The Development Project
To many people today, ‘development’ is thought as a sort of charitable economic and social aid from one nation to another, an altruistic desire to lend a hand to the less fortunate of the world so that they may enjoy the same comforts as the most privileged. However, Phillip McMichael, author of “Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective” has a somewhat different point of view concerning the enterprise that is development. He sees development as more of a project, one that has been guided in the past by motives that are not necessarily humanitarian and entirely selfless in nature. In his perspective, though development the 19th century was understood in theory as the improvement of mankind, it emerged in practice as the social engineering and economic shaping of fledgling independent nations. This so-called ‘development project’ has gradually evolved in meaning and character into the enterprise it has become today.
In colonial times, the development project begun to take shape, as a full-fledged undertaking, by defining the relationship between the self-proclaimed core nations and so-called periphery nations of that era. While its underlying philosophical motive was the humanitarian assistance from European empires to economically and technologically inferior nations, the prevailing political and economic influences of the times guided the development project in a quite different direction. With the advent of industrialization, the dawn of capitalism and its increased demands for labor and natural resources, the momentum that fueled the mission to stimulate development in peripheral nations was intertwined with a slightly imperialistic ambition bent on extending the economic and militaristic power of Europe onto the rest of the continents in the world. Thus, as expressed by McMicheal, development had become a power relationship where the predominant objective was to “either adapt or marginalize colonial subjects to the European presence. Incidentally, the colonized nations had marginally benefited from the presence and development initiatives of their colonizers who built ports, roads, railways, schools and other social and economic infrastructures. It is however essential to note that these developments were intended to support and maintain the European occupation of their colonies.
During the twentieth century the development project began to take an interesting turn. European colonialism was collapsing as World War II had drained its military and economic power. A global movement of decolonization was reaching its peak, as Asian, Latin and African colonies began to demand their independence. The growing educated masses within the colonies began to shed light on the inherent immorality of colonization and thus psychologically broke its link to the implied benevolence of the development project. In consequence, development began to take on a new meaning, one that linked the birth of sovereign nations and their pursuit of economic development with that of social justice.
A new power, the United States of America, had emerged following the economic setbacks in Europe caused by the Second World War. It had become the most powerful nation in the world, surpassing all other powers economically, militaristically, and ideologically. Its image as the prime model of a developed nation warranted its position as an unofficial world leader. A new development paradigm emerged within this new world order that was to be led by the United States of America. The World was now virtually divided into developed and undeveloped regions. This division facilitated the defining of the new relationship between the two regions, where one side would pursue national economic growth while the other would provide assistance and guidance in the wealthier region’s endeavor. However, the existence of a rival economic power, the Soviet Union, and its competing communistic ideology proved to be a significant obstacle to nations with capitalistic politico-economic goals. The advent of this clashing economic ideology provided the motivation for America and its economic allies to assign to the development project a second agenda. This agenda was to secure the economic loyalty and resources of the developing world towards capitalistic ideals and values. This second motive is what prompted McMicheal to use the epithet ‘project’ so as to emphasize “the political content of development, as an organizing principle rather than an end in itself”. The development project therefore doubled as a scheme to promote the adoption of the First World’s concept of civilization and respectable standards of living in the rest the world. The development project was composed of two components to achieve its ends: A political framework and an economic framework.
The political framework of the development project was intended to emulate the politico-geographic structure of the First World where “Nation States were territorially defined political systems based on the government-citizen relationship that emerged in nineteenth century Europe.” Although the relative homogeneity of this political model within today’s world has created the impression that it is the only viable system of rule that has ever existed. The current division of, for instance, the African continent into pseudo-states with no respect to the natural ancestral boundaries, and its adoption of European style political systems were orchestrated in London and Paris by the ex-colonial powers, despite the African elites wishes. Indeed, the new paradigm of the development project facilitated the dependence of the so-called underdeveloped nations of the world on the aid of developed nations in this era while stripping them of their power to shape their own political systems and economies.
The other facet of the development project was its economic framework. While the economic growth of the underdeveloped nations was a principal concern of developed nations, their guidance in the manner in which it was to be pursued was implicitly a condition of their economic aid. Capitalism being the ideology that provided the impetus for economic growth in the First World, underdeveloped countries cultural practices that involved the sharing of wealth and cooperative labor were viewed as traditional obstacles to economic growth regardless of whether they sustained the community. However, the underdeveloped countries’ late start within this economic system based on free-enterprise and competition put them in a position of economic vulnerability in the face of the most seasoned capitalistic nations as they lacked the latter’s competitive technological and economic base. Just as the underdeveloped countries were receiving aid from their developed neighbors, they were also being economically dominated and exploited through their vulnerabilities within a capitalistic system where the survival of the fittest economy legitimately rules. The resulting outcome for the third world countries would be an endless cycle of economic dependence. This new relationship between the core and the periphery would latter on be branded as “Neo-colonialism”.
As newly independent nations were being created based on the western politico-economic model, they assumed their role in the new developed nation – underdeveloped nation relationship. Underdeveloped nations provided the raw materials, unskilled and marginally skilled labor, as they purchased First World technology and industrialized goods. However the technology and goods were mostly paid for with loans received from First World nation led international organizations which had been ostensibly set up to aid Third World countries in their economic development. With the goal of organizing international development cooperation and to foster a joint effort in reshaping the development project and its strategies, two Bretton Woods initiatives, the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund were created. In Addition to the United Nations, these organizations have taken the goals of the development project and now serve as its vehicle. They have thus received much criticism throughout the years, but they are slowly receiving pressure to define what authentic development entails and to gradually shift their missions to match the genuine needs of developing countries today.
