Article selections from the developing world reader

¶ … New Face of Development," Ronald Inglehart and Chrisitan Welzel's article, "How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know About Modernization," and Jack Goldstone's article, "The New Population Bomb: The Four Megatrends That Will Change the World." Essentially, each of these articles takes varying approaches in chronicling the history of development and the impact that it will have on the future. The overarching goal that is found in synthesizing each of these works is that the ultimate repercussion for development will involve a shifting of power from conventional Westernization to the emergence of developing nations leading the way in a host of vital areas such as population, workforce, and aspects of production including food and health care.

Lancaster's article alludes to this fact by examining the history of development since the close of World War II. One of the most vital factors during this nearly 70-year process is the Cold War, and the way that development occurred both during and after this global event. During the Cold War, of course, countries fostered development through a philosophy descended from dollar diplomacy (Trani, no date) by widely financing the governments of developing countries through those of developed countries -- which primarily consisted of the United States and Russia (which represented the interest of Europe). Moreover, the author details the nature of rudimentary attempts at development, which mostly consisted in reducing poverty and increasing the wealth and the political prospects of both of the aforementioned superpowers, the open market vs. communism. Following the end of the Cold War, the author argues, development increased accordingly due to fundamental changes in its nature, which included emergence of corporations providing funding and creating industries within developing countries, signifying a key compromise between traditional state vs. private interests that proved more efficacious than either (Lancaster, no date). The result is the impending eradication of poverty, or at least a serious reduction of it, and the fact that at some point developing countries will join the ranks of the developed. The author alludes to the fact that the completion of development will effectively place such countries as the majority in what was traditionally a Westernized-led world.

Inglehart and Welzel allude to some of the similar notions that Lancaster does, particularly in their examination of the role that the Cold World played in modernization. However, the central premise of this article is that the result of development, or modernization, is democracy (Inglehart and Welzel, 2009). The authors support their contentions by examining the history of several theories of development, including modernization theory, and alluding to the factionalism presented within the Cold War with the communist and democratic forms of government. Yet the most important aspect of this article, which appears fundamentally sound in its methodology as the several references to historical fact and empirical evidence indicate, is the ramifications of the democratization that modernization ultimately produces. The authors believe that democracy is the result of modernization, and that the result of democracy is a host of citizens more involved with all of the central aspects of their lives from politics to industrialization, production and financial means. This conclusion is in alignment with the notion that these developing countries will soon be developed, and will be in position to play a more substantial role in the future of the world.

Goldstone's article, interestingly enough, is unique from the other two in the degree of importance he ascribes to this influence of the third world or of developing countries. The author believes that the emergence of these nations will coincide with the decline of westernization -- quite literally. This is primarily due to what is arguably one of the principle effects of development: the facilitation of technology and improved medical care access that allows for the prolongation of life. People in North American and in Europe have enjoyed this boon for considerably longer periods of time than those in third world or in recently developed countries such as China. Therefore, the baby boom generation represents the first that will live longer as a generation, which means a greater percentage of its population will be retiring and require the care of younger people. Due to the population explosion, and the fact that many developing nations either have or are getting access to this same technology, their propensity for living longer as well (although they are younger) will mean they will have significantly more interest and hegemony in the controlling of the world's affairs. This cultural dominance, reflected in sheer numbers including the fact that only 17% of the world's population were accounted for by North Americans and Europeans in 2003 (Goldstone, 2010), lead the author to believe that developing nations will usurp the Westernized world in the future.

The principle problem with Goldstone's article, however, is his overreliance on future projections. The author bases many of his conclusions on future predictions and quantitative data for the year 2050 -- attempting to measure data and events that simply have not happened. As a result, his conviction is a lot less than that of the others of the other two articles, and his own reads like a paranoid attempt at augury. Still, this potential flaw in his methodology does not complete negate the rest of his points, namely the effects of development in developing countries and the increasing degree of influence they will play for posterity. As the numbers indicate, the Western World could never claim to dominate the earth in sheer numbers, but rather in science, technology and economics, which development has enabled for the world's denizens, who have not traditionally had those boons.