Introduction
Every nation desires to develop. Economic development is the centre-stage of holistic development. However, development is not solely an economic phenomenon. It encompasses many facets of human development including social, financial and other material dimensions of human growth. It also encompasses the need for a complete overhaul of social and economic systems.
Additionally, development must have an institutional bearing, changes in social and administrative structures, an overhaul of people’s attitudes, customs and beliefs. Although theorists and researchers define development from a national point of view, its realization has a direct effect on international systems, social and economic growth as well (Cowen and Shenton 35).
There are different and competing development theories. They define how a country may develop or fail to develop. Development Theory is a holistic look into these independent theories. The modernistic theories draw from the classic theories. Hence, classic theories take precedence over modernistic theories.
They include Modernization Theory, Dependency Theory, World Systems Theory, State Theory and Theory of Uneven and Combined Development (Peet 145). Although these theories look critically at the manner in which world economies have evolved and continue to evolve over time, they also analyze possibility of economically instigated failure in development.
This paper will look at the challenges facing development by drawing conclusion from these theories. It will also analyze the possibility that development is at an impasse and how it is likely to evolve in future (Preston 98).
Theory of Uneven and Combined Development
This theory reiterates on the need for inter-societal co-existing as a universal measure of economic, social and historical development. It also focuses on non-territorial coexistence, global capitalism, global political systems and property redistribution. Generally, the theory indicates that the world is too unevenly developed and differentiated in terms of economic and social standing. The theorists argue that if relevant stakeholders address these problems the world would experience faster development than currently (Preston 108).
In the current world, this theory holds water in terms of its assertions. However, the propositions it gives do not serve to eliminate the problems it indentifies. Since the World War two, when economists and development theorists started viewing the world from a common and united angle, many other blocs have come up.
These only propagate and grow the divide between the countries where development is uneven and far from combined. This is likely to continue into the future. A critical look at the economic blocs shows that many countries continue to have greater interest in preserving or growing their economic and political power. They are also formed across easily identifiable and common goals (Peet 155).
World System Theory
Developed by Wallerstein, this theory visualizes a capitalist economy. It critically analyzes the introduction of capitalism in Northern Europe and the subsequent fall of feudalism. He looks at how international trade favored those European countries at the expense of the peripheral nations.
This led to immense wealth accumulation. However, this does not mean that every person living in the North of Europe benefitted from this arrangement. Additionally, it does not mean that all individuals from the peripheral nations suffered. He argues that its development altered economic and political formations of the countries (Fordham University par 2).
Wallerstein concludes that development of a capitalist economy in the world does not serve to benefit majority of individuals. Rather, it is a route for a few to amass great wealth at the expense of others. Though his theory advocates for an all-inclusive approach, Wallerstein sees the world as headed to even greater destruction and inequalities. He says that technology will be the new frontier from which countries will propel their powers and influence.
Capitalism brought a skewed and unfavorable world. Technology will continue to do this as the world enters the 21st century homestretch. The above synthesis is the base of Dependency Theory. This theory saw the problems of under development or the gains of development as relational. The theory postulates that developed nations continue to attract more wealth while developing nations lose more wealth to the developed ones. These are the same sentiments brought forth by Marxist theories and neo Marxists (Bruff 1).
Modernization Theory
This theory advances a ‘copy-paste’ method of propagating development. It says that underdeveloped and developing nations can grow by copying the methods that developed nations employed. It lays out stages in development that its proponents believe are applicable to any nation (Przeworski and Fernando par 2).
Additionally, this theory advances the belief that states are the greatest agents of change in the lifestyles of their citizens. This highlights the need to have stable and working structures of governance and leadership to enable development. Hence, it points towards the fact that many developing countries lack stability in politics and their social systems. This reduces their chances of development since the environment is not conducive for it. Conclusively, this theory advocates for democracy largely (Przeworski and Fernando par 4).
According to this theory, there is a glimmer of hope in the development of many countries. This is because many countries in the world continue to embrace the concept of democracy.
The belief is that this will stabilize their nations and create environments for future growth. However, it is important to note that this stability is sometimes cyclical. Additionally, many countries are still stuck in problems experienced many years ago. This includes coups, revolutions and reprisals as people seek to stamp democratic rights. This is set to continue in the 21st century (King 44).
