects this is the
case. Thc sarne rcasoning can bc applied to theories with cmpirical founda-
tions in the Second World - the formet centrally planned cconomies.
The suggcsted defintion, at the sarne time, implies a narrowing or focusing
of perspectivc, namely by putting emphasis on societal factors and consequently
00 social sciencc thcories and methods. This further entails that culture studies
and other disciplines of the humanities are centrally positioned in many arcas,
becausc thcy have so extcnsively inspired and supplemented largc parts of
social science research. On the other hand, natural sciencc, medical scicncc
and tcchnical science approaches are only included in those cases - and to
thc cxtent - to which they ate necessary for the undetstanding of societal
processes. This could be the case, for instancc, in connection with dcvelopment
problems like defotestation, deserti6cation and tcchnological maladjustment.
The point is that rcsearch in the Third World bccomes development research
only when expressly related to societal conditions and processes.
The delimiting of the subject atea of developmcnt research implied hcre
forros the basis for the presentation in this book.
Development research is more than economis
For many ycars thcre was a widespread tendency to reduce the problems of
developing countries to economic problems. This applied also to development
research as it was conducted in the 1950s and the following couplc of decades,
albeit to a decreasing extent.
Many of the original theories of dcvelopment were fitst and foremost
theories of economic growth and economic ttansformation. They revolved
around conditions that reseatchcrs thought promoted or obstructed economic
progress - with or without a social dimension. Correspondingly, discussions
on development strategies were mostly concerned with economic issues. This
v:ry much applied to the international debates of the previous dccades on
a1d and development co-operation.
In the beginning, development theories rarely concerned tl1emselvcs with
politi~al or cultural considerations. On the onc hand they did not raise
qucstions about thc extent to which political or cultural factors influcnced
economic development On the othet hand they did not, as a rule, concentrate
on describing what actually happened to political or cultural lifc when a
<levclop~ng country went through an economic crisis ot experienced rapid
economic growth.
From thc start there were, as we shall later see, theories which did concern
th emselves with policies and culture, but the majority of these theories wcre
Weak when it carne to economic analysis. Therefore, they too failed to givc
a comprehensive picture.
The sttategics, based on the economic theories, which thc Intcrnational
Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organisations recommended the
 r:
6 INTROOUCTION
developing countries to follow, were similady dc\'oicl of politics and cultutc.
They paid very little attcntion to prevailing powcr rclations or othet political
preconditions for economic reform. They rarely concerncd themselves with
the political institutions through which policies wcrc to bc implemented.
This meant, among other things, that thcy normally foilcd to consider whether
the governmcnts concerne.d had even the administrative capacity or the
political will to implemcnt the suggcsted strategics. Finally, understanding of
the developing countrics' own, oftcn vigorous and significam, social and
cultural valucs was oftc.n lacking,
,:1
Surprisingly, this undcremphasising of non-economic comfions was also
embodied in the majority of strategics that wcre drawn up by thc dcvcloping
countries' own authorities. Not cven in the otherwisc comprehensivc five-
year plans did one find serious discussion of political or cultural conditions,
It was hardly a coincidcnce that both devclopment rescarch and thc
internacional debate about the problems of devcloping countries wcre char-
acteriscd by thesc biases in thc fitst decadcs aftcr thc Sccond World War. Thc
theories themselves often argucd in favour of stressing economic aspects with
teferencc to the fact that the devcloping countries were primarily poor in the
economic sensc, and that so many pcoplc in these cmmtrics wcre without the
most basic material nccessities. Thcrcforc, it scemcd natural to start here, both
with the analyscs and the stratcgies. Thc problems arosc when this - in itsclf
a reasonable and convincing starting point - was combine.d with the assump-
tion that if thcy succeedcd in initiating cconomic growth and change processes
then the other aspects of socictal lifc would automatically follow and adjust,
Thc dangers in attribucing thc dominant role in s~cictal devclopment to
economics was not so conspicuous in the industrialised countrics, wherc the
thcories and stratcgies were first worked out. In the North-\'{lestern region
neither political nor cultural considcracions blocked the way for economic
progress and social reforms. In fact, there was not much that obstructed
economic progress during the long pcriod of growth that continue.d until
the end of the I 960s. Thereforc, this period was also characterised by
widespread opcimism and a bclief that economic progress would lead to
better quality of lifc in every respect.
'I'his attihlde affectcd the discussion on thc deYcloping countries' con-
ditions for development. Becausc of this, many took it for granted that the
poor countries could makc good use of thc experiencc of the more devcloped
countries - again, in itsclf, a reasonable assumption . .ivkanwhile, in practice,
it was found that this assumption shifted, almost naturally, to the more
11j ideological conviccion that thc more developed countries constituted ideal
:1111
models for dcvelopmcnt evcn in the 'I'hird World. Thc spccific modcls
proposed varicd, but the sarne basic ideological conception charactcriscd -
explicitly or implicitly - most thcorics which were c!aboratcd in the North-
Wcstetn industrialised countries and in thc USSR and Eastcrn Europe for
many years aftcr the Sccond Wodd War.
1
DEVELOPMENT S1'UDIES 7
As a consequence of the dominance of the highly industrialised countries
_ thc first and Second Worlds - within rescarch as well as economically,
thcsc distortions and ideological conceptions carne to characterise the develop-
in countries' own research and self-understanding for several years.
g'fherc has, howevcr, always existe.d a signifi.cant opposition to the prevailing
thcorics and strategies. Rescatchers, politicians, and planncrs around the world
have consistently tried to reach a broadet and deepcr undcrstanding of the
problcms facing d~veloping societies. Many e:xamplcs c~n bc give? ~f theori:s
and stratcgies which assumed such broader perspecuvcs, but 1t JS only 10
more recent years that the mainstream of dcvclopment research has seriously
startcd to analyse the devclopment processes as both economic and politico-
cultural processes.
In kceping with the abovc outlincd main stages in the intcllectual history
of development research, the chapters in the following parts of this book
are arranged to provide, first, an introduccion to economic growth and
development theories and, second, a revicw and discussion of political and
sociological theories. Only after that - as a refl.ection of today's prevailing
research priorities and emphases - will we turn to the mulcidisciplinary
approaches and thcories.
As far as the strategies are concerned, there is still a long way to go
bcfore the non-economic factors can be said to have been systematically
integrated in mainstream thinking, but thc tcndcncies here are in that direc-
tion, both with regard to the recommendations of the World Bank and in
thc new approachcs adopted in internacional development co-operation.
Along with the increascd attcntion to non-economic conditions, we have
also observe.d over the last zo years more interest in the special circumstances
prevailing in the individual developing countries; more awarcness about
specific local conditions; and better understanding of the importance of
changes ovcr time, both in thc individual countries, and in their relationship
to the world market and world society as a whole. Moreover, increased
attention has been given to social and cultural differentiation, induding gender
differentiation, Finally, the interaction between socictal dcvelopment and
ecological conditions has increasingly been brought into the theory con-
struction proccss, as well as into the debate on developmcnt strategy.
All thesc trends towards a broadening of the perspcctive, and the concur-
rent trend to focus on selectcd constituent problems, are reAectcd in this
book in that the further onc progresses through the tcxt, the broader is the
perspective. At the sarne time, howcvcr, individual sections of the various
chapters conccntrate on a particular arca, refl.ecting the changcs in the theory
construction proccss away from grand theories towards middle-level and
thematic theorics - like those on thc role of transnational corporations,
democratisation, or gender-specific issues.
The concluding chapter (Chapter 25) takcs up for discussion the outlincd
trends and pattcrns in theory construction. Further, factors whkh have
 ~
8 INTRODUCTION
influenced extensively the profiles and accentuations of development rcsearch
are dealt with in that chapter,
Is there a crisis in development research?
During the last decade much has been written on crises in development
rescarch (e.g, Hettne, 1990: Ch. 1). ln this connection, it has to be acknow-
ledged that the earlier so dominant grand theories - Marxist as well as
liberalist - have not been able to provide adequate explanations for the
different kinds and patterns of development and underdevelopment which
have occurred in the Third World, In addition, these general theories have
often resulted in incorrect predictions. Parallel to this, the strategies worked
out on the basis of these theories have frequently been shown to give
1'/ 1
unintended results or no results at all.
All this refl.ects a crisis for the earlier predominating theories and strategies.
At the sarne time, it can be seen as a crisis for development research in the
wider perspective, in the scnse that no sustainable alternatives have yet been
elaborated.
It is somewhat disturbing to have to acknowledge that so many years of
working with theory construction and strategies concerning the developing
countrics have brought about such modest results. On the other hand this
acknowledgement has formed the starting point for a very fruitful discussion
in both the industrialised countries and the Third World - a discussion
which is far less fettered and much less dogmatic than it used to be. There
is now a greater openness and determination to lo'ok more closely at the
actual conditions obtaining in the developing countries and the global system.
The result can only be better theories and more adequate and effective
strategies.
One of the purposes of this book is to present some of the more open
theories, especially the theories that are based on concrete insight into the
developing countries' actual problems and opportunities. This cannot, how-
ever, be clone in isolation from the earlier predominating theories - partly
because the new theoretical contributions borrow a lot of ideas and conccpts
from them; partly because, to a large extent, they are formed as a criticism
of the older theories. In addition, the older theories cannot be justifiably
rejected in their entirety. ln some areas they give still relevant and valuable
descdptions, interpretations and explanations, The book therefore comprises
a review and discussion of the older theories, along with an underlining of
both their weaknesses and their strengths.
Does the Third World still exist?
Part of the criticism against development economics and other kinds of
dcvelopment research is that there is no unambiguous research field in thc
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES 9
rnphical sense. The view is that the Third World, or the so-called
geog
d vdoping countrtes,d extst at ali as a homogenous group w hih"
o not e 1s
d~ffcrent from thc rest of the countries in the world. This criticism is
important, beca use it raises ~e question. ab~ut whether or ~ot it is meanin~ful
nd appropriate to work wtth generalisauons and theot1es for developmg
:auntries as a special group of countries and societies, No attempt will be
made here to answer the question with a simple 'yes 1 or 'no'. On the other
hand, it can be useful to try to differentiate the whole debate a little, and
point out the main perceptions which are found in the literatute, and also to
outline the arguments put forward for the contradicting viewpoints,
The first step to differentiating the debate is to emphasise that we are
actually facing two separate questions. The first question can be put: '.Are the
societies in the so-called developing countries qualitatively different from
other societies in the world? Are these sodeties organised in a way that is
essentially different from societies in the First and the Second World? Are
they subject to profoundly different conditions and laws of development
and change?' The second question can be summarised as: 'Is it meaningful
and appropriate to group together all developing countries into one category?
Does it make sense to lump together the problems and circwnstanccs of
Asian, African, and Latin American societies as those of the Third World?
Do these societies share the sarne basic features and are they subject to
essentially uniform conditions of development and transformation?'
To these questions can be added a time dimension by asking if any
significant changes have occurred since the 1950s, especially after the dis-
mantling of the Eastern Bloc and the break-up of the Soviet Union into a
number of independent states.
Broadly speaking, three different answers have been suggested to the first
question: (a) the developing countries are not qualitatively distinct from other
socicties in the world; (b) the developing countries are distinct from the fully
developed market economies, i.e. the highly industrialised members of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), but
they have many features in common with the earlier centrally planned eco-
nomies in the East; and (e) they are qualitatively distinct.
The fst notion can be found, for instance, among thc neo-classical
economists, whom John Toye has described as the counter-revolutionary
group of economists (Toye, 1987). One of these economists, P. T. Bauer,
?as advanced the opinion that the only thing that the Third World and all
Its synonyms - such as developing countries, underdeveloped countries, the
South, and so on - have in common is that they request and receive
development aid. 'The Third World is the creation of foreign aid: without
foreign aid there is no Third World.' (Bauer, 1981: p. 87). As a consequence,
says Bauer, the developing countries and their problems must be subjected
to analyses using the sarne theoretical tools that economists utilise in the
countries of the OECD (cf. Chapter 18 below),
 ri

