Key Ideologies under Populism - Coursework Example

Development Administration Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Discuss the key ideological underpinnings and critiques of neo-liberalism and populism as two dominant approaches to development. Which of these two models would you consider more appropriate for poverty alleviation and accelerated socio-economic development in poorer countries and why? Discuss with appropriate examples Introduction The rudimentary perception of the concept of development has received immense contention in both theoretical and political views, and has thus been confronted by extensive ambiguity and complexity. This is best epitomized by the fact that the classical economists were predominantly preoccupied with what is now called economic development which is inclined towards elevating the per capita real income of a state while the neoclassical economists paid limited to this issue altogether (Nielsen, 2011, p. 5). On the other hand, certain approaches to development have been dominant in the political and theoretical agenda from time to time. It is worth to be cognizant of the fact that these approaches to development have their own strengths and weaknesses as expounded by their proponents and opponents respectively. Against this background, this paper will analyze two primary ideologies namely neo-liberalism and populism, their basic characteristics as well as their critiques. Subsequently, it will rationalize one of this models which is more ideal in the efforts towards poverty alleviation and accelerated socio-economic development in poorer countries. Neo-liberalism This is one model which has received extensive discourses in relation to its positive as well as positive implications on development, and more generally, on the specific role of the state. In regard to its evolution, Ibrahim (2011, p. 2) cited that neo-liberalism as a worldwide approach dominated the development literature and practice at the global level mostly from the 1970. It was primarily underpinned on the efforts towards the creation of free markets, improvement of growth and the general replacement of Keynesianism which had previously been marred by extensive loopholes. It thus aimed at minimizing and if possible totally eliminating the role of the state in the economy which had been perceived as culminating to poor performance of many countries around the globe. Key ideologies under neo-liberalism One of the most salient ideologies underpinning neo-liberalism is the prominence of free markets. To a great extent, the proponents of this model believed that the free market approach would make extensive contributions to the economic growth of different countries which would be central in the alleviation of poverty and increase the level of individual and collective liberty. Thus, it was cited that the neo-liberal reforms could be prudent in achieving increased economic growth when juxtaposed with other approaches (Ibrahim, 2011, p. 3). Thus, neo-liberalism at the national level is characterized by the removal of the state intervention in the market, for instance, in regulation of prices of various products and factor markets. In relation to the above, neo-liberalism at the international level is founded upon the ideology of liberalizing foreign trade which insinuates to abandonment of quotas and minimization of duties levied on foreign products (Ozturk, 2011, p. 89). Thus, this meant the opening up of the countries which were considered as ‘closed economies’ like China among others mostly in the previous communist world. This would increase the flow of foreign goods from other nations into these markets which was considered imperative in the minimization of monopoly in production as well as increasing the consumer choice. This has been perceived as a great propeller of heightened economic globalization in the contemporary world. Another key ideology of neo-liberalism is the increased privatization of public economic enterprises as expounded in the work by Thorsen and Lie (2006, p. 11). Thus, the enterprises like financial institutions, health facility and security systems which are under the direct control of the government are gradually shifted to private owners with the aim of enhancing the quality of service delivery. Consequently, this has seen increased extension of privatization in the provision of social services like education and health in most countries around the globe, both developing and developed. In addition, neo-liberalism is also founded on the ideologies of determination of the interest rates by the market as well as a greater emphasis on more competitive exchange rates (Ozturk, 2011, p. 90). Against this backdrop, countries like the USA, UK and Germany among other have been characterized by increased pressure to limit the level of government intervention in regulating the interest rates in the market as well as making efforts to offer competitive exchange rate which will advantage the citizens engaged in international trade from these countries. Lastly, neo-liberalism is also based on the ideology of promoting direct foreign capital investment and external financial flows (Ozturk, 2011, p. 89). In this regard, majority of the developing countries mostly in Africa, for instance, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda among others have experienced elevated investment from foreign multinational companies in different sectors like banking and telecommunication which have grown to become dominant in these markets. Nonetheless, increased criticisms have been hulled against majority of these ideologies as embedded in neo-liberalism with the presumption that this model of development fails to capture the dynamics in socio-economic development of poorer countries. Firstly, most is the critics of neo-liberalism policies, for instance, Stokke (1991, p. 17) and Hempel (1996, p. 83) have maintained that the market forces are a major cause of environmental destruction and thus not suitable in enhancing sustainable development. This has been evident in majority of the developing countries like Kenya whereby increased competition between different corporations which seek to maximize profits has resulted in increased environmental degradation which has affected the production processes by the citizens, for instance, food production by the small scale farmers. This usually poses detrimental effects on the development efforts of these countries. On the other hand, Ozturk (2011, p. 91) determined that the perceived liberalization of foreign trade has tended to mean the removal of trade barriers while