Very Very Very Rough Draft

This is the first complete version of the paper which is due monday. I need to look up a few more dates and I think there are some more facts that I can fit into it. I also need to add the crticisms inot the first few sections, but it's pushing the 4 oage maximum pretty hard right now. It's still using the default title that I give to all academic papers. Crticisms are welcome, but don't be suprised if my response is "yeah, I know about that and am working on it." By the way, anywhere you see the symbol NNN, its a liteary signal flare to me, an indication of somethign where theres a clear gap which is filled in a definate way (I.E. A name or date, not just a place where the writing loses its structure or literary flare)

Max Willson

The One Paper:
To Rule them All!

Modern development theory has its roots in the 1944 through 194 post World War II era. The United States had become a global superpower, its’ industrial power had skyrocketed, and it had seen the rest of the developed world crushed. It was during this period that many of today’s major development organizations were established. In NNN-Date-NNN the U.S. and the U.K. acted together to create the I.B.R.D. which later became the World Bank; its original purpose was to fund and organize the rebuilding of Europe and Japan. Soon after, NNN-Date-NNN, the I.M.F. was formed to foster international trade in a more general sense. In 1944 the U.S., U.K., and U.S.S.R. together drafted the U.N. charter, and the U.N. itself was established in 1945. Its goal was to promote peace and change through international co-operation.
The actions of these organizations showed enormous initial success. In 1958 Germany and Japan had regained the economic losses they had suffered during WWII, and international confidence grew. Riding this success the U.N. declared in 1959 that the next ten years would be a “Decade of Development.” U.S. belief in development was so high that in 1961 J.F.K. said that in 10 years the poorer countries of the world would have joined the rich.
This new wave of development was a form of development known as modernization. Development through modernization was a system of grand large scale theories through which countries would grow by expanding their own industrial powers. Aid was given with the instruction that it be invested in the countries industrial power, and countries were made to reinvest their taxes into their industrial sector. It was a time when development was seen to be directly tied to economic growth. Development through modernization also came with a heavy export of western culture. The poorer states were being driven to become more like the western ones, which were the most successful and influential. To show the strength of this belief take this 1959 quote from development theorist Peter Drucher: “No viable society can be built except on western foundations.”
As time progressed and the 1960s began faith in modernization theory began to wane. A new radically different school of thought known as dependency theory arose. Dependency theory said that poorer countries we’re too reliant on richer ones and that in order to truly develop they needed to break away. They argued that economic development in less developed countries would actually be bad for the inhabitants of the more developed countries because they rely on their dominant position economically. This theory that the rich countries exploited poorer countries is a central theme of dependency theory. It draws from this to conclude that poorer countries develop most when their ties to rich countries were the weakest. It claims that poverty is not the result of misfortune or incorrect action, but is the direct result of history, and stresses the value of social revolution as a development tool.
One noteworthy dependency theorist was Gunder Frank. He was a South American economist who argued that the rich acquired their wealth by exploiting the poor. The poor would produce raw goods at reduced cost, and then be made to purchase manufactured good from wealthy countries at higher prices. Frank argued that this was a form of theft that was being allowed to continue through the policies of the World Bank and I.M.F.
In time views began to change; pendulum swung and starting in the 1980s a new form of development theory known as “The New Right.” The New Right stressed the importance of a free market, and advocated rolling back the role of the state. Key New Right development thinker Deepak Lal criticized the governments of less developed countries. HE claimed that hey were often unable to obtain their policy objectives, and that their actions had negative side effects, sometimes even being directly counterproductive. He was also critical of the excessive cost of government controls, such as subsidies and taxation. Lal was not without his own critics though. Foye pointed out that state intervention is a necessary measure, and that The New Right offered no clear division as to which services, such as roads and education, would be state run or in the hands of private industry. He also showed that the free market theory, or economic liberalism as he labeled it, had failed in the past.
Nonetheless New Right thinking rose to power. It was and still is highly influential in the actions of the I.M.F. and World Bank. An example of this is the Structural Adjustment programs of the 1980s. In response to a debt crises caused by rising oil prices the W.B. and I.M.F. instituted these “S.A.P.s. They were a system to design and support broad based policy reform within a country, structuring it in a way that allowed it to continue making payments on its debt without inhibiting its’ own growth. While the W.B. and I.M.F. continue to believe in the policies they’re often criticized for increasing poverty and widening the economic gap, as well as marginalizing groups such as women and children.
New Right thinking continues to this day, but other forms of development theory have also developed. One new approach is to take a much smaller scale, examining the basic needs and desires of individuals. This form of development theory is known as People Centered development theory. This form of development theory seeks to transfer power from the state to the local communities, a process known as decentralization, and to empower marginalized. It strives to recognize the skills of the local people, and to enroll them in the development process. While this has empowered the people to a degree, the system is far from perfect. Inequality inside of the country runs rampant, and those that were already in power tend to seize power again. Those who were marginalized tend to become marginalized again.
The case study of Joint Forest Management in India is an excellent example of the theory in action and the problems that come with it. In 1982 a new forest policy was drafted with the intent of forming a partnership between the forest department and local communities. The idea was that they would work together, take mutual responsibility, and gradually power would transfer from the state to the local people. In actuality the lack of information on the part of the village communities caused the Forest Department to be clearly dominant in the relationship. The State retained actual ownership of the forest, allowing it to retain power. This pattern of powerful groups resisting decentralization is a key flaw in people centered development.
One more reactionary form of development theory is what is known as Post-Development, or Anti-Development. Post development claims that development damages the societies of the global south. It’s extremely critical of any form of grand claim as well as the World Bank and I.M.F. Post Development also places a high level of scrutiny on how development knowledge is produced and circulated. It celebrates diversity and exalts the local cultures of the less developed countries over those of the west. The views it holds of western culture and society are extremely polarized. The west is shown as a cold unfeeling mechanistic world while the east is shown as the simpler and more authentic world. It exaggerates the link between development and imperialism. This polarized belief causes a rejection of anything modern. Post development theory is commonly unable to see that modernization is not a fully destructive thing; that it has its pros and cons.
The youngest form of development theory is what is called Sustainable Development. While the term has been around since 1980 it was first popularized in 1983 Brundtland report. The Brundtland report was the product of the 1983 UN established world commission of environment and development. It discussed the links between the environment and development, it criticized global financial policy and called for a massive flow of capital to the global south, it was people centered in that is showed problems on the level of an individual person and how those problems could be solved, and finally it first defined the tem of Sustainable Development as: Development which meets the needs of the current generation without impairing the ability of the next generation to meet it’s needs. Sustainable development has also become a rallying cry for environmental groups because it is the first to stress the importance of the environment. In fact, its model of development shows environmental stability, economic growth, and social growth as all being necessary for the development of society. They say that without any one of those the entire process will fail.
Despite all of this the term has remained somewhat vague. This lack of definition prevents focused policies, and allows unusual conditions to be attached to the aid given by the powerful. Powerful groups inside of powerful countries have even used the label of Sustainable development to prevent change and gain more power for themselves.
Development theory is still growing. With changes in society and the world around us new forms of development theory are evolving. While development is a far from perfected process it becomes more refined with each passing day. Lead thinkers all over the world are forming new ideas and principles. In essence development theory is itself still developing.