RADICAL THEORIES
Mr. Golden, F
M.A Com Dev
Radicals…
• Is groups of doctrines and different critical
thought that attempt to provide critical
analysis of the development processes.
• These are dependency theory and Structural
functionalism or structural tradition
• Are found to provide some key contributions
on development.
DEPENDENCY THEORISTS
• Dependence is a conditioning situation in which the
economies of one group of countries are conditioned
by the development and expansion of others.
• A relation of interdependence between two or more
economies or between such economies and the world
trading system becomes a dependent relationship
when some countries can expand on as a reflection of
the expansion of the dominant countries, which may
have positive or negative effects on their immediate
development". (Dos Santos, 1970).
Dependency…
• Dependency theorists are concerned with the
whole relationship between advanced countries
and third world countries.
• The dependent relationship is exhibited in
cultural as well as economic features of third
world countries.
• The dependent relationship pervades political
institutions and political decision making as well.
• As a result many third world countries are
incapable of following an alternative path.
Dependency…
• This is not only because the world economic facts of
life make it impossible, but because the cultural,
psychological and economic pressures of the
dependent relationship have conditioned decisionmakers in third world countries so that they do not
wish to follow an alternative strategy.
• Dependency theorists concentrate on explaining the
fundamental specific flows of modernization
approaches.
• They agree that some effort within developing
countries must be made to break the cycle of economic
and political reliance on dominant capitalist nations.
Dependency…
• A central argument of the dependency school is that
dependence generates underdevelopment.
• The underdevelopment theorists challenged the
conventional wisdom of western economists of the
1950s, as illustrated by Walt Rostow's stages of growth.
• This conventional wisdom held that growth and
development were unlinear; that there were various
stages of development that societies went through on
the way to industrialization and development.
• The poor countries of the world were simply a
replicator of the industrialized countries at a previous
stage of development.
Dependency…
• Given the right sort of conditions they would
inevitably occur, given the right sort of
conditions.
• Theories of underdevelopment the unlinear and
progress view of development.
• They argued that the third world differed from
the advanced countries at an earlier stage
because of the existence of the advanced
countries, and the impact of their society on
them.
Dependency…
• Dependency theorists argue that the economy of
underdeveloped countries cannot not be
analyzed in isolation from the development of
capitalist countries because their economy was in
large part conditioned by events in the advanced
countries; through trade, migration, capital and
technology flows.
• In this way the advanced capitalist countries
determine the nature of the economy of third
world countries.
Dependency…
• Dependency theorists argue that the underdeveloped state
of third world countries was attributed not to the fact that
they were at an earlier stage of history than the advanced
countries, but to the fact that the impact of the advanced
countries on the third world had caused their
underdevelopment.
• The nature of the impact of the advanced countries,
particularly of the capitalist According to Frank
underdevelopment was not an original stage, but rather a
created condition; to emphasize this, he points to the
British de-industrialization of India, the destructive effects
of the slave trade on African societies and the destruction
of the Indian civilizations in central and South America.
Dependency…
• The first prerequisite of following nondependent relationship and impoverishing
policies is then to break the dependent
relationship.
• But even this may not be possible because of
the all-embracing nature of dependency
preventing any such breakout.
Critique of Dependency Theory
• Theories of dependency, world-systems and
underdevelopment (Wallerstein 1974) certainly have their
limitations, particularly in neglecting the role of
contemporary internal political and economic conditions,
but this does not justify a complete abandonment of those
theories, and their underlying historical observations.
• External dependency, in the past and at present, is a
necessary but not a sufficient factor to reckon with in
explaining lack of development.
• In pursuing this line of study, internal politics must certainly
be added to the analysis of external impacts, but always
with a historical approach, and with some methodological
stringency in defining development, and
underdevelopment, before attempting to explain them.
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
•
Pulling together various threads in non-Marxist social science,
Talcott Parsons in sociology and later Gabriel Almond in political
science became the flag-bearers of structural functionalism.
• This theory implied that societies regardless of their peculiarities
inherently perform the same basic functions, but they are
differentiated in terms of which structures perform these functions.
• Thus, for instance, a country's development is measured in terms of
how its different structures perform, the assumption being that the
more pluralistic a country, the more it develop.