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES II
10 INTRODUCTION
f mcmbcr countries and has since grown to more than 120 countries,
Baucr's opinions are groundcd in nco-classical cconomic thcory. Cor- 7
u irom rhe Third World. But neither this refcrcnce nor other notions in tbe
responding theorctical foundations probably cannot bc found for thc second a ort can substitute for substantial arguments for lumping togethcr the
notion that 'devcloping countrics', as a catcgory, should include all thc formcr
::ntries of the South with a view to further elabo_rating theory.
centrnlly planncd cconomics. Howcvcr, it is noteworthy that thc Wodd Bank
Substancial argumcnts within a theoretical framcwork can bc found in the
in its latest publications has quite simply located thesc countries in its tables
dcvclopment literature, as will be shown !ater in this book. However, on this
'I! according to their per capita income (see, for example, World Bank, 1994).
oint thcre are great differences between old anel more recent contributions
11! They ali appear in thc catcgorics 'lowcr middlc-incomc economies' or 'highcr
~o the debate. ln the literature from the 1950s and 1960s there was a tcndcncy
middle-income economies'. In keeping with this lumping togcthcr of the
to look at the developing countries as so fundamentally similar that it was
formerly Communist-led states with the Third World countries, thc Bank,
dcemed reasonable to generalise about them as one type of society. This is
along with othcr national and international aid organisations, have altered
no Jonger the dominant conception. On the contrary, the predominant notion
thcir loan anel aid policies so that the former Eastcrn Bloc countries can be
today is that the developing countries have always becn too different - and
treatcd on a par with devcloping countries within the cquivalcnt income
subject to such great variation with rcgard to their interna! as wcll as externai
brackct. dcvelopment conditions - for them to be trcatcd as a homogenous group in
Opposing thesc notions, most dcvclopment researchcrs maintain that the
thcory building and strategy formulation. Further the current prevailing
societies of the Third Wodd are qualitativcly different from those of both
opinion today is that thc dissimilarities have bcen continuously accentuated
thc Sccond anel thc First Wodds and must be examined and treate<l ac-
by the vcry differcnt patterns of development and stagnation which have
cordingly. Thcrc are minor variations in the exact dcmarcation of the Third
occurred. Correspondingly, the differentiation in the Third World has in-
\'(lorld and significant variations with respect to the employed criteria -
creased considerably. High-growth middle-income economies in the Far East
stretching from per capita incomcs, through industrial production per capita
and extrcmely poor countries with negative growth in Africa constitute
and industrial export per capita, to more thcoretically grounded criteria
extreme cases in this differentiation process. As a result great caution is
conccrning production structure and dcpcndency rclationships. However, the
exercised now whcn considering the relevance and validity of all-embracing
result is that in most cases dcvelopmcnt rcsearchcrs count as the Third
gcneralisations.
World - ar whatever othcr labcl that might be uscd - the countries which
On thc other hand, there are few dcvelopment researchers who would go
ncither belong to the OECD nor formerly belonged ~o Comecon. Israel and
as far as, for cxample, Nigel Harris, who has dcclared the Third World as a
South Africa, who would qualify by this definition as Third \Vorld countries,
dead concept with refercnce precisely to the marked differenccs between the
are left out bccausc they are considcrcd by most to bc special cases. Mexico,
newly industrialised countries and other developing countries (Harris, 1987).
although now a mcmbcr of the OECD, is regarded by most as a Third
Most researchers instead maintain that it can be fruitful to compare and
\'(/odd country. contrast development expcriences from various countries and tegions within
[t is worth noting that the South Commission, under the chairmanship of
thc Third World - though without assuming that these countries are more
Tanzania's formcr president, Julius Nyerere, in its report from 1990, put
alike than they really are (cf., for example, Worsley, 1984; Hettne, 1990),
great cmphasis on the Southern countrics' special character and common Continued attention to the Third World as a particular group of countries
identity: 'What the countries of the South havc in common transcends thcir
is regarded as an appropriate basis for forming systematic dcscriptions of
difforcnces; it givcs thcm a shared identity anda rcason to work togethcr for the great variety of basic problems facing the developing countries. It is
common objectives' (South Report, 1990: p. 1). further claimed to be a suitable approach to cvolving theories (in the plural)
By stressing both the uniquc and the common fcatures - despitc dif- 0 n the reasons for the very diffcrent patterns of change and stagnation
fercnccs in many respccts - the South Commission took a position on thc
observed in the Third World over the last 40 ycars.
sccond of thc above two qucstions. Thc Commission's reason for grouping
. ln this book, wc assume that it is meaningful to compare descriptions,
togcthcr ali Third \Vorld countries into one category was, however, not tnterpretations and explanations concerning societal development in Asia,
theoretical but more ao expression of a fundamental, politically motivated
Africa and Latin America. However, wc do not conceivc of the Third World
wish to unitc them in joint efforts for a new and better world arder. Thc
as a homogenous group of societies that can be understood and theorctically
Commission did mention instances of actual political co-operation between
teconstructed within one and the sarne conceptual framework. Rather, it is
tbc countrics of thc South, for examplc thc formation and cxpansion of thc takcn for granted that a number of conceptual frameworks and theories will
Group of 77 - a loose alliance within thc United Nations Conference on be required to cover the variations. Consequently, we shaU frequently add to
Trac\e anel Dcvclopment (UNCTAD), which originaUy (in the 1960s) consistcd

I2 INTRODUCTfON
the conceptual examination of thc various thcoric::; particular rcfercnces to
the countries or regions to which we belicvc thc spccificd thcories havc
greatest relevance. Certain thcorics may bc uscful toais for dcscribing and
explaining growth and social transformation in Far Eastcrn high-growth
economies, while wc may need complctcly diffcrent approachcs in relation to
stagnating cconomies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some thcorics may bc particularly
relevant for explaining democratisation in Latin Amcrica, whilc at the sarne
time they may havc littlc to offcr in relation to antocratic rulc. in Africa.
Possibly, some of thc Far Eastetn societies likc South Korca and Taiwan
have been transformed to such an extcnt that they can no longer be treated
as part of the Third World, but this does not preclude their past experiences
being dealt with in the context of convencional devclopmcnt theories.
Before we leavc thc question of thc Third World's scparate existencc in
the present context, it should be notcd that criticism can be ditectcd against
mainstream devclopmcnt rescarch for cvcn using legally defincd countrics as
the principal units of analysis. By doing so, thc rcsearchcrs may ignore or
1
grossly underestimate thc importancc of internai differences. 'I'hcy may
further disregard thc significance of transnational processes which introduce
dynamism into only certain sectors and scgments within the individual
countries, while at thc sarne time excluding others, This could apply to
transnacional corporations which bring about significant industrial growth
within certain geographical enclaves and concomitant incarne growth for
population segmcnts within those enclaves, while at thc sarne time excluding
or maybe actually damaging the conditions in other arcas and for othcr
population groups (sce Chaptcr 9).
The method of analysis
This book is not meant as an indepcndent contribution to theory formation.
It contains first and foremost a prescntation of partially opposing conceptions '/
and thcories, competing to give the best descriptions, interpretations and
explanations. Howcvcr, at thc sarne time the theories are discussed as pieces
in a mosaic, whcre every piece contributes to an ovcrall understanding of
the circumstances affccting and dctermining dcvclopment and underdevelop- j
ment in Asian, African and Latin Amcrican countries. 'I'bc aim throughout :I!
thc book is to add to thc undcrstanding of what has happencd in the Third ,
World, especially ovcr thc last 40 ycars - and why.
Some of the guiding qucstions that form the basis for our discussion of :'j
the various theories can bc summarised as follows:
How havc the dcveloping countries changed according to the theories?
\Vhat has happened, and what is about to happcn in thesc countrics
internally, and in thcir relationship to the rest of thc world and the
internacional system - again, according to the theories?
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES I J
\'{fhat condicions are parcicularly crucial for the kinds of changcs that may
bc callcd 'developmcnt'? What typc of devclopmcnt concept is contained
in cach of the theories?
\'v'hat c:xplanations do the thcorics offer for devclopment, maldcvclopment
or undcrdevclopment and stagnacion? In addition to economic factors, do
thcy includc also political, social, cultural and ecological factors and, if so,
h\V?
J-{ow do the thcorics take into consideracion internai diffcrentiacion within
individual societics?
What development strategies are suggested in the various theories? Do
the suggestions take into account the cconomic, political and cultural
realicies? Do they incorporate c.nvironmental or sccurity problems and, if
so, how?
Thc method of analysis use.d in the book implies that the individual
thcorics are introduccd and discussed only in contexts where they offer
particularly interesting or importam answcrs to thc quescions raised. The
focus is on the main idcas embodicd in each of the theories presented.
However, for the most interesting and for the most infl.uential (not neccssarily
the sarne) theories, a more comprchensive introduction is provided. 'I'his
includes a rc.view of their conception of development, thc.ir perspcctive,
method, central concepts, essencial hypotheses and derive.d strategics.
Throughout thc tcxt, refcrc.nces are givcn to relevant original literature, where
the interested reader can dclvc more dceply into selccted theories.
ln arder to provide an ovetview of the many diffcrent thc.ories and strategy
proposals, we have grouped the various contributions i~to a few main
traditions and theoretical schools of thought. These groupings should be
treated with caution. Devclopment rc.search is not - unlike the natural scicnces
- charactcrised by a few explicitly and wcll-defincd paradigms in the sensc
proposed by Thomas Kuhn (cf. Kuhn, 1972). Rather, what we may identify
are research programmes and profiles which, to a ccrtain e:xtent only, reseml)lC
paradigms in that they contain certain characteristic constellations of value
premises, preconccived opinions and assumpcions that, together with a set
of propositions and mcthods, form the intcllectual framework for empirical
Studies of development processes and issues.
. It should be stresse.d that it is not an aim in itself to assign labels to the
' different thcorists and their work. This is clone, as mentioned abovc, merely
~o fadlitate the overvic.w and to rcveal the more fundamental lines of confct
,1 ' the internacional devclopment debate. Or in other words: to identify
;u~stantial differences which are more interesting to compare than termino-
:1 ogical or other minar diffcrences.
As part of thc idcntification of the major tradicions, Chapter 2 contains
:1
a brief summary of the theorctical heritagc in a long-term perspeccivc. As
an extension of this, a numbcr of critica! issues are highlighted. Devclopmcnt
i.1j
J
 ..,-
INTRODUCTION
14
researchers have been, and continue to be, in disagreement on how to <leal
with these issues. The list of controversial issues can - together with the
chapter's overview of a number of opposing conceptions - provide the
reader with some useful tools or benchmarks which may be valuable while
reading the rest of the book.
Another tool is introduced below: the set of distinctions betwcen develop-
ment concept, theory, and strategy. Much of the debate on developmcnt has
been characterised. by an obscuring and rather confusing mixing of various
dimensions of the issues. Values and individual preferenccs, in particular,
have been mixed up with observations and analyses - to the detriment of
the latter. The alternative to this is not to avoid value premises and other
normativc elcmcnts; this is by the vcry nature of social science research
impossible (cf. Myrdal, 1959). However, it can be more cxplicitly stated when,
1:, and in what respects, interpretations and conclusions arrived at depend
,. primarily on value premises and prefercnces rather than on empirical analyses,
' For this purpose, we shall employ throughout the book a now widespread
set of distinctions between (a) development concept (or development ob-
jective), (b) development theory, and (c) development strategy.
1: A development concept contains the answer to what development is. This
!i answer can never be value-free; it will always reflect notions of what ought
to be understood by development. These notions can be formulated as
development objectives, either in terms of particular conditions which must
be achicved or in terms of a certain direction of change (Riggs, 1984).
To illustrate: a development concept - like the one embodied in modern-
.I isacion theory - may claim that the large industrialisecl countries, for example
1,
the USA, are developed, that is they have achieved certain, positively evaluated
i:1
' condicions. According to this conception, changes in Third World countries
li
,11
towards increasing similarity with these industrialised countries are regarded
1 .
as developmcnt. Other changes are not regarded as such, The dynamic change
' processes through which a country moves towards greater resemblance with
the developed countries is called the development procm, according to this notion,
Other concepts of development focus more on the given condicions in
Third World societies and define development in terms of bringing out,
"li unfolding, what is potentially contained in these societies. ln this sense, these
concepts come closer to the original meaning of development as the opposite
of enveloping. Often, emphasis is given here to increasing the capacities for
taking and implementing decisions in accordance with nationally or locally
11.i perceived priorities. Notions like these are also normative, albeit in a different
manner to that in the above.
1~11
:t111; Develop!JJenf theory seeks to answer questions such as the following: How
,!i1:;
,i;1l11 can chosen and specified development objcctives be promoted? What con~
dicions will possibly obstruct, delay or detract progress towards the objectivcs?
j:\
~1\,;,f
What causal relationships and laws of motion apply to the societal
,~
processes? What actors play dominant roles, and what interests do they
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES I j
Oevelopment theory
_ hypotheses about promoting and obstructing conditions
Deve/apment
process
lnitial Development
situation objective
~1/
Oevelopment strategy
- means to promote change towards the objective
Figure 1.1 Development objective (concept), theory and strategy
How do the changes affect various social groups and various geographical
regions?
Questions like these are not value-neutral, but they set the stage for
expounding, unlike a development concept, how social reality is actually
structured - as opposed to how it ought to be structured. Theories thus
contain significant normative elements, but can none the less be subjected to
validating or invalidating tests through empirical analyses of the actual
conditions and historical experiences. While value premises of a particular
rcsearcher may be understood by others, but not accepted or endorsed by
them, the testing of theories must ideally follow transparent and universally
acccpted procedures which produce conclusions other researchers have to
acccpt as valid.
Development strategy as an abstract notion refers essentially to the actions
and interventions that can be appropriately used to promete str:ictly defined
development objectives. Once-..again the basis is heavily value-loaded in that
there are 'chosen' development goals. But there is - at least in pr:inciple - the
possibility of a matter-of-fact weighing of which strategies are the most
effective and least costly to promete the established objectives. ln practice,
though, decision makers as well as researchers often have had too little
i~sight into the relevant contexts and causal relacionships to ensure in-
~tsputable strategy choices, These are, therefore, in many cases more reflec-
tions of prejudices, ideologies and personal preferences. This book will
attempt to reveal how severa! development strategies are partly reflections of
such normative premises rather than being solidly based on empirical analyses
and theoretical insights.
The abstract interrelationship between development objective (development
~on~ept), development process, theory and sttategy may be depicted as shown
in Figure r. I.
 r
r6 INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMEN'l' STUDIES r7
With the above dc6nitions in mind, Chapter 3 providcs a bricf prcsentation Politics and Households and
of some of thc promincnt development concepts with emphasis on concept the state civil society
dct:inition, though also with refcrence to thc thcorics and strategies that !ater
in thc book are takcn up for discussion. Dt1ring further reading it is important Part Ili PartV
to kecp in mind how the variollS theoretical approaches are grounded in
certain basic devclopment conccpts.

