sign in sign up
<<
Home , Development theory

DEVS 340: of Development

Fall Term, 2009 Instructor: Dr. Marcus Taylor Office Hours (Mac-Corry A404): Wednesdays 10-12 (or by appointment). Email: [email protected]

Lecture: Tues 11:30 – 13:20, Jeff 126

Tutorial Slots: Tues 13:30 MC-C508 Tues 13:30 ELL-333 Tues 16:30 MC-E202 Wed 8:30 MC-D122

TAs: Jeff Barbeau Karl Hardy

Course Description:

This course introduces students to various theories that attempt to explain what ‘development’ is, how it occurs (or why it does not occur) and to whose benefit. Despite the frequent use of the term ‘development’ in academic, policy and journalistic writings, there is little consensus on what it actually entails – or even if some discernable process exists at all. For example, while modernisation suggests that development is a sequence of structural changes that all eventually go through; post-development theories argue that the notion of ‘development’ is merely a rhetorical device that reproduces power relations between the West and the rest. To begin to understand these debates – and the political issues at stake – we several broad areas of development theory including classical political economy, modernisation theory, , neoclassicism, neo-institutionalism, , post-colonialism, post-development, feminist theories and theories of . On completing the course it is hoped that students will have a clear grasp of:

• The contested meanings of the term ‘development’ • The distinct implications for policy, academic work and social activism that different theories of development imply • The power relations – local, national and global – that shape the creation and propagation of different theories of development

Readings:

There is a course pack that contains all the required readings, except for a few that are online sources, where the URL is provided instead. Please do the required readings before coming to class – it will help your understanding of the lecture and improve discussion. Additionally, I have provided further readings each week for those looking to broaden their understanding of particular themes. Beyond these, the following four texts provide an overview of issues raised in the course. They are not set texts, but are highly recommended reference works:

• Rist, Gilbert. 2002. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books. • Martinussen, John. 1997. , State and : A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. Halifax: Fernwood Books. • Crush, Jonathan. 1995. The Power of Development. London: Routledge. • Munck, Ronaldo and Denis O’Hearn. 1999. Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm. London: Zed Books.

Evaluation:

Midterm Tutorial Written Final Exam Exam Participation Assignment % of final grade 20 20 30 30 Date Oct 20th Weekly Dec 1st TBA

1. The midterm exam comprises twenty percent of your final grade and will be comprised of two essay-style questions. The test will occur in the first half of class on October 20th. ** Do not miss this test ** You will forfeit the marks unless you contact me before the test and then provide official documentation explaining your absence (use this form for illness - http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/facstaff/guidelines/academic/medical.htm).

2. Tutorial participation is an important aspect of this course and accounts for twenty percent of your final grade. Discussion will focus on the set readings – what are their main points? How are their arguments constructed? How do they relate to the other readings? And are they convincing? You are being graded on the overall quality of your contributions to the discussion, not simply for being present. This does not mean you need to talk non-stop during tutorials, but does mean that you should make good, well thought-out interventions in the discussion when appropriate (i.e. quality not quantity). Do note, however, that some quantity is necessary on order to deliver the quality! Evidently, having read the weekly readings prior to attending the tutorial is essential.

3. Written assignment: This essay will develop a critical account of one of the theories that we have looked at in class (your choice). You can limit your paper to a critical examination of one particular author’s theory – e.g. Frank’s theory of dependency and ; Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation, etc. You will need to identify the circumstances in which it the work was produced (i.e. why did this theory emerge at that particular time); highlight its relationship to different strands of thought within the theory; analyse its strengths and weaknesses. The paper will be handed in on the last day of class (December 1st). It is worth 30% of your final grade.

4. The final exam will be worth 30 percent of your final grade. It requires students to answer a selection of essay-style questions on the major issues covered in the second half of the course (i.e. topics examined since the mid-term).

A Note On Academic Integrity:

Here we are talking about plagiarism. When you write papers, it is not acceptable to take other people’s ideas without referencing them. It is even less acceptable to take full sentences, paragraphs, or more from books/articles/the internet and pass them off as your own. Departures from academic integrity also include the use of unauthorized materials, facilitation, forgery and falsification, and are antithetical to the development of an academic community at Queen's. Given the seriousness of these matters, actions which contravene the regulation on academic integrity carry sanctions that can range from a warning or the loss of grades on an assignment to the failure of a course to a requirement to withdraw from the university. Ignorance of the rules and regulations is not an excuse. Please familiarize yourself with the University guidelines on this subject:

http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/integrity/instructor/education.html

And if you have any questions simply ask myself or a TA prior to submitting work. Once again, pleading ignorance after the fact is not acceptable – it’s part of your role as a student to understand the obligations and responsibilities of producing academic work.

