Theories of political development January 29, 2011 – 2:56 pm Posted in Uncategorized in Uncategorized Objective Level
There are two strands of learning I have drawn from considering the theories and history of political development: Firstly, when tracing ideas of political development in the 20th and 21stcentury, we see how the study of political development was born in the 1950s as the US and the Soviet Union contested over how economic growth could be achieved. Academic thinking has varied widely on how political and economic development come about. The “state planning” of Communist states was challenged by the US led modernisation approach with Rostow theorising about five stages of economic growth, five processes of political development that states must undergo in order to achieve “modernity.” (Ruttan, 1991, What happened to political development). Ideas of social evolution, social differentiation, secularisation, cultural modernisation and moving from traditional to modern dominated thinking about the processes of political development (Smith, 2003, Understanding Third World Politics). Politics). Criticism of the modernisation approach began to emerge though with the question of “whose ion theory was referring to and the validity of assuming progress” modernisat ion “tradition” equalled “backwardness” and an obstacle to development (Smith 2003). Modernisation theory was criticised for making assumptions about the homogenous nature of culture and tradition, the supremacy of Western ideals and the possibility of replicating the Western experience – whilst all the time failing to take into account the importance of the influence of external forces (Smith 2003). An alternative approach to political development grew out of what became known as dependency theory, where developing countries were seen as existing to support the development of rich countries. World capitalism and particularly trade were not seen as engines of economic growth, rather they were responsible for under developing the Third World (Ruttan 1991). Dependency theory also had its critics though as similarly to modernisation theory, it does not draw lessons from history. It doesn’t recognise that class relationships within developing countries can change and therefore influence the relationships with the metropolis (Smith 2003). Dependency theory also tends to focus on economics at the expense of politics, as well as being undermined by the empirical evidence of the growth and development seen within previously poor countries, particularly the East Asian tigers. Moving into the 1980s, the ascendancy of neoliberalism meant that an interest in political culture and the
politics of development evaporated, with the importance of the role of the markets in development being elevated to a seemingly unchallengeable position. Cracks in the neoliberal hegemony began to show by the early 1990s though and an interest in good governance began to appear. Thus began the rediscovery of politics in development. Neoliberalism was criticised for presuming that all countries were the same and underestimating the importance of a state’s political context. By the 21st-century, a post development, grassroots politics had gained prominence, with attempts to get politics away from the centre and put power into the hands of the people becoming more commonplace. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in political development – failed states and the importance of State building are very much on donors agendas, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the “war on terror”. If we can learn anything from the past 60 years of development, it would perhaps be that development is not a discipline in itself, it is a field of interdisciplinary studies. Secondly when examining the importance of political development as a process, different interpretations of its relationship with economic development and patterns of social organisation are revealed. North et el (Violence and the Rise of Open-Access Orders, 2009) discuss political development in the terms of the patterns of social organisation, or social orders which societies follow. States can be differentiated into foraging orders, limited access orders and open access orders. The importance of politics can be seen in the way these different orders control violence within societies, with open access orders enforcing rules in an impersonal manner and limited access orders, being formed on the basis of personal relationships between elites, therefore, controlling violence through power balances and negotiations between those elites. Both North el al and Ruttan believe that political development has a dynamic relationship with social and economic development. To North el al, political development creates new forms of social, political and economic organisation, which in turn, as illustrated in the example of open access orders, enables states to cope with shocks better. Ruttan believes economic and political development are a collaborative processes and therefore, the thinking should be more joined up, something which up until now, has not really been the norm. An interesting conclusion which Ruttan makes is in relation to authoritarian political organisation and economic growth. The dominant view has been that “good economics” is liberal economics, and therefore “good” governance is Western, liberal governance. Ruttan challenges this somewhat by concluding that when a state is at
