Perspectives of Development in the 1970s

In the mid-1970s when the ideological battle between modernization and dependency theories began to dissipate, there emerged a variant of dependency theory known as

world-system theory whose main proponent was Immanuel Wallerstein. This theory has a lot of similarities with dependency theory; it basically covers the same ground with dependency theory in practice, and is often cited together (Petras, 1982; Barrett and White, 1982; Koo, 1984; Gills, 1995). Both dependency and world system theories ―stress the importance of considering national economic development within a global context, rather than just concentrating on individual countries,‖ also, both ―have a strong historical basis‖ (Willis, 2011, p. 80). However, the main demarcations are that while the unit of analysis of dependency theory is the nation-state just like the modernization theory, that of the world-system theory is the world system; also, while the theoretical structure of the former is bimodal (core-periphery), that of the latter is trimodal (core-semiphery-periphery); while the direction of development of the former is deterministic, indicating the dependency is harmful, that of the latter implies ―possible upward and downward mobility in the world economy;‖ and finally, while the research of the former focuses on the periphery, that of the latter focuses ―on the periphery as well as the core, the semi-periphery and the world economy‖ (So, 1990, p. 195). Semi-periphery nations refer to nations which are midway between the core and periphery and with tendency of approaching industrialization and a more diversified economy; they emerge from either the developing peripheries or the declining cores (Halsall, 1997). They possess peripheral-like relations to the core, exert control over some peripheries and act as intermediaries between cores and peripheries thereby playing ―a key role in the functioning of the system‖ (Chirot, 1977, Barfield, 1997;

Halsall, 1997; Lechner, 2001; Hettne, 1995, p. 139). Countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa came under semi-periphery as at 2000; as at 2007, they included countries like Malaysia, Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate and Tunisia (Dunn, Kawana and Brewer, 2000; Babones and Alvarez-Rivadulla , 2007; Sheppard, et al., 2009). According to

Willis (2011), the countries of the semi-periphery are not fixed; over time, they are able to move in and out of categories depending on their economic situations.

In the world-system theory discourse, Wallerstein (1974, p. 347) states that the world system is a social system in which ―life within it is largely self-contained‖ and in which ―the dynamics of its development are largely internal.‖ This ―implies an internalization of the external factor‖ thereby solving a dependency theory ―problem of external versus the internal‖ (Hettne, 1995, p. 140). Wallerstein, (1976) insists that the modern world-economy is, and only can be, a capitalist world-economy which is external/exogenous to the attainment of development of the periphery; he goes ahead to state that capitalism has been able to wave about precisely because of the world-economy that comprises a heap of political systems. Accordingly, it is claimed by the theory that ―it is a function of the social organization of work, one which magnifies and legitimizes the ability of some groups within the system to exploit the labour of others, that is, to receive a larger share of the surplus‖ Wallerstein, (1976, p. 349). Therefore, in the world-system perspective, ―the process of underdevelopment started with the incorporation of a particular external area into the world system; i.e the peripheralization‖ (Hettne, 1995, p. 140). The only agent of change in the theory is the core countries while the periphery countries are viewed as a

―pliable material in the hands of the all powerful imperialist nations‖ (Kiely 1995, p. 51). In its classical form, this concentrates far more on the inevitability of external/exogenous factors with respect to foreign investment or capitalism on the periphery (Sanderson, 2005).

In the 1970s, there emerged another perspective in the modern discourse of development known as alternative or another development. From this perspective, development meant social and economic development and human flourishing (Friedman, 1992). According to Nerfin (1977), alternative development refers to the domain of Third System or citizen politics, which is

significant following the failed development efforts of government and market forces.

