The paper 'Progress of Development in Asia' is a great example of human resources case study. Development became significant right away after the end of World War II when Western nations met head-on with the challenge of rebuilding their continent and their colonial empires that had been affected by the war. This led to the formation of institutions like the World Bank that would help these countries manage the whole process of development. It was at this period when the 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 of development later changed with the dawning reality to many countries for the need to industrialize and venture into the manufacture of finished goods as well as the attainment of independence by former protectorates of European nations. Sen (2000) argues that the 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 a sense of recognition and dignity that they felt had been lost under colonialism. Progress of developmentDuring 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 were being experienced at the market and the world economy, and the confidence of overcoming these 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 the demand for goods and services from developing nations rose. This endowed the governments with the 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 these 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 the 1970s the boom that had been experienced in postwar broke down, hence stagnation in the developments that were previously sponsored by governments. Many accused the 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 favor of the neoclassical concepts.
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.