Neoliberalism, Globalisation & International Financial Institutions

Neoliberalism, globalization and the developmental efforts of International Financial Institutions (IMF & World Bank) have severely affected the economic security of nations and individuals: 

(a) Defining concepts: Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Human Security;

(b) International Financial Institutions-The IMF and World Bank: Background, Functions and Developmental efforts; 

(c) Globalization: Nature, Benefits, and relationship with conflict, violence, and crime; 

d) The failure of Neoliberalism and globalization and impact on Human security (Economic Security);

(e) The impact of globalization and neoliberalism on human security in Africa.

Abstract:

Since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, capitalism through neoliberalism and globalization has spread like an infectious disease, giving the U.S.A. through “their” Bretton Woods established International Financial Institutions, namely the World Bank, The IMF and WTO, hegemonic free reign to impose their neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation on the rest of the world, with severely negative effects on The Third World/ South/ Developing nations.

By: Henry Badenhorst

20 April 2010

Introduction

Since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, capitalism through neoliberalism and globalization has spread like an infectious disease, giving the U.S.A. through “their” established International Financial Institutions, namely the World Bank, The IMF and WTO, hegemonic free reign to impose their neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation on the rest of the world, with severely negative effects on The Third World/ South/ Developing nations, of which the most notable the erosion of the nation-state, consequent failure by the state to ensure economic security for its citizens, the state losing its legitimacy and consequent state collapse that leads to violence, conflict and crime. Globalization through neoliberal policies has widened the income and wealth fissure between the Industrialized North and Developing South instead of narrowing it, increasing human (economic) insecurity for most in the developing world. The concepts of neoliberalism and globalization will be conceptualized. 

The International Financial Institutions, specifically the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will be discussed in terms of their functions, background, and developmental efforts, specifically their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s). The failure of neoliberal policies and the consequent impact on economic security will be explored in detail. Globalization, its dichotomous nature, its benefits for the wealthy segment in the industrialized world and its relationship with the collapse of the nation-state and consequent ensuing conflict, in establishing a ‘new world disorder’, receive attention. The impact of neoliberal policies and globalization on human security in Africa is the last point of discussion.

Conceptualizing Neoliberalism and Globalization

What are globalization and neoliberalism? “Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Kotz.2000:8). According to the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) “Globalization is the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments“(www.genderandhealth.ca).

Neoliberalism is “the political view, arising in the 1960’s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces” (Encarta.2006) Neoliberalism is thus “characterised by the significance attached to private property, market relations and acquisitive individualism and was initially introduced to the developing world through the implementation of structural adjustment policies with their established practice of devaluation, increased producer prices, reduced wage bills, elimination of subsidies and privatisation of state-owned assets” (Willett.2001a:1157). According to Friedman (in Conteh-Morgan.2006:90-91), neoliberalism is the primary discourse of globalization and within neoliberalism, the emphasis is on a system of beliefs, ideas, and values, presented as the only credible economic and political system.

The idea of territorial security has overlooked the fact that for millions of people their greatest threats are not that of invasion, rather threats like disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression and environmental hazards (Willett.2001b:1175). This has led to a shift in the referent point of security from territoriality to one of human security (Willett.2001b:1175). The state in many developing countries has been eroded to the extent where it can no longer provide security to its citizens. This has led to a new notion of security which can capture the vulnerabilities of people and communities to the forces of change brought about by globalization and neoliberal policies, namely human security (Willett.2001a:1158). Human security is understood as ‘freedom from fear and freedom from threat and is concerned with economic security, food security, health security, community security and political security (Willett.2001b:1175). It embraces people’s right to have a certain quality of life and that anything that erodes that quality of life, erodes their basic right to security (Willett.2001a:1159). Human security is concerned with ‘structural violence that emanates from non-territorial security threats (Willett.2001a:1159).

International Financial Institutions: Background, Functions and Developmental efforts (SAP’s)

The spread of capitalism reinforces the sense of an emerging global civilization, defined by universal standards of economic and political organization and which is effusive with its own instruments in the form of the IMF, WTO and World Bank. These institutions promulgate the neoliberal discourse on globalization. They have considerable leverage and have incorporated most of the economies of developing countries and transition economies into their post-Cold War liberal order (Willett.2001a:1156).

