the field of development: background and issues

107

5

The Field of Development:Background and Issues

T he purpose of this and the following chapteris to present local-level development as a

field of international social work. This chapterprovides a brief introduction to the overall devel-opment field. It is a vast and complex field towhich many text and other books, along with awide range of journals and reports, are devoted.And while it is true that social workers are andshould be involved across the whole spectrum ofdevelopment work, given our focus on developingcountries in this text we have elected to concen-trate on but one aspect of this broad field, namelylocal-level development (grassroots level commu-nity development), for several reasons. First, themajority of social workers in developing countriesworking in the development field are focused onlocal-level development. Second, this is the level atwhich social work expertise most clearly applies,which is not to deny social work’s relevance atother levels. Third, the local level is the one mostlikely to be neglected both in the key texts ondevelopment and by many of those in the fieldresponsible for development work—especiallythose local levels where poverty is concentratedand marginalized populations are to be found. It

is, therefore, appropriate for all of these reasonsthat we focus our discussion at the local level.

We have elected to introduce development inthis chapter by presenting the various paths toachieving development, dividing these basicallyinto three categories, namely: imposed develop-ment, where agents external to the state playthe dominant role; state-controlled develop-ment, where development is a state-initiatedand directed process, often described as a top-down approach that focuses on macroeconomicand political policy, but with assumed implica-tions at the micro level; and externally assisteddevelopment, or the tendency for developmentin many contexts to be dependent on externalaid and investment.

Imposed development, as an ongoingprocess, is perhaps not all that relevant today,although there remain many who believe thatwestern countries control the developmentprocess to their own advantage (e.g., Monbiot,2003; Hoogvelt, 2001; Korten, 1995). Certainlywestern countries do wield considerable power,given the nature of trade, investment, and aidpatterns and institutional structures. However,

05-Cox-Pawar-4727.qxd 5/31/2005 6:06 PM 07

the relevance of imposed development liesalso in the legacy of colonial history, as is dis-cussed later. Externally assisted development hasconstituted a significant aspect of developmentsince the end of World War II and continues todo so. Most states, however, also play a crucialrole in their country’s development, despitetheir colonial or other heritage and the impor-tance to them of external aid; and many interna-tional agencies are involved in assisting states tostrengthen their development roles.

Following our brief overview of the nature of,and current issues associated with, these threecategories of paths, we discuss local-level devel-opment. This is presented partly as an alternativeto the above approaches but, more importantly,as an essential complementary approach that isall too often devalued. The following chapterthen presents some of the key programs andstrategies through which local-level developmentis pursued.

Global DevelopmentSince 1945: The VariousPaths to Development

In his excellent history of the “short twentiethcentury 1914–1991,” Eric Hobsbaum (1995) out-lines the extent and range of changes that

occurred around the world in the 1914–1991period. At the end of the Second World War, largenumbers of peoples lived under colonial controlin largely rural agrarian countries, where thenorm was subsistent living in extended familygroups having little contact with the worldbeyond. By the end of the century, all this hadchanged. The great majority of those subject tocolonial rule had secured independence, and thechanging fortunes of the greatly increased num-ber of states impacted significantly on the livesof the majority of people. Hobsbaum’s “goldenyears” of 1950–1973 (1995, chap. 9), with its mas-sive economic growth and rapidly expandingglobalization, while essentially belonging to thedeveloped capitalist countries, was in other waysa worldwide phenomenon affecting in variousways almost the entire global population. Muchof the developing world, sometimes graduallyand sometimes not so gradually, was becomingmore industrialized, more urbanized, more pop-ulated by individuals and nuclear families ratherthan extended families, more consumption-oriented, more engaged in various forms ofmigration, and more connected to global com-munication, economic, cultural, technological,and other systems. Its classes of well-educated ormiddle-class people, whose numbers were, inmany countries, growing rapidly, and its largeyouth populations were certainly increasingly apart of the global village, and the many others

108——INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WORK

Learning Objectives

To encourage readers to think about the major paths to international development followed overthe last 50 years, and to explain the importance of local-level development within the overalldevelopment process. Towards this end, the aim is to develop a beginning understanding of

• The legacy of past development trends, especially imposed development in the context ofcolonization and neocolonization.

• The various state-devised paths to development.

• The role in development of external aid.

• The need for local-level development.

05-Cox-Pawar-4727.qxd 5/31/2005 6:06 PM Page 108

who did not feel themselves to be a part of thatworld, and who were certainly not sharing inits affluence, were nevertheless being drawn intoits webs, for good or bad. On the positive side,for example, health and education levels rose,often dramatically, while on the negative sidemany peoples became increasingly subject to thevagaries of the global market place and financialcrises, and to the growing wave of political insta-bility and conflict, and to poor governance.

Many of the massive and widespread changesthat hit the developing countries were due totheir colonial past; others were the repercus-sions of changes occurring in the industrializeddeveloped world; others again, however, werethe outcome of a concerted effort to develop onthe part of many developing states, and a majordrive to facilitate that development by the devel-oped industrialized countries. Beginning withthe American Marshall Plan to reconstructEurope and the U.S. efforts to build a strongJapanese economy, along with the establishmentof the international economic agencies of theWorld Bank (WB) and International MonetaryFund (IMF), the development enterprise grewexponentially in the decades after World War II.Large sums of money were channeled intodevelopment through the international eco-nomic agencies, the various agencies of theUN such as the United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP) and the World FoodProgramme (WFP), the international aid pro-grams of virtually all western countries, and therapidly expanding number of nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) engaged in developmentwork. As Todaro (1997, p. 547) puts it: “Themoney volume of official development assis-tance (ODA), which includes bilateral grants,loans, and technical assistance as well as multi-lateral flows, has grown from an annual rate of$4.6 billion in 1960 to $58 billion in 1992.”

By 1999, however, the annual rate had fallenslightly to $56 billion; while in terms of developedcountries’ GNP, the percentage allocated to ODAhad declined steadily from 0.51 percent in 1960

to 0.29 percent in 1999 (Todaro and Smith, 2003,p. 648). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reportedin 2005 that, in 2003, a total of $69 billion hadbeen provided in ODA, and that only five (allEuropean) countries met the 0.7 percent of grossnational product (GNP) target set by the UN.This flow of ODA is in itself a highly controversialtopic. (See Goulet, 1995, on the ethics of develop-ment.) Concerns are frequently expressed regard-ing, for example, the proportion provided inloans with debt burden consequences (seeGeorge, 1988), the strings attached to muchODA, the use of ODA to influence developingcountries’ political and economic decisions,including the highly controversial structuraladjustment programs of the IMF, the amounts ofODA diverted from their goal by corruption, andthe dependency burden that can flow from ODA.ODA also has much to do with resulting inequal-ities (Seabrook, 1993; Thompson, 2003). Todaro(1997, pp. 551–54) and Todaro and Smith (2003,pp. 648–60) provide a useful discussion on whydonor countries provide aid and less developedcountries accept it. (On ODA, see also Randel andGerman, 1997, pp. 247–57.)

Development aid, post–World War II, gaverise to what some refer to as the developmentindustry. The UN, national governments, andothers embarked on a massive program ofdevelopment aid of various kinds; a large litera-ture was produced on the topic; and events gaverise to what Todaro (1997, p. 7) calls develop-ment economics. Arguing that developmenteconomics is not the same as the economics ofeither advanced capitalist nations or centralizedsocialist countries, he writes,

It [development economics] is nothing moreor less than the economics of contemporarypoor, underdeveloped, Third World nationswith varying ideological orientations, diversecultural backgrounds, and very complex yetsimilar economic problems that usuallydemand new ideas and novel approaches.

Global and Imposed Development——109


Todaro proceeds to analyze the meaningof development, the common characteristics ofdeveloping countries, and the nature of develop-ment economics, and we commend this analysisto social work students and practitioners. Itis helpful at this point to reproduce Todaro’s(1997, p. 16) definition of development in full:

Development must therefore be conceivedof as a multidimensional process involvingmajor changes in social structures, popularattitudes, and national institutions, as wellas the acceleration of economic growth, thereduction of inequality, and the eradicationof poverty. Development, in its essence, mustrepresent the whole gamut of change bywhich an entire social system, tuned to thediverse basic needs and desires of the individ-uals and social groups within that system,moves away from a condition of life widelyperceived as unsatisfactory toward a situationor condition of life regarded as materiallyand spiritually better.

