Modernisation, Urbanisation

UNIT 5 PERSPECTIVES ON and Industrialisation

DEVELOPMENT*
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Perspectives on Development
5.2.1 Modernization Theory
a) Ideal-Typical Index Method
Talcott Parsons’ pattern variable approach
Rostow’s Historical Stages Approach
b) Diffusionist or Acculturation Approach
c) Psychological Approach
5.2.2 Marxist and Neo- Marxist Approaches of Development and Underdevelopment
a) Dependency Theory
Paul Baran
Andre Gunder Frank
Samir Amin
b) Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory
5.2.3 Neo-liberal Perspective on Development
5.2.4 Alternative Development
5.2.5 Human Development Perspective
5.2.6 Anti-development Perspective
5.3 Let Us Sum Up
5.4 Key Words
5.5 Further Reading
5.6 Specimen Answers to check your progress.

5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit you would be able to:
Discuss the modernization theory of development.
Analyse Marxist and Neo-Marxist approach of development and
underdevelopment.
Describe the neoliberal perspective of development.
Outline the alternative development and human development.
Understand the antidevelopment perspectives.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will discuss the various perspectives of development i.e.
modernization theory, Marxist and Neo-Marxist approaches of development and
underdevelopment, neoliberal perspectives, alternative development, human
development and anti development.

*Prof. Manisha Tripathy Pandey, HOD, Deptt. of Sociology, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi 61
Theorising Development The growth of development theory is a post-World War II phenomenon but the
ideas of development and progress have been present in the theories of social
Darwinism, Morgan’s analysis of savagery, barbarism and civilization, Marx’s
Historical Materialism, Tonnies’ Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Comte’s Law
of Three Stages, Durkheim’s Mechanical to Organic Solidarity and Weber’s
treatment of rationality. The earlier ideas saw development as evolutionary process
and change of man’s society. Evolutionism, Marxism, neo-Marxism,
Keynesianism, structural functionalism, neoclassical economics and
poststructuralism are social science paradigms which influenced development
theories at different times. But development as action was a consciously planned
and monitored process of growth and change, that came up much [Link] the
19th century, development thinking was a reaction to the crises of progress, such
as the social problems caused by industrialization. Development became a project
to produce a far better world. It was seen as improving the living conditions of
the poorest people. ‘Development’ was the agenda laid down in US President
Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural speech…”we must embark on a bold new program
for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available
for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas’’.

There have been three eras of development:

1) From ‘Rise of man’ to emergence of modern states in Europe around 16th
Century. This period saw the evolution of agriculture, cities and civilizations.

2) ‘Rise of Europe’ and North America (16th C – 20th C). This period saw the
rise of market system, capitalist institutions and colonisation.

3) Global Development era from 1917 onwards, wherein World War II was a
watershed event culminating into the formation of League of Nations.
Development started meaning not only social improvement but also
‘catchingup’ with advanced countries to restore parity of power and esteem.

The meaning of development has changed over time. Initially it meant catching
up with the advanced industrialized countries. Later, economic growth and
accumulation of capital became the core meaning of development. In 1990s,
emphasis was put on human well-being. Then, the concept of social development
emphasized the development of society in its totality – including economic,
political, social and cultural aspects. When the limits to growth was realized,
sustainable development became the buzzword, focussing on the ‘needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own
needs’ (Brundtland Commission).Thus, development is both, a physical reality,
and a state of mind or deliberate intention to resolve immediate problems of
poverty. It is important to mention here that development is one of the dominant
western discourses that postcolonial approaches seek to challenge and attempt
to decolonize development studies. Let us discuss the various perspectives of
development.

5.2 PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT

Development ‘Theory’ is a limited notion. It is more appropriate to say
‘perspective’ or ‘analysis’. The meaning of development has changed with the
changing perspectives of development: modernization theory, dependency,
neoclassical economics, alternate development, human development and post-
62
development. There is a distinction between development as planned change or Perspectives on Development
engineering, and development as immanent change, a process from within.
Modernization theory and Dependency theory followed the logic of development
from above and outside.