According to the Bank Information Centre (www.bicusa.org), “The World Bank was originally established to support reconstruction in Europe after World War II but has since reframed its mission and expanded its operations both geographically and substantively. Today, the Bank's mission is to reduce poverty. It has over 184 member countries and provides over $24 billion annually for activities ranging from agriculture to trade policy, from health and education to energy and mining.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) “is the international organization that oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its member countries, in particular, those with an impact on exchange rate and the balance of payments. It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international exchange rates and facilitating development through the enforcement of liberalizing economic policies on other countries as a condition for loans, restructuring or aid. It also offers highly leveraged loans, mainly to poorer countries” (www.wikipedia.org)

At the end of the Cold War, Washington in a renewed zeal sought to implement neoliberal policies of market liberalization and deregulation (Willett.2001b:1168). A new ideology of ‘Liberal Internationalism’ sprang up that advocated the notion of ‘democratic peace’ which maintained that the global spread of capitalism would induce stability and peace (Willett.2001b:1168). These ideas coalesced within the World Bank and IMF to form the Washington Consensus, which in terms of the debate on the development strategies of transition economies of the former Soviet Union and the developing world (Willett.2001b:1168).

International Financial Institutions (Multi-lateral institutions), such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, in their interventions, emphasize the reduction of state power in economic management at the national and international level. State economic management is replaced by liberalized markets to improve output and productivity growth rates in the developed world and establish economic convergence between the North and the South. The developmental state model of the 1960’s and 1970’s is thereby being replaced by a neoliberal model of development (Willett.2001a:1157). Conteh-Morgan (2006:88) refers to economic globalization as a process which could be defined as the exercise of transnational hegemonic power, which is reflected in the decisions, actions or impositions of the World Bank, The IMF, and WTO.

The IMF, through structural adjustment programs, and the World Bank through development aid, applied macro-economic strategies, based on trade liberalization, which included the opening up of domestic markets to foreign investment and competition, the privatization of state assets and the deregulation of markets (Willett.2001b:1168). According to Conteh-Morgan (2006:88), Third World economies are being subjected to drastic regimes in order to structurally adjust them to the global market. These SAP’s adversely affect the economic security of marginalized people in developing countries. Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP’s) enforced by IFI’s such as the World Bank and IMF, have a strategy of structural re-subordination of the South to the North and have dismantled the economic role of the state. It has in effect re-engineered a massive redistribution of financial resources from the South to the North (Willett.2001a:1158). The Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank, IMF, and WTO) should take note of civil unrests, strikes, and protests against the effects of SAP’s that these programs not only exclude the poor but also contribute towards social unrest political instability (Willett.2001b:1171). The fact, however, is that the IMF and World Bank tend to remain distant towards their failed programmes (Willett.2001b:1171).

The IMF and World Bank, due to the East Asian crisis, had to rethink international development co-operation (Willett.2001a:1163). The IMF has undertaken two major evaluations of its lending operations to low-income countries (Willett.2001a:1163). The World Bank also undertook an in-depth evaluation of its experience with adjustment lending, seeking to implement a new development paradigm in its Comprehensive Development Framework that makes poverty reduction strategies the basis for concessional lending to low income countries through IDA (International Development Assistance) and debt relief to highly indebted poor countries (HIPC’s) (Willett.2001a:1163). The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) also made proposals for improving development co-operation through principles of partnership and policy coherence (Willett.2001a:1163).

These IFI’s tend to furthermore serve the interests of the industrialized elites with the biggest voting power, especially the U.S.A, which uses these institutions to implement neoliberal policies to their benefit. According to Linden (2003:196), the U.S. with its 18 percent voting power in the IMF managed to promote its own policies within. Countries in the General assembly that would vote insufficiently pro-U.S.A stood the chance of facing difficulty in getting loans from the IMF. The U.S. also managed to pressure the IMF in changing its articles of association as to give the IMF greater power in forcing member countries to liberalize their current accounts and to allow foreign money in and out (Linden.2003:196-197). According to Linden (2003:197), the neoliberal policies of the U.S. was responsible for the South-East Asian market crash. The hegemonic power and undue influence within these IFI’s is illustrated in the fact that it has become the international economic doctor: “Irrespective of your economic ills, the neoliberal prescription would be good for you….and anyway you had no choice” (Linden.2003:197).

Globalization: Dichotomous nature, Benefits and its relationship with conflict

Globalization and its core policies such as deregulation, took on a natural quality as the right ordering of economics, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new post-Cold War era has been characterized by this soft projection of U.S. power in a sustained policy push to finalize the unfinished business of the neoliberal projected, started after World War II (Linden.2003:190-191). According to Willett (2001a:1156), globalization has arrived as the harbinger to announce a radical new world order, which presages the demise of the nation-state, replaced by market liberalization and deregulation that shift the relationship between markets and the state, applied through multi-lateral organizations (IFI’s) and transnational corporations.