The structure of the book

Chapters 2 and 3 havc bcen introduccd above. A brief account of the rest
PartlV

of thc book's contcnts now follows. Thc book consists of six parts. The
flrst part, of which thc c~1rrent chapter is a component, gives a general
introduction. Thc sixth part rounds off the account with some general con-
siderations on development tesearch and its theories. The severa! chapters in
bctween - the main substance of the book - contain a review and discussion
of a large number of thcorics. There is no chronological arder to their
presentation, rathcr an analytical structurc.
BrieAy statcd, Part II contains the theories which chieAy focus on economic
conditions, that is production, markct and the organising of economic activ-
itics within companies. National and international perspectives are applied,
and theoretical propositions regarding the economic foundation of social
classes are included. Environmental issues are also taken up in this part,
base.d on thc obsetvation that these issues, to a large extent, deal with
economic development with limited natural resources.
Part III contains theories which primarily concern :hemselves with policies
and the state, including systems of government and their interaction with
social power structures and pressure groups.
Part IV presents and discusses the theories which, in one way ar another,
have tried to comprehend and explain both economic and political conditions
and change processes. ln this context, the role of the state in societal
devclopment is examine.d in grcater detail, and thc debate on state versus
market is revicwed. Chapter 19 concludes this part, looking at the interplay
bctwecn national security issues and devclopment in a holistic way.
Finally, thc thcories in Part V shift attention away from the state, the
markct and thc large companies, to civil society, i.e. the life of thc. citizens
and their interactions within households, local communities and the various
1 other forms of social organisation which lie outside the formal political
system and the corpora te cconomy. Chapter 2 3 is devoted to theories about
ethnic identities, nationalities and conAict.
Figure 1 .2 - with its refercnccs to patts and chapters - may provide an
ovc1Ticw of thc diffcrent perspectives applied in thc various parts of thc
book. Thc figure is base.d on thc assumption that, in any modem society, wc
will 6nd at least four differcnt types of structures, institutions and dynamics
of social behaviour and practice, corresponding to the four boxes shown. ln
Macro-econo=l
1 1
Production
and the market and the firm
Part li Part li (espec. Ch, 9)
Figure 1.2 The structure of the book
addition, severa! processes of interaction between the four sodetal
components may be identified, as illusttated by the double arrows. The parts
and chapters refetted to in the boxes deal primarily with conditions and
processes internal to the respeccive components of socicty, bnt some of
them also address interaction processes involving the other components. As
for extra-societal relations, these are included thmughout the book - providing
the theories reviewed themselves include thcse relacions. This is the case
particularly with regard to the theories dealt with in Parts II and IV.
The abstract conception of Society depicted by Figure I.2 is inspired by
some of the approaches and theories presented later in this book, including
the othetwise very different conceptual frameworks of historical materialism
and new institucional economics. Other ways of presenting the diverse
perspectives are reviewed fater in the book.
ln the first chapter of each part, there is a more elaborate introduction
concerning the perspectives applied and how the subsequent chapters are
organised, together with reference as to how the chosen perspectives relate
to other parts of the book. ln addition, the contents list may be uscd to
acquirc a preliminary understanding of the sttucture of thc book.
 N
CHAPTER 2
The Theoretical Heritage and
1:
Controversial Issues in Development
Research
,i'
:!) Studies of Third World societies date back to the earliest European colonisa-
tions of Latin America, Asia and Africa. A large number of these studies,
:1
1; i'i' however, at lcast up to the middlc of the ninetcenth century, werc so
preoccupied with thc unique that one must describe them as athcoretical and
ideographic. Their aim was not to idcnrify patterns and general dcterminants
[1
of people's behaviour and socicta! dcvclopment, but rather to describc local
'i conditions without a theoretical framework, without a systcmatic comparative
perspective, and without trying to gencralise. Conscquently, studies of this
kind did not form schools of thought for method and thcory construction.
It should be addcd, though, that in much of the historical wricings about thc
colonies, and in many of the oldcr ethnographic and socio-anthropological
descriptions, onc can find a wealth of detailcd inforillation which has since
been used cxtensively for re-analyses within subsequently elaborated theor-
etical framcworks.
Methodologically conscious and gencraliscd approaches to studies of
societies emerged primarily in Eurnpc, and in connection with studics
of European societies, rathcr than their colonies. It is thcse approaches that
form the major part of the thcorctical heritagc of prescnt-day dcvclopment
research and theory construction.
Development rcscarch embraces, as was stressed in the previous chaptcr,
many social science disciplines and additional clemcnts from thc humanities,
in particular. The dclineation of disciplines, like cconomics or political sciencc,
is of recent date. The breaking-up of all-embracing society studics into mono-
disciplinary studies carne about only in thc twentieth centmy, primarily in the
period following the Sccond World War. This specialisation did not charactcr-
1 ise the earliest and school-founding theorists of the nineteenth century. Nonc
the less, it is a characteristic of thc modem disciplines that each has
rcconstructed its own theorctical heritage with cmphascs assigned to particular
ir: classical theorists, Thcrefore, it will be appropriate to divide thc present
il review into at lcast two maio streams of thinking: dcvelopment cconomics
and socio-political dcvelopment thcories. Thesc are thc two major traditions
'I,,':
:i 18
1
"
THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 19
[rorn which contemporary dcvclopment research has drawn considerable
inspiration.
Theoretical origins of development economics
Devclopment economics first appeared as a distinct subject arca during the
and the bcginning of the 1950s, concurrcntly with the political de-
1 405
c~lonisation of Asia, the Middle East and, !ater, Africa. The main interest of
dcvclopment cconomics was from thc outsct to uncover the causes for
continued poverty and underdevelopment or stagnation in thc Third World.
At the sarne time, thc emerging analytical perspective drew attention to the
opportunities and preconditions for economic growth in the former colonies,
Hcnce, from the very outset dose linkages werc cstablished between thcory
and stratcgy.
Development economics emcrgcd as a special perspective and later as a
sub-discipline within the field of economics. Thc focusing of development
cconomics on the sources of, and obstacles to, long-tcrm economic growth
separated the subject arca from the neo-classical mainstrcam which, since
thc turn of the twcnticth century, had been increasingly taken up with short-
tcrm cconomic cquilibrium analyses and maximising of cfficiency in resourcc
allocation.
However, economics in general as wcll as development cconomics have
common roots in thc so-called elas.rica! pofitica econom)' of the cighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, represcnted primarily by Adam Smith (1723-1790),
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) and David Ricardo (1772-1823). To
this group could later be added John Stuart Mil! (1806-1873).
Adam Smith placed himself at thc centre of the debate towards the cnd of
the eighteenth century with his major work, Weatb of Nations (1776). ln it he
undetlined the criticai role of the market mechanisms, operating - as it !ater
became known - as 'the invisiblc hand' which ensured that production in
Society was (in most cases) organised in the best interests of alL Smith's
central argument can be summed up in one sentence: there may be producers
who will try to sell inferior goods at high prices, but if the produccrs are
competing they will all eventually be forced to detiver proper goods at
reasonable prices.
Another important role thc market played, according to Adam Smith, was
that of a growth source. The reasoning in this context was that when the
tnarket expanded a_s a result of population growth or territorial expansion
~exp~nsion of the British Empirc), then demand would incrcase and pro-
. Uctton grow as a response to that. At the sarne time, spedalisation would
incrcasc among the producers. This was a central clement in Smith's theory
of growth; he argued that specialisation would in itsclf, for a numbcr of
;easons, lead to higher productivity per working hour. A major prccondition
or this was an increased accumulation of wealth - which had to come from
 20 INTRODUCTION
the rich, especially the industrialists and their profits from productive in,
vestments, The accumulated funds wcre required for investment both iti.
more working capital (to ensure employment Of additional workers), and in : 1
more fixed capital (to incre.ase mechanisation). It followed from this argument -'1
that the emerging industrial sector should be considere.d as the most dynamic
one and as the one on which to base aggregate growth. This proposition
conttasted with that of the French physioctats who earlier in the eighteenth )
century had argued in favour of agriculture as the main cngine of growth, , 1
Adam Smith's idea about 'the invisible hand', as well as his hypotheses
about accumulacion and investment of profits as the most important J
detern:iinants. of. economic gr~wth, have playe.d ~r~rninent roles in the debates : j
ever sJnce hts time. The notlon about the '1nv1Slble hand' has been central
in the debate about attaining equilibrium and in relation to the state-versus-
market controversies (cf. Chaptcr r8). The theses about sources of growth
have similarly had a strong impact upon discussions about causes of long-
term growth. Since Smith's original theories were formulatcd, numerous
rcfincments and qualification have bcen added, but it is remarkable that
some of his basic notions can still be idencified as core elements in the
debate even after the SCcond World War.
David Ricardo was one of the first who seriously elabotated on Smith's
."11 classical political economy, especially with a land-rent and distribution thcory
1,,11 and with the theory of comparative advantages, Regarding the former, it
(,I! should be mentioncd that it has heavily inspired contemporary theories
' concerning the relationship between agriculture and industry. It enabled
ii ij Ricardo to identify two othet sources of growth in addicion to capital, namely
technical innovations and international trade.
Whcn Ricardo suggested more sources of growth than did Adam Smith,
,1/11 this was not the result of a more opcimistic view. On the contrary, Ricardo
li, was fundamcntally pessimistic regarding long-term growth because his
1 i analyses led him to conclude that continued population growth and the
corresponding incre.ase in demand for food would result in the inclusion of
ali land for agricultura! produccion - even the so-called marginal land with
'! :,
very low arca productivity rates. Utilisation of poorer and poorer land would
i,\1. cause the land rent to go up, mainly due to the farmers' competicion for thc
i:I
1,:]
11,1'
better, temporarily more profitable, land, This process would result in a
redistribution of nacional income to the benefit of the landed aristocracy,
but to the dettiment of the 'industrialists. Simultaneously, the marginal costs
in agricultural produccion would rise with the increased culcivation of marginal
land. Food prices would then increase, leading to stronger pressure on wages
1 '1!)i
1
.1;,1
,,:,
which would, in turn, eat into the profits of thc industrialists from another
side. The final result would be a squeezing of the industrial profs to zero,
':'111,.,
whereby the who1e foundation for economic growth would disappear. Only
i:1:.J technical innovations and internacional trade could, according to Ricardo,
prevent this sad outcome.
'li:w1
1
1
!;1 1:111
.,!.,1,
r THEORETICAL 1-IERITAGE AND ISSUES 21
Th tbeory of comparative advantages was elaborated in concinuation of
:ove argument as an attempt to evolve the best possible policy for
thea
e i O trade. The b. was that each country shld
as1c notton ou concentrate lts
,orcg h . h d . d . 1 .
duction. in arcas w ere 1t a comparatlve a vantages m re auon to o er th
pr:ntries with respect to the produccivity of its workers. ln accordance with
c~is basic thesis, non-industrialised countries such as Portugal should refrain
;rom trying to build up industries and, instead, continue to concentrate on
thc producrion of, for instance, wine. Industrialised countries like England,
J on thc other hand, should produce and exchange industrial products such as
1
textiles and clothing.
With thcsc and many other notions, and the accompanying chains of
reasoning, Ricardo carne to inspire both Karl Marx and !ater neo-classical
economists. Ricardo is one of the very few theorists who has enjoyed
widespread and great respect within both the Marxist and the liberalist
tradirions.
Tho!)Jt1J Robert Maltb111 is known primarily for his pessimistic theses on
population growth. He believed that the population would grow markedly
faster than food production, if it was not constrained, with the poor in
particular breeding rapidly. There would be little reason for mencioning
Malthus in this contcxt had he not cofie to function as a reference point in
post-war debates on population problems (cf. Chapter 11), Very few re-
searchers in the twent:ieth century have taken Malthus's exact formulations
of the progression in populacion growth and agricultura! output seriously.
However, his basic assertion that population will necessarily grow more rapidly
than agricultural production has played a central role as a hypothesis that
many researchers have taken a position on, either positively confirrning or
negatively dismissing it.
From a certain point of view, it would be just as appropriate to mention
Malthus's contribution to the formulation of an economic crisis theory, which
stretched far beyond the thesis of population growth as a prime barrier to
economic growth. This contribution could in many ways be seen as a
forerunner of Keynes's more elaborate crisis theories of the 1930s.
John StHart Mil/ should be briefly mentioned before we leave the classical
~olitical economists, not so much because of his new and original contribu-
ttons to theory construction, but more because he -reviewed and commented
on the then existing theories in a widely disseminated book, Prindplu oJ
Polical Economy (1848).
Common to ali the classical political economists was a strong emphasis
00
generalisacion and abstraction. In their analyses, they searched for patterns,
causal relacionships and laws of motion regarding societal conditions in the
short-term perspective, as well as regarding growth and change over the long
terru. lt is these analytic intentions that have been passcd down to present-
day development research. The handing down has taken place mainly through
th ree main strcams of thinking, with Joseph Schumpeter on the sideline.
 22 INTRODUCTION
r THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 23

