Political economy of international development

International Development: Political Economy of Development:

Joseph's opinion

In the paper "Sustainable Development and Democracy in the Megacities," Jaime Joseph focuses on defining and explaining the notion of sustainability. He believes that the term implies limitation of the development for the better preserving of the natural resources, in order to prolong life on Earth.

Sustainability in low developed countries

Among the first ideas the author states regarding sustainability and the big cities is the relative unfairness between the developed and undeveloped economies. "The First World seems to be pressuring the Third World to do the limiting: reduce population, preserve rain forests, water, etc."(Jamie Joseph, Sustainable Development and Democracy in the Megacities, p.219) This means that the Southern regions of the globe would have to deprive themselves of the subsidiary items, helping to widen even more the gap between "the rich and the poor."

In regard to democracy, Joseph believes that the development process and sustainability contradict each other. Development should follow up a free willing course of action, whereas sustainability is being imposed, contradicting the rules of democracy.

Further on, Joseph states his belief that the word sustainability itself can have several "camouflaged" connotations, all of them meaning the limiting of the development. The idea alone of controlling the economical development is against democracy. Sustainability would bring about "limited democracy and authoritarianism."(Jamie Joseph, Sustainable Development and Democracy in the Megacities, p.224)

Siegle's arguments

Economic development makes democracy possible" (United States State Department's official web site) is the myth Joseph Siegle dispels in his paper "Why Democracies Excel." The author believes it is highly improbable for a country to be ruled in a democratic way when sustainability is being forced on it. Therefore, controlled economical growth and democracy are not possible together.

Democracy vs. Autocracy

Several followers of sustainability state that a low developed country has better chances of economical growth under an autocratic government. But "The data, compiled from the World Bank's World Development Indicators from 1960 to the present, reveal a simple truth: low-income democracies have, on average, grown just as rapidly as low-income autocracies over the past 40 years." (Joseph Siegle, Why Democracies Excel, p. 59) Even more, it has been proved that democratic economies register higher development ratios, a conclusion against sustainability.

Similarities and differences

The works of the two specialist both focus on a particular side of economic growth, sustainable development, meaning limitation of the natural resources used in daily activities. Similarities in the papers regard the points-of-view and the conclusions the authors have reached. The differences between the two works reside in the means of approaching the issue.

Similarities

Joseph and Siegle both agree that controlling the development of a country implies an autocratic government, limiting people's freedom of speech or opinion. Once democracy is lost, and autocracy is being installed, the chances for that country to develop diminish. People are no longer free, nor trusted or encouraged, therefore economic regression is prone to appear.

Differences

The main difference between the two papers regards the ways in which the topic was approached by the authors. Joseph looks at this situation from a rather general point-of-view (political, economical, environmental) whereas Siegle only studies it from the detailed political and historical points-of-view.

Moore's explanation towards the existence of fragile states fragile state is a state in which the governing power has either insufficient power or does not know how to assert it, resulting in low standards of life or even poverty. In today's world, most of these countries are located in the southern part of the globe.

Mick Moore, professor at the University of Sussex Brighton, believes that poverty in this area is mostly due to the "political underdevelopment." The failure to rightfully govern the poor countries is a consequence of the wide gap created between the poor and the rich economies on the globe; "the result of the ways in which state authority in the South has been constructed through economic and political interactions with the rest of the world." (Mick Moore, Political Underdevelopment, What causes 'bad governance', p. 386)

The above mentioned idea formulates the general argument in Moore's work. The specific argument is that "political underdevelopment stems to a large degree from what might be termed a 'disconnect' between states and citizens." (Mick Moore, Political Underdevelopment, What causes 'bad governance', p. 387). This actually means that the citizens of the LDC (Less Developed Countries) and the state itself are view as two opposite entities. They do not collaborate nor do they maintain business relationships. The state usually obtains what they need from their foreign partners and ignore the demands of the people. These all led to a clear separation of the powers in the state, diminishing its capabilities for further development.

Moore also points out seven crucial elements that he believes contributed to the economical decline of the Southern countries. These factors are: unnatural forming of the country, "incomplete state formation, history of external control, the declining cost of military superiority, international criminal networks, unearned state income, competitiveness of aid donors" (Mick Moore, Political Underdevelopment, What causes 'bad governance', p. 389)

Guidance for assistance to fragile states

Mick Moore states that external aid from the developed countries should be granted to the LDC in several forms. Among the solutions he proposes are: "better control of the trade in weapons, 'blood diamonds', tropical hardwoods and other commodities from 'tainted' sources; better regulation and more transparency in relation to offshore bank accounts; a reduction in the massive profits to be made from smuggling narcotics into the rich countries; and some transparency about the revenues that governments are actually obtaining from the sale of oil and other commodities on international markets." (Mick Moore, Political Underdevelopment, What causes 'bad governance', p. 410)

Cliff's and Luckham's points-of-view

Specialists Lionel Cliff and Robin Luckham agree with the need of assistance in the poor developed countries, but they are not as enthusiastic as Moore is. They first propose a clear studying and understanding of the political, economical and environmental governance. More importantly, they focus on a relevant history of the relationships between the LDC and the developed ones that aided them in the past. Before engaging in humanitarian activities in the LDCs, the rich countries need to analyze the UN documents regarding previous relationships with the LDC.