exporting products to developing countries but on the contrary, the continuation of these barriers in developed countries which has culminated in an even more unfair international trade than it was before. Moreover, increased privatization has caused a sharp increase of prices in the provision of public services as the private institutions mandated with these roles endeavor to maximize their profits at the expense of the local people in the developing countries As a result, this has continued to entrench poverty among the citizens in these countries (Ozturk, 2011, p. 92). In short, the critics of this approach have perceived the neo-liberal systems and policies as merely operating to benefit the developed countries as opposed to the developing countries, and in a broader sense, at the expense of the poor citizens in the latter category of countries. Perhaps the most robust exemplification of the diabolical impacts of neo-liberalism is outlined by Kapoor (2011, p. 9). The author cited the example of Somalia which was forced to liberalize its economy, devalue its currency, privatize its public service and cut down the spending in the public sector by the IMF in 1981. When the currency of Somalia was devalued by 460% between 1987 and 1989, there was skyrocketing of food and transportation costs and in adhering to the IMF directives, the unemployment level increased to alarming levels as many workers were laid off. Today, Somalia is considered one of the failed states in the world. Populism At its most basic level, this model of development represents a critique of the mainstream development models. Thus, instead of giving exclusive focus on the state and the market, this approach emphasizes on the imperative role of the people as the development agents in their diverse localities aimed at solving their own problems either individually or collectively through local agents. Therefore, this model entails a synergy of economic policies which are structured to achieve the aforementioned objectives. In majority of the developing countries in Latin America, this model has been key to the mobilization of support within the lower-middle class groups as well as in the organized labor groups. In addition, it has facilitated the attainment of support from the businesses which have a domestic orientation as well as the isolation of the rural oligarchy, the large-scale domestic industrial elites and foreign enterprises (Kaufman & Stallings, 1991, p. 16). Thus, this model is perceived to encompass more participation of the local people in the development agenda (people-centered) as opposed to overreliance on external forces to be the drivers of development in different developing countries. Key ideologies under populism As mentioned above, one of the key ideologies underpinning this model is community participation in development. This is based on the presumption that people in different societies, despite how poor they are have enormous capacity to make significant contributions in the betterment of their lives with their own existing resources (Brown, 1977, 272). Thus, the participation of the local community in the development processes regardless of the economic class is a core pillar in populism. In relation to the above, populism is based on the ideology of empowering the poor people, mostly in the rural set-up, as well as the marginalized groups like women in different countries. This is based on the recognition of the fact that both of these groups have inherent ability to contribute to the development of their areas of residence and even at larger the national scale. Another central ideology in populism is the retention and modernization of peasant agriculture as opposed to embracing large-scale methods of food production which are controlled by rural elites. In this regard, populism aims at empowering the rural peasants to enhance their food production efforts through adopting more modern methods of production which is fundamental in elevating their output.Thus, populism greatly appreciates local knowledge in the production process as opposed to external models, like large-scale mechanized agriculture which alienate the local people from the food production process. On the other hand, populism has an ideological orientation towards environmental conservation and sustainability in development. Therefore, the production processes aimed at elevating the socio-economic level of the citizens ought to be embedded in processes which do not jeopardize the wellbeing of environment in the efforts towards maximization of profits by the producers. Lastly, the ideological orientation in populism recognizes the paramount role of private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as agents of change at the local level. This is whereby these agencies play a central role in assisting the local people to overcome their socio-economic challenges through undertakings like women empowerment and capacity building among others which are integral in overcoming the challenges at the local level. However, just like neo-liberalism, this model of development has attracted critiques. This is best epitomized by Torre (2007, p. 385) who cited that the critics of populism have inferred that the general mobilization and participation of the people in mass rallies does not necessarily culminate to their eventual inclusion in the development agenda. This can be perceived in the sense that the populist approaches are often used by the political class to win votes from the masses with the promise of including them in the development processes, but in most cases, this is not usually the case after they have successfully gotten into power. Other critics have argued that the populist redemption is inclined towards the authoritarian appropriation of the will of the people. Thus, the populists focus on exploiting the autonomy quest of the people in isolating some factors in the development equation, for instance, the foreign investors in furthering their individual agendas. This has been perceived to be the case of Zimbabwe in Africa whereby by Robert Mugabe who is the president expelling foreigners from the local economy with the pretense of upholding the will of the local people and increasing their participation in national development, this has only culminated in entrenchment of an authoritarian regime in the country which is confronted by enormous international sanctions and has ruined the economy of this country. The appropriate model in poverty alleviation and accelerated socio-economic development in poorer countries The above discourse has unearthed the ideologies