• Pluralism entails many countries structures contribution differently
in achieving growth in development programs
Structural functionalism…
• Structural functionalism was built on the assumption
that development is a linear evolution, involving
structural differentiations and cultural secularization,
using western democracy as the ultimate stage (refer
to Rostow, Nurkse's theories of development).
• Structures were the facilitators of development.
Structural functionalism was meant to be a counter
point to the Universalist ambitions of Marxist theory.
Critics of structural functionalism
• By the second part of the 1960s, the critique
of structural functionalism had grown to such
an extent that its leading role was in question.
• A careful scrutiny of its basic premises
suggested that they were unattenable.
• Future development theory had to seek its
inspiration from other sources.
NEO-LIBERAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
• Foremost of these was the neo-liberal ‘rational choice’
theory which began its impact on development theory in
the latter part of the 1970s.
• Contrary to both structural functionalism and neo-Marxist
political economy, this new theory stressed the importance
of individual actors.
• To them development is the aggregate outcome of a
multitude of individual decisions.
• Operating in a market context, people make their own
decisions in a voluntary fashion.
• Samuel Popkin (1979) and Robert Bates (1981) are among
the leading neo-liberals.
• This is essentially a theory of the market.
THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
• This theoretical approach is concerned with
‘institutions’, the layer between individual actors and
societal structures.
• The theory retains what is largely a voluntarist
perspective, but argues that social action is primarily
integrative, aimed at going beyond self -interest.
• This theoretical perspective corresponds to the
ideological concern with an ‘enabling environment’.
• The focus is on institutional issues: the question of how
to strengthen institutions (‘institution-building’) and
the constraints and opportunities for using them as
‘tools’ of development.
New Institutionalism…
• Leading advocates of this theoretical approach
include Amitai Etzioni, Aaron Wildawsky, James
March and J.P. Olsen.
• All the above theoretical contribute to the debate
on development but are as other theories before
them unable to provide a more critical
understanding of the development processes in
Africa.
• More important they fail to provide alternative
development strategies to address development
problems in Tanzania.
MARXIST UNDERSTANDING OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
• Marxist theory is one of the leading theories that
attempt to provide a critical analysis of the
development process.
• The Context of Marxist Theory
• The founder of Marxist theory was Karl Marx, a
German philosopher who lived during the nineteenth
century in Europe.
• Marx lived during a period when the overwhelming
majority of people in industrial societies were poor.
• This was the early period of industrialization in such
nations as England, Germany, and the United States.
MARXIST…
• Those who owned and controlled the factories
and other means of production exploited the
masses that worked for them.
• The rural poor were forced or lured into cities
where employment was available in the factories
and workshops of the new industrial economies.
• In this way the rural poor were converted into an
urban poor.
• In the United States, children some as young as
five or six years old, were employed in
MARXIST…
• the cotton mills of the of the South.
• They worked 12 hours a day at the machines, six and seven
days a week (Lipsey and Steiner, 1975), and received only a
subsistence wage.
• The "iron law of wages"-the philosophy that justified paying
workers only enough money to keep them alive-prevailed
during this early period of industrialization.
• Meanwhile, those who owned the means of production
possessed great wealth, power, and prestige.
• Marx tried to understand the institutional framework that
produced such conditions and looked for a means to
change it in order to improve the human condition.
MARXIST…
• On development of society Marx argues that the entire
history of human societies may be seen as the history
of class conflict: the conflict between those who own
and control the means of production and those who
work for them-the exploiters and the exploited.
• He believed that ownership of the means of production
in any society determines the distribution of wealth,
power, and even ideas in that society.
• The power of the wealthy is derived not just from their
control of the economy but from their control of the
political, educational, and religious institutions as well.
Marxist Perspective:
Main Elements within Marxism
• The dialectical approach to knowledge and
society defines the nature of reality as
dynamic and conflictual.
• Changes are due to class struggle and the
working out of contradictions inherent in
social and political phenomena.
• According to Marx Men make their own
history, but not in circumstances of their own
choosing and not just as they please”
Marxist Main Elements…
• The second element of Marxism is a materialist approach
to history; the development of productive forces and
economic activities is central to historical change and
operates through the class struggle.
