Economic growth as development

The introduction of ‘development’ as a theory has led to different approaches. Many of these approaches, ranging from classical-traditional, alternative and bottom-up, radical-political economy to the dependency and historical- empirical approaches, have a dualism. This dualism is the division of ‘modern and western’ on the one hand, and ‘backwards and underdeveloped’ on the other hand (Potter et. al:2004).

Many of the development strategies, such as modernization and dependency theory, originate from the post World War II-period, and focuses on the weakness of the public sector, and how the public sector impacts the economic growth. These strategies are based on economist theorists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo (Potter et. al:2004). These theorists have inspired the neo-liberal strategy. This includes privatization of public owned utilities and a reduction of governmental economic regulation (Pollitt and Bouckaert:2004). During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, President of the USA, and Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, were influenced by this, and this lead to an increased role of market principles in the

53

public sector. These principles influenced also the Bretton Woods Institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF, who developed structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These adjustments were broadly speaking to reduce the public sector in the recipient countries, and to give room for the free market and private sector (Potter et. al:2004). Even though the state has had a central role in the development of Western countries, the preferred aid policy from Western countries over the last thirty years has been to reduce the role of the welfare state.

The main reason for this is that the welfare state is said to be the ultimate threat to the market system (Potter et. al:2004).

Economic growth can be seen as the quantitative change to create development. With economic growth, modernizations provide for increased consumption and providing basic needs (Potter et. al:2004). The core values of Western modernism (education, cities, industry, democracy, science, and judiciary) will enhance the economic growth and welfare. As I will show; there is power in defining the problems, and creating instrumental solutions.This power in defining the problem is especially visible in the ‘development’ term, which is seen to have several conflicting problems. Development is seen as a provider for economic growth, but can also create a dependent process. The national progress can improve, but the spatial

inequalities may increase. Development through western lines can undermine local cultures and values. It improves the provision of basic needs, and can create sustainable growth and good governance. Still it can be environmental unstable, and infringe human rights and undermines democracy (Potter et.al:2004).

The conventional debate about development has been based on authoritative intervention, where Western ideals are the guidelines for going from ‘underdeveloped’ to ‘developed’

(Scott:1998). The post-colonial growth theory was based on Keynesian¹ economy, which also was the foundation of the European recovery program, the political agenda of the US and the nationalist developmenatism. The planning systems, aid mechanism and economic growth models creating the background for planning growth in the global south, and to recapilate the historical experience in the West (Potter et.al:2004).

1 Keynesianism argues that the state needs to have a strong role in the market, in order to promote growth in capitalist systems (Potter et.al:2004).

54

Criticism to the conventional development theory began to surface in the 1960s. The eurocentricism in the development theory was particularly criticized. These westernized development theories continued to make the West as the beneficiaries, and the global south the ‘looser’ (Potter et. al:2004). One of the major criticisms of the eurocentric development strategies was that ‘development should come from below’. The diminishing role of the state became evident in the 1980s. However, there were also those who rejected development as a whole. The general thread of the post-developmentalist or post-structuralist is the language of discourse, and how the West has created ‘crises’ such as poverty, underdevelopment, and desertification. The actors behind the development discourse use their power to map and create solution in the Western ideology frame. Anti-developmentists put emphasis on the development from below, and the impact of new social movements as the actors of change (Potter et. al:2004).

This anti-development theory has certain similarities to the dependency theory of the 1970s, which also emphasized the power relations between the west and the global south, and how the former use their authoritive power to influence the latter. The criticism towards the dependency theory has been that it romanticizes and universalizes the lifestyles of indigenous people. It also overestimates the power of discourse. Even though the dependency theory is a creation of the criticism of the modernization theory, it is still based from Western ideology, and has also a creation of ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’. The change is how they from the debate and the definitions of what the causes of these problems are (ibid).

Since powerful discourses influence how we view the world, it will also influence policies and strategies. A powerful development discourse may create a homogenization of

development aid. This reflects a view of non-Western countries as the same, and that the basic need is development. Theories such as modernization and dependence ignore the differences between pastoralists in an African village and citizens in Asian states. This homogenization is a product of what the models are supposed to be used for - they are tools for practical

development policy, and the definition need to come with a practical solution. Poverty as a result of lack of development may be solved by technological solution. This way of defining poverty separates the richness in the Western world and poverty in the global south. The causes of this poverty are internal for the countries. From the beginning development aid has

55

been a political project, which is important to remember now that this policy has been depoliticized. In the start of development aid, poverty was viewed as representative of a different time zone, and that the countries in the global south needed technology to ‘catch up’

(Nustad:2003).