Development & Globalization
Lecturer: D. DALAKOGLOU
The paradigms in development that are mentioned by Corbridge (2007) show that in the beginning theories were mostly focused on economy-oriented ideas. Economics focused on development inhibits the ‘giving of aid’ (Corbridge, 2007, p.182) and is economy-oriented because of the fact that in development economics the focus is on the trickle-down theory of money. Therefore the goal of development economics is industrialization because as an effect of the industrialization capital would trickle down (to the workers). (Corbridge, 2007, p.183) criticizes this paradigm because instead of the trickling-down of capital it led to ‘rent-seeking and the misallocation of scarce resources’. The next economy-oriented paradigm is the modernization theory. Thereby, it is also a quite eurocentric approach because it implies that the poorer countries (Southern Europe for example) should develop like the northern-European countries did (Lecture 7, Development, 07-09-2015). A different, people-centered, theory came into existence after the Washington consensus. The Washington Consensus resulted in the Neoliberal Structural Adjustment Programmes which ensured debt repayment and economic restructuring. But, however the programme was people-centered, the results were awful as the poor became poorer and the rich became richer. Another theory, which is quite different from the Neoliberal Structural Adjustment Programmes, is the Dependency Theory. In contrast to the NSAP the Dependency theory implies that underdeveloped countries will not follow the same path as developed countries, but have other features and structures and therefore are the weaker members (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998, p.362). The development economics theory, modernization theory, NSAP and the Dependency theory are all theories that define poverty as a lack of income. Post-development theories shifted from the question from ‘the nature of development’ to the ‘how to’ question of development (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998, p.352). Henderson (1996) advocates that post-development theories could go further by considering the importance of indices such as the Human Development Index in influencing policy frameworks – ‘implementation is desirable, practicalities are prosaic, institutions need measurements. Human flourishing exceeds but also requires human development.’ (Henderson, 1996, p.122). In every theory, whether it is people-oriented or economy-oriented, orientalism plays an important role, according to Said (1978). He argues that orientalism helps to understand the influence of Europe on the Orient ‘politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically and imaginatively during the post-enlightenment period’ (Said, 1978, p.3). Europe – or the West – keeps its power over others by ensuring that their view will become the commonly accepted view, also in other areas (Escobar, 1995). But, Nederveen Pieterse (1997) believes that there is a change in the rich – Northern – countries going on in their understanding of the nature of economic growth and its meaning to social development. References:
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Henderson, H. (1996b) `Changing Paradigms and Indicators: Implementing Equitable, Sustainable and Participatory Development’, in M. J. Griesgraber and B. G. Gunter (eds) Development: New Paradigms and Principles for the 21st Century, pp 103±36. London: Pluto.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1997) `Growth and Equity Revisited: A Supply-side Approach to Social Development’, European Journal of Development Research 9(1): 128-49
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998) My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development, Development and Change Vol. 29 (1998), 343-373.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, New York:Random House
Stuart Corbridge (2007) The (im)possibility of development studies, Economy and Society, 36:2, 179-211
The literature has been linked to migration and development in several ways. Castles (2008) argues that it the development of a country would be supported if a country would send their national people to migrate to countries with higher incomes per capita. The argumentation behind this is that the outflow of people in the lower income country will lead to a decrease in unemployment in that country. The second positive effect of the outflow of people is that the people who migrate and get employed in the higher income country will start to send money to the country of origin. These are so called migrant remittances (Castles, 2008). These migrant remittances can be used to help family, as an investment or to set up business. These effects will have a positive effect on the country of origin as it helps to support growth and battle unemployment. Though this concept of migration benefits is not widely accepted Castles (2008) argues that in some countries the benefits of migration and the remittances are sources of inflation and inequality.
Another link between migration and development is the phenomenon called brain gain, brain drain or brain exchange. Brain drain is the concept of high educated or skilled people leaving their country to move to a country which offers more opportunities (Straubhaar, 2000). As a consequence the country of origin loses high educated or skilled people which can be very beneficial for a developing country. Castles (2008) and Straubhaar (2000) note there can also be a brain gain. This is the exact opposite of the brain drain. A brain gain occurs when the people who chose to migrate return to their nation of origin. The people have gained more skills during their period in the high-income countries and can thus be very valuable for the further development of their country of origin, which benefits a lot from those skills. Sometimes the return of skilled migrants is also called a ‘brain exchange’. Straubhaar (2000) uses the United States as an example of a country that benefited from a brain gain. The United States adopted policies to attract high skilled people to migrate to the US, which would ultimately lead to the strengthening of the American development. Castles (2008) argues that the present development of a country also has influence on the migration route. He adds that the more developed a country is, the more likely and easy it is for people to do so. Developed states can thus easier attract skilled migrants. Castles (2008) mentions that the effect of development on migration will cause that more migrants will migrate to developed countries and that therefore a development policy will not be able to reduce migration.
