Poor country development - the Big Debate

[tastebud]

Great thread BA & definitely the best forum for it! I remember talking about this with you.... and your thread is way better than the one that came to my mind, that would've gone in theory/philosophy. Turkey being a good example of the positives vs the negatives of economic development.

One of the lessons I learned when I lived in Cuba was that the presence of rich foreigners showing off their shiny technology on the whole made Cubans more unhappy with their lot.

I think this is going to be the big issue, in third world countries. And then the elite with rich technology, will also be a cause of jealousy/desire for progress/change.

I guess there's a slight risk of patronising people slightly, by saying there's danger of damaging their society/culture/family/community, etc, negatively, when they engage in economic development.

as has been pointed put, western society would do well to learn from such cultures - in many ways, the question is, how would this work effectively: a combination of the east & west i mean?

it's impossible, sadly.

 

[kyser_soze]

I guess I do have a dilemma here, in that I don't think people always know what they are buying into when they try to industrialise etc, so to some degree I don't trust their individual choices. But the alternative of me telling them what the best kind of development would be is also somewhat problematic

I just think it's a real shame when people get engaged in the economic 'development' process without understanding what it's going to do to their society - and I realise their are some positive changes as well as negative, but most people, from the government ministers right down to the chai-wallah rarely take any notice of these 'side-effects' at all - until they start complaining that family/community/whatever isn't what it used to be, and by then it's too late.

Yeah, but in the same can be said of humanity when we learned to make fire, started agriculture all the way up to Mr Watt realising that steam could be used to power machinery or Rutherford splitting the atom - it's always a bit of a leap in the dark, and just think, lots of lucky people get the benefit of our imperial widsom to tell them where they should be going...much like human, there's stuff that can only be discovered by societies only by the doing.

Worth pointing out that those complaints are usually made with the concomittant rose tinted spectacles of nostalgia as well...

 

[Fruitloop]

I feel like the industrialised countries should be helping other countries to devleop whilst avoiding the worst mistakes of the developed world's own industrialisation though, rather than taking advantage of looser regulation abroad to park all the really dirty shit there.

It's another example of the post-hoc fallacy that development will inevitably lead to less pollution, IMO, in that what is actually the case is that rich westerners don't have to live next to chemicals factories and open-cast mines because we farm that shit out to poorer places, and there's no reasonable way for that kind of benefit to trickle down to everyone.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

It strikes me that there's been plenty mention of 'Standard of Living' here as an indicator of 'development', yet no-one's mentioned 'Quality of Life' or 'wellbeing'.

SoL indicates more the level of economic activity - the number of cars, fridges or water that people buy.

QoL takes account of the things that 'econo-goggle' accounting cannot see, like social cohesion or free access to clean water.

See for instance Quality of Life Versus Standard of Living for the distinction.

I also intensely dislike the term 'developing' being applied to a nation. It's a pejorative term - our apparent inability to come up with an alternative is telling.

That said, some good points raised by all.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yeah, but in the same can be said of humanity when we learned to make fire, started agriculture all the way up to Mr Watt realising that steam could be used to power machinery or Rutherford splitting the atom - it's always a bit of a leap in the dark, and just think, lots of lucky people get the benefit of our imperial widsom to tell them where they should be going...much like human, there's stuff that can only be discovered by societies only by the doing.

Worth pointing out that those complaints are usually made with the concomittant rose tinted spectacles of nostalgia as well...

I can't entirely disagree with this, but I think it would be too much of a leap to go from saying this to saying that it's not worth trying to preserve the better aspects of traditional cultures at all. And anyone interested in doing that would at least consider the idea of tailoring their economic development accordingly rather than adopting the one-size-of-capitalism-fits-all approach currently in favour.

 

[Fruitloop]

More people who don't seem so keen to swap their freedom for an Ipod:

Hundreds of Maoist rebels armed with guns, grenades and home-made bombs have attacked a remote police station in the dense forests of eastern India, in a pre-dawn raid that left at least 49 police officers dead.

...