We should appreciate that Todaro has arrivedat this definition after long involvement instudying and writing about development. Hasthe world achieved over the last 60 years thedevelopment implied in Todaro’s definition? Hiswork, and that of many others, shows that therehave been a variety of “paths to development”endorsed over the 50-odd years of post–WorldWar II global development efforts. Easterly(2002), for example, identifies and analyzes anumber of paths to development within what heconsiders to be an “elusive quest for growth.” His“paths,” however, are confined to economictheories of development. Other writers, like So(1990), present their discussion of “paths” interms of the various schools of developmentthought.

We have developed our own typology of pathsto development. It is not a comprehensive typol-ogy but rather one that enables social workers tobecome aware of certain trends and related issuesin this field, and also to enable newcomers to this

field to find their way around this complex andlarge literature and field of endeavor. We shallconsider the selected paths because a generalknowledge of each is highly advantageous toworkers involved in development, and particu-larly local-level development. We are not imply-ing that the paths discussed are inherently goodor bad, right or wrong: rather that each, apartfrom imposed development, represents animportant approach to development, oftendepending on whether that specific approach iscomplemented by other approaches adoptedsimultaneously or addressed in the past.

Imposed Development

Imposed development occurs where thecourse of development is controlled, or stronglyinfluenced, by outside players. We shall considerbriefly three forms of imposed development:that which occurred during the colonial period,that strongly influenced by neocolonialism—“the continuation of the colonial system inspite of formal recognition of political indepen-dence” (Hoogvelt, 2001, p. 30), and develop-ment imposed by the IMF’s StructuralAdjustment Programs. (See Hoogvelt, 2001, fora comprehensive critical analysis of the historyof the political economy of development.)However, we should recognize that the termhas also been applied to even the provision ofhumanitarian aid (e.g., Harrell-Bond, 1986,whose work on emergency assistance to refugeesis called Imposing Aid), implying that it can haverelevance at the micro level.

Development Under Colonialism

The colonial period occurred between 1500and, according to some analysts, 1973, withvarious phases identified during this period(So, 1990, pp. 208ff.). While colonialism and itsimpact are often discussed in generalities, asRandall and Theobald (1998, pp. 11ff.) pointout, it was in fact an “enormously varied experi-ence.” This variation, these authors suggest, was



due to three factors: the approach adopted bythe colonizing power, the nature of the preexist-ing society, and the way in which colonial ruleended (p. 12). Smith (1983, pp. 30–32) discussesthe differences between the colonizing powers,and this is obviously a very important factor inrecent developments in the former colonies,especially in Africa, while the manner in whichcolonial powers withdrew is frequently discussedas often problematic.

There are several characteristics of colonial-ism that should be noted (see Potter, 1992). Oneimportant point is that the establishment andmaintenance of colonies usually involved activeaggression towards, and the subjugation of, theinhabitants of the colonies (Hoogvelt, 2001). Asecond important point is that the boundariesand ethnic composition of many modern statesare a direct outcome of the colonial powersengaging in territorial demarcation (Smith,1983, p. 27). For example, in relation to whatoccurred in sub-Saharan Africa, Stoetz et al.(1999, pp. 44–45) write,

The European scramble for Africa was codi-fied into the configuration of nation statesthat endures today. In 1884, delegates from14 European nations met in a Conferenceof Great Powers, and the following yearthey signed the General Act of the Berlin Con-ference, formalizing the partitioning of sub-Saharan Africa. The Berlin Treaty choppedAfrica up into parcels according to the inter-ests of Europeans, completely disregardingthe ecological and social features that haddefined the continent for centuries.

A third important point is that the motivationof the colonial powers was largely economic, andthey proceeded to exploit their colonies for theirown economic purposes. They exploited naturalresources in many cases, such as silver andgold; and, after turning many nations into cashcrop–growing nations, producing products ofvalue to Europe and North America, they thenexploited those cash crops. So (1990, p. 112)

gives the example of India and the productionof cotton, while sugar, rubber, and bananas areother examples involving a range of countries. Afourth important point is that colonial adminis-tration created administrative structures that“were superimposed upon those of the sub-ordinated populations” (Smith, 1983, p. 29). Thisprocess commonly involved the use or creationof an elite, often being a specific ethnic or racialgrouping and thus creating a new “ethclass” (anethnic group with class status), or it couldinvolve the recruitment of an existing “nativeelite” (So, 1990, p. 114). In particularly the for-mer case, this frequently resulted in significantsocial divisions that were to come more andmore to the fore postindependence (Smith, 1983,p. 59), a tragic example being Rwanda, but forthe colonial powers it served as a mechanism forreinforcing their control (Smith, pp. 70–71). Onthis point in relation to sub-Saharan Africa,Stoesz et al. (1999, p. 45) write,

Europeans instituted a colonial administra-tion that was ruled by whites, but one in whichcertain tribes were selected for mediationwith the African population. Consequentlyfew Africans were to acquire even a rudimen-tary knowledge of how to govern a modernnation-state. Compounding matters, colonialpreference for certain tribes over others aggra-vated tribal jealousies.

By contrast, in colonial Malaya it was thecolonial preference for certain racial popu-lations, and in Ireland for a certain religion,that had similar consequences (Enloe, 1973).Malaysia’s “bumiputra policy” of 1970, thataimed at giving the native-born Malays 30 per-cent of the overall equity pie by 1990, was anattempt to reverse the trend established undercolonialism (see UNDP, 1996, p. 60).

Finally, we should note that colonialism wasalso responsible for certain forms of social wel-fare development (Midgley, 1995a, pp. 51ff.).Midgley notes that “colonialism had long beenconcerned with the exploitation of the natural



and agricultural resources of the colonies”(p. 52), but that “this situation began to changein the early decades of the twentieth centurywhen some colonial administrations introduceddevelopment plans designed to foster economicgrowth.”

He goes on to discuss the example of Britainand its Colonial Development and Welfare Acts,which “fostered the idea that the colonieswere . . . potentially viable economic entities intheir own right.” With this new thinking, gradu-ally the idea of linking “the expansion of thesocial services with the overriding need for eco-nomic development was generally accepted”(Midgley, p. 53). From an early stage in colonial-ism, however, an aspect of much colonial policywas its “civilizing mission.” MacPherson (1982,p. 45) quotes a British colonial policy statement:

There can be no room for doubt that it isthe mission of Great Britain to work contin-uously for the training and education of theAfricans towards a higher intellectual, moraland economic level than that which they hadreached when the crown assumed responsi-bility for the administration of this territory.

MacPherson goes on to present two casestudies, one the health services in Papua NewGuinea and the other social services in Tanzania.He concludes that the overall legacy of colonial-ism was dependency and underdevelopment(p. 72), while specific areas of welfare develop-ment had many deficiencies that continued afterindependence. For example, health policiesresulted in “curative bias, extreme maldistribu-tion of services, extreme inequalities in access,and the dominance of Western medicine”(p. 62). As Midgley (1981, p. 52) explains: “Socialwelfare services, which were established in thecolonies before independence, were based onpractices in the metropolitan countries.”Furthermore, “the social services in developingcountries evolved incrementally to deal not withabsolute need but to meet the growing demandfor health, education and housing, especially in

the urban areas” (p. 53). Hence the coloniallegacy in the welfare field was not one thatwould serve the former colonies well as theymoved beyond independence.

Neocolonialism Postindependence

The end of the colonial period did not, forthe most part, see the end of imposed develop-ment (see Hoogvelt, 2001). The phenomenon ofneocolonialism often meant that the extent ofexternal influence continued little changed. AsRandall and Theobald (1998, p. 11) point out,“experience of colonial rule in Latin America,where most countries gained their indepen-dence by the 1830s, explains less about theirsubsequent development than does continuingAmerican neoimperialism.” Imperialism (andneoimperialism), Hoogvelt writes “exists wher-ever there is deliberate transnational politicalinterference, including military interference, forthe purposes of the mobilization, extraction andexternal transfer of economic surplus from onepolitical territory to another” (2001, p. 160.)