The early pioneers of development thinking were Adam Smith, David Ricardo,
Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill. For Smithin The Wealth of Nations, the
progress of opulence was driven by the growth of labour and stock of capital in
England. Malthus emphasized growth retarding factors as well as the limits to
population growth. Marx identified five stages in the development of human
societies in a historically deterministic process. All these classical thinkers were
concerned with the evolution of societies from feudal and rural to urban and
industrial; and believed that there is one single trajectory of development that all
countries follow.

5.2.1 Modernization Theory

In 1950s and 1960s, Modernization theory attempted to identify commonalities
in the process of development in highly developed countries. It is based on a
dualistic world view, opposing traditional to modern lifestyles and indigenous to
westernized cultures. It believes that ‘trickle-down’ would occur from the
developed world to the underdeveloped world at national, regional and global
levels. James O’ Connell defines modernization as a process through which a
traditional or a pretechnological society passes, as it is transformed, into a society
characterized by machine technology, rational and secular attitudes and highly
differentiated social structures It meant the adoption of ‘Western’ political and
economic institutions. Modernization theory proposes that societal development
can take place in the Third World through the application of capitalist economic
mechanisms. It evolved from two ideas about social change:
a) Conception of traditional versus modern society.
b) Positivism that viewed development as societal evolution in progressive
stages of growth.
Modernization theories wrote a kind of ‘how to develop manual’ for less developed
countries. They were problem-solving and policy-oriented theories of social
change and economic development. The unit of analysis ranges from the individual
through local communities to national and international states. The expansion of
political, military and economic interests of America; emergence of newly
independent countries and the cold war: these were the factors that led to the
study of societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America and their economic
development and socio-cultural changes in 1950s and 1960s.

Before critiquing them, A.G. Frank (1967) spells out three approaches/modesunder
Modernization theories:
1) Ideal Typical Index method
2) Diffusionist or Acculturation Approach
3) Psychological Approach
a) Ideal Typical Index method
In Ideal Typical index method or gap approach, the general features of a developed
economy are abstracted as an ideal type and then contrasted with the ideal typical 63
Theorising Development features of a poor society. Development here is viewed as the transformation of
one type to the other. By identifying a gap between the two, a development
programme is worked out. The two variant of this approach are:

Talcott Parsons’ pattern variable approach as exemplified by Hoselitz (1960).

Rostow’s Historical Stages Approach

Talcott Parsons’ Pattern Variable Approach

According to Parsons, any social action and social system can be analyzed in
terms of only five pairs of pattern variables, which supposedly characterize all
possible social action. Parsons’ pattern variables are alternative patterns of value
orientation in the role expectations of the actors in any social system. The five
contrasting variables are affective neutrality-affectivity, universalism-
particularism, achievement-ascription, specificity- diffuseness, and self-
orientation-collective orientation.

Bert Hoselitzused the Parsonian modernization pattern variables to explain the

process of development in any country. He emphasized cultural change as a
precondition for economic development. Heused Parsons’ pattern variables to
look at differences in behaviour between peoples in modern and traditional
[Link] developed countries exhibit the pattern variables of universalism,
achievement orientation, affective neutrality, functional specificity and self-
orientation. On the other hand, underdeveloped countries are characterized by
their opposites - particularism, ascription, affectivity, functional diffuseness and
collective orientation. The shift from society having the latter set of variables to
the former is seen as development. To develop, Hoselitzasserts, underdeveloped
countries should eliminate the pattern variables of underdevelopment and adopt
those of development.

Gunder Frank critiques Parsonian theory of modernization that it is empirically

invalid, theoretically inadequate and policy-wise ineffective. Underdevelopment
and development are not associated with the characteristics of roles in society
but with the structure of that society.

Rostow’s Historical Stages Approach

Karl Marx envisaged that economy passes through the stages of slavery, feudalism
and capitalism. These stages, in fact, represent transition of economy from agrarian
to industrial, following technological development. Later, W.W. Rostow’s thesis
also advocates that economy must pass through a historical evolutionary sequence
from one stage to another.

