MT09 - Week 8 Reading List - The Politics of Development

This session aims to identify what different political thinkers and governments have
meant by ‘development’ (industrialization, public services, state capacity, economic
growth, freedom). It also explores the question of why ‘third-world’ countries have
found development to be such an elusive goal (historical legacies, political
structures, global inequality, corrupt governments, misguided international
institutions, natural resources).

Discussion topics:
(a) Why has ‘development discourse’ proved such an attractive language for governments, political thinkers, and international institutions? Is it possible to identify in the literature a common understanding of what development is and how it can be achieved? What are the main factors preventing the ‘development’ of the ‘third-world’?
(b) Does successful ‘development’ require a certain type of state (democratic vs. developmental vs. authoritarian vs. neo-patrimonial)? Is there an inherent contradiction between the policies required to successfully promote economic growth and the priorities of political actors in underdeveloped countries?

Readings:
(a) Development and its discontents
· Allen, T and A Thomas (2000), Poverty and Development into the Twenty First Century, esp Chs 1, 2, 17
· Bates, R (2001), Prosperity and Violence: the political economy of development (a useful overview and critique of the development of the discipline)
· *Cardoso, Fernando, and F Enzo (1979), Development and Dependency in Latin America
· Collier, Paul (2007), The Bottom Billion, esp Parts 2 & 4
· Cowen, M. & R.W. Shenton (1996), Doctrines of development
· Escobar, Arturo (1995), Encountering Development: the making and unmaking of the Third World
· Ferguson, James (1994), The Anti-politics Machine
· Gwynne, Robert and Cristobal Kay (2004), Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity
· *Leys, C (1996), The Rise and Fall of Development Theory
· *Sen, Amartya (1999), Development As Freedom
· Stiglitz, Joseph (2002), Globalization and its Discontents

(b) The economic consequences of political structures
· Bates, R (2005), Markets and States in Tropical Africa
· *Chabal, P. and J-P Daloz (1999), Africa works: disorder as political instrument, Chs 1, 8 & 9
· Evans, Peter (1992), ‘The State as Problem and Solution’, in Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman eds The Politics of Economic Adjustment
· Governance 7, no. 4 (1994), special issue on the Developmental State in Asia
· Kline, Harvey and Wiarda, Howard (2006), Latin American Politics and Development, Ch 1
· Leftwich, A. (1993), Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World
Quarterly 14 (3)
· Mamdani, Mahmood. (1990), Uganda - contradictions of the IMF programme and perspective.
Development and Change 21
· Onis, Ziya (1991), ‘The Logic of the Developmental State’, Comparative Politics, 24 (1), (this is a very helpful review article – the four sources discussed are all worthy of consultation)
· *Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation
· *Rueschemeyer, D et al (1992), Capitalist Development and Democracy, esp pp. 63-75.
· Scott, James (1998), Seeing Like a State
(more)

Migdal (1988) Strong societies and weak states

Migdal, Joel (1988), Strong Societies and Weak States,
Available: Hard copy
Reading list MT09 Week 5, Ch 1.

(4)
Post war view of state building was that states had the potential to mould their societies through virtuous planning and meticulously laid out policies.
The state organisation became the focal point for hopes of achieving broad goals of human dignity, prosperity and equity.
Capabilities include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in determined ways.
(5)
Strong states have "high capabilities" to complete these tasks, where weak states are on the low end of the spectrum of capability.
Migdal takes Norlinger's definition of autonomy: states that can act on their own preferences and are not beholden to the most dominant social group
Strong state lit versus weak state lit, states almost totally impotent in the swirl of dizzying social changes
Krasner (1985): most developing countries have very weak domestic political institutions.
Constitutions and legislation often appear strong on paper but in practice the control is not actually exercised (Hammergren 1977)
(8)
Kohli (1987) India's state performance can be characterised overall by a failure to pursue the regime's own professed goals.
[carrying out some different goals might imply a strong/effective state that has been captured by a particular social group. similarly carrying out own goals ineffectively may imply weak but autonomous state]

(more)