the beginning of its development, authoritarian political organisation can facilitate rapid economic growth. It is only when a country is developed to a point of middleincome status, that authoritarianism becomes an obstacle to economic development. Emotional level
The session touched on the fact that there has been a “rediscovery” of the importance of politics in development. I do find it rather astounding that the importance of politics was ever “lost” – ever since I gained an interest in development, within a few weeks of starting work in Kenya, it’s always seemed evident that politics is the root of t he “poverty” problem. I remember hearing Bill Clinton’s campaign phrase from 1992 – “it’s the economy stupid!” The same phrase comes to mind when thinking of politics, poverty and development – my own version being “it’s politics stupid!” Reading through the various theories and frameworks, it is comforting to know that, despite their flaws – theories of political development actually exist! I find it frustrating though that political development was neglected during the 80s and 90s – considering development purely as an economic process to me seems illogical. On a human level, it can almost make you angry, because when you look at the failures of the 80s and 90s and the billions of dollars that were practically poured down the drain, you begin to imagine the billions of individuals who remained in poverty because of the “economic tunnel vision” of international financial institutions. I also find it frustrating how the “limited access orders” which North and et al refer to seem to be trapped somehow by the very mechanisms which enable them to exist. Yes – elite bargaining and dominant coalitions mean that there is some level of security, preventing anarchy from reigning, however, the rent seeking and monopolies which emerge from such personalised systems of rule mean many countries seem unable to cope with change or shocks or avoid those sustained periods of negative economic growth which the authors believe must be averted in order to achieve development. Limited access orders may bring about a good level of security but the means which they use to do this actually prevents them from making the transition to an open access order…it’s a frustrating circle to observe. Interpretive level Political development has been at the heart of social science – it is at the heart of the great political philosophers writings – the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim. The works of these authors cannot be underestimated in terms of their influence, not just on social science as a discipline, but on the way that states are run; on the way that societies have grown and developed and on the way political and social change has occurred. Therefore, if Marx, Weber, Durkheim and their contemporaries considered political development as a fundamentally important concern, it would seem that the
donor community should hold it as an equally fundamental concern, with this being reflected in their policies and programs. DFID’s development of Drivers of Change assessments and the USAID equivalent suggest this concern has been taken on board, but it’s important that concerns are not just reflected in the wording of policy but that they also come out in practice. USAID country governance assessments though reflect the donors strong association of good governance with democracy. In Ruttan (1991), Abbas Pourgerami, has a similarly positive view of the relationship between democracy as he believes that “democracy has a positive impact on economic growth.” This assertion would seem to be rather contentious as a country with one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, China, has managed to achieve this growth rate without democracy. Additionally, African countries which were part of the democratisation wave of the 1990s, may well have achieved more positive rates of economic growth, but whether economic growth can be interpreted as development is questionable when income inequality remains and is even increasing in many countries. What seems to be important when thinking about political development, and its relationship with the growth of the state and economic development, is to take as holistic and interdisciplinary approach as possible. Modernisation and underdevelopment approaches fell short in terms of their rather narrow focuses, to the exclusion of the analysis of important factors which influence the processes of political development. There is a danger that the rather overwhelming good governance agenda could begin to repeat some of the same mistakes, with its unrelenting focus on the requirements of the agenda overriding the importance of a particular country’s context and the reality of historical experience. Decision level
Applying today’s session, I’ve learnt that it’s important to consider process as well as outcomes. There has been a good deal of disagreement over the process of political development – from state planning to market led development; from modernisation theory to dependency theory; from the good governance agenda playing itself out today. Political development is a process – and ultimately must be grounded in more than theoretical concepts, it must be grounded in relevant, historical experience, something I will take on board whenever I consider what development interventions are appropriate in different countries.