In colonial times, the development project begun to take shape, as a full-fledged undertaking, by defining the relationship between the self-proclaimed core nations and so-called periphery nations of that era. While its underlying philosophical motive was the humanitarian assistance from European empires to economically and technologically inferior nations, the prevailing political and economic influences of the times guided the development project in a quite different direction. With the advent of industrialization, the dawn of capitalism and its increased demands for labor and natural resources, the momentum that fueled the mission to stimulate development in peripheral nations was intertwined with a slightly imperialistic ambition bent on extending the economic and militaristic power of Europe onto the rest of the continents in the world. Thus, as expressed by McMicheal, development had become a power relationship where the predominant objective was to “either adapt or marginalize colonial subjects to the European presence. Incidentally, the colonized nations had marginally benefited from the presence and development initiatives of their colonizers who built ports, roads, railways, schools and other social and economic infrastructures. It is however essential to note that these developments were intended to support and maintain the European occupation of their colonies.
During the twentieth century the development project began to take an interesting turn. European colonialism was collapsing as World War II had drained its military and economic power. A global movement of decolonization was reaching its peak, as Asian, Latin and African colonies began to demand their independence. The growing educated masses within the colonies began to shed light on the inherent immorality of colonization and thus psychologically broke its link to the implied benevolence of the development project. In consequence, development began to take on a new meaning, one that linked the birth of sovereign nations and their pursuit of economic development with that of social justice.
A new power, the United States of America, had emerged following the economic setbacks in Europe caused by the Second World War. It had become the most powerful nation in the world, surpassing all other powers economically, militaristically, and ideologically. Its image as the prime model of a developed nation warranted its position as an unofficial world leader. A new development paradigm emerged within this new world order that was to be led by the United States of America. The World was now virtually divided into developed and undeveloped regions. This division facilitated the defining of the new relationship between the two regions, where one side would pursue national economic growth while the other would provide assistance and guidance in the wealthier region’s endeavor. However, the existence of a rival economic power, the Soviet Union, and its competing communistic ideology proved to be a significant obstacle to nations with capitalistic politico-economic goals. The advent of this clashing economic ideology provided the motivation for America and its economic allies to assign to the development project a second agenda. This agenda was to secure the economic loyalty and resources of the developing world towards capitalistic ideals and values. This second motive is what prompted McMicheal to use the epithet ‘project’ so as to emphasize “the political content of development, as an organizing principle rather than an end in itself”. The development project therefore doubled as a scheme to promote the adoption of the First World’s concept of civilization and respectable standards of living in the rest the world. The development project was composed of two components to achieve its ends: A political framework and an economic framework.
The political framework of the development project was intended to emulate the politico-geographic structure of the First World where “Nation States were territorially defined political systems based on the government-citizen relationship that emerged in nineteenth century Europe.” Although the relative homogeneity of this political model within today’s world has created the impression that it is the only viable system of rule that has ever existed. The current division of, for instance, the African continent into pseudo-states with no respect to the natural ancestral boundaries, and its adoption of European style political systems were orchestrated in London and Paris by the ex-colonial powers, despite the African elites wishes. Indeed, the new paradigm of the development project facilitated the dependence of the so-called underdeveloped nations of the world on the aid of developed nations in this era while stripping them of their power to shape their own political systems and economies.
The other facet of the development project was its economic framework. While the economic growth of the underdeveloped nations was a principal concern of developed nations, their guidance in the manner in which it was to be pursued was implicitly a condition of their economic aid. Capitalism being the ideology that provided the impetus for economic growth in the First World, underdeveloped countries cultural practices that involved the sharing of wealth and cooperative labor were viewed as traditional obstacles to economic growth regardless of whether they sustained the community. However, the underdeveloped countries’ late start within this economic system based on free-enterprise and competition put them in a position of economic vulnerability in the face of the most seasoned capitalistic nations as they lacked the latter’s competitive technological and economic base. Just as the underdeveloped countries were receiving aid from their developed neighbors, they were also being economically dominated and exploited through their vulnerabilities within a capitalistic system where the survival of the fittest economy legitimately rules. The resulting outcome for the third world countries would be an endless cycle of economic dependence. This new relationship between the core and the periphery would latter on be branded as “Neo-colonialism”.
As newly independent nations were being created based on the western politico-economic model, they assumed their role in the new developed nation – underdeveloped nation relationship. Underdeveloped nations provided the raw materials, unskilled and marginally skilled labor, as they purchased First World technology and industrialized goods. However the technology and goods were mostly paid for with loans received from First World nation led international organizations which had been ostensibly set up to aid Third World countries in their economic development. With the goal of organizing international development cooperation and to foster a joint effort in reshaping the development project and its strategies, two Bretton Woods initiatives, the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund were created. In Addition to the United Nations, these organizations have taken the goals of the development project and now serve as its vehicle. They have thus received much criticism throughout the years, but they are slowly receiving pressure to define what authentic development entails and to gradually shift their missions to match the genuine needs of developing countries today.
posted by Albouri Ndiaye | 12:48
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home