Walt W. Rostow’s Theory of Stages of Growth is the second variant of the index
approach. In The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto,
Rostow (1960) identified certain intermediate stages of growth within the gap
between the underdeveloped and developed world. All economies are considered
as going through five stages of economic growth, in the development from fairly
poor agricultural societies to highly industrialized mass-consumption economies.
These stages are as follows:

1) Traditional societies are those where the ‘production functions’ are limited;
and output per head is low and does not tend to rise because of inaccessibility
64
 of science and technology. Here family and clan groupings are emphasized. Perspectives on Development
Values are ‘fatalistic’ and political power is non-centralised.

ii) The second stage is the development of a set of pre-conditions for economic
‘take-off’. This is a period of transition in which traditional institutions
begin to change. The economy gradually gets geared to the using of modern
science and technology.

iii) ‘Take-off’ stage, where the old resistances to steady growth are overcome
and growth becomes the normal condition of the economy.

iv) ‘Drive to maturity’, which is the stage of the increasing sophistication of

the economy i.e. new industries are developed, there is less reliance on
imports and more exporting activities start. Profit maximization becomes
the need to survive.

v) Stage of high mass-consumption where there is an affluent population and

durable and sophisticated consumers’ goods and services. All the basic needs
are satisfied in this stage of society and more resources are utilized for
social welfare and security. There is an emergence of welfare state.

Aid should be given to economies at the pre-take-off stages to get them to take-
off stage. The necessary pre-condition for development refers to society’s
increasing efficiency to promote savings and generate capital, develop managerial
and entrepreneurial acumen of its people and make institutional and structural
reforms to cope with the new challenges of economic growth. The main flaw in
the gap approach is that it does not take into account the international structure
of development and underdevelopment, of which the domestic structure of
underdevelopment is only a part.

b) Diffusionist or Acculturation Approach

According to this approach, development occurs by the diffusion of cultural
elements from the developed to the underdeveloped countries. These cultural
elements may be identified as including capital, technology and institutions. The
less developed societies cannot be developed because they are not able to be
influenced by the changes in the developed world due to obstacles to development.

c) Psychological Approach
This rests on the assumption that it is values, motives or psychological forces
that determine ultimately the rate of economic and social development. One of
the most influential books in this genre is The Achieving Society by David
McClelland (1961), which argues a society with a high level of achievement will
produce energetic entrepreneurs who, in turn, will produce more rapid economic
development. A psychological characteristic, which he called, ‘n-Achievement’,
or the need for achievement, suited particular individuals for entrepreneurial
roles, which could be enhanced through ‘achievement motivation training’.

Like the diffusionist approach, this approach too doesn’t consider that any changes
are needed in the given social structure, to create conditions for economic
development. It appeals to individuals to transform themselves psychologically,
in order to hit the road of social progress.

65
Theorising Development Modernization theory, overall, undervalues the critical importance of traditional
societies and is highly Eurocentric. It depoliticises development by ignoring
diverse histories and culture. Current themes in Modernization theory focus on a
revaluation of tradition, not as obstacle but as resource. The trend is also on to
view modernities in the plural; and engagement with postmodernism.

5.2.2 Marxist and Neo-Marxist Approaches of Development and

Underdevelopment
There is an alternative set of approaches to study the social aspects of economic
growth in the modern world, [Link] the Marxists, who employ the method of
historical materialism. These approaches use the concepts of development and
underdevelopment in a way that questions the basic foundation of modernization
theories. Historically, the process of economic growth in the developed world is
necessarily accompanied by a process of underdevelopment of certain other parts
of the world. From this point of view, modernization theory provides an ideology
for imperialist domination.