<><><><>

Course Outline

th Tuesday, September 15 Introduction The first class provides an opportunity to talk over the general themes and content of the course. The reading by Rist provides an account of the milestones in the evolution of a notion of development in Western philosophy. Storey’s article provides an indication of the lack of agreement between theorists on what development is and how it might be measured.

Required Reading: • Rist, Gilbert. “Metamorphoses of a Western Myth”, pg. 25-36 in The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books, 2002. • Storey, Andy, “Measuring Development”, pg. 25-40 in McCann and McCloskey (eds), From the Local to the Global: Key Issues in . London: Pluto Press, 2003.

Tuesday, September 22nd Theory 1: Markets and the Division of Labour The notion of development is closely related to those of and civilisation that emerged most articulately during the period of the enlightenment in Europe. This was a period of pronounced across much of Europe, with the beginnings of urbanisation, capitalist development and expanded colonialism. In many respects the classical political economists, writing in the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, were the first theorists of capitalist development. They attempted to explain the complex processes of social change ongoing in Europe at that time and were acutely aware that their different theories had distinct implications for government policy. While there are many important works, we survey that of because of its central role in influencing debates past and present. Smith related development to changes to the division of labour and the expansion of markets within society, which he saw as the driving forces of wealth creation. Smith is often noted as the ‘father’ of modern economics, and his description of the process of – although he did not use that term – is still at the heart of contemporary debates. We will see it emerge again in modernisation theory and in neoliberalism.

Required Reading: • Smith, Adam. [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Book 1, chapters 1-9.

Further Reading: • Cowen, Michael and Robert Shenton. 1995. “The Invention of Development”, pp. 27-44 in J. Crush (ed), The Power of Development. London: Routledge. • Mill, James. 1844. Chapter 1 of Elements of Political Economy. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/milljames/elements.html • Clarke, Simon. 1991. “Classical Political Economy”, pp. 12-43 in Marx, Marginalism and Modern . Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Tuesday, September 29th Theory 2: Accumulation / Primitive Accumulation Following Smith’s account of capitalist development, which has become a tenet of standard liberal theories of development, we examine two of his critics. First, we look at the work of economic-anthropologist Karl Polanyi. This author critiques Smith (and others) for having a distorted understanding of economic history. For Polanyi, the establishment of the self-regulating market that Smith celebrates as a natural unfolding of society’s inner urge to trade, represented a great rupture with the past and was only imposed by force. Polanyi suggests that most societies throughout history have attempted to limit market mechanisms owing to their destructive consequences for social order. Central to Polanyi’s theory is the notion that capitalism requires a process of removing land, labour and money (‘fictitious ’) from alternate systems of social provisioning and enforcing them to become commodities within a market system. This process is sometimes called primitive accumulation.

We then turn to , who offered a detailed theoretical critique of classical political economy in general. Marx is perhaps the most important theorist of capitalist development to emerge in the nineteenth century. Leaving aside for the moment the political implications of his work, we focus here on Marx’s analysis of : in particular the first section of the Communist Manifesto in which Marx describes global capitalist development in a way that is strikingly similar to some contemporary accounts of . For Marx, in contrast to Smith, capital accumulation does not just produce wealth, but produces misery among wealth, among plenty, instability and conflict. In a world of growing inequalities, does Marx’s theory still have relevance? N.B. To get a better handle on the theories of Marx and Polanyi, you are encouraged to read the supplementary readings, in particular Sayer’s erudite introduction to Marx’s thought; Clarke’s reading of Smith’s relationship to Marx; and Lacher’s take on Polanyi.

Required Reading: • Marx, Karl. [1848] The Communist Manifesto. Part I – Bourgeois and Proletarians. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm • Polanyi, Karl. [1944] The Great Transformation. Chapters 4 and 6. New York: Beacon Press.