What is political development? Examine various crises as identified by Lucian Pye. The origin of the term 'Political Development' can be traced to 1950's when a large number of American political scientists were attempting to study the political dynamics of the newly emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Huge amounts of statistical and quantitative data on the social, political, economic and demographic aspects of these nations were collected to analyze their attitudes, values and behaviour patterns. However, the term is still in the process of evolution and there is hardly any unanimity among the scholars on the constituent of political development. Such inconsistency is partly on account of inter-disciplinary focus and partly a manifestation of ethnocentric bases. 1. Daniel Learner in his "The Passing of the Traditional Societies, Modernization of the Middle east" equates political development with political modernization. W. W. Rustow treated political development as a typical phenomenon of the industrial society. He was of the opinion that the industrial societies are the patterns setters of political development for other societies. Edward Shils treated political development as nation state building. S.P. Verma has listed five categories of Shils stages of political development: L Political Democracy 2. Tutelary Democracy 3. Modernizing Oligarchy 4. Totalitarian Oligarchy 5. Traditional Oligarchy Kenneth Organski saw political development in terms of: Firstly, Political unification. Secondly, Industrialization. Thirdly, National Welfare. Fourthly, Abundance (material affluence). According to S.P. Verma "the greatest drawback of these studies was that they treated political development as a dependent variable, generated by something else, a worldwide wave of modernization, nationalism or democracy, and not as an
independent or intervening variable which in its own turn could shape things". Hence forth, political scientist sought to devise alternative meaning of development political. Gabriel Almond defined political development as "the increased differentiation and specialization of political structures and the increased secularization of political culture". Effectiveness, efficiency and capability were seen as benchmark of political development, referred by Coloman as "Development Syndrome". Lucian W. Pye, one of the outstanding experts on political development identified three levels, viz., population, government performance and organization of the polity; where political development could be observed. According to him, there are three essential attributes of political development. These are: Firstly, Equality: which signifies, -mass participation -universal laws -recruitment on the basis of merit rather than a scripture criterions. Secondly, Capacity: which signifies -governmental performance -efficiency and effectiveness -secular orientation Thirdly, Differentiation: which meant -diffusion and specialization of structures -division of labour -specialization based on integration S.P. Huntington sought to evacuate parasitic world of political development. According to S.P. Verma, "his criteria for political development were institutionalization of political organizations and procedures". He highlighted that political development is not a unidimensional phenomenon. Rather, the institution decay and dissolve and grow mature. F.W. Riggs gave the concept of development trap. His contention is that there should be balance between equality and capacity. An emphasis on the one will lead to neglect of another and get into 'development trap'. Criticism 1. There is no unanimity among scholars on the meaning, content and nature of political development. 2. There is a tendency to see political development in parasitic terms, as something dependent on other variables.
3. There is ethnocentric bias in much of the literature on political development. Political development is identified with political modernization and modernization is taken to mean westernization, by most scholars. 4. They fail to after a sound model for analyzing political process in developing countries. 5. It was a historical view in the sense that it role promoted anti-communist, proAmerican political stability as Robert Packehham has pointed out. 6. S.P. Verma accuses the western theorists of emphasizing order and stability at the cost of more general shared view on liberty or other value. 7. Most of the theories fail to articulate a integrated view of political development. As S.P. Verma has pointed out, "economic growth and political stability are not aims in themselves but means to something else". Evaluation of Debate on Political Development: Much of the debate on political development fails to arrive at conclusion due to (a) Unidirectional approach (b) different variables and (c) value preferences of the theorists. There is complete neglect of a country's history and its various political traditions. It has following implications: Firstly, they fail to see that development and underdevelopment are the two sides of the same coin. As S.P. Verma observes "It is this over-development on the part of one- third of the world (within which also large masses continue to live under conditions of under development) which is responsible, by and large. For the under development of the so called developing world. The situation can be resolved only if the third world countries decide to take a line of development better suited to their history, culture and genius as well as to fast changing international environment. Consequently, the concept of political development needs to be intertwined with the problems of economic backwardness and dependency. Secondly, the concept of political development needs to be evaluated in terms of the existing political orientation and larger objective of two political systems. It must not be something imposed from above. Only significant western ideals should be emphasised in this context. Moreover, these ideals have to be integrated with the socio-economic realities of the developing countries.
Thirdly, the stability of political system, though significant aspect cannot become the end in itself. The prospect of political system is severely paralyzed if it continues to suffer breakdown. Such problems are more pronounced in developing countries. Such problems can be better addressed; its national viability becomes an important variable of political development. According to S.P. Verma "A viable national system.... mean the existence in the nation state of a society in which the various groups are, more or less, congruent, in the sense that there is harmonious elite-sub-elite-mass relationship and the political elites drawing their moral and material sustenance from the society are able to use the human and natural resources available to them in an effective manner". Thus, the aspects of nation building as an ethical objective must take along the task of state building.