This lack of change can be partly understoodon the basis of dependency theory (So, 1990,part II; Randall and Theobald, 1998, chap. 4;Todaro, 1997, pp. 82–84). As Randall andTheobald write,

It [dependency theory] holds that no societycan be understood in isolation from this[international economic] order and in factthe condition of underdevelopment is pre-cisely the result of the incorporation of ThirdWorld economies in the world capitalist sys-tem which is dominated by the developedNorth. (1998, p. 120)

In the case of Latin America, that dominationwas exercised largely by the United States. Thisneoimperialism, however, also comes about inpart because of the behavior of Latin Americanelites, although similar situations occurredworldwide. As Randall and Theobald (1998,p. 15) put it,



In Latin America and elsewhere, elite groupsare more oriented, economically and cultur-ally, towards North America and Europe thantowards their own countries. That is wherethey have their bank accounts, maintainbusiness links, own homes and send theirchildren to school.

In her discussion of “neo-colonial imperial-ism,” Enloe (1983, p. 55) quotes an African-American scholar:

A neo-colony is a colony that is no longerneeded as such. In the African situation, thismeant that the colonizer had completed hiswork of industrializing the territory. He haddisrupted the indigenous way of life of itsinhabitants, replacing traditional values withthose of the West . . . All that remained wasto establish the indigenous bourgeoisie, sym-pathetic to the Western culture which hadcreated it, at the political helm, and the coun-try would then be granted “independence.”The colonizers could then withdraw theirforces back home. They sit comfortably intheir living rooms, reaping economic gainsfrom all over the world.

In practice, many scholars (e.g., Hoogvelt,2001) seem to agree with this view that the endof colonialism represented a change largely inthe forms of western control, aided by thegrowth in neocolonial linkages with certainclasses within the former colonies. Most of thenewly independent countries continued to existunder a large measure of western control or in adependency relationship with the West, oftenresulting in limited or unbalanced development.

The World Bank’s and IMF’sStructural Adjustment Programs

Although many states are among the membersof the international economic institutions,namely the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, theseinstitutions are dominated to a large extent by

western states, and particularly by the UnitedStates. It is not, therefore, surprising that manypeople view these institutions as agents of theWest and thus of neocolonialism, imposingconditions on weaker countries even as they maydistribute aid to them. Todaro (1997, pp. 526ff.)and Todaro and Smith (2003, pp. 613ff.) outlinethe history and purposes of the various structuraladjustment and stabilization packages or pro-grams developed by the WB and IMF. While intheory of benefit to the countries receiving thepackages and to the broader world community,two aspects of these packages concern us here.One is that they are clearly imposed by the twoorganizations in question, for the price in reject-ing them is virtually impossible to live with. Thesecond aspect is that “they have been found tocontribute to rising hardships amongst the poor-est groups in developing countries”(Todaro, 1997,p. 530). (See also Stoesz et al., 1999, pp. 122–23;Simon, Spengen, Dixon, and Narman, 1995; Bello,Kinley, and Elinson, 1982; George and Sebelli,1994; Hoogvelt, 2001; Todaro and Smith, 2003,pp. 613–15.) Moreover, they have often fundedlarge projects, such as large dams, that haveresulted in ecological degradation and the invol-untary displacement of people without neededsupport. Not only, therefore, are they seen bymany to be a crucial aspect of western dominanceof the development process, especially duringtimes of crisis, but they are also seen to imposehardship on the vulnerable for the benefit pre-dominantly of outsiders to the country in ques-tion. (See Easterly, 2002, Chapter 6 for a criticalanalysis; and for some critical case studies, seeSimon et al., 1995 on Africa; and Bello et al., 1982,on the Philippines.)

Imposed development has been presented aslargely development imposed, in one sense oranother and to varying degrees, by externalpowers. The three types are summarized inTable 5.1. Of course, there is also a degree ofinternally imposed development emanatingfrom the most powerful sectors of a nationalpopulation, but at least in most such casespeople will eventually have a voice in their own



development. Such was not the case during thecolonial period, and supporters of one form oranother of dependency theory and of neoimpe-rialism would argue that this situation has notessentially changed in modern times.

State-Devised Development Policies

To some degree this path to developmentcontradicts the previous path of colonialism anddependency, but in practice not all countrieswere subjected to excessive external control;while in most other if not all cases, it was alwaysgoing to be in the end a balance between theinitiatives taken by those with responsibility forthe development of their state and the influencesexerted from outside. Ultimately successful

development is dependent on a state acceptingand exercising control of its own development,and, while colonialism prevented many statesor future states from doing so for a period, it isdoubtful that neocolonialism would constitutemore than an additional, yet highly significantfactor, that any state must take into account inan era of globalization (Hoogvelt, 2001,chap.10). If we accept this premise of stateresponsibility for development, this still leavesopen the precise path to development to betaken by any state, and the variations over thepast 50 years have resulted in considerabledebate. We shall consider the policies most com-monly adopted under four headings: macro-economic policies, political policies, humanresources development policies, and human


The WB’s and IMF’s StructuralAdjustment Packages

Major agents of neocolonialism

Countries have little say in thepackage and cannot escapefrom it

Large-scale projects causingecological damage and peoples’displacement with little concern totheir well-being

Lead to hardships amongst thepoorest groups

Western dominance in thedevelopment process

Benefit to outsiders

Dependency and economicgrowth without distribution

Colonialism

Cold or active aggression,violence, and subjugation

Territorial demarcationwith colonizers’ self-interest

Exploitation of colonies’human and naturalresources for colonizers’economic prosperity

Administrative structuresreinforced colonizers’control and divisions incolonies

Limited urban-centeredsocial services to achievethe above three points

Dependency andunderdevelopment

Neocolonialism

American neoimperialism

Domination by thedeveloped north countries

Colony elites’ strongaffiliation to colonizedcountries

Replacement of colonies’traditional values andpractices with those ofthe west

Ensuring economic gainsfor the west

Continuation of westerncontrol in different forms

Facilitate different degreesof instability in colonieswhen western control isthreatened

Dependency, limited andlinear development

I

m

p

o

s

e

d

D

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

Table 5.1 Imposed development


development policies, although clearly the areasindicated are ideally complementary, despite thefact that often commentators emphasize onearea over the others. The first three policy trendsare commonly perceived as state-led and top-down approaches, and hence criticized for thesereasons when excessive reliance is placed uponthem; while the last one is commonly presentedas an alternative, people-centered and bottom-up approach to development.

Macroeconomic Development

While macroeconomic policy in developingcountries is very much influenced by globalevents and often significantly assisted (somewould say distorted) by external aid, it is largelythe prerogative and responsibility of state gov-ernments. The success of macroeconomic devel-opment in developing countries has, however,varied greatly, as a perusal of World Bank andUNDP reports at any point of time make clear.This has led to considerable attention beinggiven to why some countries develop faster andfurther than do others. Much attention hasfocused on various factors perceived as relevant.Some studies stress a country’s location and nat-ural resource endowment; others attribute sig-nificance to cultural factors; others again focuson a country’s relationship with other economiccenters within the global economy; and in recentyears much attention has been given to thenature of governance, especially its freedomfrom corruption and inefficiencies and the qual-ities of those who lead it. Clearly, each and all ofthese factors, and no doubt others, can be highlyrelevant in determining state economic levelsachieved. (See Easterly, 2002, for a discussion ofmost of these factors.)

A second approach to understanding eco-nomic development has concentrated on thetheoretical level, seeking for models thatdemonstrate what it is that drives economicdevelopment. Todaro (1997, chap. 3, or Todaroand Smith, 2003, chap. 4) provides a useful sum-mary of this literature in his discussion of five

theories of economic development, namely thelinear-stages theory, structural-change models,the international-dependency revolution, theneoclassical counterrevolution, and the newgrowth theory. Let us outline briefly the essenceof these theories.

The linear-stages approach builds on work byRostow and the Harrod-Domar growth model.(See Todaro, 1997 and 2003, for explanationsof this work..) The approach envisages fivestages through which countries pass in theireconomic progress, with the key factor beingprevailing levels of savings and investment.

The structural-change models accept thatcapital formation is important but emphasizealso the establishment of a modern industrialsector.

The international-dependency revolutionargues essentially that the underdevelop-ment of many countries is due to a highlyinequitable and exploitative capitalist systemfavoring the rich and powerful states.

The neoclassical counterrevolution focuseson the importance to economic developmentof the neoliberal endorsement of supply-sideeconomic policies, and policies such as theprivatization of public corporations, encour-agement of free markets and trade, and theminimization of government regulation ofeconomic activities.

The latest theory, new growth theory,explains disparities in economic develop-ment by endorsing the neoclassical approachwhile focusing strongly on human capitalformation and the promotion of knowledge-intensive industries.