Like yesterday's unrest in West Bengal, the issue is one of land. New Delhi would like big business to dig out the mineral wealth to fuel India's industrial surge and appears to be depopulating the forests in preparation for the sale.

In clearing villages they have created a well of deep dissatisfaction, which can be exploited by the Naxalites. Last year city brokers CLSA said in a note that a "lack of policy initiatives and the inability to win over the tribals, the largest stakeholder in the hinterlands where the Maoists hold sway, means the Naxalite movement is becoming stronger".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2034485,00.html

 

[tastebud]

It strikes me that there's been plenty mention of 'Standard of Living' here as an indicator of 'development', yet no-one's mentioned 'Quality of Life' or 'wellbeing'.

SoL indicates more the level of economic activity - the number of cars, fridges or water that people buy.

QoL takes account of the things that 'econo-goggle' accounting cannot see, like social cohesion or free access to clean water.

See for instance Quality of Life Versus Standard of Living for the distinction.

I also intensely dislike the term 'developing' being applied to a nation. It's a pejorative term - our apparent inability to come up with an alternative is telling.

That said, some good points raised by all.

what's a better term then? i just wonder as it seems to me we constantly try to make this term better. but all of them seem to be in some way slightly objectionable/patronising.

i think when researchers talk about quality of life, like for example, canada having the highest quality of life, they use the social science definition of qol. which is a discrepancy between ones desired quality of life and ones *actual* qol. which is quite interesting in terms of this thread. because perceived qol will obviously change in *developing* countries like india/turkey because the perception of "quality" will change. material goods becoming more important, than say more social/community based activities/r'ships.
thus, unhappiness & dissatisfaction all round!
just like us in the west!
i think what i'm saying is that qol takes sol into account if this is relevant to the person's overall qol. (which of course it probably will be).

really i'm just blithering away to myself, so just ignore me
your post just got me thinking about how the definition of qol changes in this respect/ cross culturally.

 

[Fruitloop]

I think there's a lot in Sen's idea of capability deprivation and its impact on quality of life. It struck me reading this post

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5761762&postcount=15

how common capability deprivation is even is supposedly succesful western economies, and how it's mostly a hidden phenomenon.

 

[tastebud]

I think there's a lot in Sen's idea of capability deprivation and its impact on quality of life. It struck me reading this post

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5761762&postcount=15

how common capability deprivation is even is supposedly succesful western economies, and how it's mostly a hidden phenomenon.

god, there are so many definitions for so many similar things, it's ridiculous.
i think we sometimes start to lose what we're actually measuring, in the methods!

but yes, capability deprivation does seem to make a lot of sense, & certainly applies cross-culturally.
it's pretty interesting actually, applying these ideas to fast developing countries like turkey, for example. and how things will change/have changed over time. basically by unveiling how crap & shallow human kind really can be.
might actually make for some really interesting research.

 

[Brainaddict]

god, there are so many definitions for so many similar things, it's ridiculous.
i think we sometimes start to lose what we're actually measuring, in the methods!

I kind of agree, and too much talk of this kind sometimes makes me want to be a hippy so I can say "Let's look at it, like, holistically man, instead of using all these psuedo-scientific terms that work for The System but don't really mean much in 'the real world'".

 

[tastebud]

I kind of agree, and too much talk of this kind sometimes makes me want to be a hippy so I can say "Let's look at it, like, holistically man, instead of using all these psuedo-scientific terms that work for The System but don't really mean much in 'the real world'".

Dunno about being a hippy, but I do think socially scientific methods take the actual science out of things a lot of the time, iyswim.

But then middle class people debating such third world issues is always a bit objectionable in my view.

Oh deary me.

But then look at Margaret Mead... she didn't apply rigorous methods/definitions & how they made a fool of her.

lol

 

[Brainaddict]

But then middle class people debating such third world issues is always a bit objectionable in my view.

Thing is, what's the alternative? Ignore the billions of poor people and hope they go away? Although I know we can look like smug arseholes discussing the issues from the comfort of our privileged existence, I also don't see how we can *not* discuss it without looking like even worse arseholes.
It's a moral predicament that only affects rich people that I call 'The arsehole trap'

 

[tastebud]

Thing is, what's the alternative?