Political Development: Conceptual Explanation
Political development is a more elusive concept than economic development. It is more controversial in normative terms and more difficult to measure in empirical and operational terms. It is used frequently by both normative and non-normative or existential thinkers. Normative theorists stress that a political system develops as it approaches the good political order. They devote less attention to systematic statement of conditions which give rise to and maintain political development, and are more concerned with specifying ends and justification for having such political development. The existentialists spend more time on specifying the characteristics of what they regard as politically developed systems and the conditions and processes which give rise to them. Lucian W. Pye has vividly examined diversity in the explanation of the concept of political development. Political development has been variously explained as: 1. Political prerequisite of economic development; ADVERTISEMENTS: 2. The politics typical of industrial and advanced societies;
3. Political modernisation under which advanced nations are regarded as pacesetters; 4. The operations of a nation-state; 5. Administrative and legal development, it includes all colonial practices and authoritative structures; 6. Mass mobilisation and participation involving new standards of loyalty and demagoguery; 7. The building of democracy; 8. Stability and orderly change; 9. Mobilisation and power; and 10. One aspect of a multi-dimensional process of social change regards it unnecessary to isolate political development from other aspects coming under the total process of modernisation. ADVERTISEMENTS: There are other interpretations also, such as, national self-respect, attainment of dignity in international affairs, etc. But according to Pye, most of them create confusion. According to him, these various interpretations share some broad characteristics, which can provide the basis of agreement. He categorises them under three aspects and interlinks them in the form of development syndrome: (a) Spirit or attitude towards equality: It includes participation, universalistic nature, standards of achievement etc.; ADVERTISEMENTS: (b) Capacity of political system: ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is related to outputs: economy, performance of government, effectiveness and efficiency, rationality in administration, and secularisation of public policies; and (c) Differentiation: It involves increase of structures, institutions, division of labour, specialisation, followed by ultimate sense of integration. Thus, political development, according to him, is a three-dimensional process of equality, capacity, and differentiation. He admits that these do not necessarily or easily fit together. Rather, acute tensions and problems are generated by them. Pressure for greater equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation can reduce equality by stressing the importance of quality and special knowledge. His development syndrome is also unilinear. Problems of equality relate to political culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system. Capacity-problems involve the performance of authoritative structures of government. Problems pertaining to differentiation strike at the performance of the non-authoritative structures and the general political process in the society at large. In any case, political development revolves around the relationships between political culture, the authoritative structures, and the general p olitical process. Mehta opines that Pye interprets development by incorporating almost every conceivable feature of the American political system. Pye finds the developmentprocess as evolution of society from incoherent homogeneity to coherent heterogeneity, with capacity to solve developmental problems.
Alfred Diamant conceives it as a ‘process by which political system acquires an increased capacity to sustain successfully and continuously new types of goals and demands and the creation of new types of o rganisation.’ For this process to continue over time, a differentiated and centralised polity must come into existence. It must be able to command resources from and power over wide spheres and regions of the society. Almond visualises it as the acquisition by political systems of a new capability, in the sense of a specialised role structure and differentiated orientations, which together give a political system the possibility of responding efficiently, and more or less, autonomously to a new range of problems. Both Almond and Powell reiterate that
political development shows the formation of new capabilities, with specialised rolestructure and differentiated orientation which enables the political system to deal with new challenges. Hagan also finds it a s ‘the formation of new structures and patterns which enable a
political system to cope with its fundamental problems.’ Samuel P. Huntington characterises political development as ‘institutionalisation’ which can be applied both to past and present. For him, it is the development of institutions to meet people’s demands. According to him, this process of institutionalisation can go forward and breakdown and can decay as it has happened many times in the past. He wants to use it as a ‘value -free’ concept, applicable to all types of societies. However, Pennock and Smith put a caution that it should not be measured in terms of the ability of political systems to survive only but also to satisfy the demands of those who are subject to its rule. The system has to satisfy them with ‘political goods’. Riggs also concurs with him and observes that political development opens a number of choices to satisfy political goals.
