Chapter 13 - Development? Whose?

 

I left the lecture last week by leading into this week - the entire question of development is never primarily economic. All development is, of course at its heart, political in nature and in practice.

The question we are left with is are we better off? Is the the progress the planet has made since WWII - and make no mistake on nearly every measurable front we have progressed, especially the so-called first world - has that progress made the world better? For whom? Better how? And is it all worth the cost - the near term foreseeable costs and the longer term, harder to see costs?

I like to look at the progression of development policies and practices by looking at three very simple questions all with very complex answers: who gives, who gets, and who says.

Under the IBRD/IMF (World bank) system the creditor nations were clearly the victors of World War II - that's what the "reconstruction" meant in the official name of the World Bank. "Reconstruction" of Europe and Japan was listed before "development." (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).

So those countries that would be easily made into western democracies, with open markets got most of the money and the US and European countries lead the way.

Over a hundred years ago there were the great powers" UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and the US. In the security council (members with vetoes): US, UK, Russia, China, France.

The Group of Seven used to be: US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Canada. The seven most industrialized, richest countries in the world. They became the Group of 8 (or G-7 plus 1) when the USSR fell and Russia took its place.

But the group that may have emerged from our latest economic world crisis is the Group of 20: US, UK, France, Italy, Canada, Japan, Germany, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina,Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Australia. Combined these countries are nearly the entire globe's industrial capacity, wealth and population. But is it too big of a body top do anything?

Most development that takes place is driven by some profit motive. That is due in large part to the success of the starvation abatement programs world wide. yet, mostly children, are still starving around the globe.

The continuing vexing problems of illiteracy, lack of clean water and basic sanitation still plagues billions of people. Are things getting better? That's an argument that could go either way.

So what comes first, political development, or economic or social. Isn't it all really just "liberalization"? Or is it westernization? Can domestic governments keep their people poor or ignorant for their own purposes? many have and some continue to do so.

In many ways the heart of the problem is literacy. If we can create conditions, globally, that allow all to learn to read, the world will truly be transformed. Literacy is the most liberalizing event in one's life and in that of all the lives of all the people on the planet.

This problem with what do we call the so-called third world? Less developed countries, underdeveloped? Even the wood "poor" means something very different in different parts of the world. I have no answers but I know we must not make the mistake that every western scholar and politician have made over the last 300 years. Just because we see two countries or peoples as similar does not make them so. because we call 1/4 of the world's population Asia, does not make "them all alike."

Each developing county has unique problems and they all have many of the same problems that the so-called rich countries have.

By the way - on page 413 - the authors finally got around to using the word "neo-liberal" - again, help me, that is different from regular ol' liberal how, again?

On pages 415-417 the authors try to do justice to the dependency theory or model but they loose a lot of the romance in the translation. "Dependencia" is a wonderfully South American way to look at the relationship they have had with the north - please, if you are at all interested - follow up on it using the spanish term for dependency.

In Comparative Politics - which I will teach next semester on Monday afternoons - next semester (Fall 09) at 3:30 - once a week- looks at the "civic institutions" of a country to see if they sustain democracy and democratic practices. Many poor countries have yet to develop these civic institutions and they cannot just be imported from another country.

Also making the whole thing an unequal playing field is the over arching need for tourism in many countries and the main source of tourists are from rich countries.

Well, we have one week left - good luck on the final.