That I don't know.
(Though of course, I certainly wasn't suggesting that we abandon all research/development, etc).

 

[kyser_soze]

I can't entirely disagree with this, but I think it would be too much of a leap to go from saying this to saying that it's not worth trying to preserve the better aspects of traditional cultures at all. And anyone interested in doing that would at least consider the idea of tailoring their economic development accordingly rather than adopting the one-size-of-capitalism-fits-all approach currently in favour.

Oh totally - many culture's don't have 'traditions' as humiliating as Morris dancing so I guess I'm taking the British experience and transferring it...

 

[Fruitloop]

British culture is already spread around the world, though, so it doesn't need to be preserved here. That's why every time some psycho murders their way through a colonial population they're always dressed up like Monty.

 

[slaar]

Incidentally I'm just back from a trip to the north of Sierra Leone for a workshop organised to let people know about some research on rural agriculture we've been doing. We had local representatives ranging from Paramount Chiefs to members of the national association of farmers, the nearest thing they have to a union, cooperative leaders and members of youth organisations.

They weren't talking directly about capitalism, but they were talking about wanting the ability to add value to their crops and drag their districts out of what is currently tough and pretty meagre subsistence agriculture. They were talking about markets, machinery and commercial production. Now I'm not saying that capitalism is the only way to achieve this, but it does seem by far the most likely.

This is one of the poorest places on the planet. They've got no illusions about things.

 

[Brainaddict]

Incidentally I'm just back from a trip to the north of Sierra Leone for a workshop organised to let people know about some research on rural agriculture we've been doing. We had local representatives ranging from Paramount Chiefs to members of the national association of farmers, the nearest thing they have to a union, cooperative leaders and members of youth organisations.

They weren't talking directly about capitalism, but they were talking about wanting the ability to add value to their crops and drag their districts out of what is currently tough and pretty meagre subsistence agriculture. They were talking about markets, machinery and commercial production. Now I'm not saying that capitalism is the only way to achieve this, but it does seem by far the most likely.

This is one of the poorest places on the planet. They've got no illusions about things.

Is it that they've got no illusions or that they're being offered no other alternatives? How you see it depends on whether you believe there could be an alternative path to development doesn't it?

 

[slaar]

Is it that they've got no illusions or that they're being offered no other alternatives? How you see it depends on whether you believe there could be an alternative path to development doesn't it?

Indeed, but the desire to have more material resources, in some way, is quite fundamental to people living in extremely bad conditions, exposed through the media to those with much better lifestyles. And that's not going away in a hurry.

Piece in The Times this morning on DfID's place in all this which is worth a read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article1533787.ece

 

[Brainaddict]

Indeed, but the desire to have more material resources, in some way, is quite fundamental to people living in extremely bad conditions, exposed through the media to those with much better lifestyles. And that's not going away in a hurry.

Absolutely - I think we're in agreement

 

[Fruitloop]

Incidentally I'm just back from a trip to the north of Sierra Leone for a workshop organised to let people know about some research on rural agriculture we've been doing. We had local representatives ranging from Paramount Chiefs to members of the national association of farmers, the nearest thing they have to a union, cooperative leaders and members of youth organisations.

They weren't talking directly about capitalism, but they were talking about wanting the ability to add value to their crops and drag their districts out of what is currently tough and pretty meagre subsistence agriculture. They were talking about markets, machinery and commercial production. Now I'm not saying that capitalism is the only way to achieve this, but it does seem by far the most likely.

This is one of the poorest places on the planet. They've got no illusions about things.

I don’t get why you think that capitalism is more likely to succeed in improving their material circumstances though, except for the obvious fact that it’s the dominant system at the moment. I mean, you don’t need capitalism to industrialise agriculture or make more efficient use of available land and resources (the urban farming in Cuba is a case in point). It just seems that the illusion if there is one is to associate some kind of necessary cause to something that is only circumstantially related.

