Theories and Paradigm of Development

The theories can be divided into two categories.

1.Unilinear world views of development.

2.Non-Unilinear world views of development

In this section,' we shall discuss various development theories and paradigms. Over the years in many parts of the world, various developmental aims have been pursued by groups of people. We have seen, earlier in the unit, that the purpose of development is not one, neither is it uniform. For one nation, it may be to achieve total literacy, for some it may be drinking water, for other it may be building of motorable roads, for still others it may be reforestation. Depending on the aims, a certain process has been employed for development this process has been tried over and over again till it was refined.

In other words, the process with its various trials became a theory. The development processes emanate from some philosophy. Therefore, a particular philosophy can have a group of developmental processes. In easy understanding, we might call these theories as paradigms. The central task of development theory is to explain why some countries are underdeveloped, and how these countries can develop; since the end of World War II, a number of countries became independent countries of colonial rule left them underdeveloped. Development became a top priority for these countries.

That was growing interest in understanding and explaining the process of development. There have been a number of theories offering alternatives. Discussing each of these theories in isolation may not improve our understanding. It may even diffuse a beginner. However, it is possible to group these theories on the world view of development, Visuaiized by these theories. We can, then, sub-divide them further on the basis of certain analytical approaches, i.e., paradigms common to these theories. Chart I provides an outline of -the classification of the development theories.

Unilinear World View of Development

The Unilinear world view of development simply means that underdevelopment is a condition preceding development. An developed countries are late comers to the process of development, which had already taken place in the developed West. The Western developed countries followed some kinds of processes, and, they have achieved a kind of standard of living. The people of these countries enjoy certain consumer items, which are not easily available for the common men living in other parts of the world, at an affordable cost Because of their tremendous influence on the world bodies and international scene, the Western countries have become models of development for the underdeveloped or devc19ping countries. It suggests, therefore, that development is becoming more like the West or like the already developed countries. For becoming like the West, there are certain institutional or economic hurdles, whose removal will initiate the development process in the

Under developed countries. Institutional or economic hurdles could be dictatorships, monarchy, and a closed type of economy like that of Burma, India, and China. to some extent.

Mainstream Paradigm

Theories under category which suggest development to be a harmonies process, lead to two paradigms: one which advocates state intervention or active of the Government as an essential requirement for development. Most of the modern theories of development that have emerged during the post war years come under this paradigm. This may be called as the 'Mainstream Paradigm’.

Counter-revolution Paradigm"

On the contrary, the "non-unilinear world-view of development" suggests that development is not becoming like the West. Under the changed historical conditions, it may not be possible for the less developed countries to become like the already developed countries. These less-developed countries shall have to find an alternative path of development Types of Unilinear Theories

Theories falling under the unilinear world-view may be divided into two broad categories.

First, there are those theories, which consider development as bannonies and non-contentious processes. The development process benefits all rich as well as poor people, and rich as well as poor countries. There is more harmony between different groups of people and different countries.

The second category of theories consider development essentially as a conflicting process. These theories refer to the rich exploiting the poor as much as the rich countries exploiting the poor

The other paradigm, which emphasizes non-intervention by the state or non-involvement of the government, and advocates the efficiency of the market (the forces that determine demand, supply, and the cost, pricing, and production of goods, commodities and services) in promoting development, which favours "free market" for developments, is called as the "counter-revolutionary" paradigm.

The Structuralist Paradigm

Similarly, within the category of theories, which consider development essentially as a contentious and conflict-ridden process, we find two paradigms. The Structuralist paradigm suggests that underdevelopment is a consequence of the internal as well as the international structure (system of production). Internally, the less developed countries are totally dependent on the production and export of primary products (raw materials, like oil, sugar, tea, rubber, iron and other minerals etc.).

