Progress of Development in Asia - Case Study Example

NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT THEORIES STUDENT NAME LECTURER NAME 8/29/2012 APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT THEORIES/ APPROACHES/ POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS IN THE POST-WORLD WAR 2 ERA Application of Development Theories/ Approaches/ Policy Prescriptions In The Post-World War 2 Era Introduction Development became significant right away after the end of the World War II, when Western nations met head-on with challenge of rebuilding their continent (Europe) and their colonial empires that had been affected by the war. This led to formation of institutions like World Bank that would help these countries manage the whole process of development. It was at this period when concept of equity among nations arose to address the challenges that were facing backward regions. This were times when development was synonymous and its decisive aim was to mobilize funds to help the poor meet their basic needs, a way that was perceived of becoming prosperous and rich (Dumenil & Levy, 2001, p.599). The notion on development later changed with the dawning reality to many countries for need to industrialize and venture in the manufacture of finished goods as well as the attainment of independence by former protectorates of Europe nations. Sen (2000) argues that majority of countries in Asia and Africa continents came to independence poor and were keen on speeding up their development and improve the lives of their people. Similarly, they wanted to strengthen their independence and stabilize their countries socially, politically and economically, interventions that could earn them sense of recognition and dignity that they felt had been lost under colonialism. Progress of development During the early postwar period, development interventions were thought to be like conventional economic wisdom, besides having no direction to be approached from because of certain core assumptions held about it. Its driving force was that economies required more state involvement than they had been given before, for instance, in Latin America which had been engrossed by authoritarian regimes started utilizing statist development strategies. It was still at this time, the horrors of depression and postwar developments employed Keynesian economics. This influenced majority of growing economies of third-world countries and the just newly independent nations that were reinforced by this economics (Ohmae, 1999). Considering the imperfections that was being experienced at the market and the world economy, and the confident of overcoming this turbulent moments, development theorists suggested new models that could dispense the state with a primary role in the economy. According to Dumenil and Levy (2001, p.606), most governments that had just won independence adopted the models which seemed to be a quick voyage into the industrial age. Initially, the models delivered, leading to a boom in the postwar world economy as demand of goods and services from developing nations rose. This endowed the governments with capital they wanted to develop and streamline their industries and infrastructures. Nevertheless, problems started cropping into these strategies as time went by, and economies of this nations started growing slowly. The sluggish growth in the economy turned down the upgrading of standards of living for their poorest citizens. The industrial development consumed much of their resources than it produced, as inefficient nations worsened the matter. During 1970s the boom that had been experienced in postwar broke down, hence stagnation in the developments that were previous sponsored by governments. Many accused old school of thought on development models, and claimed that governments were to be blamed for sidelining development studies. Others alleged that market was itself a hindrance and called for the full role of the government in the matter. During the late 1970s, deliberation on development issues polarized between Keynesian and Neoclassical theories and many came in favour of the neoclassical concepts. In early 1980s, neoclassical theory was adopted by many governments to initiate a revolution and help in re-establishing their worsening economy. This instigated an attack to governments and institutions like trade unions that were believed to hinder free market operations. Donor nations and agencies like World Bank forced governments of developing nations to adopt same policies and stop interfering with the market operation. Majority of governments assented halfhearted to the policies as their bargaining power had been weakened by the debt crisis. Others resolved to implement structural adjustment that advocated for lesser state more market. The strategy was put into operation by many third world nations as the idea seemed economically sound and appealing, but with time, structural adjustment had its own weaknesses. The shortcoming of structural adjustment is that it had damaging effect on neoclassical theory. Structural adjustment was much effective in advanced nations whose economy was stable compared to poorer nations (Sen, 2000). Post development The economy and development during the 1980s, was perceived to have survived an imperfect neoclassical phase, as troubles that were encountered in neoclassical notion did cause any drastic change to state-led development. However, later in 1990s a new analysis surfaced from the pressure of postmodern currents (Ohmae, 1999). This spread like bush fire from the popular voice of anti-globalisation movement, a thinking concept