In addition, there are plenty of other features of capitalism that are pretty inimical to their interests – union-busting, seed patenting, land-grabbing, increased vulnerability to trends in the global financial markets etc etc. I mean, whilst there are obvious gains to be had if people are just scratching out a living from the land, if they end up instead having to sell the land to agribusiness and join the swelling shanty-town proletariat I don’t understand how they’re the winners in the long term.

 

[Brainaddict]

Piece in The Times this morning on DfID's place in all this which is worth a read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article1533787.ece

DfID's standard defence if anyone say's their money doesn't reach the people it should is that they're at least better than other agencies. Which may be true, but isn't entirely satisfactory.

The claim of pervasive incompetence and naivety by DfID is somewhat strange. It is usually ranked as one of the most effective donors in the world. I have a lot of problems with DfID but for other reasons than this.

I think it's interesting that the columnist questions whether the taxpayer really wants to fund DfID. I can't say I've ever heard any objections to it - but it being the Times, they probably mean that rich people don't want to fund it - for the same reason that rich people usually don't want to give money to poor people - that they don't deserve it.

 

[slaar]

I don’t get why you think that capitalism is more likely to succeed in improving their material circumstances though, except for the obvious fact that it’s the dominant system at the moment. I mean, you don’t need capitalism to industrialise agriculture or make more efficient use of available land and resources (the urban farming in Cuba is a case in point). It just seems that the illusion if there is one is to associate some kind of necessary cause to something that is only circumstantially related.

In addition, there are plenty of other features of capitalism that are pretty inimical to their interests – union-busting, seed patenting, land-grabbing, increased vulnerability to trends in the global financial markets etc etc. I mean, whilst there are obvious gains to be had if people are just scratching out a living from the land, if they end up instead having to sell the land to agribusiness and join the swelling shanty-town proletariat I don’t understand how they’re the winners in the long term.

Simply, because it's under capitalism allied with some form of strong / effective government that most countries which have successfully industrialised and reduced the level of subsistence living have done so. And I don't think that is circumstantial. Capitalism has screwed a lot of countries, don't get me wrong, this one for a start, but it also presents opportunities. And there's not one way of interacting with capitalism and foreign forces, there are many.

But how a country does it depends on how effectively they can take advantage of the opportunities without suffering the worst of all of the downside consequences you rightly point out. Some form of collectivised industrial development needs a much stronger collective identity than is present in many African countries, where national identity often comes lower down the list than tribal or even family ties.

But I'm not dogmatic about any of this, and I'm aware I could be totally wrong for any number of reasons. What alternatives do you think could work in this kind of situation?

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, my question is how is it not circumstantial? What is the relation between the structural features of capitalism and the development itself?

Also, why is national identity key for other positions to work, rather than a divisice hindrance? (I am a pretty fervent anti-nationalist I have to say).

 

[slaar]

Well, my question is how is it not circumstantial? What is the relation between the structural features of capitalism and the development itself?

Also, why is national identity key for other positions to work, rather than a divisice hindrance? (I am a pretty fervent anti-nationalist I have to say).

There is no one, uniform relation. It totally depends on the interaction between the national and the international, the former dictated by domestic politics and capabilities and the latter by systemic features. If that's what you mean by circumstantial, then I agree with you that there's no deterministic feature of capitalism which ensures that countries will catch up (i.e. the End of History argument is bollocks).

National identity isn't key for all other positions, but where development has been successful it has often played a key role (Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan, South Korea, China)...

There's a big problem though which you're right to point out. Capitalist industrial revolutions involve a great deal of shit for most people, and it's only in time, when organised resistance to the excesses of the system can come into play that a more humane system seems to come about (dark satanic mills vs call centres, for example). But there's no guarantee that any particular transition will be successful.

 

[Gmart]

300 million people have been pulled out of poverty in China since industrialisation started, and so despite any reservations about Capitalism this HAS to be a good thing.

One current problem is that the World Bank doesn't allow expansionary policies to create growth, so that the poor countries remain just that, poor!!

The problem is that without countries standing together and ensuring that workers rights are NOT abused by companies, they quite often compete for business to come into their country offering a lack of workers rights as an incentive (nice!)

that's why the EU tries to ensure that everyone has the same rights so as to stop countries from doing this.