Todaro’s own conclusion is that all fivetheories have some credence, and that there isno one path to economic development. He alsoendorses the emphasis on the purposes to whicheconomic growth is put as being more impor-tant than the growth itself.



This last conclusion of Todaro’s is one onwhich it is important to dwell. Many writers,while fully acknowledging the importance ofeconomic growth, focus mainly on what followsfrom that growth or what that growth is usedfor. An interesting national example here comesfrom the state of Bhutan where state policyemphasizes not Gross

When we come to consider local-level develop-ment, we shall see that even in those developingcountries that enjoy reasonable levels of economicgrowth, the benefits of that growth are not equi-tably distributed, and so it often becomes neces-sary for local-level development to focus on theeconomic dimension through local job creationand income-generation schemes. At the sametime, local-level development will be focusing onhow the locality or group in question can gainaccess to the opportunities available throughmacroeconomic growth. Simultaneously, onehopes that, National Product but Gross NationalHappiness! Back in the 1980s, several prominentwriters were stressing the importance of “growthwith equity.” An excellent summary of such argu-ments is presented in the UNDP’s 1996 HumanDevelopment Report, which focuses on the rela-tionship between economic growth and humandevelopment. It highlights the all too commonphenomena of “jobless growth”; “ruthlessgrowth—where the fruits of growth mostly bene-fit the rich, leaving millions of people struggling inever-deepening poverty”; “voiceless growth—where growth in the economy has not beenaccompanied by an extension of democracy orempowerment”; “rootless growth—which causespeople’s cultural identity to wither”; and “future-less growth—where the present generation squan-ders resources needed by future generations”(pp. 2–4). The emphasis here is clearly on the real-ity that economic growth may be, and usually is,an essential aspect of development, but that it isnot sufficient unless balanced by, and comple-mentary with, other aspects of development (seeSen, 2001).from the other end, efforts are beingmade through capacity building, decentralization,and other policies to extend the outreach of those

goods and services and opportunities that are theproduct of economic growth.

Political Development

It is difficult in practice to distinguish eco-nomic policies from the political contexts withinwhich they emerge; hence to a significant degreeeconomic development mirrors its politicalcontext, whether that economic development isbeing driven by state decisions or is a product ofinternational domination by certain powers. Asan example of the role of political development,Stoesz et al. (1999, p. 13) consider three patternsof development that have emerged within theAsian context. The three are “the authoritariancapitalism of the ‘four tigers’ (Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), the marketsocialism upon which China has embarked, andthe welfare state capitalism being attempted inIndia.” An important point to note here is that,despite the political differences among thesethree examples, all of the countries referred tohave achieved high levels of development; anddifferences between them may well be due moreto the nature and history of each country than tothe precise nature of the political regime.

Other writers have explored the links betweendemocracy and development. While some writershave maintained that democracy is an essentialprerequisite to economic and social development,others point out that some democracies havefailed to develop while some nondemocracieshave progressed extremely well. As Diamond,Linz, and Lipset (1989, p. 33) put it: “democracyis not incompatible with a low level of develop-ment,” and they cite India, Sri Lanka, and PapuaNew Guinea. However, they go on to write,

This is not to deny the general positive correla-tion between democracy and development inthe larger world. Nor is it to ignore the pres-sures and props for democracy that derivefrom a higher level of socioeconomic develop-ment, with the expansion it yields in incomeand education, and thus political participation.



Does democracy then lead to development,or does development lead to democracy? (SeeSen, 2001, chap. 6.) The UNDP (2002, p. 3) con-cludes that “advancing human developmentrequires governance that is democratic in bothform and substance—for the people and by thepeople.” Or does development at least some-times require a stronger political hand to guideits progress than democracy often permits—apopular argument in some countries but one forwhich the UNDP (2002, p. 4) maintains there isno evidence? The debate raises the question ofwhat constitutes democracy. As Randall andTheobald (1998, p. 38) point out: “political sci-entists are finally acknowledging the historicallyand culturally exceptional and contingentnature of democracy in the west,” and thereforeaccepting that democracy can assume variousforms. They go on to say,

From the late 1980s, a vast literature hasemerged seeking to explain and evaluate thephenomenon of democratization both in theThird World and more globally. Partly for thisvery reason no single theory of democratiza-tion has gained ascendancy (p. 40). . . . [The]tendency to identify democracy with its west-ern, liberal, variant echoes the ethnocentricityof the earlier political development literature.(p. 44)

While the debate continues on the preciserelationship between political forms and devel-opment, there can be little doubt that theprocess of government is often as important asthe form, and there has, particularly since the1990s, been much concern with corruption andinefficiencies within many political systemsworldwide (e.g., Easterly, 2002, chap. 12; WorldBank, 1997). As Randall and Theobald (1998,p. 40) comment,

By 1989 the World Bank was calling for “goodgovernance,” though at this stage, the emphasiswas mainly on fighting corruption, promotingaccountability and efficient administration.

Increasingly, although never consistently, thecontent widened to include democraticaccountability through multi-party elections.

From this brief look at the political path todevelopment, we would have to conclude that,while the political factor plays an important rolein development, it is a factor that varies greatly inits impact on development. Moreover, it is obvi-ously only one factor in achieving development,and the degree of its importance will vary fromplace to place and from time to time. In additionto the above points, one way of appreciatingthe place of political development is to envisionsociety as composed of several sectors. The sectorof governance is clearly of importance, as also isthe economic or for-profit sector discussed ear-lier. In addition to these two, however, are the civilsociety sector and the sector which, in our view,constitutes the foundations of any society, namelythe sector of individuals-families-communities.The importance of civil society, and of its role inpolitical development as well as in other areas ofsociety, is stressed by many writers. Randall andTheobald (1998, p. 205) express it well:

The closer we approach the industrial era, themore civil society expresses itself in highlyinstitutionalized formal organizations suchas trades unions, professional associations,independent political parties, pressure groupsand other voluntary associations. Such bod-ies obviously played a crucial role in theemergence not only of modern democracybut of welfare state capitalism—a system inwhich the state in committing itself to under-writing the standard of living of the massesgenerates a degree of confidence in the pub-lic character of the state: that the state existsto serve civil society.

Political development cannot be imposed on anation by outsiders (highlighted again by interna-tional efforts to rebuild political systems post-conflict, as in Cambodia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq) or by minority


05-Cox-Pawar-4727.qxd 5/31/2005 6:06 PM 7

power groups within a nation; ideally it representsthe formalization of the aspirations and valuesof local communities, mediated through thestructures of civil society, which in turn holdsthe political system that emerges accountable tothe people.

However, political leadership, formation, anddevelopments at national, regional, and globallevels are often far from this ideal situation.Many political leaders receive their training inthe West, nurture allegiances with the West, andtransfer huge personal financial reserves to theWest. On the one hand, they often play withnation-building emotions of communities andthe masses and, on the other hand, they acceptimplicit and explicit interference in the politicaland economic development of the country, sim-ply to remain in power, irrespective of whetherthey have democratic, socialist, or communistforms of government. There are some politicalleaders and developments that resist westernhegemony and oppose external interference; andthere are others that change their internationalallegiances depending on circumstances. Politicaldevelopments, including leadership, have highlysignificant implications for national develop-ment, through the formation of blocs, interna-tional sanctions, global isolation, and externalinterference in national development.

Human Resource Development

The next path to development that we needto consider is human resource led develop-ment. Behrman (1990), in an ILO (InternationalLabour Organisation) document, poses the keyquestions:

To what extent is it possible for developingeconomies to change their comparativeadvantages from primary commodity andother low skill labour-intensive products tomore skill-intensive goods and servicesthrough the deliberate expansion of humanresources? To what extent is it desirable toadopt a human resource led strategy that

favours human resource investments throughpolicies beyond what would occur in thenormal course of development? (ExecutiveSummary)

Perhaps we should start with a definitionof two key terms. Todaro (1997, p. 697) defineshuman capital and human resources as follows:

Human capital: Productive investmentsembodied in human persons. These includeskills, abilities, ideals, and health resultingfrom expenditures on education, on-the-jobtraining programs, and medical care.

Human resources: The quantity and qualityof a nation’s labor force.

Both definitions have a strong economicthrust, understandable in a text on economicdevelopment. We shall suggest, however, abroader appreciation of human resources.