I addition to thc valorisation compulsion, the capitalist (the individual

Adam Smith
(1723-1790) n , owncr) has continuously to accumulate capital in arder to survivc in
'h others, tl1at 1s
foctoc)-petition wlt expandh'ts capita
' I apparatus throughh
t e
~ i
\
t he co, ..
.ci .. up of surplus value generated by the workers (capital concentration),
1
piing 'hh '( ' Icentra
I '1sat1on
' ).
T. A. Malthus .l d through mergrng wtt ot er comparues capita
(1766-1834) .( an According to Marx, these processes embodicd unavoidable tendencies
David Ricardo
~ 11772-1823) - - - ::j owards increased tcchnical and organic composition of capital, that is the

/6-~ J, S. MHI / \ Kad Marx

11818-18831
'.I

,j
Ci
~ontinuous enlargement of technical productive assets in relation to labour
and a simultaneous increasc of the value of 6xed capital in relation to the
surplus value produced .by the ~or.ker~. Combined with population grow~h,
this necessarily resulted m margrnalisauon of large segmcnts of the potenttal
working population and, consequently, the establishment of a large reserve
A. Marshall J. M. Keynes J. Schumpeter army of unemployed workers. This was, in a sense, the first formulation of
(1842-1924) (1883-1946) (1883-1950)
tbe hypothesis concerning jobless growth (cf. Chapter 22), For the capital
owners the outlined tendencies meant constant pressure on their rate of
1 ~ / profit, because relatively fewer workers were available for surplus production
Neo-classicaf Deve[oprnent Neo-Marxist as compared with the more rapidly growing capital assets. This tendency,
paradigm economics approaches however, could be neutralised in vadous ways, including through productivity-
' enhancing technical innovations, state interventions, and crises which clim-
)
Figure 2.1 Theoretical origins of development economics inated the least competitive companies.
These basic laws of motion for the political cconomy un<ler capitalism
With this intcrprctation, thc theorctical family tree can be outlined as shown :_j could not be viewed in isolation from the class struggle, becausc a large and
in Figure z. 1. .,i
well-organised working class, according to Marx, had the power to lessen thc
Karl Mm:,.: (r 8 1 8-r 883) startcd from the basis of classical policical economy, ,j uncomfortablc effects for itself, and in the long run may also be able to
but transformed this body of theory into a far niore comprehensive and ' overthrow capitalism and introduce first socialism, and !ater communism.
quite <lifferent analytic construction. Only a few features of this will be On the other han<l, a weak working class confronted with a strong and well-
',1,1
mentioned here; others will be discussed later in the text in connection with organised bourgeoisie would be forced to put up with miserable conditions.
,1;'
1: later presentations of the various Marxist approaches within contemporary It is obvious that these summary outlines of Marx's reasoning in no way
,''i.i
development sh1dies. do justice to bis very comprehensive theory; but the sarne applies to the
:if'i At the outset, it should be stressed that the perspectivc for Marx's theories previous discussion of the classical political economists. It should be borne
i'';'j was society as a whole and not only the economic processes. Marx was in mind, therefore, that the intention in the present context is merely to
,, 1
1.1 interested in the totality of society and the ways in which this totality changed '] indicate some of the intellectual sources of inspiration for post-war devclop-
,1 over long periods of time. His focus was on how and why various forms of mcnt economics. Readers interested in a more comprehensive introduction
I'' are refetred to some of Marx's own presentations (Marx, 1972, espccially
(!.1 socict}' emerged, changcd and disappeared to be replaced by new ones. For :J
: 1 Marx, the basic driving forces behind societal changes were the social classes :J vol. 1, Chs 21-3; Marx, 1857-58: pp. 375-413; Marx, 1969; and Marx, 1965).
'fl which, however, acted within strnch1ral limits primarily laid down by the :1
Regarding the classical political economists the readeris refcrred to the major
, 'l'I forces of production and the prevailing production relations, i Works cited above, plus a few summary accounts (Hunt, 1989: Ch. 2; Meier
, :1,,..11 Under capitalism - the most dynamic mede of production in world history d and Seers, 19 24).
\,'l'i'.,, according to Marx - thc most important sources of economic growth were . Jo~eph Schumpeter (1883-1950) was mentioned above as a theorist on the
sidehnes of the three maio streams of thinking; however, this is not to imply
j'I', the valorisation and accumulation compulsions which individual capitalists
~hat he has had less influence on development economics. Schumpeter has,
are subjected to. To achieve a profit, the capitalist must exploit labour by
1

1li'j
111.:,'I
,
1

paying thc workcrs less than thc equivalcnt of the value thcy produce, 'fhis r1 tn fact, particularly with bis maio work, The Theory oJ Economic Develupment
,1:1!,'1' ,
was a fundamental elemcnt in Marx's labour theory of value, which further '.1
(Schumpeter, 1934; German edition r9r2), left a considerable legacy in the
'li'''
IJ,I\ assmned that it is the workcrs and not the capitalists who generate value. !] shape of hypotheses and ideas that continue to be debated. 'fhere is special
,:11,,f',I
li':1(' li
,1:!1'11, ij
_:,:111 11:: R

INTRODUCTION
24
reason to mcntion his cxplicit distinction bctwccn 'grnwth' and 'dcvclopmcnt'.
Growth, according to Schumpctcr, was thc gradual cxtcnsion of thc capita\
apparatus and incrcasing production. Hcrc thc classical growth thcotics werc
of intercst. Howevcr, in contrast to thesc, Schumpctcr asserte.d that dcvclop-
ment could occur only whcn tcchnkal innovations introduccd ncw production
techniques, -new ptoducts, or new me.aos of organising production - in othcr
words when thc production factors wcrc utiliscd in ncw ways. In this manncr,
more fundamental changcs would bc brought about and ncw rulcs of play
inttoduccd into economic life.
The innovators, in Schumpeter's conccption, wcrc the entrcprcneurs, who
as a category covcrcd more than thc industrialists or capitalists, and who,
1'
furthermore, did not themsclvcs need to be capitalists. Schumpcter also
broke ranks with the classical conception of capitalist savings and accumula-
tion as bcing the most important sourccs of growth. Hc bclicved instead
that growth was driven by tcchnical innovations, in associarion with thc
' 1
cntrcprencurs' mobilisation of crcdit in the economic system as a wholc
(Schumpetcr, 1934).
Severa! changes in thc focus of economists prcccded Schumpeter's con-
111,:,i
tributions, especially changes away from a ptimary intcrcst in growth and
11 growth-dctermining conditions, and towards cquilihrium analyscs. Around
,!,1 the turn of the twcnticth century, long-term growth was takcn for granted
!,1;
and conscquently attcntion was shifted to how to achievc thc bcst possible
' ,,.,:1
1:;i utilisacion of given resourccs - known as allocativc cffcctivencss and ef-
ficiency. This implicd thc arrival of the so-called neo-classical paradigm -
and here the Kuhnian term 'paradigm' is more apprpriatc than in rclation
to most of the rest of the social sciences, bccausc thcsc neo-classicists really
',1 did, and continue to, claborate a consistcnt and highly formaliscd (and
1;
mathematically formulated) theory with common assumptions, conccpts and
::.j; rules of validation. It is this neo-classical parndigm that today dominates a
,,1,,
'1 vcry significant proporcion of cconomic rcsearch in both the industrialised
I', countdcs and in many devcloping countrics.
1
One of the first gret theorists within thc paradigm was A(fred Marshall
(1842-1924) whosc major work, Pdnciple.r oJ Economic.r, first publishcd in 1890,
carne to replace Mills's Principies oJ Political Eco11om_)' as thc most important
:,,:1 standard work within mainstrcam economics.
We do not delvc into the paradigm hcre. Rather the rcadcr is referre.d to
i'1 ',
the discussion of the neo-classical contributions to devclopmcnt rcsearch in
I.'.' .'
: :1 subsequent chapters (particularly Chapters j and 18), in addition to a few
! '1 '1
major works and text books (Walras, 19j4; Samuelson, 1967 ot later edicions).
'1j' ,,, However, a bricf note may bc use.fui at this point: some of the central
'111:::
'I
' Iril l.:i fratures of neo-classical economics are certain cxplicit assumptions about
.,r1.., ,,L1
,,,,,
1
the n~ture of the econo~ic ~ystem and thc. detct:minants of cconom~c
:1!!.:1,
11 behav10ur. These assumpuons tncludc onc which st1pulates that firms will
il'
,!'li:' . i':!1,1 maximise pro6ts. Another assumption is that consumcrs will maximise utility,
1
l1 1fl
1:11,1,,11
}!i' 1\I 1 j
r
t'
'fHEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 25
b'ned these behaviour-detcrmining factots are bclicved to producc an
Co~ :1 aocation of production factors and, furthcr, provide the bcst
optirn
dicions for econom1c growth - ptoV1'ded that penectly
e ..
compct1ttve markcts
.-'
::! e~~ t price distortions as a conscquence of political interferencc with thc
_ I cxl:kct mcchanisms will therefore inhibit economic growth.
j rnaBefore wc !cave the historical roots of devclopmcnt economics we shall
ii bricfly rouch on the role that John Mqy11ard Krynes (1883-1946) has played.
Keynes, who wrote bis main contributions during the 1930s, includng The
General Theory of Emplqyment, lnlerest and Mo11ry (1936), was, like the mainstream
economists, not particularly interested in long-term growth or in conditions
in the colonics. This is why he did not !cave bchind any elaborate theory of
growth and dcvclopment. On the other hand, hc placed the question of the
:i
._, rclationship between market and state so 6rmly on the agenda that he thereby
_;j acquired lascing significancc for the ensuing devclopmcnt debate (see Toye,
.] 19 87: Ch. 2 for an excellent cliscussion of this).
-.' Probably Keynes's most significant contribution to theory formacion and
debate concerne.d the question of the reasons for, and the possiblc solutions
to, the unemployment problem. But he also lcft behind an important legacy
with bis analyses and propositions regarding institucional contrai of inter-
nacional tradc and finance, and thc associated proposal for establishing what
was later to becomc the Internacional Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Furthermore, Keynes achieved a considcrable indirect infl.uence on develop-
ment strategies through the work of two other cconomists, Roy Harrod and
Evscy Domar, after whom the so-called Harrod-Domar model was namcd.
This modcl informe.d the cntire way of thinking about cconomic planning in
'1 the Third World during both the 1950s and 1960s (cf. Chapter 16).
:;I After this btief survcy of thc intellectual roots of development economics,
wc can turn our attention to thc theoretical lcgacy which has exetted a
'
. strong influence on sociological and political developmcnt thcories.
I\
-] Theoretical origins of sociological and
! political development theories
!] Sociologists normally trace thc origins of thcir discipline back to theFrench
J author Auguste Comte (1789-18i7), who was also thc first to use the term
:1 'sociology'. However, more comprehensive contributions to theory con-
sttuction appcared later - from Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), Karl Marx
and Max Weber (1864-1920). Each of these three thcorists can be said to
:1
_ h~vc foundcd a major school of thought with considerablc impact upon
':j differcnt approaches within contemporary devclopmcnt studies.
. ~mi/e D11rkheim acknowledged explicicly Comte's contribution to cstab-
:J
;J ltshing sociology as a scienci6c discipline, but asserte.d that Comte had not
ij ?uccessfully achieved his objective. Durkheim wished to complete the work
in accordancc with a natural science modcl, which meant among other things
!:J
 r
f'