Alternative development is therefore defined by Nerfin (1977, p. 10) as ―need oriented (being geared to meeting human needs, both material and non material to be off the poverty trap; as endogenous (stemming from the heart of each society, which defines in sovereignty its values and the visions of its future)‖; as ―self-reliant (implying that each society relies primarily on its strength and resources in terms of members‘ energies and its natural and cultural environment);

as ecologically sound (utilizing rationally the resources of the biosphere in full awareness of the potential of local ecosystems as well as the global and local outer limits imposed on present and future generations)‖; and as ―based on structural transformation (so as to realize the conditions of self-management and participation in decision-making by all those affected by it, from the rural or urban community to the world as a whole, without which the goals above could not be achieved.‖

The idea of alternative development can be traced to the Cocoyoc Declaration and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation Report What now? Another Development of the mid-1970s. A prominent subject of the meeting of the Cocoyoc Declaration held in Cocoyoc, Mexico in 1974 was resources while the participants‘ main belief was that ―mankind‘s predicament is rooted primarily in economic and social structures and behaviour within and between countries;‖ the Declaration states that ―a process of growth that did not lead to the fulfilment of basic human needs was a travesty of development‖ (Hettne, 1995, p. 176). It is further noted by Hetttne that development is not all about basic needs such as freedom of expression, self realization in work but also ―a need for the rich to reconsider over-consumptive types of development, violating the inner limits of man and outer limits of nature‖ p. 176). As for the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation Report of 1975 which was prepared on the occasion of the 7^th session of the UN General

Assembly, discussion was structured around three main elements which were that another development should be ―geared to the satisfaction of needs, beginning with the eradication of poverty;‖ it should be ―endogenous and self-reliant, that is, relying on the strength of the societies which undertake it;‖ and it should be ―in harmony with the environment.‖ This shows that ―another development requires structural transformations‖ and that ―immediate action is necessary and possible‖ (Dag Hammarskjold Foundation Report, 1975, p. 28). In a nutshell, the argument of the Declaration and Report is that development should be adjusted to the satisfaction of some normative concepts such as basic needs, participation, self-reliance, and eco-development; and should be in conformity with the environment (Hetnne, 1995; Pieterse, 2010).

Pieterse (2010, p. 85) refers to alternative development as ―development from below;‖ and that ―below refers to both community and to NGOs.‖ This indicates that alternative development is identified with the development by the community and NGOs. As for the NGOs as agents of development, they engage in playing major roles on the ground and in development cooperation.

This is not to claim that the state has no role in development process; the role of the state within the orbit of the alternative development discourse is that it acts as one who helps like a facilitator or an enabler. It is therefore implied that a state should be characterized by democratization for it to discharge such a responsibility.

Community consists of ―group of people with shared interests in some senses; usually based on shared residential location like a village or urban district, but can also refer to a community based on social identity‖ (Willis, 2011, p. 27). According to Mansuri and Rao (2004, p. 9), we have Community Based Development (CBD) where communities ―use their social capital to organize themselves and participate in development processes‖. They state further that

―the cornerstone of CBD initiatives is the active involvement of members of a defined

community in at least some aspects of project design and implementation;‖ and as for participation, it ―can occur at many levels, a key objective is the incorporation of local knowledge into the project‘s decision making processes‖ (p. 9). As actors in development, communities enhance sustainability; improve efficiency and effectiveness; allow poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale; empower poor people, build social capital, and strengthen governance; and complement market and public sector activities. Communities thus make development more inclusive (Dongier, et al., 2003). As regards the NGOs, they are organizations that are legally constituted and are independent from any government; they are created by either a natural or legal person. In 2001, the number of internationally recognized NGOs was estimated at 40,000 (Anheier, Glasius and Kaldor, 2001), this is likely to have increased now. Other estimates given ranged between 26,000 and hundreds of thousands; as much as 30,000 NGOs is claimed to exist in the State of Israel alone (Gidron, Bar and Katz, 2004, Nye, 2004). The estimate ambiguity notwithstanding, NGOs have been ―involved in sustainable systems development involving facilitating development by other organizations, both public and private‖

(Korten, 1987, p. 149). They ―can be very small scale organizations, or very large global organizations,‖ they are not profit-making companies and they ―help local communities set up projects to provide services, create income-generating opportunities, or improve social relations‖

(Willis, 2011, p. 27). NGOs function to allow ―aid agencies to claim that at least, some of their activities benefit the poor.‖ Good intentions are asserted through the transfer of ODA to the NGOs as they ―are viewed as political, socially accountable, and integrated into the communities which they serve‖ (Thomas and Allen, 2000, p. 213). The NGOs‘ impact is ―highly localized and often transitory‖ their ―many small-scale successes‖ notwithstanding (Edwards and Hulme, 1992, p. 13).