Lenin’s writings links the process of capitalist development in the West to the
process of the worldwide imperialist expansion and establishment of an unequal
economic relation between capitalist countries and [Link] not all
dependency theorists are Marxist. Marxist Theory of Imperialism (as interpreted
by Lenin) explains dominant state expansion and why imperialism occurs. On
the other hand, dependency theory explains underdevelopment and consequences
of imperialism. The theories of underdevelopment are essentially dependency
theories. These theories are propounded by scholars like Paul Baran, Andre
Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein and H. Magdoff.

a) Dependency Theory
Dependency Theory came as a reaction to the modernization theory, viewing the
poverty of countries in the South as a product of their integration into the ‘world
system’.The origin is traced back to the notion of Dependencia among Latin
American economistsduring 1930s; UN Economic Commission for Latin America
(ECLA) during post-war period and works of Argentinian economist Raul
Prebisch. Historically it began with the establishment of international division
of labour, for which Third World countries acted as producers of low cost raw
materials and Western Europe as manufacturers of high priced finished goods.
This led to a relationship of unequal exchange which in turn led to further
deterioration in Balance of Trade. The exchange was unequal as power and surplus
value from labour flowed up; and control, ideology and expensive products flowed
down the chain.

Dependency is a historical condition which shapes world economy, rooted in

internationalization of capital. (Dos Santos 1971). It is an explanation of economic
development of a state in terms of external influences – political, economic and
cultural – on national development policies (Sunkel 1969). It has three features:
1) Dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two
sets of states: dominant-dependent / centre-periphery / metropolitan-satellite.
2) It assumes that external forces (foreign assistance, communication,
multinational corporations etc.) are of importance to economic activities
within the dependent states.
66
3) Relations between the two set of states are dynamic because the interaction Perspectives on Development
between the two reinforces and intensifies unequal patterns.

The main propositions of Dependency theory are:

Underdevelopment is different from underdeveloped. The latter is a condition
where resources are not being used. But underdevelopment is a state where
resources are actively used in such a way which benefits the core.

Poor countries are not poor because of lack of scientific transformations of

Enlightenment but because they are coercively integrated into European
economic systems as producers of raw materials.

This approach view underdevelopment of the less developed countries as a

consequence of the fact that the developed rich countries exercise dominance
and imperialist assertion over the former. Paul Baran pioneered the theory of
underdevelopment. In Dependency is Dead: Long Live Dependence and the Class
Struggle (1974), Andre Gunder Frank underlines the growth of class struggle
between the rich and poor nations, which would aggravate due to aggressive
policies of the former. Samir Amin’s contributions like Class and Nations:
Historically and in Current Crisis (1979), De-linking: Towards a Polycentric
World (1990), talk of role of rich countries in backwardness of the colonial
countries.

Paul Baran (1957) in The Political Economy of Growth , was the first among
the advocates of dependency theory. He viewed that capitalism, due to its inherent
characteristics, exploited the Third World. The capitalist world keeps the backward
world as an indispensable hinterland and extract the economic surplus.

Baran argues that the historical contact between the underdeveloped and
developed countries not only accelerated the decomposition of pre-capitalist
structures in underdeveloped countries but it also extracted an important part of
underdeveloped countries surplus; prevented the possibilities of industrialization;
conditioned class formations and distorted the development process to suit the
needs of the developed countries.

Baran clarifies that the most significant factor preventing the emergence of the
‘classical’ conditions for growth in the underdeveloped world, is not the smallness
of economic surplus, due to low volume of production and income. It is, rather,
the mode of utilization of the economic [Link] surplus is appropriated by
merchants, moneylenders and intermediaries of all kinds and there is exit of
capital from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production, besides other
obstacles baring the entry of mercantile accumulations into the sphere of industrial
production. Baran believes that the existing class structure of the Third World
countries has also been responsible for their dependent situation. The
underdeveloped countries, given an independent development, would have
initiated the utilization of their natural resources on their own and on terms more
advantageous than those received from foreign [Link] Baran, other
dependency theorists also argued that since western development had taken place
at the expense of the underdeveloped countries, the only solution for the latter
was to ‘break out’ of the imperialist system into socialism. Baran’s obsession for
the Socialist model of economic development makes him as utopian as Marx.