Human resources development is essentiallyfocused on investing in people. However, thisinvestment is for various purposes, achievedthrough a variety of programs, and undertakenby a range of development agents. One key pur-pose is economic development, as is implied inTodaro’s definitions above. Todaro argues that “acountry’s potential for economic growth isgreatly influenced by its endowments of physicalresources . . . and human resources” (1997,p. 33). He continues,

In the realm of human resource endowments,not only are sheer numbers of people andtheir skill levels important, but so also are theircultural outlooks, attitudes towards work,access to information, willingness to innovate,and desire for self-improvement. . . . Thus thenature and character of a country’s humanresources are important determinants of itseconomic structure.

In terms of the evidence of a link betweenhuman resources and economic development,Behrman (1990, p. 89) writes,



There seems to be some evidence about theassociation between human resource invest-ments and development, though there aresome outliers for which such an associationdoes not appear to hold very well (e.g. Cuba,Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Kerala in India,Brazil, Togo). But there is surprisingly littlesystematic quantitative evidence for theproposition that human resource invest-ments cause substantial development.

On the basis of the available evidence,Behrman is inclined to the position that, whileexpenditure on basic education and health isclearly warranted, other prohuman resourcedevelopments are probably not. Todaro’s pointabove, that many other factors come into play indetermining economic outcomes, is emphasizedby other writers such as Landes (1998). Landesfocuses on such factors as geography and cultureas significantly influencing final outcomes.

A further aspect of the link between humanresource development and economic develop-ment relates to people as consumers and partic-ipants. Economic development is contingent onfinding markets for products, either at home orabroad, and markets depend on people’s abilityand willingness to consume. This ability is influ-enced largely by people’s participation in eco-nomic development, while the willingnessrelates to cultural and value factors. So alongwith people’s direct contribution to economicdevelopment as productive assets, which wouldseem to rest on some human resource develop-ment efforts, human resource development is inreality required to render people active partici-pants in the economic process at all levels. AsMidgley (1995a, p. 159) puts it: “Investmentsin human and social capital are urgently neededif people are to have the educational levels andskills to utilize the opportunities created byeconomic development.”

A second purpose of human resource devel-opment is to facilitate political development. Ifpeople are to be active participants in the politi-cal life of their society they need, generally

speaking, to be literate and to enjoy reasonablehealth, and certainly to be free from having todevote all their time and energy to surviving.Hence, human resource development, that atleast serves to meet basic needs and to providebasic health and education, would appear tobe a prerequisite for political development.However, as Corner (1986, p. 14) points out,political considerations might also induce a gov-ernment to deliberately neglect human resourcedevelopment. She writes: “Particularly in respectto education, human resource developmentstrategies tend to promote political changerather than preserve the status quo,” leadingsome governments, preoccupied with maintain-ing their power, to shy away from it.

A third and very specific purpose of humanresource development is poverty reduction. Asthe World Bank (1990, p. 79) writes regardinginvesting in people,

There is overwhelming evidence that humancapital is one of the keys to reducing poverty.Moreover, improvements in health, educa-tion, and nutrition reinforce each other. Butthe poor generally lack access to basic socialservices. There is too little investment in theirhuman capital, and this increases the proba-bility that they and their children will remainpoor. To break this vicious cycle, govern-ments must make reaching the poor a prior-ity in its own right.

Corner (1986, p. 14) links poverty reductionto the political issue:

The political powerlessness of the poor isboth a cause and a consequence of thepoverty of their human capital. It must there-fore be recognized that a prerequisite of asuccessful human resource developmentanti-poverty strategy is a measure of politicalinfluence and that one inevitable conse-quence of success is an increase in politicalpower for the poor, a fact that may not beappreciated by many governments.



A final purpose of human resource develop-ment relates to the achievement of quality oflife for all people within a society (see Sen, 2001,pp. 144ff.). In this sense, human resource devel-opment is people-centered development thathas as its ultimate objective the overall quality oflife of all people. However, while a high level ofsocial service delivery accessible to all is funda-mental to human well-being, such enhancementof quality of life needs to coincide with eco-nomic development so that people have avail-able the opportunities which they are nowequipped to access. The UNDP (1996, chap. 3)has contrasted Sri Lanka’s high level of achieve-ment in the field of social service delivery, butlow level of economic development, with India’shigh level of economic development alongside alow level of social service delivery to many partsof the country, and especially to women. Clearlythese two levels of development need to comple-ment each other.

The achievement of human resource devel-opment is through programs mainly in the fieldsof education and labor force development,health and nutrition, and family planning.Considerable work has been devoted to identify-ing forms of education that will prepare peoplefor productive activity during their years ofworking age, and through formal and informaleducation programs and a system of lifetimelearning. Investing in health is regarded by theWorld Bank (1993, p. 17) and others as “a cru-cial part of well-being” but also “justified onpurely economic grounds.” The issues that ariserelate largely to the scope of such investment,the extent to which the “user-pays principle”(i.e., users pay for services rather than servicesbeing subsidized by the state) should be applied,and the core one of efficiencies and effectivenessembodied in the many alternative approachesto service delivery. Such issues are extremelyimportant but also exceedingly complex andsituation-specific.

The final aspect of investing in people is whotakes the responsibility. A survey of the literatureand experience in the field suggests that it is a

shared responsibility. At the highest level, theinternational community has sought to establishthe relevant rights, identify appropriate achieve-ment targets, establish basic criteria, suggestrelevant agendas for pursuing the various objec-tives, and offer technical assistance. At thenational level, responsibility tends to be sharedbetween the government sector, the for-profitsector, and the nongovernment not-for-profitsector. Within this overall scheme, the WorldBank (1991b, p. 69) and others tend to give togovernment the leading role, while exploringpartnerships with the other sectors. Individualsalso assume a role, however, as they invest inthemselves through education, health, and soon, in the expectation of higher economic andquality of life returns in the future. Moreover, wemight note that both neoliberal and neocon-servative thinking see the individual agent as ofcentral importance. (See Sen, 2001, chap.5, for afull discussion of this area.)

Human Development

Very early in the post–World War II develop-ment process, various commentators pointedout that development was too often viewed interms of its benefits for national economies,usually in terms of GDP and growth levels, orfor the corporate world, and too infrequently interms of its impact on people. Certainly by theearly 1980s, writers were arguing for an alterna-tive development paradigm. Korten and Klaus(1984) present this as people-centered develop-ment, of which the central concerns are “toenhance human growth and well-being, equityand sustainability” (p. 299). Roundtables onhuman development were organized in the1980s (e.g., Haq and Kirdar, 1985, 1987), refer-ring to human development as “the neglecteddimension” of development. A central themewas that “human development is both an inputand an objective of development” (Haq andKirdar, 1985, p. :xvi). These roundtables criti-cized the human impact of much economicdevelopment and argued for “redirecting policy



and planning toward the human dimension”(p. 3). The concept of human development,however, came into its own with the UNDP’sannual Human Development Reports commenc-ing in 1990. These reports argued that develop-ment should be “woven around the people”(UNDP, 1991, p. 1), or “of the people, for thepeople, by the people” (UNDP, 1993, p. 3), whileillustrating how much existing developmenttrends were detrimental to the well-being ofpeople. In particular, the UNDP argued againsteconomic growth that was not beneficial tothe people in several crucial ways (UNDP, 1996,pp. 2–4). In 1992, Friedmann (1992, p. 8) pre-sented an excellent overview of the “politics ofalternative development,” presenting alterna-tive development as essentially an ideology. Asimilar approach was adopted by Ekins (1992),although he placed a much greater stress thanmany did on ecological factors.