26 INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 27

that he would study social phenomena as 'objects' - as if they werc as
palpablc as natural phenomena.
Similar to the classical political economists, Durkheim was concerned with
social change processes in the long term. This lcd him to study the develop-
;d ment of the division of labour in society as part of the industrialisation
process. Where economists concerned themselves with the impact that the
division of labour had upon growth, it was more important for Durkheim
to study its social consequenccs. Durkheim believed that thc division of
labour would eventually come to replace rcligion as the most impmtant
social force of cohesion, but that the separation and specialisation of labour
funccions and other swift social changes would also cause widespread anomie,
By 'anomie', Durkheim meant a feeling of rnotlessness and aimlessness which,
furthermore, was characterised by a lack of moral guidelines. The breakdown
of the tradicional orders, which were supported by religion, would result in
many people feeling that their lives had lost meaning; they would feel isolated
''! 1
f hers of modero social science who has left a strong impact upon both
;e~elopment economics and sociological and political science approaches to
the study of Third World development.
Evcn though in terms of volume Marx wrote much more about the
olitical economy of capitalism, his analytic perspective and method at the
~ame time implied substancial contributions to sociology. As earlier mentioned,
Manc's perspective embraced the whole of society. His method implied a
systematic tracing of the interactions between the basic economic structures
and processes on the one hand, and the political, social and ideological
relations and institutions on the other. Marx, in his analyses, assigned to the
cconomic processes a certain precedence over other societal processes,
believing that social change was prompted primarily by economic influences.
The dynamism created by technological progress and the development of
the forces of production within the framework of a particular mode of
production would, in the final instance, also determine the direction and

without clear guidclines for normal behaviour.
Durkheim's approach in these arcas has clcady influenced post-war
modernisation theory (cf. Chapter u). His rcasoning around the concept of
i,: anomie is found also in other contemporary approaches like those applied to
the study of ethnic and religious revivalism as responses to the breakdown
',
i of tradicional arder (cf. Chapter 23).
Durkheim also engaged himself thoroughly with the causes of suicide.
i:1,,: :1'
He researched the causes of suicide, not by looking at the individual's
motivation but by looking at the externai social circumstances in which suicide
occurred with a markedly highcr frequency. The rhcthod of analysing in-
,,,1'
dividual behaviour as dctermined significantly by social circumstances carne
basic patterns of societal changes in the social and political spheres. This
was part of the basic idea in his materialist conccption of society ~nd history.
However, it is important to add that the primacy of economics applied only
in the long-time perspective and at the macro levei. Further, it is important
to note that the class struggle under all circumstances impacte.d heavily upon
actual outcomes and thus mediated, to some cxtent shaped, impeded, or
accentuated economic determination of structural change processes. But
underlying all rescrvations and complicating circumstances, Marx had a clear
idea about technological progress and development of the forces of produc-
tion as constituting the core of the dynamic that changed societies. He also
held the view that social and political conflicts which really mattered ali had

,,(i to influence the further dcvelopment of sociological methods.

The theoretical heritage from Durkheim was transmitted through at least
their roots in economic inequality and economic conflicts of interest. This
meant, with regard to the methods for the investigation of society, that the

1;
il
ri';
three main streams. The first onc was via the foundcrs of modem social
anthropology, including particularly A. R. Raddif.fe-Brown (1881-195 5) and
Bronislmv lvfafinowski (1884-1942), who were both pioneers in the cvolution
rcsearcher should always try to identify the economic-matedal basis for other
social phenomena and further expect, a priori, that the basic structurcs were
far more important to the outcome of social and political processes than
of fieldwork methods with well-defined conceptual framcworks. The further people's motivations and wishes.
: :li:
development of these methods led to the present functionalist analysis at the With respect to both these fundamental notions, 1vlax Weber advanced
: ,::': o~posing views. He would not, a priori, assign to the economic processes any
micro levei, that is analyses based on thc view that social conditions and
! i:1 prunacy at all, but on the other hand would not exclude that they could, under
,:

events in the local cmmunity are bcst understood and explained on thc
1
;1: certain circumstances, determine the outcome of the social and political
basis of their function - with reference to the part that they play for the
processes. ln his works, Weber did not explicitly polemicise against Marx, who
'I<;
local community and its maintenance. The second stream went more directly
or through lesser known theorists and researchers to functionalism and t~ apparently had deep respcct for as a theorist, but went indirectly against
un, for example in his famous book about the Protestant ethic, in which he
j! i'J modernisation theory with a macro perspective. The third stream went via
:,!(_'.\ Talcott Parsons (see below). ~sse~ted the critica! importance of Calvinism for the breakthrough of capital-
i'lii 1:1 Karl Man/s contribution to theory formacion in relation to the 18111 lll Western Europe (Weber, 1965). This was like turningMarx on his head,
:11 11;1 1

economy of capitalism has already been briefly mentioned. Here we at least as seen from a simple interpretation of Marx. A more thorough
1,,,11, ~tnparison of the two theoretical giants within social science research shows,
add only a few more observadons regarding his role in the context
sociological method and theory. Marx is the only one among the found owever, that it is somewhat more complicated (Martinussen, 1994).
i:1'l11'
,, 1,
,1111

iq."1'
n!1''.1.'.
J~:',1i__'.':
 r
i!1
ri.
28 INTRODUCTION
Rcgarding thc rdationship bctween sttucture and the individual actor, there
is a strongcr case for contrascing Marx and Weber. Thcre is no consensus on
cxactly bou m11ch of individual behaviour the structurcs accounted for, accotd~
ing to Marx. Howcvcr, thcrc is general agrccment that Weber in this respeq
assigncd to tnan as an individual significantly more independence in Society.
Thcrcforc, Weber also workcd much more than Marx with human motivation
and rationality as determinants of bchaviour as well as outcomcs of social
1 '
conflicts and other processes
Weber has some.times bcen taken to task, wrongly, for simple assumptions
about rationality as something unequivocal. ln reality, Weber worked with
many types of rationality, of which the so-called bureaucratic rationality
(which actual\y combined two forms) was only one among several (Bruun,
1972: pp, 221 ff.). 'fhis was the form of rationality that Weber described as
the analytical ideal type in his studies of modem bureaucracy. His approach
in this regard elid not imply support for bureaucracy and its rationality as an
unconditional asset. Weber found bureaucracy unavoidable in a modero
capitalist socicty. Hc also found this form of organisation and the associated
burcaucratic forros of bchaviour useful for solving many societal problcms.
But \-X1cber cmphasiseel strongly that a bureaucratic system which was not
subject to democratic control or counterbalanced by charismatic or otherwise
popular \eadcrs, was an evil for society.
Wherc Durkheim focused primarily on the division of labour as ao
integrated part of industrialisation processes, Weber's maio interest was to
dcscribc, interpret and cxplain the emergence of the bureaucratic form of
d the so-called Neo-Mandsts (cf. Vandergeest and Buttcl, 1988; Corbridge,
' organisation and the relate.d rationality form. These two phenomena Weber
::i' Yicwcd not just as dependent variables, but also as independent variables, in
thc sensc that the modes of Ol'ganisation and rationality, after being engrafted
t1pon modcrn societies, seemed to act as drving forces for subsequent social
changc processes, lt was in this context that Weber deemed it desirable to
have some fonn of popular influence and control over bureaucracy.
ln addition to Weber's substantial contributions to social science theoty
building, he also laid thc founelations for the methodological principle which
'1 ! is now known as scientiftc 11al11e relati11is111. This principle takes as its starting
point that there is a logical gap betwcen 'is' and 'ought' - bctween socicty,
''.'',1'[
',1
1 LI 1 as it cxists, and society, as the researchcr would like it to be. According to
::1 ,, .1 \Xlcber, it was not possible to conduct valuc-free rcsearch. Normative elements
l! 1.:' 1
1 ',i . j'
would affect all stages in the research process, from choice of thcmes
',, 1 mcthods through collection and interpretation of data to formulation
' ,[.'' ...'
:, ' 1 gencralisations anel theories. Thc researcher could, howcver - and should
1 i 1
thc role of rescatcher - always try to reduce biases, that is the hiddcn
,l'I
1'1.11.,i.,:.1
..1 .. thcreforc manipulating inAuenccs from his or her own norms and values,
presenting thcse as cxplicitly as possible. This would allow other
,,11:; ,-
',d".'.i![''1'
l
1,11: i to evaluate and rc-test the research undertaken and its results.
1,11 J1'' Value rclativism was brought into devclopment research pl'imarily
:1..1;1!';,:111
::!: 1 ili
UI/.!!,
THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 29
nnur Myrdal (cf, Myrdal, 1959; Myrdal, 1968: Ch. 2) and Paul Streeten,
Gu therwise it has, unfortunately, never achieved recognition as a central
but o , .
mcthodological prmc1ple (cf. Chaptcr 25).,
Other aspects and elements of Webers method and theory havc bcen
asscd down through many channels, but often without the sarne explicit
~cfercnce to Weber as is found with rcspect to Marx within the historical-
materialist tradition. Some of the explanations for this could be that another
dominant, though less sophisticated, theorist of the twenticth century, Talcott
Ptirsons (1 902-1979), was instrumental in bringing Weber to the English-
spcaking worl~. Pars~ns reduced Weber's complex and open ,theory _to
functionalism, loto wh1ch he also adopted elements from Durkhc1m. lt was
a characteristic of Parsons that he found Weber anel Marx totally incompatible
as theorists, even in the sense that Weber could essentially replace Marx,
who had thus become supetfluous (Parsons, 1937). This interpretation was
adopted by the modernisation theorists in tbe 1950s and can bc found cvcn
today among many dcvelopment researchers, especially in the English-speaking
parts of the world.
However, other conceptions of the relationship bet:ween Marx and Weber
do cxist in the literature, Schumpetcr, for example, suggested in the 1940s
that the two theorists supplemented each other - that there were a number
of areas where they were compatiblc (Schumpeter, 1947). In recent ycars,
this interpretation has gained gtound among developmcnt researchers who
label thcmselves as Neo-Weberians or Post-Marxists. The latter conceive of
themselves as more authentic inheritors of Marx.ian theory and method than
1990).
A simplified overview of the intellectual roots of contemporary socio-
logical development research can be summarised as in Figure 2.2. To this
should be added that within social anthropology there is a particular
~tructuralist approacb, and an approach which is some.times termed 'symbolic
mteractionism'. Structuralism traces its roots back primarily to Ferdina!ld de
Sausmre (1857-1913); symbolic interactionism to George Herbert Mead (1863-
193 1) (for a concise ovetview, see Giddens, 1989: Ch. 2.2).
The sociological family tree depicted in Figure 2. 2 may ais o be seen as an
o~erview of the roots of political development theoty, although the political
Sctence approaches in the post-war period increasingly separated themsclvcs
fro~ sociology, developing their own schools of thought. Within the
donlinant non-Marxist tradition one could identify at Jeast two important
~pproaches: behaviouralism and functionalism, the latter with branches of an
tnstttuttonalist-structuralist
approach,
h Behaviouralism focused on individual political behaviour and endeavoured
t rough cross-national studies, which frequently included industrialised
COUntrj , ,
es, to uncover general behav1oural patterns and estabhsh general
explanations. Here the inspiratio11 from Durkheim was obvious, even though
 INTRODUCTION
r THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES JI
J
Auguste Comte ompcting answcrs given to cach of them, wc bclievc, do providc a fairly
(1789-1857) th cC rehcnsive intra d '
uctton to severa Jof h t e ovcrn"d"'
mg 1ssues d"1scussed
comp
Karl Marx hroughout the book.
(1818-1883) t Some of thc qucstions in Table 2. 1 relate to pcrspcctivc and mcthod or

Emile Ourkheim
(1858---1917)
/
Max Weber
(1864-1920)
dircctcd at implied or explicitly statcd assumptions. Othcr questions probe
~r:o thc substancc and look at opposing conceptions of, and theories about,
::hat is happcning in thc Third World and how it can bc cxplaincd. A final
t pc of quescions conccrns the choice of devclopment strategy.

