Lectures – Development Geography II
Lecture 1 – The concept of ‘Development’
Development isn’t only top down. There is also an (even maybe more important) bottom-up
movement of development, for example adaptation on agricultural situations to improve crops and
income.
There are different development issues:
- Poverty, deprivation
- Inequality and exclusion
o Not getting access to certain sources in society
- Sustainability
o More and more important
- Human development: just and sustainable
o The yardstick against which we measure development is a just and sustainable
development. A situation which is both equitable (you can justify differences and
they are just) and sustainable (for future generations).
Clear distinction between population and GDP -> inequality
Economic growth
India and China growing. Surprisingly, western Europe is still very prominent. There is still some
growth (say 1% per year) and China used to be close to 10%. This is because growth in Europe may
be low, but it is growth for a big economy. The growth speed is much higher in Asia, but what is
added every year in Europe is still sizable.
China still has a lot of poor people, but it also has a large population size.
To what extent is it a problem?
When you talk about hunger or famine, you talk about the real problem. Different between hunger
and famine: hunger is lack of food, especially an inadequate quality of food; famine is a larger scale
and chronic hunger, a concentration of hunger.
Food emergencies in the 21st century
Famine – concentrated and catastrophic hunger
Hunger – insufficient food, quantity/quality seasonal and chronic Most hungry people in Asia
(absolute numbers) In relative terms, hunger is more common in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is also
more vulnerable to famine Causes of famine: Natural causes (floods, droughts; climate change) Man-
made causes (wars, bad policies)
Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) is a way to approach hunger.
Child mortality is an important indicator for development. Prominent in Global South, almost
completely absent in Global North. Lot of health spending in the North.
Light emissions and use of electrical lightning is also indicator for development. For example when
looking at North and South Korea and the differences.
The poorer countries tent to be more inequal. Which is logical. Every country has an elite and in the
globalized era, elite take part in the global world as much as people in the North do. Poor people are
not really part of the world of flows (in globalization terms) which creates the base for these
inequalities.
1
,Global income distribution
Differences between start of colonialization period (1800s) and now.
Striking is the movement of Asia to the wealthier part. What is also
striking is the fact that in 1800 there is a global wealth distribution
without very big differences. There is not a very specific continent
with poor and rich. In 1974 there is polarization in terms of income
and a clear North South distinction. The 2015 figure shows that we
are moving back to one world together and more even economies
and smaller differences.
To what extent should we talk about the classical north-south divide,
or should we talk about global development in which we distinguish
different groups but not geographical differences?
Dimensions of development
➢ Economic growth, capital accumulation – capitalism
➢ Well-being, satisfaction in life
➢ Human security, resilience against shocks
➢ Sustainability: the time-dimension Opportunities, being able to make choices in life:
o ‘Development as freedom’ (Amartya Sen), rights-based approach, global justice
We are more determining development by well-being instead of only money and economical
development. So well-being and human security are added. Later, sustainability is also added (so
development is growing and getting broader). Sustainability adds the time-dimension: development
over time and different generations. Lastly, opportunities are added: framing development in terms
of peoples opportunity space. Amartya Sen defined development in the freedoms people have to live
their lives.
Thinking development: conceptual origins
Development has its roots in Europe/Western countries, so in western cultures.
Judea-Christian idea of ‘salvation’ or ‘redemption’: reaching a higher state through effort.
➢ By doing good, you can improve yourself. In first place a place in heaven, but also more
widely. By effort and hard work you reach a moral superior position which also opens the
door to the afterlife. That is the basis of the European Enlightenment of 18th century.
European Enlightenment: discovery of progress; different societies viewed as having different
positions in a similar ‘civilization’ process.
2
, ➢ It is not just a cycling process of progress and downward, but things are manageable.
Spread to other parts of the world.
Thinking development: situating the idea
The term development became prominent in public discourse in 1930s, especially after WWII. It was
the time of decolonialization.
South American countries also became independent, but they were seen more as western countries,
so their independence was more acceptable. They were seen as western cultures.
The idea of development became prominent in the era of decolonization: end of empire, rise of
independent states in the South.