underpinning neo-liberalism and populism as well as the criticisms against both models of development. However, populism is perceived as being more appropriate in solving the diverse socio-economic impediments confronting the developing countries which seek to alleviate poverty as well as hasten their socio-economic development. This presumption is founded on diverse rationales which are explored in the subsequent section. Firstly, increased participation of the local communities in the development process is key to the sustainability of the development agenda and the local ownership of the development programs. This is based bottom-up system of development. In this regard, the local people will feel that they were consulted and eventually included in deciding about the development programs that are initiated in their localities. This is bound to elevate their level of willingness to participate in the implementation of these programs which will eventually yield more sustainable outcomes. This is opposed to the projects which are imposed through foreign direct investment (FDI) which are bound to attract opposition from the locals. In relation to the above, the increased level of community participation in the development agenda is bound to heighten their level of empowerment. This can be perceived in the light of involving the local population in formulating the development agendas through incorporating their inputs in the decision making process. Eventually, the inclusion of the members from these communities in making fundamental decisions affecting the development programs will trickle down event to their businesses where they will have the capacity to make profound decisions in issues like investment. Thus, their eventual participation in the development agenda is primary to their empowerment and can trigger increased socio-economic development as well as enhance poverty alleviation efforts in the poorer countries. This phenomenon has been evident in various developing, for instance, in Tanzania whereby the political orientation of the country, mostly during the regime of the late Julius Nyerere facilitated increased community participation in the development process. This played a great role in forging the country into one robust nation and there was high acceptance of the economic policies initiated by the government. This is formed the foundation of the economic progress efforts in this country. On the other hand, based on the fact that populism aims at fostering sustainable development through environmental conservation, this can be perceived as a robust approach in minimizing the effects of global climate change in the poorer countries as experienced in recent years around the globe. This is based on the fact that majority of these countries, for instance, Nigeria, Ivory coast and Malawi among others are predominantly agrarian and are thus bound to be worst affected by climate change. Thus, the focus of populism towards environment conservation is a strong development model in ensuring that there is reduced environmental degradation by the profit seeking private corporations which is fundamental in the agricultural development of the local people. This populist approach has recently been evident in Kenya with the efforts of reclaiming the Mau complex which had been encroached by politically powerful individuals and private corporations. This complex is a fundamental water catchment area in the wider East African region and its destruction would mean detrimental impacts on the agrarian societies in this region. On the other hand, the efforts towards retention and modernization of peasant agriculture are fundamental to the socio-economic development at the local level which will eventually translate to the national level. This is based on the rationale that modernization of peasant agriculture will result to holistic improvement of the agricultural practices in rural areas of these countries. As a result, the standards of living of the citizens living in these localities will be increasingly enhanced and they will be able to afford accessing basic services like health and education. Thus, modernization of peasant agriculture is integral in alleviating the level of poverty in these areas as the peasant farmers will get increased returns from their activities. In addition, the translation of this continued improvement to the national level will enable these countries to meet international recognized objectives, for instance, the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs). Conclusion From the above discourse, it is apparent that there are diverse models of development which are endowed with variance in terms of ideological orientation as well as the level of criticism hulled against them. These models include neo-liberalism and populism, both of which have been explored in preceding sections. When these models are juxtaposed, populism is perceived as being more appropriate in poverty alleviation and accelerated socio-economic development in poorer countries as depicted above. References Brown, RH., 1977, ‘Appropriate technology and the grassroots: Towards a development strategy from the bottom-up’, retrieved 17th October 2012, . Hempel, LC., 1996, Environmental Governance: The Global Challenge, Island Press, Washington, DC. Ibrahim, A., 2011, ‘Strengths and Weaknesses of the neo-liberal approach to development’, retrieved 17th October 2012, . Kapoor, D., 2011, Critical perspectives on neoliberal globalization, development and education in Africa and Asia, Sense Publishers, Boston. Kaufman RR., & Stallings, B.,1991, ‘The Political Economy of Latin American Populism’, in Dornbusch R. &Edwards, S (eds), The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, University of Chicago Press, Illinois, Chicago, pp. 15-43. Nielsen, L., 2011, ‘Classifications of Countries Based on Their Level of Development: How it is Done andHow it Could be Done’, IMF Working Paper, IMF, Washington D.C. Ozturk, M., 2011, ‘Neo‐liberal Policies and Poverty:Effects of policies on poverty and poverty reduction in Turkey’, International Journal of Technology and Development Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 88-121. Stokke, O., 1991., ‘Sustainable Development: A Multi-Faceted Challenge’, European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8–31. Thorsen, E. & Lie, A., 2006, ‘What is Neoliberalism?’, retrieved 17th October 2012, < http://folk.uio.no/daget/What%20is%20Neo-Liberalism%20FINAL.pdf>. Torre, CD., 2007, ‘The Resurgence of Radical Populismin Latin America’, Constellations, Vol. 14, No 3, pp. 384-397. Read More