:i
/~/
Radcliffe-Brown
(1881-1955)
Talcott Parsons
(1902-1979)
y Common to ali the questions and answcrs listcd in the table is that they
are statcd in vcry general and vague terms. More precise formulations can be
given only when wc have introduccd the specific terms used in the various
analytic frameworks which are presented !ater in thc book. Furthcr, it should
B. Malinowski be notcd that Table 2. r as a whole is biased in favour of cconomic issues.
1 !, ' (1884-1942) 'fhis bias will bc corrected gradually as wc proceed from cconomic analyses
and thcories in the sccond part of the book to othcr apptoaches, reviewed

\17
Neo-Marxist in subscqucnt parts, which givc more attcntion to political, social, and cultural
aspccts.
'fo providc clatity, the presentation is styliscd and formally standardiscd
Functionalism and Functionalism and with the issues in the extreme left column, and possible answers in the two
anthropological modernisation othcr columns. It can be seco immediatcly that the possible answers in most
field methods theory Post-Marxist cases reprcscnt extreme positions, with severa! possible alternatives in be-
tween, ln a few cases, additional, interrelated answers are given in the sarne
Figure 2.2 Theoretical origins of sociological and politica! ccll. It should be stressed that thcre is no logical or other compelling
clevelopment the(1ries
corrclation bctween thc answers when read vcrtically.
the more sophisticated analyses implied considerabc rcfincments in com- It should be further addcd that there is a third, qualitatively different,
padson to his (e.g. Lcrncr, 195 8). answcr to the strategy question on how to achicvc the bcst possible utilisation
Functionalism and the institutionalist-strncturalist approach wcrc more of resourccs, which is to !cave it, as far as possiblc, to the citizens themsclves
preoccupied with political macro-phenomcna such as thc apparatus of govern- - to civil Society and its institutions.
'i.,i!,, .
1
ment, political partics, intercst organisations, and mass media. Thc pcrt:inent Onc of thc most controvcrsial questions is not induded in the table,
questions in many of thc studics within thcse schools centrcd around thc na~ely the question conccrning what should bc understood by development.
1 ,,

functions and structurcs nccessary for thc persistcncc and modcrnisation of 1'his question is taken up in the next chaptcr, which will reveal a multitude
a givcn political systcm. In this case, thc theoretical origins could bc traccd of qualitativcly differcnt and competing answers.
, i
i'I1. 1 back to, on thc one hand, sociological functionalism or strnctnral-functionalist
i :r analysis and, on thc othcr hand, to thc legal disciplines and particularly thcir
1 ! studies of the interrclationships bctwecn political institntions.
!. :i
,, ':I
!1 Major controversial issues in development research
'!i_]
Based on the abovc outlincs of thc thcoretical hcritagc and by taking into
;' '1
1:,.-
11:., account latcr thcoretical dcvclopmcnt debates, wc can now formulatc some
,1
1,
1, , 1
of the central and controvcrsial questions that havc dominated much of the
'.:.1:,: thcoretical discussions. Thc sclcction of issncs in thc prcscnt context in no
111,: '1/ way covers thc whole arca of devclopmcnt research, Othcr criticai issucs will

111
1'1", have to be added and considcrcd later in this book. But the questions and
i''I I i:'
'''li
:11.,11'.,!
'ij'
Ji.:1,:,,
 r
J2 INTR0DUCTION THEORETICAL HERITAGE AND ISSUES 33
Table 2,I Controversial issues in <levelopment research 'fable 2.l Cont.

Pmpcctive a11d melhod .i fl),potheses a11d theory {ro11t.)

,-1 J)oes a highly inter- No Ycs
Which perspective facili- A macro perspective - A micro-analytic per-
tates the best analyses? within a macro-theoretical spective - or a me7.7.0- :,1 vendonist state promote
framework of analysis analytic perspective developrnent?
l'
Which economic sector is The industrial sector The agricultura! sector
Which conception of A cons~nsus conception - A conAict conception - iJ'
society provi<les for the assuming a genuinely assuming conAicts between !j the most dynamk?
best analyses? common national interest opposing interests .1 A dialectic relat:ionship
What is the relationship Technological/economic
l'i between technologicalj .changes determine other where political and cultural
Which method will give the Formalised mathematical Qualitative method ,:1
economic changes and aspects of societal institutions shape
best and most robust model analyses Historical method other aspects of societal transformation technologicaljeconomic
results? Hypothetical-deductive Inductive method ) uansformation? changes
method
IJ' Democracy - with a multi- Authoritarian regimes
Which unit of analysis will Individual actors - Structures an<l institutions iJ Which regime form is the
most appropriate for Third party system and universal which can ensure nacional
provide for the best assuming that their actions - assuming that they are 1:l World development? adult franchise co-ordination and long-
results? are important for important determinants of '
i':' term planning
determ.ining structures behaviour i:J
and outcomes !--1 Civil society traditions and Civil society embodies its
What role is played by civil
society and its institutions? institutions restrain own dynamism which
1:
J-()pothem and theory growth and modernisat:ion provides the basis for
How does sodetal develop- Through a linear process - Through a non-linear
tl
1-:1
survival for many citizens
f:1/,, ment take place? as a continuous evolution process Strategy
v1
or in stages
!1 How is the best utilisation By leaving the allocat:ion By leaving the allocation
,11
11, Do Third World countries Yes - that is assumed until No - that is not assumed il of resources achieved? primarily to market primarily to the state
follow the sarne path of disproved unless rendered probable ii mechanisms
1, 1

development as the
:\i1 industrialised countries?
11 Which economic sector The industrial sector - and The agricultura! sector -
should be given the lead resources should be and resources should be

1 ,j'\'
1i1:
What has been the primary Progress and societal
impact of colonialism and development
imperialism upon the Third
U nderdevelopment or
maldevelopmem l role in development? transferred to this sector
from the rest of the
economy
transferred to this sector
from the rest of the
economy
Obstruction of develop-
IJ
I;
1 ...

I ; Workl? ment
! 1,1:,-'. Which actors would it be Private companies and The state - central
best to rely on for entrepreneurs government and/or local
Does free trade benefit Yes No
'/111,
developing countries?
/1,l promoting socio-economic authorities
1, ,1 development? (Cit:izens and their
11-1
1i:1:,.'.j Do dose links with the Yes No M community organisations)
world market promote 11
1; :i 1 development? What is the best growth
st rategy in an international
An outward-oriented, Ao inward-oriented,
1 export-led growth strategy import-substituting strategy
11'}, Can the state act Yes No - state actions and ~
11
comext? - with a liberal foreign ~ with protection of the
11111,.i'') autonomously? interventions are curtaile<l g trade regime domestic market
11:i'J l;
1

',l,L
!:1:11:1
by prevailing economic
structures and the most -
::11'' !I', powerful interests
,11.1,:1
,,,'.1:,'"'.'I. 11,
, 1, ,1

Ji,1)
,'. .1,1:111,,:

CHAPTER 3
Conceptions and Dimensions
of Development
Ovcr the last ccntury, \Vcstcrn conceptions of thc world and history havc
been largdy cbaractetised by notions of progress, evolution 1 and devclopment.
Originally the cmphasis was on progress and evolution; however, since the
Sccond \Vorld War 'dcvclopment' has become the most widely used tertn,
Rcgardlcss of the more spcdfic dcfinition, there is a very widespread tendency
to associatc something positive, something desirable, with the word 'develop.
mcnt'. This applies no matter whether development refers to societies, regions
or spccificd population groups.
During thc latter half of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s,
'i': various conceptions of development appeared, both in connection with the
1.':,' negotiations on the establishment of a new international economic arder
'1:" and in conjunction with thc formation of American foreign policy in relation
!1',:, to Europe.
,/1 N egotiations on a ncw cconomic order took placc particularly among the
44 countrics who met at Bretton Woods in 1944. i'he negotiations resulted
,, ,11
I in thc cstablishmcnt of the International Monetary Fund (IlvfF) and the
Intcmational Bank for Reconstruction and Dcvdopment, now generally
known as the Wodd Bank (thcy started operating in 1947 and 1946, res-
pectivdy).
,I
...i'I
The IMF was establishcd to cncourage internacional co-operation in the
',, monctary ticld and to remove foreign exchange restr:ictions, to stabilise
,,:1
cxchange rates, and to facilitate a multilateral payments system betwcen
1: member cotmtrics, Thc purposc of the World Bank was to encourage capital
,\i investmcnt for the reconstruction and development of its member countries.
'[:,: In continuation of this, American policy towards Europe put emphasis on
cconomic rcconstruction aftcr the destruction of the war. The best known
clemcnt in this policy was the so-called .Marshall Plan which, through loans
and a massivc transfer of rcsources to Europe, attcmpted to put this patt of
the world back on its cconomic feet. The Wotld Bank followcd a similar
:,:. strategy during thc sarne pcriod.
Charactcristic of both thc official devclopment conceptions and thc im-
plcmcntation strategics pursued during the first decade after thc Second World
\'(lar was thcir focus on thc industrialised countrics and thcir economic growth,
in a narrow sensc of thc term.
34
cONCEPTIONS AND DIMENSI0NS
3j
. the rnid-195os, the notion of developmcnt as something positive
Sinceod has bcen tie d particu larly to countncs . an d popu1auon groups .ln
aocl ,;:ird World. Parallel to the decolonisation of Asia and Africa, the s?cial
,bc d" ons these contincnts increasingly became the objcct of internattonal
011
con ,u. In the large lnd ustnali se d countncs
as we li as m
th e multi1 ateral
attcnuon.
sations with the World Bank in the vanguard, these conditions were
0
rganlvcd as ,thc result of lack of devclopment or undevclopment. Countnes .
per:~~ Third Wodd - including Latin America - were labellcd as being
~ ckward in comparison with the countries in Western Europe and North
;merica. At the sarne time, it was taken for granted that both the 'backward'
countries and the highly developed Western societies wauld benefit from
economic growth and modcrnisation in thc Third World. Growth and
modcrnisation in this context were taken to mean a gradual change towards
greater and greater similarity with the highlyindustrialised countries of the
North West.
This conception of development, as change processes resulting in grcater
similarity w:ith the conditions prevailing in the USA and the great industrial
cOlmtries in Western Europe, was not universally acceptcd in the 19joS. On
the contrary, a consensus has never prcvruled - either then or now - on what
dcvelopment is or should be. ln a survey from the mid-198os, 7z different
mcanings of the term were registered (Riggs, 1984). We shall not try to
reproduce this mulciplicity. But as the explicit or implicit conceptions of
development are very essencial components of the theories and strategics
discussed later in this book, we shall attmpt to summarise the most importa.nt
basic conccptions and ideas of development.
The arder of presentation in the following paragraphs does not reflcct
any chronological sequence, but should rather be seen as a series of com-
peting conceptions of developmcnt. Some of them are still widely used,
others have becn given up by most researchers and practitioners - or they
have becn adjusted to incorporate new aspects. Ovet the last four decades
the general tendency in this respect has been to abolish one-dimensional
c~nceptions focusing on economic growth and replace them with multi-
dimensional notions incorporating non-economic aspects as well.
More comprchensive dcscriptions of sclected development concepts will
appeat in connection with the fuller discussion of the vadous theories. Thc
~utrent chapter can be seen as a kind of overview of the vatious approaches,
tn the scnse that the concepcions of development, to a large extent, define
the special features of the various approaches.
Economic growth
Schumpeter's previously mentioncd distinction bct:ween growth and dcvelop-
?1cnt was not generally acceptcd within mainstream developmcnt economics
in the 1950s (see Chapter z). Rcsearchers in this period werc often not at ali
 r CONCEPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS 37
36 INTRODUCTION