NGOs exist at both international and national levels. At the international level, there exist both the ―campaigning‖ and ―charitable or service‖ providing types. Most of the former are based in the Global North while a few are based in the Global South; ―they are epitomized, by Greenpeace‖ and they ―only become involved in the development policy issues from a distance;‖

Tiers-Monde is a notable example of this type. The latter are based in the North with branches in the South where they work; ―they run their own projects, sometimes setting up their own bureaucracies, effectively bypassing the state‖ and they ―fund and monitor local service-providing NGOs or membership organizations;‖ Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid and World Vision are notable examples of this type. At the national level, there exists the ―public interest research or campaigning‖, ―indigenous, national and provincial service-providing‖, and

―membership‖ types. The first type are ―relatively few in number; have limited support;

represent the concerns of a particular group; and some may reflect the aspirations and social demands of specific professions.‖ The second type are ―mostly concerned with welfare and rural development; some aim at particular constituencies or interests; some adopt participatory style and attempt to build up local membership; they work in partnership with international NGOs;‖

and they are ―essentially based on trust, charity and private initiative aimed at social and development goals.‖ The third type ―exists to further their members‘ interests; may combine into regional or national federations; and may originally be based on some local campaign‖ (Thomas and Allen, 2000, pp. 211-212). The different types of NGOs are a confirmation that they ―are simultaneously viewed as market-based actors and placed in central position as component of civil society (Edward and Hulme, 1995, p. 849).

As helpful as NGOs are to development, they are not free from criticisms. According to Shivji (2007, p. 84), "objective effects of actions‖ of NGOs as they steadily rise has a colouration

of neoliberalism more than that of pure unselfish motivations, thereby continuing the imperial relationship between the rich and the poor countries of the world. Hallward (2011) refers to their operations as the ―humanitarian face of imperialism.‖ Pfeiffer (2003) criticizes NGOs on the premise that local primary health care efforts are undermined through the existence of NGOs and on another premise that the ability of the maintenance of an agency to oversee a country‘s health sector is taken away. Pfeiffer says that NGOs can be uncoordinated to a level at which aligned projects among different organizations are created, the effect of which is the pulling away of health service workers from their normal duties to get the interests of the NGOs served. One other criticism of NGOs is on the ground that their design and use extend the usual foreign-policy instruments of some countries of the global North (O'Connor, 2012). Most large NGOs based in the global North such as Action Aid, Red Cross and Oxfam still export ―the ideologies of their backers‖ (Bond, p. 321).

What alternative development is basically concerned with is to offer other practices and redefine the goals of development. It is about local development with alternative or other practices on the ground. From the alternative development discourse, it can be inferred that its approaches are not totally distinct from the approaches of the modernization and dependency theories as they share some key elements. For example, the endogenous process emphasized by the alternative development approach is similar to the discussion of the modernization theory.

Also, the position of the alternative development approach which supports different societies following their respective paths to development in consonance with their respective histories, cultures, and ecologies bears certain resemblance to the discussion of the dependency theory.

However, while both modernization and dependency theories emphasize structural large-scale economic change, alternative development emphasizes the capability of people to effect social

change or what can be simply referred to as people-centred or participatory approach to development. This indicates that similar goals shared with these earlier theories of development are pursued using diverse means. This has unfortunately culminated in the failure of the alternative development approaches to emerge with ―a clear perspective on micro-micro relations, an alternative approach, and a coherent theoretical position‖ (Pieterse, 2010, p. 85).

This is disadvantageous as without a defined theoretical underpinning, alternative development is akin to a ship without a rudder. The normative concepts such as basic need, participation and eco-development which the alternative development approach is characterized by are good because unlike the economic growth perspectives which exhibits primacy of the form of development over the content of development and the dependency perspective which does not emphasize the meaning and purpose of development, they lay their emphases on the content of development rather than the form of development. However, these normative concepts of alternative development could be problematic as ―they become worn-out when reality remains the same;‖ some concepts got replaced with new ones ―without much change in the basic orientation; for example, ―eco-development was replaced with sustainable development‖ and

―basic needs were translated to human development, which was defined as a widening of individual choices (Hettne, 1995, p. 175).