Midgley (1995a) highlights similar criticismsof past development trends in his discussion of“distorted development.” Midgley writes,

The phenomenon of persistent poverty inthe midst of economic affluence is one of themost problematic issues in developmenttoday. In many parts of the world, economicdevelopment has not been accompanied byan attendant degree of social progress. Thephenomenon is often referred to as distorteddevelopment. Distorted development . . .is . . . a failure to harmonize economic andsocial development objectives, and to ensurethat the benefits of economic progress reachthe population as a whole. (pp. 3–4)

For some writers, distorted developmentreveals a strong tendency to favor urban areas andtheir populations over rural areas, or some partsof the country over others, or some groupings(ethnic, racial, religious, class, caste, etc.) of thepopulation over others, or men over–women—thefrequently discussed gender bias in develop-ment (e.g., UNDP, 1995; Elson, 1995a; O’Connel,1996). Biased or distorted development is

commonly seen as resulting in major inequalitieswithin nations, and also between nations (e.g.,UNDP, 1996). Correcting distorted developmentwas commonly said to require a much greateremphasis on social development, and the WorldSummit on Social Development (UN, 1995) andmuch other work strongly affirm this point. Forexample, Midgley’s (1995a, p. 8) succinct defini-tion of social development is: “a process of pro-moting people’s welfare in conjunction with adynamic process of economic development.” ForMidgley and most writers, some basic degree ofeconomic development was an essential prereq-uisite to human development; and this basic levelof economic development has often not beenachieved, as the World Bank’s World DevelopmentReports regularly reveal. Easterly (2002, p. 291)argues that “the problem of making poor coun-tries rich was much more difficult than wethought.” There is no panacea for poverty and nosingle economic strategy for achieving growth.Yet the urgency of the quest remains: “The well-being of the next generation of poor countriesdepends on whether our quest to make poorcountries rich is successful” (Easterly 2002, p. 15).

Few writers have seen social or human devel-opment as an alternative to economic develop-ment but rather as complementary; in one senseas rectifying the frequently unfortunate conse-quences of economic development, and inanother sense as addressing other aspects ofhuman well-being or dimensions of develop-ment (see UNDP, 1996, chap. 3).

This linking of human or social developmentwith economic development became for manyan integrated model of development. Stoeszet al. (1999) present an “integrated model ofdevelopment” as the final chapter to their texton development. Their model (p. 263) is takenfrom the UNDP’s 1996 Human DevelopmentReport. However, various UN documents wereemphasizing the importance of integration atleast as early as 1971, when one report referredto integrated development as “an attempt toachieve a balanced growth in the human andmaterial resources of nations” (United Nations,



1971, p. 8). This particular UN report stressesthe importance of community developmentgenerally, and of people’s participation in partic-ular, for achieving this goal. The notion of anintegrated approach to development was a logi-cal and commonsense conclusion to any realisticanalysis of the impact of development. Yet manypoliticians, economists, and others clearlybelieved that, if the economic house was inorder and economic growth being achieved,other dimensions of development, such associal, cultural, and ecological, would take careof themselves. This manifestly false assumptionof a trickle down effect has been difficult toshift and tends to be reinforced today by theneoliberal or conservative ideology. The need toemphasize the focus on human developmenttherefore remains extremely important.

Externally Assisted Development

While most state-devised development hasoccurred with some degree of external assistanceof various kinds, the focus here is on develop-ment that is predominantly funded and drivenby external assistance. It is important to focus onthis path to development because of its overallsignificance since 1945, and because in manyways it tends to negate the key principles uponwhich our approach to development is based,especially the principles of self-reliance, partici-pation, and empowerment. External assistance,in general terms, can be described as foreign aid,which Todaro (1997, p. 546) defines as follows:

The concept of foreign aid that is now widelyused and accepted is one that encompasses allofficial grants and concessional loans, in cur-rency or in kind, that are broadly aimed attransferring resources from developed toless developed nations on development orincome distribution grounds.

Foreign or development aid can take variousforms. On the basis of the channel throughwhich aid is provided, aid can be divided into

multilateral aid (e.g., provided through a bodysuch as the UN), bilateral aid (government togovernment), and aid channeled through theNGO sector. On the basis of type of aid, it can bedivided into aid provided to government bud-gets generally, project aid (tied to the imple-mentation of a specific project), food aid, andhumanitarian aid (aid in crisis situations such asnatural disasters and wars).

It is assumed that most developing countrieswill require aid to some degree and for someperiod, although some countries have soughtto develop without external assistance (e.g.,the People’s Republic of China). It is furtherassumed that only the western developed indus-trialized countries and Japan are rich enough toprovide aid to the extent usually required.However, a key question that arises is: whyshould any country provide aid to another? Onewould like to think that the main reason is whatRieff (2002, p. 43) calls “the humanitarianimperative—that when people are suffering,even if they are strangers, it is our collectiveobligation as human beings to come to theiraid.” While Rieff is here referring to humanitar-ian aid, the same rationale could be applied todevelopment aid provided to eradicate povertyand enhance human well-being. Rieff (p. 57)comments further on this point:

What we now call humanitarianism, ourancestors called charity. The idea that it is amoral obligation of the more fortunate toassist the less fortunate and that those whoare in need may legitimately expect help isone that is normative in all the world’s majorreligions. Call it altruism, call it pity, call itsolidarity, call it compassion, but the impulseto help is so deeply rooted in human culture,that, whether it is intrinsic or learned, it canrightly be described as one of the basichuman emotions.

Without necessarily negating this point ofview, especially as it applies to the majority ofaid workers, most commentators proceed to



voice considerable cynicism regarding themotivation for states providing aid (e.g.,Easterly, 2002, chap. 2; Cassen, 1994, p. 136;Hoogvelt, 2001. pp. 191ff.).

Todaro (1997, p. 550) summarizes donorcountry purposes for providing aid as follows:

Donor countries give aid primarily becauseit is in their political, strategic, or economicself-interest to do so. Some developmentassistance may be motivated by moral andhumanitarian desires to assist the less fortu-nate (e.g., emergency food relief programs),but there is no historical evidence to suggestthat over longer periods of time, donornations assist others without expecting somecorresponding benefits (political, economic,military etc.) in return.

Hayter and Watson (1985, pp. 242ff.) elabo-rate on the self-interest aspect by suggesting thataid is used “to reward friends and penalize ene-mies,” “to open up markets,” to finance projectswhich are “essential for the profitable operationof foreign investors,” and to enable private firmsand banks “to get rid of otherwise uncompeti-tive products.” Even more sinister, Hoogvelt(2001, p. 191) refers to Mark Duffield’s view that

the new aid agenda reverses earlier develop-mentalist goals of “incorporation” of periph-eral areas into the world system, and insteadnow serves as a policy of management andcontainment of politically insecure territorieson the edge of the global economy.

These are common themes, although clearlynone of them should be used to generalize aboutthe purposes of aid. However, the self-interestmotive appears to be validated by the way inwhich aid is allocated. As Todaro (1997, p. 549)points out, one might expect it to be allocated onthe basis of relative needs, whereas “most bilateralaid seems unrelated to development priorities.”Eurostep (a network of NGOs from Europeancountries) and ICVA (the International Council

of Voluntary Agencies), in agreeing with thisview, spell it out as follows:

Over 3000 million people live in Low IncomeCountries with per capita incomes below$675 a year. In 1990, these Low IncomeCountries received 62% of DAC ODA[aid provided through the DevelopmentAssistance Committee of the OECD and theEU]. By 1994, these countries’ share of aidslipped to 53%. In 1995, low income coun-tries received barely half (51%) of total ODA.A smaller share of a smaller cake. (Randeland German, 1997, p. 248)

The figures are indicative of the fact that aidis not allocated on the basis of need at all, withdisproportionate shares going to those countriesof greatest political interest to a donor country(see Todaro, 1997, p. 549). And, as the end of theabove quote states, overall amounts of aid havebeen declining in recent years, partly due towhat Krueger, Michalopoulos, and Ruttan(1989, p. 305) refer to as “aid fatigue.” (Initially,ODA grew greatly in volume but has, since theearly 1990s, decreased both overall and as apercentage of donor countries’ GNP, as detailedearlier in the chapter.)

All the indications are that the poorest coun-tries can place minimal reliance on aid to assisttheir development; and that, even when manypoor countries do receive aid, they will have dif-ficulty securing it on terms that are appropriateto their development needs and goals.

Given all the perceived deficiencies in thedevelopment aid program, one might wonderwhy developing countries are willing to receiveaid, let alone to become dependent upon it.Todaro (1997, pp. 554ff.) suggests one major andtwo minor reasons. The major one is economic,due to developing countries accepting uncriti-cally the proposition “that aid is a crucial andessential ingredient in the development process.”The two minor reasons are political and moral:political, in that “aid is seen by both donor andrecipient as providing greater political leverage



to the existing leadership to suppress oppositionand maintain itself in power”; and moral in that“many proponents of foreign aid in both devel-oped and developing countries believe that richnations have an obligation to support the eco-nomic and social development of the ThirdWorld.” Hayter and Watson (1985, pp. 245–46)emphasize Todaro’s political reason.