• Struggle over distribution of the social product/surplus The primacy of class struggle, thus Marx made class
domination central to his conception of social order, and
class conflict a defining feature of change in society.
• Marxists believe that a socialist society is both the
necessary and desirable end of historical development.
• This will be achieved through overthrow of the ruling class
and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marxist Main Elements…
• Marx argues that at a certain stage of their
development, the material productive forces of society
come into conflict with the existing relations of
production;
• There then results a transformation of the economic
conditions of production, and with the change of the
economic foundation, the entire superstructure is also
transformed.
• In other words, Marx held that a revolutionary
situation occurs when an existing mode of production
reaches the limits of its contradictions.
Marxist Main Elements…
• social forces and the social relations of
production. In turn, intensifying class conflict
is generated between the existing dominant
class and the rising revolutionary class.
Marxist theory strongly suggested that
revolutions should occur first in the most
economically advanced social formations of a
given mode of production.
Marx’s five stage of development of
society
• Karl Marx identified five major stages of
development; this included primitive
communalism, feudalism, Capitalism,
Socialism and communalism
Communal mode of production
Primitive - Communalism
• It marks the rise of society from sheer animals to human society;
• It is a stage which was characterized by crude and underdeveloped
instruments of labor, due to this primitive man was unable to
engage in production alone without the help of others.
• The means of production were communal owned and the relations
of productions were collective, people lived together jointly
conducting their economic activities for survival.
• Labor productivity was low with no surplus and the product were
equally distributed, there were no formal organization, no classes
and therefore no states, kingdoms etc.
• People organized themselves in clan of family.
• It is notable that at this stage there are no classes and no class
struggle
Feudal mode of production
(Feudalism)
• This was the stage of emergence of surplus in production
and classes
• It was based on class antagonism, conflict struggle between
opposing classes
• Land was the private property and consisted of two classes
the land owners and the serfs, serfs were not slaves
because they had land holding to build their shelters, they
rented this land holdings from their land lords
• How ever the serves owned their means of labor.
• Land lords exploited the serfs and the serfs struggled to
free themselves from this exploitative relationship.
• Contradictions and growing class struggle lead to
disintegration of feudalism
Capitalism
• This mode of production emerged as a result of industrial
revolution in Europe
• Capitalism lead to the emergence of commodity production where
all products became commodities that were produced for exchange
• Human labor also became a commodity.
• This mode of production is characterized by the private ownership
of means of production.
• Relations of production are exploitative where capitalists who are
the owner of means of production exploit the workers.
• The working class is exploited by selling their labor power.
According to Marxist, capitalist economies expand through export
of capital and this became driving force for imperialistic mode of
production.
• The contradiction between capital and labor led to the down fall of
capitalism
Socialism
• The socialism mode of production emerged after the overthrow of
the capitalist system.
• According to Marx Socialism is a logical stage of Social development
after mature capitalism, it is the consequence of growth of
productive forces.
• Socialism establishes a dictatorship of the proletariat/working class.
• The means of production are owned and controlled by the public
including the distribution of products; all means of production are
in the hands of the working class.
• Relations of production are antagonistic-non exploitative kind of
relations.
• People work according to their abilities and are remunerated
according to their need, the distinction between physical and
mental labor disappear and like wise the difference between the
city and the country side
Communalism
• Is the highest level of social development where there is
absence of exploitative relations of production
• There is a withering away of economy to wards state
towards classless society
• Investment and consumption are primarily determined by
the national plan
• Thus Marx explains the inner logic of social change by
emphasizing that social transformation can not take place
independently of the economic structure, but ownership
relations are one part of the economic basis
• The other being the forces of production that is the
character of technology of the kind of tools that are used in
certain stage of development
Communism…
• Thus the conflict of economic classes will depend
on the technological level of development of the
society.
• From Marxist Perspectives development is seen
as the unfolding in human history of the
progressive emancipation of people and nations.
• A major task therefore becomes that of
explaining why this possess has progressed much
more with some peoples and nations than others
Critique of Marxist analysis
• Marxist is criticized by concentrating too much on conflict, class
struggle and change and dwelling too little on what produces
stability in society.