Further on, the two specialists advise on a clear understanding of the implications relationships with the LDC might have on both partners. Maybe the poor citizens do not want the help offered, maybe they do not need it, or maybe the help offered would cause them more damage than good.

Another point of interest in their work regards the war periods. Margaret Anstee, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General said in 1990 that: "the activities undertaken by outside actors - humanitarian relief, reconstruction, development - must be subject to and lead towards that goal if sustainable peace is to be achieved"(Lionel Cliff and Robin Luckham, Complex political emergencies and the state: failure and the fate of the state, p. 29). But Cliff and Luckham warn the aiders that they have no guarantee that once they had rebuilt the entire affected country, war won't break out again.

Cross-disciplinary approaches to development (Harriss)

John Harriss, professor at London School of Economics, wrote a paper focusing on the disciplinary side of development. Given the constant dispute on the advantages and disadvantages of strict discipline, Harriss tries to explain that discipline produces beneficial long-term effects. Moreover, discipline does not always have to be stern, but it could be slightly permissive.

In Harriss' opinion, a healthy disciplinary development system includes a clear and concise set of "rules, instructions and exercises" as well as a "healthy disrespect" for systems that break those rules. (John Harriss, The Case for Cross-Disciplinary Approaches in International Development, page 488)

The cross-disciplinary approach to development was brought to attention several years ago by anthropologists who believed that discipline existed from the beginning of time, being applied in all domains. Discipline in economics is believed to be the source of development and expansion. Having improved the methods of production and the usage of resources, countries were able to register representative economic growths.

The growing interest in sustainable development (S. M. Lele)

Sustainable development, or SD, is a term introduced in the specialized literature to define "sustained growth, sustained change or simply successful development" (S. M. Lele, Sustainable Development" A Critical Review, p. 607). Just as with any other concept, debates have taken place revealing both advantages as well as disadvantages of SD. The main advantage is the protection of the natural resources. The disadvantage of the greatest importance is the potential negative effect on the LDC (less developed countries).

S.M. Lele noted 5 significant meanings formulated on the SD agenda. These are as follows: "help for the very poor, because they are left with no options but to destroy their environment; the idea of self-reliant development, within natural resource constraints; the idea of cost-effective development using nontraditional economic criteria; the great issues of health control, appropriate technology, food self-reliance, clean water and shelter for all; and the notion that people-centered initiatives are needed." (S. M. Lele, Sustainable Development" A Critical Review, p. 611)

The main objectives of the sustainable development are to: revive growth, change the quality of growth, satisfy the basic needs for jobs and subsidiary services, ensure a sustainable level of population, preserve the resources, reorient technology and control risk, consider both economy and environment in the decision making process, and reorient international economic relationships. (S. M. Lele, Sustainable Development" A Critical Review, p. 611)

Connections between the two

Harriss promotes the idea of disciplined economics and governance based on rules. Lele promotes the sustainable development, again a form of governance based on a strict set of rules. The idea at the basis of these two theories is practically the same: governance, economy and the entire human behavior should be based on a set of rules previously elaborated to protect the interests of the participants as well as the environment's. In one word, discipline should be the one rule by which the world is to be governed.

Harriss's cross-disciplinary approaches development from a wider point-of-view: economical, humanitarian, academical, political and social. He explains the importance of discipline in all domains with examples in the scholar domain.

Lele's sustainable development is more concerned about a concrete aspect: correctly applying the rules of economics towards the protection of the natural resources on the planet. Economical growth and acquiring of profits should not be allowed if it meant damaging the atmosphere or the ozone layer.

Even if the causes for which these two economists militate are different, they promote the same idea: all actions should be based on considerations of rules and external environment.

Issues on conceptualizing poverty

To better understand poverty, its causes and consequences, Ravi Kanbur, professor at Cornell University in New York associated it with lack of education and health (both physical and mental). In countries where inhabitants have limited opportunities to educate themselves and where health is not properly guarded, economic regression is prone to install.

Kanbur also brings up the fact that a country's economical status can be identified through its participation to international trading. The amount of products a country exports compared to the number of imported products is an important factor in determining how poor a country really is.

Branko Milanovic believes that poverty in the Southern countries of the globe is strengthened by the globalization process. While the process affects the Northern regions of the globe by decreasing the number of available "middle-class jobs," in the south, children are being sent to work from very early ages and in miserable conditions (Branko Milanovic, The Two Faces of Globalization: Against Globalization as We Know It).