What then can we conclude regarding theoverall impact of aid? Cassen (1994) surveyed alarge sample of aid activities in seven countriesand concluded that the impact of aid is broadlypositive, but far from perfect, and that it seldomrelieves poverty. Reasons for the inadequaciesof aid are seen to relate to donor policies andprocesses, recipients’ weaknesses, and an overallfailure to coordinate the many aid projects. Inthe humanitarian aid context, Rieff (2002)concludes: “We know that aid too often doesnothing to alter—and very often reinforces—the fundamental circumstances that producedthe needs it temporarily meets” (p. 24); and:

independent humanitarianism does manythings well and some things badly, but thethings it is now called upon to do, such ashelping to advance the cause of humanrights, contributing to stopping wars, andfurthering social justice, are beyond its com-petence, however much one might wish itwere otherwise. (p. 334)

Even at the purely economic level, there is adebate regarding aid that is well expressed byTodaro (1997, p. 556):

On one side are the economic traditionalists,who argue that aid has indeed promotedgrowth and structural transformation inmany LDCs. On the other side are critics whoargue that aid does not promote fastergrowth but may in fact retard it by substitut-ing for, rather than supplementing, domesticsavings and investment and by exacerbatingLDC balance of payments deficits as a result

of rising debt repayment obligations and thelinking of aid to donor-country exports.

Todaro expresses the hope that, in the future,the probably lower volume of aid will be gearedmore to the real development needs of recipi-ents, and that enlightened self-interest may yetcome to include a focus on “eliminating poverty,minimizing inequality, promoting environmen-tally sustainable development, and raising levelsof living for the masses of LDC peoples”(pp. 557–58), but he acknowledges that thispoint has not been reached. Finally, an IMFreview of aid states the overall impact of aid inthe following stark terms:

Simply put, over the past 30 years, the vastmajority of developing countries—84 out of108—have either stayed in the lower-incomequintile or fallen into that quintile from a rel-atively higher position. Moreover, there arenow fewer middle-income countries, andupward mobility of countries seems to havefallen over time. (Curtis, 1997, p. 13)

While most commentators on aid are criticalof many of the realities they identify, this doesnot mean that they reject the concept of aid ashelpful in the development process, or even asessential to the development process (e.g.,Cassen, 1994, p. 14). Some criteria seen as neces-sary to render external aid of real assistance todevelopment are emphasized by those sameauthors who have misgivings about aid. Curtis(1997, pp. 10–11), for example, remind us thataid is but one aspect of the complex relation-ships between donor and recipient states,

Aid is only one part of the relationshipbetween developed and developing coun-tries. International trade, investment, conflictprevention and debt relief are far moreimportant for determining the opportunitiesfor equitable human development in an eraof globalisation.



Krueger et al. (1989, p. 308) emphasize theimportance of dialogue between donor andrecipient states resulting ideally in some conver-gence of views. They concede, however, thatsuch dialogue is often adversely influenced bystrong donor interests:

When donor interests strongly influencethe flow of aid resources, the effectiveness ofpolicy dialogue is reduced. Donors find itextremely difficult to utilize policy dialogueto promote better policy in the recipientcountry when the representatives of that gov-ernment are aware that the security or tradeinterests of constituents in the donor countrycarry more weight than the policy reformobjective. (p. 309)

What these writers are out to achieve is anappropriate economic policy environment inthe recipient country, without which any aid isunlikely to make a significant contribution todevelopment. The writers, however, do haveclear views as to what constitute such an envi-ronment, namely “an outward-oriented strategyand rapid growth of exports” (p. 307).

Other writers maintain rather that it is theright of developing countries to determine thedirection of their economic and social policies,and any pressure on the part of donors, whetherstates or institutions such as the World Bank, isunacceptable.

A further criterion that may determine theultimate outcome of aid is the specific purposesto which the aid is put. There has been debateover the efficacy of funding large infrastructuredevelopments, especially if such are either ill-conceived (e.g., some massive dams or inter-national airports), or geared to enhancing thestatus of an individual leader or government, orto promoting the interests of potential foreigninvestors in that country. An example of a policydesigned to encourage a beneficial approach toaid is the 20:20 Compact conceived at the 1995World Summit on Social Development (see

UNDP, 1997, p. 113), by which aid is used toenhance the provision of social services. “Thiscompact calls on donors to commit 20% of aidresources and on recipient governments to com-mit 20% of public expenditures to the provisionof basic services” (Curtis, 1997, p. 9).

This could be seen as implying that aid shouldbe made available on the basis of certain condi-tions being met, in this case a commitment toincreasing basic social services as an antipovertyand human resources development strategy.Recently, in 2003, the Australian governmentannounced that it would consider making aid toPacific countries conditional on countries showinga commitment to eradicating corruption in gov-ernment. How feasible or ethical is such a policy?

Overall, we might conclude that the provi-sion of aid should always be strongly influencedby the prevailing situations existing in recipientcountries—the opposite to the perceived ten-dency to relate aid largely to situations andagendas existing in the donor countries.Prevailing conditions could include the situa-tions in relation to governance, economic policy,poverty levels, social services provision, politicalstability, and so on, the intention being to ensurethat the aid provided would be beneficial, gearedto development needs, and appropriate in typeand conditions applied. When aid is providedalong such lines, the obvious consensus amongcommentators is that it is highly likely to make asignificant contribution to the developmentprocess in the countries concerned and evenglobally. However, there remains clearly adilemma as to the extent to which donors can orshould exert influence over the ways in whichaid is utilized by recipients.

Local-Level Development

All of the paths discussed to this point havelargely involved the macro level of society, andhave been aspects of what is commonly referredto as top-down development undertaken largely



by the institutions of the state. By contrast, theessential focus of the local-level path to develop-ment is on the individuals-families-communitiessector of society—the micro level, and representsbottom-up development. Bottom-up develop-ment came to be seen as either complementaryto or a correction of the uneven impact of top-down development. It was never envisaged as analternative path to other forms of developmentundertaken by state institutions; indeed to thecontrary, state institutions were commonly seenas possessing the ability to facilitate local-leveldevelopment while engaging in development atother important levels. Friedmann (1992, p. 7)writes in relation to this point,

Although an alternative development mustbegin locally, it cannot end there. Like it ornot, the State continues to be a major player.It may need to be made more accountable topoor people and more responsive to theirclaims. But without the State’s collaboration,the lot of the poor cannot be significantlyimproved. Local empowering action requiresa strong State.

Early discussion of the local-level develop-ment path was often in terms of communitydevelopment. As a UN (1971, p. 1) report puts it:“After approximately 20 years as a UN-supportedprogram, community development has gainednearly universal recognition as a force for induc-ing social and economic change in developingcountries.” This community development wascarried out by workers deployed by either gov-ernments or NGOs. Of great interest was the factthat many governments very early on establishedlarge-scale community development programs,such as in Korea, Tanzania, India, and Mexico;however, much of this work was seen in hind-sight to possess significant shortcomings (Doreand Mars, 1981; Campfens, 1997; see alsoChapter 4). Many scholars in the developmentfield regarded this early community develop-ment thinking not only as too top-down but

also as too idealistic, in part because it regardedcommunities as natural units of organization(Esman and Uphoff, 1984, p. 49). In addition,many evaluations of state-run community devel-opment schemes were critical of them becauseno trust was or could be developed between theworkers, funded and deployed by the state, andthe peoples among whom they worked. Thesecriticisms led in some quarters to a growingemphasis on local institutional development asan alternative to community development.Uphoff, one of the scholars to do this, explainsthat “local” can be community but can also begroup or neighborhood or several communitiestogether (Uphoff, 1986, p. 10). His model (p. 11)identifies three local levels—locality, community,and group. The development approach is then towork with existing local institutions, defined as“complexes of norms and behaviors that persistover time by serving collectively valued pur-poses” (p. 9), and promoting local institutionaldevelopment where and as necessary (see alsoEsman and Uphoff, 1984).

Other writers, from at least the early 1970s,have referred to local-level development interms of NGO involvement in small-scale pro-jects. Cernea (1989, p. 124) suggests that thesesmall-scale NGO programs were basically ofthree types:

1. small production-oriented projects (e.g.,the establishment of a tree nursery by awomen’s group and the construction of asmall tank irrigation system);

2. production support service projects (e.g.,building a village or group storage facilityor a road and setting up a village-to-market transportation service); and

3. social service projects (e.g., a health room,a community hall, an ambulance service, asports terrain, or a house for a teacher).