that was known as post development theory, because of its contemporary documentations. The move toward 21st century made post development thought to attain a broader audience of rejecting sirens of development and allow majority to contend. As is the case of new concepts, post development theory has just been heard but not put into practice. Economists have supported some of its general ideals, for example the call a decentralized and participatory approach in any development interventions. A move that is closely equivalent to the neoclassical for the same, as both advocate the halt to embrace the centralized governments over their peoples’ lives. Although the recent boom that is being experienced in China which is an ideal model of authoritarian state-led development has mesmerized the world, but this is treated as an exceptional by post development theorists. This has made development theory nowadays to become less programmatic and more apprehensive with elasticity and adaptability. Equally, the post development concept revitalizes stress on citizens as both the measures and determinants of development. Previously, proactive interventions were employed to rapidly grow the economies and reinforce nations, leading to abuses of citizens’ rights in preference of national development. For example, Saddam Hussein sapped the marshes of southern Iraq in pretext of national development, a move that destablised the lives of many people. The principle of national development, mostly termed as state sovereignty has dominated many debates in a global age, but has questionably had a rough ride in the minds of many economists. Post development concept had suspected its purpose, whereas neoclassical theory had celebrated its alleged fall in a borderless world. But the dawning reality on sovereignty of nations has progressively come to be advocated by many because of its perceived powers. Sovereignty campaigns have been attributed by the inequitable gains in the free markets and the argument that world trading system was in favour of developed nations. Many developing nations have opposed the interventions by World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) and termed them as a threat to marginalize them (Friedman, 1981). This has forced developed nations to put into consideration the agenda of third world countries to rescue the trade talks on equitable developments. The sort for participatory development has been a welcoming idea by post development theorists. This coalescence is of the opinion about the needs of citizens and poor nations, a move that is seen to be far from programmatic pledges to more or lesser government and later to pragmatic pledges to better government (Blecker, 1999). This was in the wake of power balance between developing and developed nations which changed in important ways. The main issue that bolstered this new development was the rise of China, India and, more lately, Brazil. The steady entry of China into the global economy during the height of Maoist phase and of late, the resurgence of India and Brazil growth rates in surplus have two significant impacts on the global economy. Firstly, they have opened up a beneficial window to developing nations, and secondly, driven up demand for primary products. China’s swelling manufacturing sector has spectacularly stretched the world’s manufacturing capacity. Conclusion Taking all happenings around, ranging from formation of trade blocs, and the rising of economy of China, India and Brazil into account, it’s not out of doubt that a new development age has dawned. As it was the two decades that came after the Second World War, the 21st century world prices are in favour of third world nations with majority of multinational agencies showing plight of investing in poor nations. Capital flows have started moving in the favour of third world countries, same to development theory that has become more of people-focused, or without doubt people-sensitive, than it was before. The poor nations have minimized the borrowing from World Bank and IMF, thus reducing their influence on development interventions. Cheap labour that is progressively more skilled has become a major asset for them as they also continue to benefit from trade agreements. The ultimate implementation of development theory lies in the hands of political leaders, and it remain to be seen whether the 21st century will produce the long awaited leaders who will truly end the kind of poverty and oppression that is perceived to have existed in the 20th century. References Blecker, R. A. (1999). Taming Global Finance: A Better Architecture for Growth and Equity. Economic Policy Institute, Washington D.C. Dumenil, G. & Levy, D. (2001). Costs and benefits of Neoliberalism: A Class Analysis. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 8, no.4, 578-607. Evans, P. (2004). Development as Institutional Change: The Pitfalls of Monocropping and the Potentials of Deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development 38, 4: 30–52 Floro, M. & Dymski, G. (2000). Financial Crisis, Gender, and Power: An Analytical Framework.World Development, Vol. 28, No.7. Friedman, M. (1981). Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press Grown, C., Elson, D. & Cagatay, N. (2000). Introduction, World Development, Vol. 28, No.7. Haggard, S. (2004). Institutions and Growth in East Asia, Studies in Comparative International Development, 38, 4 (2004): 53–81. Ohmae, K. (1999). The Borderless World, rev. ed. New York: Harper Business. Rapley, J. (2004). Globalization and Inequality, Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor. Read More