67
Theorising Development Andre Gunder Frank was influenced by Paul Baran and is a critic of
modernization theory. He rejects the theory of diffusion and also criticizes
McClelland and Hagen. He gives a metropolitan-satellite model, to describe the
features of a single, integrated, world-wide capitalist system. This model
characterizes the domination by industrial metropoles (USA) of the
underdeveloped satellites ( Mexico) through an expropriation of their surpluses
by the imposition of an export-oriented capitalist development. It applies not
only to the relations between developed and underdeveloped world, but also to
the relations between and within underdeveloped economies, and also within
the developed economies themselves. Examples can be Milan and Turin in Italy
as metropolises for Southern Italy and Sao Paulo (Brazil) as a metropolis for
surrounding satellites. In the case of developed countries, examples could be the
relationship between Scotland and Britain, or between Southern and Northern
USA. Thus, according to this model, each connection between a satellite and a
metropolis is a channel through which the centre appropriates a part of the
economic surplus of the satellites.

Frank has made a periodic presentation of the history of the world system. Both
the processes of development and underdevelopment started in the mercantile
period (1500-1770), carried through into industrial capitalism (1770-1870) and
ended with imperialism (1870-1930). Throughout the process, the colonies, semi-
colonies and neo-colonies existed primarily for the benefit of the capitalist
metropolis and as a direct result became underdeveloped.

Frank argues that the gap between development and underdevelopment is often
greater nationally than internationally, and also that the more underdeveloped a
country is as a whole, the greater is its internal development-under development.
He uses the term ‘internal colonialism’ to describe the domination by the
developed sector in an underdeveloped or developed country, over the
underdeveloped parts. He rejects the traditional Marxist argument that the reason
for the lack of development in agrarian underdeveloped countries is the persistence
of feudalism. Frank argues instead that the only way in which underdeveloped
countries can develop, is by breaking away from the capitalist system.

Thus, Dependency theorists believe that the Third World is not an area ripe for
development along a pathway taken by European countries (as modernization
theory suggests), but instead, is a subsidiary part of the Western capitalist system.
They have been criticised for giving a distorted structure of periphery economy
and society.

Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory

The important theorists associated with the World Systems Theory are Immanuel
Wallerstein and Samir Amin. This theory gives a historical account of the
underdeveloped societies. It emphasizes on international structure of inequality,
ignoring the importance of internal socio-economic structures; and focuses on
unequal exchange between the rich and poor countries. Dependency theorists
tend to focus on the power of transnational classes and class structures in
sustaining the global economy, whereas world systems analysts tend to focus on
the role of powerful states and the interstate system.

Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory is rooted in the work of dependency theorists

because like them, it seeks to explain the ‘development of underdevelopment’ as
68
a consequence of the growth of the capitalist world economy. It is a dialectical Perspectives on Development
process – development of the First World and consequentlyunderdevelopment
of the Third World. World Systems theory abandons national economies and
nation-state as a unit of analysis and believes that capitalism and its related
international division of labour, exploitation and inequality are organized not on
national-scale but on a world-scale. This results in inequality and backwardness
for periphery and progress and wealth for core.

World system is a self-contained social system, that has boundaries, structures,

member groups, rules of legitimation and coherence. The modern world system
followed the decline of feudal system and explains how the domination of Western
Europe emerged between 1450 and 1670. It is essentially capitalist in nature.
There two types of world systems:

1) World empires, which existed with a single political system. For example,
the Roman empire and British empire.

2) World economy, with a single, large axial division of labour with multiple
political centers and multiple cultures. Capitalist world system can
accommodate many different political forms (democracy, monarchy) and
different forms of production (slavery, feudalism).