According to Castles (2008) a lot of scientists today speak of something Castles calls ‘brain circulation’. He argues that nowadays the migrant and both the receiving country and the country of origin benefit from migration. References:
Castles, S. (2009) Development and Migration – Migration and Development: What comes first? Global perspective and African experiences. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 1-31
Straubhaar, T. (2000) International mobility of the highly skilled: Brain gain, brain drain or brain exchange, HWWA Discussion Paper, 88
Question 3: Can you discuss a few special characteristics of modern state according to Ferguson and Gupta (2002) and Scott (1988)?
When defining the word ‘state’ we can see clear differences between older understandings of the ‘state’ and the modern state. According to Scott (1998) the old state lacked knowledge about its subjects. The old state had no clear view of where people resided within the state or what they possessed. In contra, the modern state has managed to get a better overview on its subjects and surroundings and thus having a clear view about who resides where and what he or she possesses (Scott, 1998). This progress was made by organizing and standardizing their population, which Scott (1998) compares to beekeeping. The analogy he makes is making the bee population an orderly place, so that the beekeeper (state in this case) has a clear view about the where and how of the population and hence knows if and where intervention is needed.
This idea of the state having an overview of its population places the population under the state and thus sees the state as higher. Scott (1998) says about this: ‘thus a state cadastral map created to designate taxable property holders does not merely describe a system of land tenure; it creates such a system through its ability to give its categories the force of law.’ With this ordering an example of the modern state is displayed. Verticality of the modern state means that the states places itself above civil society, this is a concept Ferguson and Gupta presented (2002). They added verticality to the concept that the nation state surrounds the region and that the region can find its place within that surrounding. Ferguson and Gupta (2002, p.982) visualize this as that the state ‘contains its localities, regions and communities’. The example they use is the Angawandi project in India, where the presence of the government was very clear. Even at a local level. The workers on the project where subject to surprise inspections so that the government was sure they could control the workers and their work (Ferguson and Gupta, 2002). The fact that the government was present at such a local level meant that the workers had no supervisor or superior to go to, which illustrates the inequality in the bureaucratic system of a modern state.
Another characteristic that belongs to the modern state is the transnational state. Ferguson and Gupta (2002) write about transnational governmentality. They argue about the free-market policies which carries the idea of limiting the state. ‘Meanwhile, the social and regulatory operations of the state are increasingly ‘de-statized’ and taken over by a profiferation of ‘quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations" (Ferguson and Gupta, 2002). The modern state does not do the operating anymore, but creates the mechanisms that are required for it. Those mechanisms can work for themselves. The modern state creates the mechanisms so that they are still able to accomplish their goals (Ferguson and Gupta, 2002). References:
Ferguson, J & Gupta, A. (2002) Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality. American Ethnologist. 29(4), pp. 981–1002.
Scott, J. (1998) "Introduction from Seeing like a State". Yale University Press
The identities of women and their everyday lives have been affected in various ways. The globalization of the labour market makes women (and men) move from rural areas to the big cities (Mills, p.38). The reasons for women ‘have much to do with aspirations for particular kinds of personhood as with specific material goals’ (Mills, p39) and to so that ‘women can break with socially constructed constraints in several ways’ (Freeman, p. 247). Money is not the main reason for women to be willing to participate in the labour market. As Cynthia Enloe states that ‘the obvious but often overlooked point that young women around the globe enter and stay in new types of employment – despite low wages, harsh labor discipline, and unhealthy working conditions – not solely for the money earned but also to achieve more complex social goals’ (Mills, p.39). The participation of women in modern labour markets has as effect that the identities of women change and thus also their daily lives. They break from socially constructed constraints and are able to grow in income and commodity consumption, thus blurring class distinctions. Women identities change in the sense that they become ‘modern women’. Women that live in the city and have a certain amount of personal autonomy and independency. That is especially applicable for women coming from rural areas: ‘working in the city offers women the chance – before marriage and motherhood – to pursue a lavel of personal autonomy unavailable to them in the village, while at the same time allowing them to uphold their obligations to their families’ (Mills, p.44). Women can decide more themselves, but that comes for a price. They have to work long hours, for a low wage, with no benefits under the banner of flexibility. This is also caused by the race by multinational capital to increase its profits and move work to offshore locations in Asia, Central and South America and the Carribean (Freeman, p. 246 & p.247). Another effect is cultural imperialism. As modernity is closely linked to an increasingly globalist capitalist political economy it means that local values will be challenged and even may disappear. ‘For example, the urban elite, scholars, and policy makers frequently debate whether national political and economic development has meant too much modernity-that is, at the expense of what are claimed to be traditional values’ (Mills, p.42). The economic growth brings political, cultural and societal changes which sometimes are undesirable as the people sometimes feel like they have to give up their values. Women want to become ‘modern women’ and try to adopt new values, brought along with capitalist cultural imperialism, and fit them in their local culture and thus change their gender identity (Mills, p.37). References:
Freeman, C. (1998) Femininity and Flexible Labour: Fashioning Class through Gender on the Global Assembly Line. In Critique of Anthropology 18(3): 245-262.
Mills, M B. (1997) ‘Contesting the margins of modernity: women, migration and consumption in Thailand. American Ethnologist, vol. 24, pp. 37-61.