concerned with whcthcr economic growth could at thc sarne time bc sccn as td be a rc.flection of, say, significant growth for the high-income groups
developmcnt. They rather conccivcd of cconomic growth as thc supremc il
coud at the sarne time . a dli
ec ne or stagnatlon "' h
1or t elow-mcomc
" groups.
goal in itself; it was economic growth that thc poor countrics nceded. Thus, U an Precisely this quc.stion of distribution became of central concern among
economic growth and its determinants and obstaclcs wcrc natural foci fot '" d elopmcnt economists from around 1960. This new intetest was also
theory formation. f:] e;mpted by the fact that, at this time, figures bc.gan to appcar wbich indicated
There was no broad agreement, though, on thc exact mcaning of thc j"'..J P~at growth was frc.quently very unevcnly disttibutcd socially, geographically
term 'cconomic growth'. It is a bit of a myth, whcn critics of thc early IP t nd bctween the differc.nt economic sectors. Toe result was a readjustmcnt of
~evelo~ment eco~o~ists maintain that thcy :icw~d growth a.s identica_l to t:l :hc original conceptions in arder to take into account the impact upon
mcreasmg per capita mcome. Nane of the maJot ptonecr thcortsts concetvcd :J distribution. At thc. sarne time, mainstteam concepcions were extc.nded to
of the matter in such simplc terms. Howcvcr, it was ncccssary at that time ~:j covcr both growth and economic changes in other respects (cf. Chapter 5).
to be contcnt with a rclativcly simplc indicdlor of growth, bccause the data j{~ There is still no general agreement on how to deBne economic growth
and statistics concerning Third \'{lorld cconomics did not proYidc a basis for n and devc.lopment goals; nor on how best to measure socio-economic changcs
more sophisticatcd measuremcnts. n in devcloping societics. Yet wide approval has currently beco gaincd for a
The core of the conccptions of growth among dcvelopment cconomists fl 1
nocion which defines economic developmcnt as a procm JJJherelij the real per
of the 19jOS was incredsing prodt1ction dltd con.mmption, but also increasing f!l capita income ef a country incredses over a long period ef titne while sivmltaneo11sb1
cmployment and improved standards of living. They imagine.d that progress {j povert)' is red11ced dnd the ineq;{d/i!J i11 sode!J is genemlbr dimi11ished - or at least not
in these respccts would be reflected in the national accounts figures for [.[ increascd (cf. Meicr, 1989: p. 6).
aggregate incomes. At the sarne time, thcy wanted to take into account t! Conceptions of this kind have also been adapte.d in World Bank analyses.
population growth, because an increase in production and consnmption which ,,; Further, thc.y have informe.d Bank strategies sincc. the eady 1970s. Howevcr,
resulte.d from this growth or was just proportional to it could not bc ~;J considerable fluctuations ove1 time can be observed. Until around 1980, the
conceived of as real growth. Nacional incarne was thereforc compute.d as f'..J World Bank was mainly intercsted in combining growth in per capita incarne
average per capita incarne. i.1 with special assistancc. to the poor. One of the strategies was describcd as
'! The World Bank, which had cady on placcd itself as the leading inter- l 'redistribution with growth'; another went under the name 'the basic needs
nacional institution in collcction, analysis and publication of figures concerning m strategy', In the l98os, the focus shifted towards aggregate growth in con-
cconomic conditions and growth in the developing ~ountties, operatcd with fi junction with restoration of macro-economic balances, structural adjustmc.nt,
this aggregate measure during thc entire period up to thc bcginning of the &] and incre.ase.d foreign-exchange earnings. Sincc. l 99, the Bank has again
c'I emphasised growth for the poor and resource-weak groups - along with
1970s. However, both thc World Bank and developmcnt economists in general [;
were fully awarc that measuremc.nts of growth in tcrms of incre.ase.d per [1 aggregate growth - in its ovc.rall conception of development (cf. World
capita incarnes were faulty (reliability problems) and did not in all cases givc W. Bank, 1980; 1990).
a corrcct imprcssion of the conditions and changcs (validity problems). t~
With regard to thc former - the quescion of reliability - the staciscics m Increased welfare and human development
wcre often of low quality. The poor countries simply did not have thc. capacity ~i
: i
to gather the necessary information. In addition, the entirc nacional accounts m Th~ above definition of economic development embodies a wish, in prindple,
wc.re based on measuremc.nts of production and consumption in prices which ~ii to improve the living conditions and the welfare of all citizens of a society.
assume.d market exchange of all the products. But as large proportions of
the production of thc developing countries wc.rc use.d in the households
themselvc.s, or wc.re cxchangc.d in other ways - through social nctworks,
il
~i ~owever, the indicators for this remained in most of the litc.rature, and the
internacional debate was scill limitc.d to incarne measurements of one kind
th
/, ;: c ?ther. As a corollary, it was asserte.d that growth in real incarnes was
patron-client relacionships, or other kinds of exchangc without pricing - ; e mato target.
considerable sources of inaccuracies for the nacional accounts werc obviously lJ S This was disputed by prominent economists such as Amartya Sen, Pai(/
in-built. These conditions have changed in some of thc developing countries, ,r;~ htreeten, Mahb11b ui 1-Iaq, and others who bclieved that incrcased incarnes
but generally the situation is much the sarne, especially in African countrieS, ~ SouJdb
it
1
e regard ed as a medllS to improve
human wclfare, not as an en d"m
Regarding the validity of national accounts Bgurc.s, the most serious & wse fth(Sen, 1988; Streeten, 1981; 1994). To thesc. c.conomists, human welfare
problc.m was that they did not refl.ect the distribution of incarnes among thC " a~ e. overall objective - the esscncc. of developmc.nt. Increased incarnes
citizens in a society. Therefore, aggregate growth in the per capita incarne n nattonal economic growth wcre crucial preconditions for improvements
 38 INTRODUCTION
in standards of living, but not the only prccondicions. This could be easily
dcmonstratcd, for examplc by comparing per capita incarnes with indicators
of education or health standards. Figures from the mid-198os thus showcd
that thc avcrage life cxpectancy in many countrics was considerably lowet
than one would cxpcct from the incarne figures. Sri Lanka, with an average
incarne of US$360, had an average Jife cxpectancy of 70 years, whercas
Brazil, with over US$1700, had an avcragc life expectancy of only 64 years
(Sen, 1988: p. 12).
With the first Hmna11 Dcvelopment Report from 1 990, prepared undcr the
leadership of Mahbub ui Haq, the Unitcd Nations Development Programmc
(UNDP) adopted this basic criticism of income measurements and presented
a more comprehensive concept of buman de11elopme11t (UNDP, 1990). Thc
report defined human development as a process oJ enlarging people's choices. At
first, attention was concentrated around the choices in three essencial areas:
the opportunity to lead a long and healthy life; the opportunity to acquire
knowledge; and the opportunity to have access to resources needed for a
decent standard of living (cf. Chapter 21). T'o these were later added con-
'i:"
,, siderations regarding political freedom and human rights; human developmcnt
for women as well as for men; environmental and othct aspects of sustain-
'I
!'
ability; and thcmes regarding citizens' patticipation and opportunities to affect
the political decisions in Society.
lj1
\'1/hat was originally launchcd as ao alternative goal of development in
I( this way gradually became a ~ew framework for rcsearch as well as develop-
ment co-operation - often referred to by its adhcrents as the new 'paradigm'
itself, but rather n instrument for gaining the desired nacional independence.
::
CONCEPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS 39
s with these charactedstics has survived the last 40 years of debates
pr~c:~pirical analysis - particularly outside the research community. The
an pplies to the idea that economic growth is the cme feature of
sarne "
devdopment in the Third World. How.ever, severa! other development con-
ons have emerged as contenders m the debate.
ccp u
Elimination of dependency
As eady as in the 1960s, a number of Neo-Marxist and Marxist development
conceptions were elaborated as explicit alternatives to thc normative theories
about modernisation. Basically, they presented two different types of object-
ives for the development process. One type had to do with the developing
countries' position in the international system; the other with the interna}
conditions in Third World societies (cf. Chaptcr 7).
With respect to the developing countries' position in world society, many
of the Neo-Marxist theorists held the view that development implied the
gainillg oJ real national independence and se!fcentred economic progress. The so-called
dependenry theorists, in particular, wcre of the opinion that the colonial powers
and imperialism had actively underdeveloped the Third World ar at least
impeded independent development there. The political decolonisation had
not changed this in any essencial respect - according to these theorists' own
analyses. Therefore, there was need for further de-linking and dissociation
from the rich countries (Frank, 1.967). The dissociation was not an end in

1
1
,i for s11stainable human development (Haq, 1995; Banuri ei: ai., 1995). Some of thc In fact, not all the theorists within this mainstream believed that dissociation
,':,,1' aspects and themes included in this new 'paradigm' resemble the conception from the world market was the best means to achieve independence. On this
!:1: of development which we shall discuss below as 'development by peoplc'. point the modes of reasoning among researchers were, as we shall see later,
1, Other aspects will be discussed later (sec Chapter 21). very dissimilar.
;1: Regarding the desired internai, self-centred economic progress in Third
,' 1:i1
World societies, the conceptions among the Neo-Marxists and related theorists
1!
Modernisation
' 11 varied considerably. Therc was overall agreement that backward ~ountries
. i"i The basic notions of devclopment mentioncd abovc centre around econonc had to base their efforts on their own particular preconditions, including
[1 and material conditions, although the concept of human development has tbeit own tesources. There was also widespread agreement that the final oijective
recently been extended to include non-economic aspccts. However, as was JVds lhe i11trod11ction oJ socialis111, because this was thc only mode of production
, i:I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this chaptcr, in the 1940s and 19505 .th at could ensure the economic progress attained was transformed into
::,'l
,'1: there were also widespread conceptions of development as a process of Itnprovcments for the suppressed classes and the many marginalised and
i:111
modemisation, that is a structural change process 1JJberef?J tbe traditional and backwa1J extren:iely resource-weak groups. HoweVer, when it carne to the formulation
Third H7orld coHntries developed to1JJardr greater similan"{y w;tb the Western, or rather, ~f specific development objectives in the short- and medium-term perspective,
111 tbe North-Western JPorld (Pyc, 1966; Apter, 1965). t lere was much disagreement. This continues to be the case in the debate
1.,11
Among the features of the ilnitation-worthy modem societies which were tuong the theorists of this school.
' !1
:1:1::.)1 espccially higWighted were: an extensivc division of labour and specialisatiofl, th At one extreme one could identify Marxist economists who believed that
'!1'1: \!j high productivity, self-sustaining economic growth, a well-functioning aod tn e best results would be achieved by allowing capitalism, with its strong
'111 .,
,1 i',1 :t! active state apparatus, a democratic form of government and equality before tharket. forces, to operate freely and penetrate society for a period, claiming
the law (cf. Chapter n). The conception of developmcnt as a modernisatioJl at this Would bring about the necessary material preconditions for socialism
T'1!,,I.i 1ill'1
1

J(::i:
li!!