Further Reading: • Sayer, Derek. Capitalism and Modernity. Chapter 1. • Clarke, Keynesianism, Monetarism and the Crisis of the State, chapters 2 and 3. • Lacher, Hannes. 2006. Beyond Globalization. London: Routledge – sections on Polanyi. • Patnaik, Prabhat. 2005. “Karl Marx as a Development Economist”, pp. 62-73 in Jomo K.S., The Pioneers of , London: Zed Books. • Kari Polanyi Levitt, 2005. “Karl Polanyi As a Development Economist”, in Jomo K.S., The Pioneers of Development Economics, London: Zed Books. • Dore, Elizabeth, 2002, “Understanding Capitalism in the ”, in Alfredo Saad-Filho (ed), Anti-Capitalism: A Marxist Introduction. London: Pluto Press.

Tuesday, October 6th Theory 3: Modernisation An ‘age of development’ was pronounced following the culmination of the Second when various colonies achieved their independence. In the two decades that followed new theories were created to try to explain the likely socio-economic futures of these now-independent countries of the South. A guiding theory in North American academia and policy making was modernisation theory, which suggested that all countries would evolve through successive stages of development so long as certain cultural and political conditions were in place. Rostow’s “The Stages of ” is the most renowned work in the cannon of modernisation theory; Cooper’s chapter provides a useful overview of thinking on the nature of modernity.

Required Reading:

• Rostow, Walt. 1971. "The Five Stages of Growth - A Summary," chapter 2 of The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge U.P. [1960,] 4-16. • Frederick Cooper. 2005. “Modernity”, pp. 113-150 in Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. University of California Press.

Further Reading:

• Martinussen, John. 1997. “Theories of Growth and Modernisation”, pp. 56-72 in Society, State and Market. London: Zed Books. ISBN: 1-85649-442-X • Hoselitz, Bert. 1995 [1952]. “Non-Economic Barriers to Economic Development”, in Stuart Corbridge (ed), Development Studies – A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Hettne, Bjorn. 1995. Development theory and the three worlds. New York: Longman.

Tuesday, October 13th Theory 4: and Dependency

Whereas modernisation theory predicted a rosy picture of all countries evolving towards an advanced industrial future, its critics were keen to emphasise how global economic relations, including the structure of international trade, credit and production, served to frustrate development aspirations in the South. Structuralist theory – typified by the contributions of Raul Prebisch and Hans Singer – emphasised how a reliance on raw material exports in the former colonies would lead to a widening income gap between North and South. Dependency theorists – based mainly but not exclusively in – went beyond this and argued that the structure of the global economy allowed the countries of the core to develop at the expense of those in the periphery. The countries of the South, according to dependency theory, could only develop in so far as it was helpful to the economic development of the core – hence they remained in a status of ‘dependent development’ leading to underdevelopment.

Required Reading:

• Gunder Frank, Andre, 1988. "The Development of Underdevelopment," in C.K. Wilber (ed.), The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment. New York: Random House. p. 109-119. • Vincent Ferraro. 1996. “Dependency Theory: An Introduction”, in The Development Economics Reader, edited by Giogrio Secondi, London: Routledge Press. • Alfredo Saad Filho. 2005. “The Rise and Decline of Latin American Structuralism and Dependency Theory”, pp. 128-145 in Jomo KS and Eric Reinert (eds), The Origins of Development Economics. London: Zed Books.

Further Reading:

• , 1974. Accumulation on a world scale: a critique of the theory of underdevelopment. New York, Monthly Review Press. • Kay, Cristobal. 1989. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. London: Routledge.

Tuesday, October 20th Midterm Exam

Do not miss this exam! (N.B. no tutorials this week).

Tuesday, October 27th Theory 5: Neoliberalism and Neo-Institutionalism

The socio-economic upheavals of the 1970s and the debt crisis of the early 1980s created a rupture in development strategies and provided the impetus for new theories of development to guide policy practice. Neoclassical economics became the touchstone for mainstream development thinking in the subsequent two decades. Drawing heavily on the legacy of Adam Smith, it provides the theoretical rationalisation for many existing policies, including free-trade, market expansion and lean states. Here we examine the theory of development implicit through a reading of Milton Friedman, Deepak Lal and the . Friedman, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, was one of the foremost proponents of the neoliberal agenda and in this reading outlines some of the underlying theoretical tenets. Deepak Lal critiqued the state-centric forms of development common throughout the developing world in the post-colonial era and the theories of development economics that supported them. He suggests that, owing to the failures of state intervention to ameliorate market imperfections, the ‘’ of the market should replace this ‘state dirigisme’.

