Politics of Development

The politics of development involves a complex interplay of actors that shape the outcomes of policy decision and its impacts on development trajectories of a society. Certain factors including, institutions, governance, the power structure, social interactions and the world view of the policy-makers influences the development agendas, policies and implementations. Since decolonization, western countries have been involved in various developmental activities throughout the countries of the South, particularly the third world countries. In pursuit of development objectives, foreign aid and intervention in critical regional governmental and structural apparatus was conceived necessary.

Intervention was made on the assumption that it would lead to the economic growth and that economic growth would eventually result in political development.  However, such approaches have failed to produce the desired results. After pouring millions of dollars in Africa and Asia, the countries in these regions still remain poor. In fact, poorer than they were in their initial period after independence, as “Borrowed Development” cannot be sustained. Rather, it fetters the prospects for local, inclusive and progressive institution. Hence, certain critiques and theories were being developed to analyze the merits and demerits of these interventions by the western countries.

Douglas C. North and Acemoglu in their work “Why Nations Fail?” study institution, including both formal and informal rules, to determine their impacts on development. They argue that, extractive institution, as that in many of the third world and the once-colonial countries, could largely be attributed to the low economic growth of these countries. On the other hand, inclusive institutions, that aim at providing level playing field, have fostered an unparalleled growth in developed countries. Alongside, the rule of law, the level of democratization, and governance effectiveness significantly influences development prospects of a country.

North and Acemoglu hypothesize that Institutions in underdeveloped countries are the product of colonialism that were created to perpetuate the interests of colonist. Colonists created extractive institution in countries (e.g. India and Africa) where they could not settle due to the various reasons including the danger of diseases, while in countries like Australia and New Zealand, where the colonists constitute majority, they pursued inclusive institution.

Apart from the institutional view, dependency theorists like Andre Gunder Frank, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Enzo Faletto consider power relation between the developed and underdeveloped countries as a main hindrance in the development of the latter. They argue that development has always been used as a tool of exploitation in underdeveloped countries.  The outflow of raw materials at the exchange of finished products and the increased intervention greatly hampered the capacity of underdeveloped countries for industrialization and progress.

Moreover, postcolonial theorists like Franz Fanon, Ilan Kapoor and Edward Said offer an insight into the legacies of colonialism and imperialism in determining the development trajectories in third world countries. They argue that development theories and practices are significantly embedded in euro-centric discourses. The ground realities of the third world countries have largely been ignored in development discourses. Rather, Euro-centric models set the bench-mark of development. They believe that proposing a single path of development to all the diverse nations of the world with competing and diverse interest won’t work in development. in fact, it leads to inequalities and poor performance on development indicators. Post-colonial critiques propose that development should be subjected to the local needs, interests and priorities, rather than the broader discourses that are more western centered.

Feminists like Sylvia Walby and Catherine A. MacKinnon are of the opinion that there is a gendered dimension to development that is often ignored in development practices. Women, have been made invisible in development practices. For example, in 1970s and 1980s, Women in Development and Women and Development approaches, rendered reproductive work at home, performed by women in many of the third world countries, as invisible and valueless at the capitalist system. Only productive work at the market was considered worthy of being compensated in the form of wages and salaries.

When one husband beats his wife, there is a clear case of personal violence, but when one million husbands keep one million wives in ignorance, there is structural violence.— Johan Galtung

These theoretical bases of “Politics of Development” have one thing in common, that is, they all agree on the point that policies, structures and power relations significantly influence development practices. In other words, politics is the key to development. Political dynamics e.g. low level of corruption and governance efficacy is likely to result in development. For example, China’s remarkable economic growth over the last few decades is a glaring example of the politics of development. China’s liberalization of economy in 1970s, while keeping the authoritarian control intact, was the result of its drastic transformation in its political decision making, that eventually lead to its economic growth. Low corruption, governance and control over critical state resources could also be attributed to its unparalleled growth. China’s development model underscores the significance of state-led developmental policies and their political ramifications.

Furthermore, Botswana stands out as a rare example of democratic stability and economic growth in sub Saharan Africa. The country’s prudent governance, characterized by low corruption, political stability and equitable resource distribution have contributed to its impressive development trajectory.

Autocratic countries, though, having high income and gross domestic product, also have certain limitations on the developmental front, as understood by Amartya Sen. These countries have despotic control over the freedom of its citizens. So they can be regarded as developed in economic terms, but not in Sen’s understanding of development. On the contrary, Nordic countries including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, through equitable distribution of resources, welfare programs, and high investment in health and education along with high level of democratization, are considered to be developed both in economic and capability term of development. Distinction among the development level of autocratic and democratic countries could be attributed to the political dynamics of these countries. Prudent political decisionmaking and political stability is likely to result in impressive outcomes in development.

The case of Pakistan is pertinent to be considered in analyzing the interplay of politics and development. Pakistan, with its fragile economy and political turmoil, have unsatisfactory development trajectory. Being a British colony, Pakistan inherits its governance structure from the united India whose institution were created for extractive purposes by the British colonist. The post-partition Pakistan failed to develop institutions that cater to the needs of the local people. Development path became dependent on the British established rules and regulations. Alongside, the path towards development was further complicated by the foreign loan contracted by Pakistan with all its stringent conditionalities attached. In a nutshell, Pakistan failed to choose a development path of its own. Rather, the country followed the one pursued by the developed nations of the world. As a result, there lingers a huge gap between the capability of the country and its ambitious goals.