40 INTRODUCTION
in thc :rnpc of highly developed forces of production (\"(/arrcn, 1973, 1980).
Apart from thc long-tcrm and final goals bcing different, there was in this
way of thinking a rcmarkable rcsemblance to modernisation thcory, in the
sensc tbat hoth asserte.d imitntion of thc highly industrialised countries as
1 dded a number of nuances and a more dynam1c
1
dcsirnble. 'fo thc modernisation thcorists this was the end goal; to Bill Warren
and othcr Marxists it was a mcdium-term goal on thc road to socialism.
Anothcr extreme position was represente.d by theorists for whom thc
dccisive factor was the above-mcntioned dissociation from the world markct
anel a simultaneous introduction of some form of socialism ar at least a
statc-controlk.d and centrally planncd economy as a first step to reorganising
thc production structure towards socialism. A special Soviet Marxist vetsion
of this linc of rcasoning emphasiscd, during the 1960s and carly 1970s, the
possibility of a non-capitalist path to socialism, that is development of thc
forces of production under state guidance and without having to rely on
the capitalist forces of valorisation, accumulation and market mechanisms
(Solodovnikov and Bogoslovsky, 1975).
1 1 A thitd type of Neo-Marxist approaches was more preoccupied than the
:1 '' above with historical and cmpirical analyses of social classes and the state in
,1 the Third \v'odd (cf. Chapter 14). They tended to give more cmphasis to
! 1
differentiation and thus formulated a variety of development objectives, with
specitic referencc to the varying conditions prevailing in each of the countrics
. 1',
studicd, For many theorists within this Neo-Marxst tradition it could still bc
1 1 thc long-term goal to bring about socialism, but at the sarne time they
rccognised that such a revolutionary transformation was not, in the foresec-
l'.,'i ablc futurc, on the agenda in the vast majority of developing countries -
1
perhaps in nane of thcm at all.
Thercforc, attention was focuscd on other, more realistic, dcvelopment
1 ',j scenarios such as dcmocratisation of political lifc, decentralisation of decision
!'.I.
' 'lj'
making, formation of co-operatives and general provisions for a more eq!l(1/
distrilmtio11 qf de!'elopment hmejits. Thesc theoris.ts remained criticai of a powerful
i ii1' central statc and a dominant public sector. They envisaged instead a general
1,., cmpowermcnt of the pcople through local sclf-government, collective owncr-
:I(:.
i :./1li
ship at the community levcl, and co-opcrative sociecies as appropriate goals.
On thcsc - as well as a numbcr of other points - the short- and medium-
term devc!opment goals rescmbled some of thc goa1s that had been formu-
lated within the libcralist development theories with a focus on non-economic
,111111 conditions. Here, the general tendency since the 1950s has othetwise been an
., 11 cvcr more differentiatcd and culture-speci6c de6nition of devclopment.
'11'
.,,'
I and implcment them effectively. The previously mentioncd idca of human
11''1' . Dialectical transformation
' '.
1
' I
J,.);, This transformation actually started with thc so-called dialectical modernisatioll
1..1,111.1'
,,1 '1 theo~")', which had asserted itsclf within anthropology, sociology and political
';<i'li scicnce way back at thc beginning of the 1960s. This very complex approach
l
,.,"'Lil
t':ji:,1,1:1':1
'.1., 'I"
_, _,1:
CONCEPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS 41
. d from the classical modcrnisation theory, the division of social
rctainemena' iota two categoncs:. tra d"
ltlonal and mo dern. I t 1urt
e l1cr retame. d
-
bcno .
P basic idca of developmcnt as a proceu J1Jbereiry soae!J adopts more and more
th ' , ele1ven/s. But at t)1c sarne time,
')d t 1e 'm[ ' [ mo d
ecuca ''
errusauon t [1eory
11
. understandmg.. .
It underhned
t traditioo need not be devclopment impeding or in opposition to devclop
1
na
mcnt at all, Conversely, tt
was stressed that mo dem 1nst1tut1ons
can at times
obstruct developmcnt and perhaps oot even function properly, precisely
becausc they are not compatiblc with the traditions of the societies concerncd.
Furthcrmorc, the approach emphasised that tradicional societies can in fact
bc vcry dynamic, heterogeneous and capable of surviving undcr a modern-
isation process. This led to the central idea of the tradicional and thc modem
as social phenomena in a dialectical relationship J1Jhere botb types oJ phenomena
cha11ge i11 the process, and J1Jhere the rwtlt, oJ necessitJ~ is a qybrid (Rudolph and
Rudolph, 1967; Gus6eld, 1976).
Thc dialectical modernisacion theory conveyed to ali notions and theories
more respect for the developing countries' unique circumstances and, morc-
over, tied the conception of development to thesc. This implied a dismissal
of the notion that developmcnt is something universal, defined solely by its
end goal: the greatest possiblc similarity to the North-Western industrial
countries. Instcad ao open conception of developmeot was proposcd, the
contents of which had to be decided in accordance with each individual
society's particular circumstances and the prefercnces of its citizens. Further-
more the dialectical modernisation theory stresscd quite strongly the oon-
cconom.ic conditions, both as factors in the economic processes and as
impottaot determinants io tbeir own right of societal lifc and its trans-
formation (cf. Chapters 12 and 17),
Capacity building and development by people
ln the more sophisticated development concepts that appeared during the
1 960s and the 1970s - also within devclopment economics - the emphasis
was shifted away from the simplc copying of the industrial countries and
from the one-sided focus on economic factors as the detcrmining ones in
societal transformation. Instead,, numerous de6nitions of development ap-
peared with a focus on the capaci!J to make and implement decisiO!ls. According
to_these more recent notions of development, a society exhibits development
Ptimarily fo the form of better abilities and greater capacity to make dccisions
<levclopmcnt as the main goal can be seen as a variant of the development
concept presented herc.
.. The attention given to building autonomous capacity - of political author-
itics and/or the citizens of Third World countries - can be viewed as ao
attempt to reduce the ethnoccntrism that so strongly characterised most of
 42 INTR0Dl1CTI0N
the earlier definitions, An illustration of this point is that a country's enhanccq
capacity to rcject economic growth - or modcrnisation - as a goal may b~
,1
1
seen as development whcn thesc dcfinitions are uscd.
The capacity-building approach to dcvcloprncnt - like thc dialectic modcrn,
isation theory - stresses the different societies' particular circumstanccs and
the prioticics of the peoplc and social gronps whosc wclfare and othet
conditions are the focus of thc debate. Accordingly, many of the conceptions
of dcvelopmcnt within this approach refer to pcoplc's cffecvc participation
in decision making as a nccessary part of thc wholc process. However, thcrc
are considerable diffcrenccs as to the priority assigned to pcoplc's participation
and how it is understood. Basically, a distinction can be made betwecn two
conceptions: one that sees participation as a means to promotc developmcnt
goals fixed from above or from outsidc thc community conccrned, and
another that views people's participation as an nu! in itsclf.
i l
'!'" Both of these conceptions are often associated in the litcrature with
notions about basic h111na11 needs as thc starting point for elaborating develop-
ment strategies. The normative assumption hcre is that thc satisfying of thc
basic needs of thc many millions of poor peoplc in thc Third World must
i take preccdencc over all other development efforts. Furthcrmorc, the view is
that the poor peoplc do not automatically gcr a sharc of the results of
'li
growth in times of prospcrity and are the first to bc hit in times of stagnation
1:
and recession. Therefore, special measurcs havc to bc introduced to improve
the standard of living for the poor. ln other words, a special stratcgy has to
be worked out to accomrnodate these basic nceds.
'i With a notion of peoplc's patticipation as prirna~ily a mcans to develop-
,d
ment there is a tendcncy that strategics are formu!ated by central dccision
i,,
makers on behalf of thc poor, who are merely drawn into thc process
"'IL1
afterwards to support the implcmcntation of thcm. This also irnplics that
i the basic needs of thc poor are dcfincd by othcrs than thernselvcs.
ln contrast to this approach, the devclopmcnt-by-pcople approach regards
l
'!.
pop11/ar participation as a goal in itse!f, anel as thc process through ll'hich other
developmenf goals 1m1st be dejined Hcre thc notion of development as increascd
capacity is shifted frorn thc nacional levcl and down to the local levcl - and
:,:. . ,1.,1 frorn the authoritics to the citizens. The economically poor are sccn as bcing
1
i :,1 also politically weak and, thercforc, without decisivc influcncc on the formula-
!I ,' cion of national developrnent goals. To change this state of affairs and ensurc
ii \ effective participation of the poor in decision making and in defining thcir
''111 own needs, they havc to be cmpowcrcd so that they can reach 11p to thc statc
I11,!s'
'.',. '''.1
1 '
and the central dccision makers. Empowermcnt, in tbis contcxt, compriscs
1
,'.1 ' .. ;, both conscicntisation, in thc rneaning givcn to this tcrm by Paolo Freire, and
::'II'
'1, ::":.',;I: self-organisation of the poor. Further to cnhancc poor pcople's access to
'i1 :.1 :! 1
and influcncc on decision making, thc adhercnts of the developrncnt-bY-
.,, :1,,,\1
people approach propose an cxtcnsivc devolution of powcrs to local
:;1,i11"1il
:1, ,; ,:i> authorities and cornmunity organisations (cf. Chaptcrs I and 24),
},:,f/:":;
'.'.'11,11
i"!i1,;1\:
Jks, , ,:.i
____Jfil:-- 1l",J,
CONCEPTtONS AND DIMENSIONS 43
. s more radical form (as in Gran, 1983), the notion of dcvelopmcnt
d w1ae approva1 m
ln " Jc has not game . the mternattona
. . 1 de bates or m ,
b}' pco~onstruction. But it is noteworthy that UNDP, in its H11ma11 Developmenf
th co; frorn
199 3, has placcd effcctivc popular participation high on the
Refd '!hc report proposes that the authorities in dcveloping countries -
agcn a.
. h outsidc support - should do everything in their power to promete
w~:ticipation of ali citizens in both economic and political lifc, not mercly as
P instrument to further othcr devclopment goals, but as a goal in itsclf -
,n an important aspect o f human deve 1opmcnt.
as
Sustainable development
Sincc thc Brundtland Commission's report was made public in 1987 (Brundt-
Jand et al., r987), the internacional debate on devclopment has been charactcr-
iscd more and more by considcrations about the impact of growth and
socio-cconomic change upon the physical cnvironment. Considerably more
attention has becn given to descriptions and explanations of the cause-
cffect rclationships in this arca. At the sarne time, ncw environment-relatcd
dcfinitions of development have emcrged, rnost often referre.d to as suslainab/e
develop111ent. A widciy approved notion defines as sustainable developrnent a
process that /11/fils presenf h11ma11 needs 1vitho11t enda11geri11g the opporflmities of/H!Hre
gmeralio11s to /11/fil their needs (cf. Chaptcr 11).
ln the Brundtland Rcport, the discussion on needs is closely relatcd to
problems of poverty, especially in thc Third World. It is emphasised that the
fulfilling of human necds and aspirations is the most important goal for all
developmcnt efforts throughout the world. But it is furthcr stressed that the
many millions of poor pcople have a particular justified right to have their
basic needs and aspirations for a bctter quality of lifc fulfillcd, whcreas the
socially and culturally determined 'needs' of, and wishes for, a lifc of luxury
ate rejected as being in contravention of the princple of sustainablc develop-
mcnt from a global perspective. 'The report also asscrts that sustainable
devclopment requites support for values tha.t promote a standard of con-
su~ption which lies within the limits of what is ecologically feasible, and
which peoplc ali over the world can realistically hope to attain,
1'his strong emphasis on the basic nceds of the poor of the world has
not gaincd undivided acceptance eithcr in the theoretical debate or in the
prac~cal management of international development aid. But environmental
s st
u atnability, as a leading principie, has gained widespread approval over
~emarkably fcw years. The conception of sustainability now plays a key role
tn l11ost discussions about development both in the industdalised countries
nd
: in thc Third World. This applies to formulation of dcvclopmcnt object-
t ~s as well as in conncction with the design of strategies, which incrcasingly
a e into account environmental concerns.
 ~
44 INTRODUCTION 1
!.V
CONCEPTIONS AND DIMENSIONS 45
. l groups. ln this case, the focus has not been primarily on the individual
Development and security
The vast majority of contemporary devdopment conceptions do not takc
r~
!&;
s~:::n's rights, but rather on those of indigenous people as a group - rights
P l land and other resources which they once controlled.
into account security considerations.. Some conf\ict and peace rcsearchets,
however, have attempted to relate thetr analyses and conceptual frameworhi::.'.
i to t 1e

Development as history
to those of development studies. The normative development concept3 ~
pto.posed in this connecti~n usually. str:ss that poor countries should use~ The Jast fundamental conception of development to be briefly discussed
the1r resources on economtc and social tmprovements rather than on arma.!?] h re involves a radical break with notions of a common evolution for
ments and the expansion of their defcnce and security services. They a!so@ d:similar cultures. This concepcion, which has evolved mainly within modern
emphasise that developing countries with large dcfcnce industries should ;N: social anthropology, views development as history, not in a universal sense,
/ convert their production to civilian use (cf. Chapter 19). ~ but as history of each and every culture of the world.
'i,' Thc United Nations system in particular has promulgated conceptions o[~ The normative premise is that all cultures and social forms of life are
devclopment such as this. Various reports made at the request of the United ~ cqual, and that no one is entitled to de6ne the development goals on behalf
Nati?ns' secret~ry genera!s, and res.olutions. from UN. general ass~m~~es or~.:..,. of others. The researchers - and especially the anthropologists - should
spectal asscmblies, have time and time agam emphastsed the dcs1rab1hty ofW concentrate on uncovering and describing each individual culture as precisely
disarmament-financed dcvelopmcnt efforts. Central in this context stands Th'..' as possible, not with a view to changing it but in arder to understand it and
'i!'
the concluding document from a special conference hcld in 1987 on thc J consequently also to understand their own cultural backgrounds. This does
relationship betwcen disarmament and development (United Nations, 1987;11 not ncccssarily mean that adherents to this conception are in favour of
1988). ln this document it is asserted that sccurity for all nations must hc- i}. frcczing or isolating existing cultures - as the Danish anthropologist Kirsten
accepted as a top priority, but also that it can and should be achieved ata "'~
much lower armament level in order to make more resources available to 1:\
1 Hastmp has expressed it: 'We are not to recommend others to hold on to
tradition for the sake of tradition, but we should work as mediators between
relicve 'the misery and poverty afflicting more than two-thirds of mankind'. ','. thc West and the Rest, in such a way that the Jatter group can retain those
't It is further stated that the development process in itsclf can reduce thc ";'. aspccts of their culture which they deem important, and alter or abandon
non-military threats and thcreby make way for disarmament. ; othcrs, which they want to change' (Hastrup, 1990: p. p). Thus develcipment
,,,'!'i 1
In recent years, new dimensions have becn dded to thc concept of becomes a culturally grounded process where objectives cannot be formulated
:1;,
secudty. ln its 1994 H11man Development Report, UNDP suggested a profound j by outsiders - where North-Western researchers or decision makers cannot
transition in thinking - from thc security of nation-states to hHman securilj, J define what is development outside their own cultural spherc. Toe definirion
! li!
'lii,!
the security of peoplc (UNDP, 1994: Ch. 2), The fundamental normativc $ of development has to be left completely and totally to each of the
11:
notion hcre is that human security should be ensured along with other aspects j cultural communities, be they nacional communities with their own state or
l_1,1! of human development. Human security implies that people can exercise the ? local communities. Only in this way can the differences in the world be
,-,11
:'I range of choiccs available safely and frcely and that they havc safety frorn seriously respected and the history of each individual culture recognised as
:.: 1:1:
,,',
chronic threats like hunger and repression. Development - or progress - in equal to others, including that of the North-Western culture. And only then
this context means improvements as sccn from the individual citizen's point i'l can dcvelopment become self-development.
i'i of view; the rights of the individual, personal integrity and well-bcing are all ~he more precise formulation of this concept is unique to anthropology,
,.: ', 'JI central. These rights include political freedoms like frcedom of specch and
the right to organise, but also economic, social and cultural tights.
. discipline which more than any other has integrated a perspective of
? 1
ffcrence and a method of refl.eccion in its approaches and theories. However,
'1' 1 Oftcn, this focusing on the rights of the individual has been supplementcd lt should be noted that in the idea of each culture's right to determine its
with particular attention to women's right to equality with men in ali respccts. o~vn development objectives and prioricies there is a significant overlap with
'ii"',1
,'1 Others have added special security considerations as seen from thc perspecfr,rC I'. t e conception adhered to by the development-by-people approach,
1

1 1 i of ethnic, rcl.igious or other minorities. Some researchers and practitioncrS "

)!
, I '
,1:i (J have paid special attenrion to the rights of those who have been labelled th~ ~
people of the Fourth World, that is indigenous pcople in both the industria~ '
}I!/ ! ised and the developing worlds who have been squeezed or even banishC
as a result of the economic and social progress of other, more powerful,
' l';'1.if1..
:::: '1.
,:,'ri' li
'1.i"' :
11.,,
1, "'' 'I
'dT
Jllil, 1 !!: ,
1