The ‘copy and paste’ concept advocated by Modernization Theory is not entirely applicable to many countries. Developed countries have infrastructure and capital intensive acquisitions that many developing nations may take a long time to acquire. Additionally, they have stability in education, which means that they have better generational succession (Vernengo par 6).
It is also important to note these countries are the masterminds of the leading world lending institutions, which they also head. This makes the entire process favorable for the continued dominance of these states. Hence, it is going to be the same old setting where these nations continue to develop at a faster rate than other countries.
The fact that this theory advocates for developed nations to aid developing nations to play catch up is laughable. This is because these countries are in contention of world’s leading resources, including human resource, and assisting them means losing competitive advantage (King 204).
State Theory
This was in response to World Systems Theory. Politics are a key player in the development of a country. This is a realization that State Theory take from World Systems Theory. It is evident that politics play a major role in the economics of a country. State Theory reiterates that politics and economic development are closely related.
Many countries take a long period before they can enjoy political stability. This is true in United States, Germany, France and probably China. During economic stability, a country enjoys development across board. This is referred to as the take-off moment (Cowen and Shenton 50).
This theory places a lot of emphasis on relations. It says that social relations, political relations and class relations are crucial to the stabilization of a nation. It looks at this from a country’s point of view. It advocates that countries should dedicate their resources towards forming relationships that last. This way a serene and predictable environment will emerge to propel developments across all the relevant sectors.
This is evident in many countries as mentioned earlier (King 34). After struggling with historic moments of turmoil and instability, nations in Europe enjoyed instances of massive development. Additionally, United States enjoyed development after struggling with problems at both the social and political standpoint.
However, what happens after that? Does the economy enjoy any more growth prospects? This theory does not address these questions. It does not look into the subsequent future of the countries. Is this the point where economies’ development experiences an impasse (Preston 78)?
Conclusion
The above dissection of theories associated with development fails to focus primarily on the reasons why many states fail. The theories do not take a futuristic view. Rather, they choose to have a historic connotation informed by the World War 2.
Hence, it evident that the theorists were somewhat responding to a need by governments to reinvigorate their economies after the World War. These theories are silent in terms of the problems that nations may face in the future, which may hamper their development.
In his book, Diamond (39) lists factors that contribute to societal collapse. Societal collapse is relevant to economy since it is indentified in many of the theories discussed above. They include climate change, environmental hiccups, failure of adaptation to issues facing the environment, hostile neighbors and fall of essential trading partners.
Diamond (56) elucidates that some of these factors may have contributed to fall of previous societies but they have a more real and imminently destructive nature in the 21st century. He particularly highlights climate change, the presence and continued carelessness in emitting toxins in the air and energy shortages as the main culprits of societal collapse in future. He also highlights overpopulation as a critical issue (Diamond 34).
From the above standpoint, it is evident that problems related to development may repeat themselves. This is because governments and concerned bodies are taking a relaxed and passive role in these imminent problems. Economists, policymakers and development experts are not coming up with solutions to tackle the above problems. This may not auger well with development as reiterated or suggested by the above theories.
These theories were primarily brought forth to respond to pressing problems that had engulfed nations and the world at large after the World War (Todaro and Smith par 4). This included lack of basic commodities like oil and broken diplomatic ties. It explains why economies experience an impasse in development now.
Does this mean that governments and relevant decision-making stakeholders will wait until the problems that are likely to happen in future take a toll on economic development to act? Based on history, this is the likeliest scenario (Cowen and Shenton 45).
Works Cited
Bruff, Ian 2011. European Varieties of Capitalism and the International. Web.
Cowen Michael & Shenton Richard. Doctrines of Development. New York: Routledge, 1996. Print.
Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Pearson, 2005. Print.
Fordham University 2011. Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory. Web.
King, Anthony 2006. The Structure of Social Theory. Web.
Peet, Richard. Theories of Development. New Jersey: The Guilford Press, 1999. Print.
Preston, Peter W. Development Theory: An Introduction to the Analysis of Complex Change. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. Print.
Przeworski, Adam & Fernando Limong 2010. Modernization Theories and Facts. Web.
Todaro, Michael & Smith Stephen 2012. Classic Theories of Economic Development: Key Concepts. Web.
Vernengo, Matías 2008, Dependency Theory. Web.