• They are also criticized for being too ideological in their analysis
refute.
• The celebrated African theorists and Political activists Amilcar
Cabral argued that those who affirm that the motive force of
history is the class struggle would certainly agree to the revision of
this affirmation to make it more precise and give it a wider field of
application if they had a wider knowledge of certain colonized
country (imperialism).
• General Cabral is pointing out on some of the inadequacy of
Marxism in providing essential knowledge on the characteristics of
imperialism in underdeveloped countries
Critique of Marxist analysis…
• Many African economy are agricultural centered, countries
• Many farmers do operate under subsistence level as
opposed to the developed countries where industrial
revolution dictated the investment in large farms
• In this case no class struggle that can be expected at
subsistent farming
• Others have criticized Marxism that the theory does not
give particular attention to African situation
• In other words what kind of classes existed in Africa, what
were the nature of class struggle and the relation of
production in Africa
• So one can argue that Marxt theory of underdevelopment
is not complete
Critique of Marxist analysis…
• Marxist policy prescribes for developing country
is that only a radical break on the part of
developing countries with a global capitalist
system will permit genuine development
• Although this prescription remain valid for the
developing world, Marxist theory does not
highlight the unique and the varying situation of
the developing countries
• This universality gives it difficult to put in practice
in different third world countries
Marxist Theory – Its Impact on Contemporary
Theories on Social Development
• Marxist Theory Marxism as an ideology and theory of
social change has had an immense impact on the
practice and the analysis of social movements.
• Marxism arose from an analysis of movements
structured by conflicts between industrial workers and
their capitalist employers in the 19th century.
• In the 20th century a variety of neo-Marxist theories
have been developed that have opened themselves to
adding questions of race, gender, environment, and
other issues to an analysis centered in (shifting)
political economic conditions.
Marxist Theory – Its Impact…
• Class-based movements, both revolutionary and laborreformist, have always been stronger in Europe than in
the U.S. and so has Marxist theory as a tool for
understanding social movements but important
Marxist movements and theories have also evolved in
the US.
• Marxist approaches have been and remain influential
ways of understanding the role of political economy
and class differences as key forces in many historical
and current social movements, and they continue to
challenge approaches that are limited by their inability
to imagine serious alternatives to consumer capitalist
social structures.
Bourgeois Theorists and Marxists
Theories: A Comparative Analysis
• We can recognize some broad similarities
between Rostow's analysis and Marx's
sequence of social development.
• Both are attempts to interpret the evolution
of whole societies primarily from an economic
perspective.
• Both recognize that economic change has
social, political and cultural consequences.
References
• Himmelstrand, U; Kinyanjui, K and E. Mburugu (Eds.) (1994) African
Perspectives on
Development, Mkuki na Nyota: DarEs-Salaam
• Seers, D. “ The Meaning of Development”, International
Development Review
Vol. 19 No.2 1972, pp.2-7
• Rostow, W.W. “The Take-off into Self-Sustained Growth.” In
Agarwala, A. and S. Singh
(eds.) The Economics of
Underdevelopment. New York: Oxford
University
Press,
1963, pp. 154- 186.
• Wilber, C and K. Jameson, Paradigms of Economic Development and
Beyond.”
In
Wilber C. (ed.). Political Economy of
Development and Underdevelopment. New York: Random
House, 1983, pp.4-25
References…
• Chole E., W. Mlay
• Frank, A. “The Development of Underdevelopment” in Wilber, C.
op.cit. pp.99107
• Baran, P. “On the Political Economy of Backwardness.”, in Wilber, C.
(ed.) op.
Cit. 87- 98
• Frank, A. Crisis in the Third World, New York: HM Publishers 1981
• Msambichaka, L, H.P.B. Moshi and F. P. Mtatifikolo (eds.)
Development
challenges
and Strategies for Tanzania:
An Agenda for the 21st
Century, Dar-es-Salaam:
Dares- Salaam University Press. 1994
• Gemmell, N. (ed.) Surveys in Development Economics, New York:
Basil
Blackwell,
1987
• Rodney
•
Development, Mkuki na Nyota: Dar-es-Salaam