Wallerstein posits a three-level system, consisting of the core, the periphery and
the semi-periphery, to analyse the capitalist system. This refers to nation-states
and the hierarchically ordered relations between them. The developed core
(England, France) refers to the area that appropriates surplus from the
underdeveloped peripheries (Brazil, Mexico). The existence of developing semi-
peripheral areas (Portugal, Spain) depolarise the system and contribute to the
continued existence of the system. They provide a check to the political assertion
of the majority peripheries against the minority core areas. These semi-peripheral
states ensure that the upper stratum is not faced with the unified opposition of all
the others because the middle stratum is both exploited and exploiter. Besides
the three categories, Wallerstein talks of ‘External Areas’, which maintain their
own economic system. The internal trade is given importance by the countries of
this region. Russia is the best example. The main criticism against the world
system thesis is that it is highly Eurocentric.

Samir Amin divides the world systems into two sectors: self-centred systems
and peripheral systems and talks of Unequal Development (1976). The countries
which are self-centred have their own internal dynamic system unaffected by
external relationships, whereas the countries on the periphery meet the
requirements of the centre. Amin is of the view that the Third World countries
are under direct influence of the capitalist world. Despite their own exclusive
modes of production, these countries, under the influence of western capitalism,
have almost similar capitalist nature of economy. For him, history of peripheral
capitalism is full of ‘short-term miracles’ and ‘long-term blocks’, stagnation and
even regression. In ‘Accumulation on a World Scale’ (1974), Amin talked about
disarticulation/distortion of economy and polarization of class interest on a global
scale, leading to a world proletariat against a world bourgeoise.

F. H. Cardoso criticises Gunder Frank and Wallerstein that their theories are
inadequate and [Link] ignore the indigenous social forces and
structural dynamism of industrialization in the peripheries and also the impact of
69
Theorising Development class struggles within the peripheries. Their views ignore the question of the
historical and structural particularities in different countries and provide an over-
integrated view of the world capitalist system.

Hamza Alavi, while writing about the structure of peripheral capitalism,

differentiated between colonial and non-colonial countries lie in their modes of
production. He argues that pre-capitalist structures are profoundly transformed
by the colonial capital and development of indigenous capital.

Dependence skewed the region’s social structure so that local power was held by
a small ruling class that used the gains from exporting for luxury consumption
rather than investment. Real power was exercised from external centres of
command in dominant countries. Dependence continues into the present through
international ownership of the region’s most dynamic sectors, multinational
corporate control over technology, and payment of royalties, interest, and profits.
Development could be achieved only by withdrawing from the world capitalist
system and reconstructing economy and society on a socialist basis.

Arghiri Emmanuel’s (1972)Theory of Unequal Exchange argues that the labour

is not as mobile across countries as the capital is. The natural consequence of
this is that the wages of labour in the West are not as low as in the less developed
countries. Due to lower rates of wages, the products in less developed countries
are cheaper than those produced by the developed countries. Thus, the Third
World is encouraged to produce more for export.

The current trend in dependency theory is the analysis and critique of NICs (Newly
Independent Countries). The approaches like new political economy and
international political economy, gives a renewal of dependency thinking.
Neoliberalism and uneven global development are current themes in this kind of
analysis.

5.2.3 Neo-Liberal Perspective of Development

With Enlightenment, liberalism developed in the 19th century in the West. As an
ideology, it has shaped the history of the world. Liberalism has stood out in
opposition to socialism and political absolutism and has been committed to the
principle of the self-regulating market. The ideals of classical liberalism, based
on the idea of laissez-faire, reappeared in the 1980s in the form of liberalization
and globalization of economic processes. According to the neo-liberal perspective,
economic growth can be achieved through structural reform, deregulation,
liberalization, privatization – all these roll back the role of the government role
and increase the intervention of the market forces. Development is market-led
growth and away from a statist approach to development. In other words, the
core meaning of ‘development’ is retained, that is economic growth, while the
‘how to’ and agency of development switches from state to market. Accordingly,
neoliberalism is an anti-development perspective, not in terms of goals but in
terms of means (Pieterse, 2001).