On the international front, the developed countries (capitalist West) produce and export "manufactured" goods. Now, the low level of technology and industrialization, the low elasticity of demand and adverse terms of trade (the West protecting its manufactured goods through trade tariffs, and buying the primary products of the less developed countries at low prices, has had to the exploitation of the less-developed countries by the developed countries. Therefore, these theories suggest that if the less developed countries want development, they are required to change the structure (system) of production increasingly in favour of manufactured goods through capital based technology and industrialization. Once the 'underdeveloped' countries do this, they too can developed like the West.

The Orthodox Marxist Paradigm

On the other hand, the Orthodox Marxist Paradigm considers that conflict and contradictions in the development of capitalism are ineVitable, and that these can only be resolved through a revolution, which will then usher in the next phase of development.

Types of non-unilineartheories .                                                                              

If we turn to the theories under the "non-unilinear world view" , here too we can subgroup the theories into two paradigms: one, the populist paradigm and the other the neo-Marxist paradigm. Thus, we can broadly classify two "World-views of development", the unilinear and the non-unilinear,in six paradigms, viz., the mailista:eam paradigm, the counter­revolution, the Stmcturalist, the Orthodox Marxist, all the four belonging to a Unilinear World View. The populist and Neo-Marxistare the two paradigms of "non-Unilinear world View" .

1.3.1 Unilinear World-view of Development

We shall discuss, briefly, the important features of the theories of development under each paradigm and their implications for the strategy of development in the Third World countries. We shall discuss the main features of each and every paradigm of the unilinear world-view of development. Let us start with the mainstream paradigm.

Mainstream Paradigm: Of those paradigms, which project development as becoming more like the West and developing countries as late-comers to the process, with certain initial conditions, which should be overcome to experience transition to development, the more familiar is what could be described as the 'Mainstream paradigm'. It includes most of the familiar development theories like the "big-push" or "balance4 growth" theory of Rosenstun Rodan, the "vicious circle" theory of RagnarNurks, the "unbalanced growth" theory of Alber Hirsheman, the "dulasim" theory of Arthur Lewis, the "stage theory" of W.W. Rostow , the "neo-Malthusian" theory of Harvey Leibenstin.  .

In spite of differences in the framework, point of emphasis etc., there are certain aspects, which are common in these theories, The most important resource for development is savings or accumulation of capital. The transition from underdevelopment to development is essentially a process of moving from low savings ratio of about 5% of the GNP to a high savings ratio of about 12% or more. "Development is a process of transforming an economy, which is prtdominantlyagriculture-based and other related primary activities, towards predominance of industry and non-primary activities."

Therefore, these theories describe the initial conditions or barriers responsible for the low savings, and suggest strategies to overcome those hurdles, which would put the underdeveloped countries on the path of development like the West. The persistence of the low savings is due t.o the vicious circle of poverty: low income, low savings, low investment, low productivity, low income.

There is also the vicious circle on the demand side like the low inducement to invest because of the low level of productivity due to low level of investment. Once this low savings syndrome is overcome, then aid or foreign investments help in a sustained development, either through balanced investment or investment in the unbalanced sectors, that would set up inducements and pressures.

In the process of mobilizing savings and channeling the same for development, the mainstream theories consider state intervention, either through the governmental planning or state programmes, as essential. Most of the newly independent countries have embarked upon the development strategies, which were inspired by the theories of the mainstream paradigm.

ii) Counter-revolution Paradigm: In contrast, the Counter-revolution paradigm considers the state intervention as the cause of inefficiency and distortions in the resource use. According to this paradigm, the state intervention through licensing and regulation leads to 'directly unproductive profit seeking', corruption, and red tape. Minimizing the state's role, and allowing the market to play the role in allocation of resources, would improve efficiency, competitiveness, and rapid growth. This paradigm has gained some popularity only in the 1980s, by which time there was widespread disenchantment with the interventionist policies. In recent years, this paradigm is at the basis of the package of liberalization that is recommended by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