Note its political convenience:
➢ Justification of European ‘stewardship’ in the late colonial (‘ethical’) period.
➢ Development started to legitimize governments and new states of newly created
independent states.
➢ Internationally there was a competition between the West and the Communist bloc. This was
the start of development aid. Role in Cold War: development aid was partly due to concern
with advantaged people, but also a strategic tool in struggle between East and West.
Development was an convenient idea in jobs and work. You had to justify your position and
development helped in it. And internationally, it was an useful tool to win allies in the West-
East competition.
➢ Truman’s Point 4 program
Development theories – Potter c.s.
Distinguishes 2 main approaches: modernization theories and radical approaches:
➔ Modernization theories start from ideas about rational modernity, to be adopted universally
– basically, diffusion of western technical but also cultural ‘software’.
o Systematic application of rational decisions can improve society. It is rather
technocratic.
➔ Radical approaches reject the idea of wester superiority implicit in modernization theory;
o Can be structuralist (dependency theory)
o Or poststructuralist
It challenges the western and European bias in modernization line of thinking.
Modernization theory (esp. 1950s, 60s)
- Most popular way looking at development issues.
- Focus on economic growth and expanding economy.
- It is also seen as non-problematic. Do what the developed countries have done. Just copy NL,
US, etc.
- That was in the first place by the industrialization of economy. Moving from agriculture to
industry with higher levels of productivity of labor and capital in it. This is still important for
countries such as China: moving to low productivity agriculture to industry and later service.
- Downside is that you abstract from political dimensions and cultural aspects and do not
include issues in western societies. It is a capitalist way how to form the economy. It has
impact on cultural situations and classes within society. It is weak in contextualizing things.
There are big differences in ways of thinking between different cultures and people and
countries. Fundamental differences in view of life and purposes of life. You can’t just take a
western model and apply it to the rest of the world.
However, not everything is different. Ideas about basic needs and wanting food in belly etc.
are comparable.
- Economic focus: development as economic growth
- Modernization as applying recipe: imitate the already developed countries, especially
through industrialization.
3
, - Note: little attention for political aspects and cultural differences, no contextualization
o Does everybody want to become an American suburbanite? Can we all become like
‘Gooise vrouwen’? There are shared values (long healthy life, adequate income,
respectability), but beyond that there are big differences between people and
peoples
- Note the implicit Western bias: the West as the model for the Rest.
Walt Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth is
probably most clear idea of modernization
as universal process. From a traditional
society -> preconditions for take-off -> take-
off -> drive to maturity -> high mass
consumption.
Argentina for example has for ever been
stuck in take-off. Some countries haven’t
even ever reached that. But that is not
highlighted in modernization thinking.
This technocratic approach was critized,
especially in late 1960s, 1970s:
The Political Reaction (late 1960s, 1970s)
- Political economy views: dependencia (structuralist)
o Key insight: South is not lagging behind North, but
development and underdevelopment are 2 sides of
the same coin.
o Underdevelopment caused by the historical
process of European expansion = spread of
modern capitalism.
o Increasing inequalities in global level as a result of
development elsewhere and colonialization.
o North became wealthy as expense of the south.
The Cultural Reaction (esp. since 1990s)
- Poststructuralism: challenges accepted ‘knowledge claims’, dismissing ‘grand narratives’
(theories) of development. What is knowledge? The core is a critical position towards
development and knowledge. How do you know what you know is the truth? Development is
between your ears, it is a way of looking at the world. What is the factual basis? How correct
is it to frame things in development? Poststructuralist say you can make observation, but it is
your own background that filters your interpretation because of your background,
knowledge and environment. So we are not objective.
- Attacks not just western bias in modernization thinking, but also the ‘one size fits all’
explanation of dependency thinking.
Adding the time dimension (esp. since late 1980s)
➢ Sustainable development: staying within planetary boundaries
o Originally mostly focused of pollution and natural resource reserves
o Later more concern for effects of climate change.
Development thinking in review
Note that each of the three approaches has contributions and shortcomings:
• Modernization theory
o Plus: insight that a better life is possible, use of science and technology
4