5.2.4 Alternative Development

Seen as ‘grassroot’ or ‘popular development’, and ‘participatory
development’,Alternative development is the critique of mainstream development
and provides a series of alternative proposals, practices and methodologies. The
70
alternative is referred to as alternative in relation to state and market. Here, Perspectives on Development
development should be society-led. This alternative development paradigm is
concerned with local development. Dependency theory and mainstream
modernization emphasize structural macroeconomic change, whereas alternative
development emphasizes agency, in the sense of people’s capacity to effect
change. Here the emphasis is on self-reliance and it privileges local and grassroot
autonomy. Latouche (1993) examines ‘three principal planks of alternative
development: food self-sufficiency; basic needs; and appropriate technologies’.
Elements of alternative development, such as participation, have increasingly
been co-opted in mainstream approaches. Its strength is its regard for local
development and social agency, from grassroots groups and social movements
to NGOs.

‘Alternative’ generally refers to three spheres – agents, methods and objectives

or values of development. According to Nerfin (1977), alternative development
is the terrain of ‘Third System’ or citizen politics, the importance of which is
apparent in view of the failed development efforts of government (the prince or
first system) and economic power (the merchant or second system). Thus,
alternative development is development from below. Here, ‘below’ refers to both
to ‘community’ and to ‘non-governmental organizations’. In other words, agents
of alternative development are community and NGOs. The development
methodology is participatory, endogenous and self-reliant. The main objective is
be geared to basic needs.

Alternative development perspective is strong on critique of mainstream

development and weak on alternatives besides decentralization and local
empowerment. The big hiatus in development now no longer runs between
mainstream and alternative development but within mainstream development.
Mainstream development now incorporates many alternative development
elements and practices.

Gandhian Perspective of Development can be seen as an example of alternative

development. It emphasizes on the indigenous technology in the process of
development and self-development over material prosperity. Real progress is
rooted in swadeshi. Gandhi gave importance to the development of villages and
rural industries, and argued in favour of self-development and self-reliance
through decentralization of control.

5.2.5 Human Development Perspective

Since long, development had been defined as growth, measured by means of per
capita GNP. Gradually development has been redefined as enlargement of people’s
choices and human capacitation (Sen, 1985) and as improvement in Human
Development Index (per capita income, life expectancy and education). Human
Development broadly refers to improvement in the overall human well-being.
According to Human Development perspective, development is the enlargement
of people’s choices. It is the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
which revived the concept in its Human Development Report (HDR) of 1990.
Mahbub ul Haq (1995) proposed a human development paradigm of equity,
sustainability, productivity and empowerment. It is the element of productivity
that sets this paradigm apart from the alternate development paradigm. The human
development approach now extends to gender (as in the Gender Development
71
Theorising Development Index), political rights (as in the Freedom Development Index) and environmental
concerns (sustainable human development).

Alternate and human development together represent a combination of local,

grassroots and state perspectives.

Feminist Theories of Development raised the additional issues of gender

relations, such as exclusion of women from suffrage and decision making,
decreased access to resources, health, nutrition and education. Feminists called
for empowerment of women as agents of development. Various forms of feminist
development theory dealt with varied concerns like WID (Women in
Development), WAD (Women and Development), GAD (Gender and
Development), WED (Women, Environment and Development) and PAD
(Postmodernism and Development).

5.2.6 Anti-Development Perspective

Anti-development and post-development perspectives came as a radical reaction
to the dilemmas of development. These approaches reject the idea that the North
has the right to administer development and democracy to the South. For them,
development is destructive and authoritarian. Development is rejected as cultural
imperialism, Westernization and homogenization and brings environmental
destruction. It is rejected not merely on account of its results but because of its
intentions, its worldview and mindset. (Pieterse, 2001). It has been concerned
with local autonomy, advocating local delinking. It has a nexus with ecological
liberation movements and resists globalization. Anti-development and anti-
globalization are becoming synonyms.
Check your progress
1) What are Modernization Theories?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

2) What are Dependency Theories?