The implementation of policies based on orthodox neoclassical foundations, however, resulted in mixed results in the South. To attempt to overcome the limitations of neoclassicism as a theory underpinning development practice, many economists decided they needed to look at the social and institutional context in which economic relations take place. This led to a new emphasis on creating the correct for market activities to achieve the results that the neoclassical theory would predict. The New Institutional Economics developed as a theory of institutions to supplement – or even supplant – neoclassical economics and led to a new spin on development theory whereby development is the process of institutional change leading to increasingly efficient institutional contexts in which economic activities can take place.

Required Reading:

• Friedman, Milton. 1979. Chapter 1 from Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt. • Lal, Deepak. 1985. “The Misconceptions of ‘Development Economics’”, Finance and Development, (June issue) pg. 10-13. • North, Douglas. 2005. “Capitalism and Economic Growth”. Pp. 41-52 in Victor Nee and Richard Swedberg (eds), The of Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Further Reading:

Neoliberalism • DeMartino, George. 2000. Global economy, : theoretical objections and policy alternatives to neoliberalism. London: Routledge. • Dunkley, Graham. 2004. “: Myth, Reality and Alternatives”. London: Zed Books. • Harrison, Graham. 2005. “Economic Faith, Social Project and a Misreading of African Society: the travails of neoliberalism in Africa”, pp. 1303-1320 in Third World Quarterly, 26:8. • World Bank. 1991. World Development Report 1991: The Challenge of Development. Overview. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online at www.worldbank.org

Neo-Institutionalism • Rodrik, Dani. 2004. “Getting Institutions Right”: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/papers.html • Harriss, John; Janet Hunter and Colin Lewis. 1995. The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development. London: Routledge. • Fine, Ben. 2001. “Neither the Washington Nor the Post-Washington Consensus”, in Fine, Lapavitsas and Pincus (eds), Development Policy in the 21st Century. London: Routledge. • Hodgson, Geoffrey. 1999. How Economics Forgot History. London: Routledge. • World Bank, World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online at www.worldbank.org

Tuesday, November 3rd Theory 6: Urban Growth, Property Rights and Development

Initially, development theory tended to see the growth of cities as a hallmark of development: poverty being a rural phenomena overcome by the migration of people to the urban realm where they would be incorporated into formal, modern, industrial employment. However, one of the most dramatic social phenomena witnessed across the global South over the past two decades has been the rapid spread of urban slums that are reservoirs of poverty. The UN estimates that over 850 million people now live in slums of various types and this may reach 1.5 billion by 2020. These vast expanses of human habitation are characterised by informality – that is, residents overwhelmingly do not own the land upon which their houses are built. Moreover, slums often suffer from a lack of public services from electricity to water, schools to healthcare. And their residents are often tenuously incorporated into informal employment that reproduces their marginalisation. How does development theory understand the growth of the slums? Are their inhabitants a surplus humanity that is representative of the failures of development, or are the slums the inevitable product of uneven development on a global scale? And is the solution to formalise their existence by giving them property rights for their dwellings, allowing them to use their property as a form of capital to lever their way out of poverty? The latter is a key argument of influential economist Hernando de Soto and we will examine his theory in detail.

• De Soto, Hernando, 2001, “The Mystery of Capital”, Finance and Development, March 2001, Volume 38(1): http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/desoto.htm • Fernandes, Edesio, 2002, “The Influence of de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital”, Land Lines, 14(1). http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=202 • Harvey, David. 2008. “The Right to the City”, New Left Review 53, pp. 23-40.

Further Reading:

• Davis, Mike. 2006. Planet of Slums. London: Verso Press. • Timothy Mitchell, 2005, “The Work Of Economics: How a discipline makes its world”, Archives of European Sociology, XLVI, pp. 297-320. • Geoffrey Payne, 2003, “Safe as houses? Securing urban land tenure and property rights”, ID21 Insights, issue 48: http://www.id21.org/insights/insights48/insights-iss48-art00.html

Tuesday, November 10th Theory 7: Post-Development

Post-development and post-colonial theorists emphasise how certain characteristic “Western” ways of talking about and representing the non-West are better understood as ideological projections than as scientific knowledge about people and places in the formerly colonized countries. To these theorists, the ways of conceiving and representing development that are closely bound to Western development agencies reveal more about the self-affirming ideologies of the West than insights into the peoples of the rest of the world. Leading theorists in this tradition, such as Arturo Escobar, argue that the codification and rationalisation of knowledge about ‘development’ is an expression of and tool for the political domination and cultural hegemony of the West over the rest.

