It may be disputed that western countries have modernised through industrialisation alone rather than democratization but we could argue that it is the combination of industrialisation with a democratic political system enabling free competitive elections and liberal markets that stimulates rapid economic development.
This position is supported by research undertaken by Surjit Bhalla (1997) which examined 90 countries during 1973 and 1990 measuring political, civil and economic freedom. He uses both economic and political freedom within his study and stresses that it is important to have high economic freedom to stimulate fast economic growth within a country. He states that ‘more freedom is unambiguously good for both growth and social development and concludes that ‘free markets and a free society are important ingredients to rapid economic development (Bhalla, 1987, p228).
A stronger case is if we look at social and alternative approaches to development. David Korten supports people centred development which claims that development is a state in which individuals are able to meet their needs through 3 basic principles: justice, sustainability and inclusiveness (Korten 1995b). An earlier approach by David Seers (1979) claims ‘the realization of the potential of human personality…is a universal acceptable aim’ should be achieve by meeting a number of criteria. These aims are more successful through the freedom and participatory approach of democratization and are more likely to consider sustainability and environmental concerns.
If we take Bhalla’s argument that democracy has greater freedom then we could say that democracy does simulate development successfully by empowering those less fortunate to take control of their lives and be agents in their own development for example the civil rights movement in America and the sustainability objectives in farming communities in Africa. Such development can be achieved through changes in balances of class power which help to strengthen the subordinate classes and lead to institutional changes both of which are processes of democratization. In contrast China although it has a rapidly growing economy it has a poor human rights record. Its communist party still retains monopoly on power with any outspoken citizens sent to labour camps.
Nobel Prize Winner Amartya Sen (1990b) strengthens this argument by saying that development should not be about the enrichment of human lives “having more things” but more to do with having the freedom to choose between different ways of living”. We can therefore say that the basis of Democratization can be a path for stimulating development.
(749)
REFERENCES
Allen, T. & Thomas, A (2000) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century, Open University, Oxford.
Gill, B. & Philip, G (1996) Towards convergence in development policy? Challenging the ‘Washington Consensus’ and restoring the historicity of divergent development trajectories, Third World Quarterly 17(4) pp 585-91
Potter, D (1997) Explaining democratization’ in Potter, D, Glodblatt, D Kiloh, M & Lewis, P (eds) Democratization, ch 1, pp1-40, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Fukuyama, F (1989) The end of history?, The Public Interest, Summer.
Bernstein, H (1983) The ‘Third World’ and ‘Development’, Block 1 of the Open Unversity course U204
Bhalla, S (1997) Freedom and economic growth: a virtuous cycle?, in Hadenious A (ed) Democracy’s Victory and Crisis p 195-241, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
David Korten (1995b) Steps toward people centred development: vision and strategies, in Heyzer, N Riker, J.V. & Quizon, A.B. (eds) Government – NGO Relations in Asia: prospects and challenges for people centred development pp 165-89
Seers, D (1979) The meaning of Development in Lehmann, D (ed) Development Theory: four critical studies, Frank Cass, London
Sen, A (1990b) Development as capability expansion in Griffith, K & Knight, J (eds) Human Development and the International Strategy for the 1990s Macmillan, London.
Question 2
- What criticisms can be raised against this view?
In a speech in the Philippines Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew (1992) stated that he did not believe democracy necessarily leads to development and that a country needs to develop discipline more than democracy. He goes on to say that democratization leads to indiscipline and disorderly conduct which hinder development.
The academic Leftwich (1993) supports this argument. He claims that ‘unlimited liberal democracy and unrestrained economic liberty is the last thing the developing world needs’.
Other criticism that can be raised against democratization stimulating developing is its ‘conservative’ nature means there is a reluctance to dramatically change the main interests of society as the government is dependent on its electorate’s competitive vote. Leftwich purports ‘no group will commit itself to a democratic process if it feels that losing an election means it will be wiped out (Leftwich 1998, pg58). He also claims that because development is a dynamic process focused on rapid transformations the conservative nature of democracy will stunt any drastic changes.
If we use India as an example we can see that although it has been a liberal democracy for 50 years attempts to ameliorate poverty through land reforms failed because the conservative landowners ensured that any changes in legislation did not have a major affect on their interests and has kept numerous poor landless, a major cause of poverty.
De Schweinitz (1959) claims that ‘if poor countries are to grow economically they must limit democratic participation in political affairs’.
There are also criticism against Surjit Bhalla’s view that successful economic development is stimulated by following the ‘right’ kind of democratization i.e. liberal democracy, with emphasis on free markets and free society. Critics argue that this approach is not always best for stimulating development in all societies and that economic freedom is not exclusive to democracy.
Other criticism come from the fact that free markets within liberal democracy are not focussed on investing in health improvement and protecting the environment its concerns are instead with consumption and growth in order to gain profits.
The World Bank produced a paper expressing its concerns of the freedoms that liberal democracies give to the markets in the World Development Report in 1997, which said it is important to ‘reinvigorate state institutions’ in order to regulate and create ‘efficient markets’ so that ‘market outcomes achieve public purpose’ (World Bank 1997b, pp7, 64-5). This implies more discipline and control is necessary in order to develop successfully as suggested by Lee Kwan Yew above.
Argentina returned to democracy in 1983 and has fallen into a deep recession when the economy collapsed in 2001 leaving numerous people in poverty, this also reflects on the above concerns of the World Bank.
Russia, part of the former super-power the Soviet Union, has also fallen on hard times since its move towards democratization.
Some African countries that have democratized soon turned back to authoritarian regimes once the country hit economic crises or gained a strong militant civil society. Fragmented and fragile societies seem to have problems with democracy and therefore have difficulties developing. The current troubles in Iraq with its different religious groups and poor social structures are making the present transition to democratization seem unlikely and difficult.
With this in mind critics can argued that authoritarian regimes are just as good if not better at successful economic development. For instance, China, South Korea and countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia have developed economies due to their strong leadership combined with a weak civil society.
Therefore to stimulate development via democratization is not a clear cut issue and depends on numerous criteria such as visions of development, strength of a country’s civil society and government.
Empowerment of the population through participatory processes of democratization may help to meet human needs and increase the likelihood of sustainable development, however there are criticism that liberal democracy does not meet David Korten’s ‘threefold human crisis’ (Korten 1995) in which the reinforcing cycle of increased poverty, social disintegration and environmental destruction is on the increase despite the global growth of liberal democracy.
Also the fact that there is evidence for both authoritarian and democratic countries having strong economic developments proves that either approach can be applied. This is illustrated in the research undertaken by Przeworski et al (1996) ‘dictatorships are no more likely to generate economic growth than democracies’.
Gavin Kitching’s claims that the route to affluence is through the increase of industry and decrease in agriculture (Kitching, 1982), so we could argue that it is industrialisation that stimulates development through modernization rather than political systems themselves.
(757)
REFERENCES
Allen, T. & Thomas, A (2000) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century, Open University, Oxford.
De Schweinitz, K (1959) ‘Industrialization, labour controls and democracy’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 7 pp385-404
Lee Kwan Yew (1992) Statement to an audience in the Philippines quoted in The Economist, 2 August 1994, p17.
Leftwich (1993) ‘Governance, democracy and development in the Third World’, Third World Quarterly, 14(3) pp605-24
Kitching, G. (1982) Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective, Methuen, London.
Przeworski, A. et al (1996) What makes democracies endure?, Journal of Democracy, 7(1) pp 39-55
World Bank (1997b) World Development Report: the state in a changing world, Oxford University Press, New York
