The theories of (uneven) development were born from the writings (and opposing views) of Albert Hirschman and Gunnar Mydral. At separate times during the 1950’s, Hirschman(1958) saw a spread of development from centres whereas Mydral (1957) concentrated instead on forces which would tend to maintain or increase differences between regions. In the 1970’s and 80’s, following the debate over both Hirschman and Mydrals works, other lines of thought came into fashion as it became clear that neither left-nor-right analysis were able to be translated into practical policies. I will now begin to outline the two schools of thought behind the concept of (uneven)development.
Firstly I will begin with right-wing or mainstream theory. As a representative of this mainstream view of development processes we can take the neo-classical model of economics. Basically this is taken as a model of balance. Neoclassical economics takes into account scarce non-produced goods and their conditions of exchange the neoclassical general equilibrium model presumes the existence of rational individuals. These rational individuals have an allocation of resources/commodities which they will then use to exchange with others in order to gain other resources/commodities until their utilities are maximised. Because income distribution is determined solely through exchange relationships this means that if one individual has a stronger exchange relationship that individual will have a considerable bigger income than others that posses the same resource/commodity but have weaker exchange relationships. This, the left-wing argue is one of the many things which is flawed of this system for it creates inequalities which are always present and thus give certain individuals “unfair” advantages. For the mainstream argument, the agents of development are centres, most typically large cities, and from the development impulses spread out to peripheries. In these centres is accumulated wealth, market structures, advanced technology, management skills etc.. These centres become the drive behind all advancements due to the accumulated resources. These advancements diffuse through into the periphery areas, industry in this central zone are the ones which offer high wages which in turn has many of the best skilled people vying for these top jobs. Thus paying high wages and getting value for money. In the long term however right-wing theory argues that the wealth, resources and labour skills are attracted to the periphery and that the centres encourage the formation of industry and a large skilled labour force. Development aid is given to correct the imbalance of the initial phase and then the periphery becomes if not as predominant as the original centre. This process is one where movement is induced form declining sectors or regions to more dynamic ones.
Radical or left-wing theories of development cannot really be directly compared to right-wing ones for they have different origins, data and methods of analysis. Radical views do not necessarily take that capitalism is not the correct way for growth and development but instead argue that the main factors which attribute to this are not the same that the right believe. Instead of capital, labour and land, they believe it is more on the power of individuals and organisations (e.g. governments) that control the way in which development and its patterns are determined. For example many believe that the development in the third world is not a matter of capital and labour or the lack of it but more to the controlling nature of governments and outside powers. The writings of Andre Gender Frank (1967) highlighted this. Frank rejected the idea that underdevelopment is an original condition. He argued that it is a condition created by integration into the world wide system of exchange. The concentration of poverty and the lack of development are not, a consequence of geographical isolation or the failure of western technology, capital and values. Rather it stems directly from the nature of spatial relationships within the world capitalist system. Franks workings could be classified as that under the title of “dependency theory”. Dependency theory states that, essentially “development somewhere requires underdevelopment somewhere else.”
Both of the school of thoughts that argue the causes of uneven development are flawed to an extent. As is stated at the start of the essay none of the two could be put into practical scenarios. While the right can argue that the current situation in the world is generally stable and that development can be addressed and is trying to be in many places, the speed of reform or of this even spread of resources, wealth etc. through economic forces is not acceptable for many in the peripheral areas. Many (in these areas) believe that they are being left behind and that the transfer of resources is not being achieved. We see that in the world that we live in there is an inequality which is active everyday. This inequality ranges from the lack of food to the lack of industry and wealth. On the other hand the left-wing argument is also not the whole answer to the problems of uneven development. The left-wing to me points out the faults in the mainstream system but then does not clearly set out resolutions for the solving of the problem. The left seem to want the way in which government and muti-national companies change the way in which they operate. While in theory this is a great concept in reality it is a very difficult thing to achieve. For the way human nature tends to lean is that where the individuals needs are greater to him/herself than that of the greater good of his or her brother or sister on a global scale. I, myself believe that the current mainstream attitude is suited to developed countries and not to those who are still trying to establish themselves. I believe that the world market is there for those with economic power to dictate to others the way of the land. This leads me to believe and lean more to the left-wing. Maybe it is because there is just so much inequality in the current system of development that I have lost faith in them.
Word count: 1267