iii) The Structural paradigm: .The origins of the structur8Iist paradigm could be traced to the writings based on the Latin American experience. There are two variants of the structuralist paradigm, one referring to the distortions in internal structure, and the other pointing to the global or international structure. It is the' 'international structuralism' of the Rural Prebisch that is more familiar. According to the paradigm, the world is divided into the developed capitalist countries forming the core of 'the Centre', and the underdeveloped countries forming 'the Periphery' Over the years, there emerged a division of labour with the Centre producing and exporting manufactured goods and the Periphery depending on the production and export of the primary products. While the income elasticity of demand for high technology and high productivity-based manufactures is high, it is low for the primary products. As a result, while the demand for the manufactured goods increased faster, ensuring higher prices for their exports, the demand for the primary products increased slowly, and the export prices did not keep pace with the rise in the prices of imported manufactured goods. There was, in the long-run, deterioration in the terms of trade of the primary exports from the less-developed countries. All the benefits, technical progress and productivity flowed to the developed centre, 'keeping the periphery in a continued state of underdevelopment.

To break this structural distortion and to initiate the development process in the periphery, it is necessary to pursue a policy of protection to the manufacturing sector from the developed countries. The strategy directly flowing from the structuralist paradigm is Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Though it has caused sufficient problems later, the ISI was a very popular strategy of development, particularly in Latin America

iv) Orthodox Marxist Paradigm: The familiar marxist concept of development is associated with the five epochs or stages: (i) Primitive Communism, (ii) Ancient Slave State, (iii) Feudalism, (iv) Capitalism, and (v) Socialism. Each of these epochs is marked by a corresponding mode of production. Development, in this framework, may be viewed as one of transitions from feudalism to capitalism.

The Orthodox Marxist theory also visualized the future of the underdeveloped countries, entirely in terms of the developed capitalist countries. Karl Marx wrote that the country that is more developed, industrially, only shows to the less developed the image of its own future."Contrary to such expectations, as capitalism spread all over the world, a greater part of the world has experienced only its disintegrating effects, without benefiting from its creative side. Moreover, the united industrialisation of the West was possible only' at the expense of the so-called 'underdeveloped world, which was doomed to stagnation and regression. The classical Marxist writings, by concentrating on the European experience, anticipated the spread of development and not underdevelopment. They did not have much to say on the process of underdevelopment. There appears to be not much analysis of the historical experience. of the colonial countries in Asia and Africa. Hence the criticism that Marx's writings were Europe-centric, denying all the history and experience of the colonial countries.

It is such an image of development that led Marx and Engels to believe that the capitalist colonial expansion would result in the spread of development of capitalism in the countries

Non-unilinear World-view of Development

This suggests that development is not becoming like the west. Under the changed historical conditions, it may not be possible for the less developed countries to become like the already developed countries.The less developed countries shall have to find an alternative path of development

Unilinear means developing in an undeviating way from the primitive to the advanced. The developing /underdeveloped countries have to choose a similar path as chosen by the already developed countries. It suggests, therefore, that development is becoming more like the West or like the already developed countries. For becoming like the west, there are certain institutional or economic hurdles, whose removal will initiate the development process in the underdeveloped countries. Institutional or economic hurdles could be dictatorships, monarchy or closed economy etc

we have discussed how the developing countries could attain the status of the developed Countries. We have said that the process adopted by many Third World countries is unilinear moving from one step to another logically. Now, here, we shall discuss some paradigms which are not unilinear. Their 'nature is not that systematic. So, let us move ahead

a) Populist Paradigm: The term' 'populist" is used here in the absence of any other term that is adequate to describe this approach. The theories under the "populist" approach question either the need or possibility of the less-developed countries developing on the lines of the already developed capitalist countries. The Gandhian thinking on the appropriate development for countries like India.and some contributions from some onelike.E.F. Schumacher.who wrote Small is Beautiful, may be considered as part of the "populist" paradigm.

Gandhi thought that the Western type of development had nothing to commend to societies like India. His contention was that the Western industrialization had brought along with it immorality, crime, and cultural degeneration. "Development in a country like India should make the village as the centre, and provide employment and livelihood through a network of cottage and village industries. 'Gram Swaraj'or 'village united development' would not only ensure against the evils of industrialization and urbanization, but also absorb millions of people without uprooting them from their appropriate village industries.