Frank’s views have been described significantly as ‘strident’ and have therefore attracted criticisms of his dependency theory. These generally state that many of the developing worlds were impoverished before the arrival of European colonists. However, it is hard to concisely decipher the precise meaning for impoverishes and to the extent that it is relevant. Some countries, such as the USA and Australia developed at a quicker rate due to colonisation. Frank’s explanation of the process of exploitation related to unfair trade and ignored other factors such as labour exploitation and taxes imposed by the colonial powers which stimulated the outflow of resources. Frank’s theory has undoubtedly advanced thinking, but his theory remains far from perfect.
W.W. Rostow’s modernisation theory incorporated five stages through which he believed that all developing societies must pass. His model was put together through his work on the growth of industrialisation in the UK and USA. The five stages of the model are: traditional subsistence economy, preconditions for take-off, take-off to maturity, the drive to maturity and the age of high-mass consumption. These stages can be characterised by limited technology and a static and hierarchical social structure.
Despite the fact that Rostow’s model was proposed in terms of the national economic unit, he concluded that the development gap was explained due to different countries being at different stages of the model. Rostow was able to present a highly descriptive model of development in which much was left unsaid about how one stage leads to another. Rostow, like Frank, did commit himself to a number of hypotheses. His theory is evolutionist, as it sees social and economic change as unfolding through a fixed set of stages. It is also un-linear because all countries must pass by the same route and in the same order. There can be no leaps, shortcuts, choices or alternative routes to development. Finally, it is in contrast to Frank’s dependency theory and internalist. The factors that determine whether or not a country can develop are internally generated within any one society. So if countries so not develop in the manner described, it is because of problems with themselves and, of course, nothing to do with the world system.
Rostow’s model, like Frank’s dependency theory, came in for criticism mainly due to the slow progress being made more obvious than before. There was a low level of explanation concerning the specific mechanisms linking together the different stages. Rostow’s model was also analogy based, and was too simplistic that developing nations could easily follow the economic history of the developed world. It was because of this too, that Rostow believed that all the countries that were ready for take-off, would not manage the final jump. Rostow’s perspective was largely internal, thus ignoring the external economic relationships. However, the biggest criticism of Rostow comes when people believe politics influenced him to a great extent. He was very strongly conservative as well as being anti-Communist, to a great deal more than Frank. His model also tends to leave many questions still unanswered.
The Clark-Fisher model is strongly in association with Rostow’s modernisation theory, because each of the five stages incorporated in Rostow’s model can be significantly related to those of Clark-Fisher. It is another temporal-based model, illustrating change over time.
According to the sector model, all developed countries have passed from agricultural societies to industrial and service economies. The UK is one of the very few countries that has experienced the transition, which happened to occur in the nineteenth century. Ireland, on the other hand, had this occur in the twentieth century. The usefulness of the model comes through as it clearly shows the transition from an economy dominated by agricultural and primary industry to the modern day domination of the secondary and tertiary sectors. The effect of this is that change occurs because success in one sector provides surplus revenue which is thus being forwarded and invested into new industrial technologies. This increases the diversity of industry within a country or region. The UK has a good example in the cotton industry as it encourages textile machinery, and service industries. Also, the ability of the Clark-Fisher sector model to interact with other models such as Rostow’s modernisation theory, the Demographic Transition Model and Myrdal’s cumulative causation can only work in its favour.
The problems with the Clark-Fisher sector model are far more easily understood than either of the previous two discussed models. The sector model is highly descriptive and offers only a crude level of analysis. It does not however say how or why a country has developed, and it also does not show the internal variations which can exist within a country.
All three of these development models contribute significantly to the understanding and different interpretations of development, in one form or another. However, because of the flaws in each of the three models which have been identified when the models were produced, none of them can claim to be the leading authority on development, and maybe if these models were used in conjunction with further models of development from Wallerstein, Sutcliffe or Friedmann, then they would become more apparently clear.