Required Reading:

• Escobar, Arturo, 1995. "Imagining a Post-Development Era," in J. Crush (ed.), Power of Development. London: Routledge. p. 211-227. • Mitchell, Timothy. 2002. “The Object of Development”, pp. 209-243 in Rule of Experts, University of California Press.

Further Reading:

• Ferguson, James. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine. University of Minnesota Press. • Sachs, Wolfgang. 1998. The Development Dictionary. London: Zed Books. • Said, Edward. Orientalism. 1979. Vintage. • Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage • Rahnema, M. (ed). The Post Development Reader. London: Zed Books. • Corbridge, Stuart, 1998. “‘Beneath the Pavement Only Soil’: The Poverty of Post Development.” Review Article. Journal of Development Studies. August 1998. 138-148. • Zein-Elabdin, Eiman and S. Charusheela. 2004. Postcolonialism Meets Economics. London: Routledge.

Tuesday, November 17th Theory 8: Male Bias Feminists have focused their critiques of development theory on the ‘male-bias’ of development, which refers to the way in which the categories used to understand socioeconomic transformation – and on which basis policies are formed – make invisible the work performed by and burdens placed upon women. As such, they argue that much development policy reinforces and depends upon structures and processes through which women are subordinated to men (patriarchy). The latter includes the double burden of women’s work in the home and the (in)formal economy, which has become increasingly prevalent as a result of policies.

Required Reading:

• Elson, Diane. 1995. Male Bias in the Development Process. Chapter 1: An Overview, pp. 1-28. Manchester: Manchester University Press. • Mies, Maria. 1986. “Housewifization International”, pg. 112-142 from Patriarchy & Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.

Further Reading:

• Pearson, Ruth. 2005. “The Rise and Rise of Gender and Development”, pp. 157- 179 in Uma Kothari (ed), A Radical History of Development Studies. London: Zed Books. • Marchand, M. & Parpart, J.L. (eds). , Postmodernism, Development. London and New York: Routledge. p. 159-178. • Shiva, Vandana, 1988. "Chapter 1: Development, and Women," Staying Alive. Zed: London. p. 1-13, 218-224. • Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, & E. Wangari. Feminist Political Ecology. London and New York: Routledge. London and New York: Routledge. p.287- 307. • Caraway, Teri. 2007. Assembling Women: The Feminisation of Global . Ithaca: ILR Press.

Tuesday, November 24th Theory 9: Uneven Ecological Exchange Environmental issues have frequently been ignored in development theory, with the assumption that ecological issues do not impede social change in any meaningful way. Given the existing ecological and resource challenges facing global society, this position has become untenable and ecological issues are increasingly being brought into development theory. However, a key question that resurfaces in debates over sustainable development is to what extent and in what manner can ecological considerations be allowed to supersede orthodox development objectives? Moreover, to what extent has the legacy of development in the West been founded upon the ecological degradation of the rest? We overview some important debates in this field, including the notion of ‘uneven ecological exchange’ which suggests that current consumption patterns of the West are based on an uneven appropriation of the ecological resources of the rest of the world.

Required Reading:

• James Rice, “Ecological Unequal Exchange: Consumption, Equity and Unsustainable Structural Relationships within the Global Economy”, International Journal of ’ 48(1), pp 43-72, 2007. • Bellamy Foster, John. “Imperialism and Ecology”, pp. 85-106 in The Vulnerable Planet. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Further Reading:

• Joan Martínez-Alier, 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press. • Brett Clark and Richard York. (2005) “Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, , and the biospheric rift”, Theory and Society 34: 391–428. • Adams, W.M., 1995. "Green Development Theory? Environmentalism And Sustainable Development," pp. 87-99 in Jonathan Crush (ed.), Power of Development. London: Routledge. • Peet, R. & M. Watts. 1996. “Liberating Political Ecology”, pp. 3-48 in Peet, R. & M. Watts (eds). Liberation . London: Routledge. • World Commission on Environment and Development (The ), 1987. "From One Earth to One World," Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1-23.

Tuesday, December 1st Course Review

This week reviews the material that will be on the final exam and is an opportunity to ask any remaining questions. N.B. your final paper is due at this class.