International Development: Shaping the mosaic
Conclusions
International institutions through their policies, treaties and conferences have played a significant role in shaping the “development mosaic”. All the various transformations that have taken plays within and outside International development bodies to define development can be well traced using this three words borrowed from James J. Hentz, that is; “realpolitik” based on “continental realism”, “Hamiltonian tradition” based on geo-economics, and finally “Meliorism”, primarily concerned with “humanitarianism” (Taylor and al, 2004). Ideas that build these three concepts have been used to justify frequent modifications and transformations that the development discourse has undergone within bilateral and multilateral development bodies.
The years after the Truman’s Speech could be considered as a period in which development laid emphasis on the need for radical changes in the Third World through capital infusion and the diffusion of modern innovations mostly from the west.
The 60s was considered a period of great optimism; proclaimed by the UN as the “development decade”, developers focused on a centralized economic planning to produce economic growth through industrialization and urbanization. During this period the Third World countries were accused for their state of “backwardness”. They were asked to change their attitudes and behaviors if they wanted to follow the path that leads to progress.
The 70s was characterized by great pessimism. All the promises of the development as modernization still had to produce its fruits. Dependency thinkers started talking of the “development of underdevelopment”. Sachs (1992) contends that, “in 1960, the northern countries were 20 times richer than the southern, in 1980 46 times”. The great criticism put forward against the modernization vision of development, brought to an alternative conception of development which asked for growth with equity. It asked for elimination of all existing blocks, the removal of poverty, and a focus on the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor and vulnerable section of the society. The president of the World Bank, McNamara, gave a direction to this vision in his report which distinguished between, relative poverty and absolute poverty.
The 80s focused on the SAP with greater focus on participatory decision making. This period was presumably characterized by plans to improve the industrial and agricultural powers of the Third World countries. Economic growth was still regarded as development despite the clear critics from scholars like Mrydal, Singer, Seer, and dependency theorists, who have argued that economic growth does not automatically brings development in Third World countries. Or to speak like André-Gunder Frank it may “develop underdevelopment”.
The late 80s and the early 90s was influenced by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the slow death of the ideological warfare between the US and USSR. The development discourse also took a soft bend. Governance and Participation became the conditionalities laid down by International Financial Institutions to grant any loan to demanding Third World nations. This new vision paved the way to “democracy”. The donors asked for a policy of less state and more market; supporting this policy with the argument that a free market will increase efficiency and production, and consequently bring development. This is not a new idea; it is just renewal of the economic centered vision of growth as development. The idea of governance and participation is well portrayed by the HIPC initiative and the drafting of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). These years have also been characterized by the cry for a sustainable use of the earth resources. The Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 of about 800 draw the road map for the sustainable use of the earth’s natural resources.
The year 2000 with the 11/9 attack of the twin towers brings the development debate under the influence of global terrorism. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation is based more on “axis”, and to foster policy interests, rather than on a firm intention to fight poverty. A clear example is the support given to dictators and oppressive regimes in Africa and Asia by superpowers. The holders of a veto power in the United Nations are simply using this illegitimate power to foster their interests in various corners of the world. War has become a bargain issue among these countries. For example, the impossibility for the UN Security Council the take a concrete decision to solve the conflict in Syria is quit emblematic.
The years after the Truman’s Speech could be considered as a period in which development laid emphasis on the need for radical changes in the Third World through capital infusion and the diffusion of modern innovations mostly from the west.
The 60s was considered a period of great optimism; proclaimed by the UN as the “development decade”, developers focused on a centralized economic planning to produce economic growth through industrialization and urbanization. During this period the Third World countries were accused for their state of “backwardness”. They were asked to change their attitudes and behaviors if they wanted to follow the path that leads to progress.
The 70s was characterized by great pessimism. All the promises of the development as modernization still had to produce its fruits. Dependency thinkers started talking of the “development of underdevelopment”. Sachs (1992) contends that, “in 1960, the northern countries were 20 times richer than the southern, in 1980 46 times”. The great criticism put forward against the modernization vision of development, brought to an alternative conception of development which asked for growth with equity. It asked for elimination of all existing blocks, the removal of poverty, and a focus on the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor and vulnerable section of the society. The president of the World Bank, McNamara, gave a direction to this vision in his report which distinguished between, relative poverty and absolute poverty.
The 80s focused on the SAP with greater focus on participatory decision making. This period was presumably characterized by plans to improve the industrial and agricultural powers of the Third World countries. Economic growth was still regarded as development despite the clear critics from scholars like Mrydal, Singer, Seer, and dependency theorists, who have argued that economic growth does not automatically brings development in Third World countries. Or to speak like André-Gunder Frank it may “develop underdevelopment”.
The late 80s and the early 90s was influenced by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the slow death of the ideological warfare between the US and USSR. The development discourse also took a soft bend. Governance and Participation became the conditionalities laid down by International Financial Institutions to grant any loan to demanding Third World nations. This new vision paved the way to “democracy”. The donors asked for a policy of less state and more market; supporting this policy with the argument that a free market will increase efficiency and production, and consequently bring development. This is not a new idea; it is just renewal of the economic centered vision of growth as development. The idea of governance and participation is well portrayed by the HIPC initiative and the drafting of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). These years have also been characterized by the cry for a sustainable use of the earth resources. The Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 of about 800 draw the road map for the sustainable use of the earth’s natural resources.
The year 2000 with the 11/9 attack of the twin towers brings the development debate under the influence of global terrorism. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation is based more on “axis”, and to foster policy interests, rather than on a firm intention to fight poverty. A clear example is the support given to dictators and oppressive regimes in Africa and Asia by superpowers. The holders of a veto power in the United Nations are simply using this illegitimate power to foster their interests in various corners of the world. War has become a bargain issue among these countries. For example, the impossibility for the UN Security Council the take a concrete decision to solve the conflict in Syria is quit emblematic.