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

72
3) Explain Alternative Development Perspective. Perspectives on Development

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

5.3 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we discussed the various perspectives of development i.e.
modernization theory, Marxist and Neo-Marxist approaches of development and
underdevelopment, neoliberal perspectives, alternative development, human
development and anti development. Different perspectives of development are
very well summarized in a tabular form by Pieterse (2001), as given below:
Theories and Current Themes Future Options
Definitions of
Development

Modernization Revaluation of ‘tradition’. Modernities

Development is state- Neomodernization. [Link]
led growth. Keynotes: Triumphalism. ‘End of
industrialization, history’.
Western model,
foreign aid, linear
progress, convergence

Dependencia Critique of NICs, new Critique of uneven

Development is international division of globalization.
underdevelopment (or labour, social exclusion. New
dependent political economy: brings the
development) by state back in. International
comprador bourgeosie; political economy: power and
or state-led autocentric economics. Uneven global
development development.
(associated dependent
development) by
national bourgeoise.

Neoclassical
Economics, Market failure, safety net, Regulation of
Neoliberalism human capital, infrastructure, finance. Civic
Development is good governance, economy
market-led growth. sustainability. Debt reduction.
Keynotes: overcome New institutional economics:
state failure through institutional analysis.
structural reform
(deregulation,
privatization,
73
Theorising Development
liberalization) and get
prices right

Alternative Adopted in mainstream. Social economy, social

Development Decentralization. development. Global
Development should Professionalism. reform
be society-led, Alternative
equitable, globalization.
participatory and
sustainable

Human Development Gender DI, Freedom Social and cultural

Capacitation or human DI, human security, capital. Social
resource development global reform development. Global
is the means and end reform
of development,
measured in Human
Development Index.

Anti- Local delinking. Localism

developmentDevelopment Connection with
is destructive, ecological movements.
immiserizing, Resistance to
authoritarian, globalization
[Link]:
discourse analysis,
critique of science and
modernity

Source: Pieterse, J.N. 2001. Development Theory. pg. 155, Table 10.

5.4 KEY WORDS

Trickle-down: This refers to the negative link between incidence of poverty and
the process of economic growth
Diffusion: The spread of elements of culture from one ethnic group to another
Globalisation: It is a process of integrating an economy with the world economy.
Globalisation involves unhindered trade flows, capital flows, technology flows
and, in an ultimate sense, unhindered labour flows among nation states

5.5 FURTHER READINGS

Peet, R. 2005, Theories of Development, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Pieterse, J.N. 2001. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

5.6 SPECIMEN ANSWER TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
1) Modernization Theories, that emerged in the post WWII period, are problem-
solving and policy-oriented theories of social change and economic
74
 development that wrote a kind of ‘how to develop’ manual for less-developed Perspectives on Development
countries.
2) Dependency Theories were theories of development and underdevelopment
that critiqued modernization theories and focussed on the structure of
unequal relationships and domination between rich and poor countries.
3) Alternative Development is the critique of mainstream development and
provides a series of alternative proposals, practices and methodologies. The
alternative is referred to as alternative in relation to state and market. Here,
development is seen to be society-led.

REFERENCES
Alavi, Hamza and Shanin, Teodar (ed.). [Link] to the Sociology of
Developing Societies, Macmillan Press.
Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal Development. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Baran, Paul. 1957. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Dos Santos, T. 1971. “The Structural Theory of Imperialism”. Journal of Peace
Research.
Emmanuel, A. 1972. Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. “Sociology of Development and Underdevelopment
of Sociology”. Catalyst. 3: 20-73.
Haq, Mahbub Ul. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoselitz, Bert. 1960. Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth. Glencoe. IL:
Free Press.
Latouche, S. 1993. In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-
Development. London: Zed Books.
McClelland, D.C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton. NJ: Van Nostrand.
Nerfin, Marc. 1977. Another Development. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold
Foundation.
Peet, R. 2005, Theories of Development, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Pieterse, J.N. 2001. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Rostow, W.W. [Link] Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist
Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambride University Press.
Sunkel, O. 1969. “National Development Policy and External Dependence in
Latin America”. Journal of Development Studies.
Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World System (Vol. 1). New York: Academic
Press.

75