In all these approaches, the basic principle was“putting people first” (Cernea, 1991; Chambers,



1983; Ekins, 1992), engaging in people’s capacitybuilding, and thereby facilitating a bottom-updevelopment process. There was also always astrong focus on participation. David (1993, p. 11)summarizes the overall approach as follows: “Thepeople are the motivating force and a local,people-oriented development strategy is the sinequa non of human development today.”

It is stated above that local-level developmentis in many contexts complementary to, or a cor-rection of the more macro top-down approaches.It is, however, often more than this. If we recallMidgley’s (1995a) discussion of distorted devel-opment, we shall appreciate that it is very easy andvery common for prevailing national (and eveninternational) development trends to favor certainlevels, sectors, or geographical areas within anation. For example, development frequentlyoccurs in the interests of the advancement of theemerging middle-class, urban sector, or in moreproductive and better located geographical areas.While often well-intentioned, inevitably suchtrends result in impoverished and undevelopedareas. This situation is aggravated if the advan-taged sections represent an ethnic, racial, or reli-gious grouping that is clearly distinguished fromthe bypassed populations. In such cases, distorteddevelopment is not only driven by economicdevelopment models that favor urbanization,industrialization, and wealth generation, but alsoby a desire to advantage a specific ethnic groupover others while preserving their power base.

It will be obvious that the above types ofscenarios render essential a focus on local-leveldevelopment, for several reasons. First, there isthe reality that macro level development oftendoes not trickle down to certain populationsand areas, or will take so long to do so that gen-erations will languish in poverty. Local-leveldevelopment may be all the development thatthese people will see, assuming that it occurs.Second, if local impoverished and marginalizedpopulations are to battle for access to or a shareof macro level development, they may need tobe strengthened through people’s capacity

building, organized through local institutionaldevelopment, and empowered through partici-pation in the process of local-level development.Third, active local-level development shouldbring the needs, if not the very existence, of suchpopulations to the attention of those sharingin the benefits of existing development, andespecially of those guiding it, so that a changeprocess is initiated within the actual develop-ment models and goals of the nation, and notjust in the rhetoric.

The need for local-level development is obvi-ous, so obvious that one might be led to ask whyit is not a major component of development indeveloping countries. There are several reasonswhy the prevailing local-level development situ-ation in many poorer countries has not devel-oped beyond some isolated local projects. First,we should not underestimate the difficulty ofworkers functioning effectively in many con-texts, whether nationals or expatriates but espe-cially if outsiders. Living conditions can be hard,working situations often unsupportive, povertyand various social problems deeply entrenched,local levels of negativity and suspicion high, andthe local resource base available on which tobuild very limited. Second, there exists no ready-made potential pool of already trained workers.Any locals who have been upwardly mobile maybe very unwilling to return to work in theirimpoverished area of origin; many nationalswho qualify in social work, development studies,and so on may well prefer the easier and morelucrative work opportunities in the more devel-oped areas; and most expatriates may well seesuch work as beyond their cultural, social, andeven professional competence. The only viablesolution may be to recruit, train, and deploylocally. Third, national authorities and rulingclasses may essentially not be in favor of liberat-ing disadvantaged populations, or even ofdiverting national resources to them. While thismay in part reflect basic group selfishness, itmay also have strong political and group rela-tions overtones. Finally, many of the poorer



nations do not receive sufficient aid andinvestment, are too burdened by external debt,and are too held back by poor governance andinternal divisions and conflict to be able or will-ing to devote resources and energies to local-level development among the poorer sections oftheir populations. It is for these reasons that thesituations in both poorer countries and poorerareas of relatively well-developed countries willdepend, for some time to come, on the ability ofeither the international community or nationalgovernmental or international nongovernmentorganizations to devise appropriate programs oflocal-level development. International socialwork should be able to make a significant contri-bution to this goal, at the international, national,and local levels.

Conclusion

Katherine Kendall, a preeminent leader in theearly development of international social work,wrote the following in the preface to one of thefew social work texts on international develop-ment (Stoesz et al., 1999, p. ix):

International development is seen as oneof the most pressing human welfare issues ofthe day. Despite the enormous strides thathave been made since World War II in lifeexpectancy, reduced infant mortality, nutri-tion, annual income, and education, theprocess of development has left untouchedmillions of people who live in absolutepoverty.

Yet the social work authors of this text makevirtually no reference to the role of social workin the international development field, and veryfew schools of social work incorporate manyaspects of this field in their curricula. However,schools of social work are starting to teach socialdevelopment, and to see community develop-ment as a key dimension of social developmentand so crucial to the development process. Yetfew of these schools report optimistically onstudents’ responses to this field of practice.

In this background chapter on internationaldevelopment, we have sought to introduce thereader who is new to this field to the variouspaths that development has taken. Statisticalaccounts of the development progress of allcountries are readily available from the WorldBank and UNDP in their annual World Develop-ment and Human Development reports, whilemore detailed national reports are also producedregularly by the World Bank and the regionalbodies of UN/ECOSOC. There is indeed a wealthof literature on development generally, but muchless on local-level development that also outlinesthe way in which social workers and others mightcontribute to that process. We have concludedthis chapter by focusing on local-level develop-ment as the dimension and level of developmentto which social work skills are most readilyapplied. In the following chapter we shall presentsome of the key approaches and strategies thatsocial workers and others can use in this context.What we wish to stress here, however, is theimportance of social work adopting this field ascritical to the well-being of millions of people,and as one to which social work can respond andshould be responding.




• Since World War II, many countries have experienced various degrees of development andof social, economic, and political change.

• Many countries have been subjected to imposed development through the processes of col-onization and neocolonialism, such as the WB’s and IMF’s Structural Adjustment Packages.

• Macroeconomic development theories—the linear-stages approach, structural change mod-els, international dependency revolution theories, neoclassical counterrevolution theories,and new growth theory—have influenced the development policies and realities of manycountries, often with adverse effects. There is no one path to development. Important lessonscan be learnt and useful aspects employed from all theories.

• Political developments play crucial roles in the development process. Genuine democraticprocesses, people’s participation, good governance and good leadership irrespective of polit-ical form, balance of power issues, and political stability are all important aspects of politi-cal development.

• The path of human resource development not only facilitates economic development butalso political development, poverty reduction, and improvements in quality of life.Responsibility for this development has to be shared at local, national, and internationallevels.

• Human development is at least as important as economic development, and should berecognized and practiced.

• To facilitate development, many countries receive external aid that is sometimes gearedtowards the needs of donor countries. External aid has been reduced in recent years andcome under considerable criticism from the perspectives of geopolitical and economic inter-ests. External aid for development is important, but the culture and politics of aid shouldaddress the felt needs and prevailing conditions of receiving countries. It also should bedirected to those countries that need it most.

• Without local-level development, macro development strategies cannot be fully andeffectively realized.

Summary

• What values should underpin the development process?

• Discuss the phenomenon of imposed development. What do you understand by the term?

• How should we understand development, and what roles can and should an “internationaldevelopment enterprise” play in a country’s ongoing development?

• Which of the various paths to development would you emphasize for a country’s develop-ment process, and why?

• What should be the role of external aid in development and what are currently the majorissues with it?

• What potential is there in local-level development when actions taken at other levels areineffective or even counterproductive?

Questions and Topics for Discussion



• Select a country or region with which you have some familiarity and trace its developmenthistory, bearing in mind the various paths to development. Consider the paths taken interms of development outcomes (as measured by the WB or UNDP).

• Study the pros and cons of aid-dependent development, perhaps with a specific country orregion in mind, and determine, on the basis of your analysis, what role it should play.

• Examine a country’s (or a small region within a country) development process over a periodin terms of adherence to, or departure from, the integrated-perspectives approach (presentedin Chapter 2).

• In a selected context, identify the barriers involved in preventing either external aid or macrolevel development from permeating through to the local level.

Possible Areas for Research Projects

Further Reading

Easterly, W. (2002). The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in the

tropics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hoogvelt, A. (2001). Globalization and the post-colonial world. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Isbister, J. (1991). Promises not kept: The betrayal of social change in the third world. West Hartford,

CT: Kumarian.

Stoesz, D., Guzzetta, C., & Lusk, M. (1999). International development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Todaro, M., & Smith, S. C. (2003). Economic development (8th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.

UNDP. (1996). Human development report: Growth for human development. New York: Oxford

University Press.


the field of development: background and issues

Documents