Kaplinsky (in Willett.2001a:1159) argues that the Achilles heel of globalization is economic insecurity and that mainly due to globalization’s dichotomous nature, in the sense that globalization has the power to simultaneously integrate and fragment whole economies and communities. This is apparent in the case of the end of the Cold War, where political and economic barriers were removed for global capitalism to spread, while at the same time leading to rising levels of economic and human insecurity (Willett.2001a:1159). Willett (2001a:1155) points out that the dichotomous nature of globalization has led to volatile and unstable global order due to exacerbated tensions between the centers of wealth and the broad swathes of society that remain marginalized and impoverished. “While globalization has enhanced the wealth of the already rich and powerful, it has simultaneously impoverished and marginalized many people and economies in the periphery of the global economy” (Willett.2001b:1167).

Gélinas (in Conteh-Morgan.2006:90) refers to globalization as a system as well as a process, which characterised by the transformation of the international political economy , from a regulated to a deregulated one in the spheres of trade, markets, finance, investment and politics, which results in the creation of one single global market, which encompasses health, education, money, work, and culture. Globalization according to the UNDP (1999:1), is more than the flow of money and commodities, it’s also a process whereby culture, technology, and governance are integrated, leading to people becoming connected everywhere in the world and being affected by events even in the far corners of the world. Globalization, furthermore, represents a widening and deepening of economic, political, social and cultural interdependence and interconnectedness according to Willett (2001a:1154).

Globalization is enhanced by human developments. Rapid global integration has been facilitated by technological developments in information, communications, and transportation (or ICT) systems, which have reduced previous time-space barriers (Willett.2001a:1154). Further integration was made possible by the former communist world coming into the capitalist fold due to the end of the Cold War and International Financial Institution (World Bank, The IMF, and WTO) policies of market liberalization and deregulation (Willett.2001a:1154). According to the UNDP (1999:1), globalisation, is different than what it was in the late 19th century, due to new developments, such as new markets where foreign exchange and capital markets are linked 24 hours a day with dealings at a distance in real time; new tools, such as internet links, cellular phones and media networks, new actors, such as the WTO that has authority over national governments, multi-national corporations with more economic power than many states; and new rules, such as multilateral agreements on trade, services and intellectual property, backed by strong enforcement.

Neoliberals believe that globalization is beneficial to development. De Long (1999:2) states that it leads to richer, more vibrant and tolerant world and that governments should not fight it, but instead embrace it. According to the UNDP (1999:2), globalisation is opening up many opportunities for millions of people around the world. Globalisation leads to increased trade, new technologies, foreign investments, expanding media and internet connections, that fuels economic growth and human advance, which in return offers enormous potential to eradicate poverty in the 21st century (UNDP.1999:2). “We have more wealth and technology and more commitment to global community than ever before” (UNDP.1999:2). Global markets, global technology, global ideas and global solidarity can enrich our lives and expand our choices (UNDP.1999:2). This growing interdependence calls for shared values and a share commitment towards human development for all (UNDP.1999:2). Willett points out that technological developments, such as instant information and rapid communication, the internet, improved air transportation and over the horizon weapon systems, have compressed the traditional barriers of time and space (Willett.2001a:1156). This so-called “New Economy” has become the carrier of a promise for stable and sustainable economic growth (Eanes.2009:61).

There is a relationship between globalisation established through neoliberal policies and the incidence of violence, conflict and crime. Willett (2001a:1160) argues that the failure of neoliberal policies to facilitate sustainable development, combined with debt crises, exacerbates poverty and economic marginalisation, closing off formal sector employment for large sections of the population. These factors, combined with state collapse and consequent rule of law due to the neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, have led to an environment conducive to the incubation and intensification of crime, violence and conflict as groups compete in a bid for survival (Willett. 2001a:1160). 

When governments fail to provide social welfare, health, education and security they not only lose their legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens, it also leads to violence (Willett.2001b1171). Kaldor and Luckham (in Willett.2001a:1160) points out that the weakening of the state has eroded its traditional monopoly of violence, which led to a growth in the sub-contracting out of military functions to private security firms and mercenaries, who are only accountable to their paymasters and who poses a serious threat to human security. The proliferation and diffusion of arms, especially small arms, not only intensifies violence but also increase levels of insecurity (Willett.2001a:1161).

Neoliberal policies lead to the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, inflicting structural violence, which leads to conflict within the state, but more so eventually it leads to the rejection of development and through post development sentiment it resists neoliberalism at the grassroots level as the Zapatista movement proves. Willett (2001b:1167) points out that one of the major structural causes of conflict is to be found in the failure of neoliberal policies that underpin the current phase of globalisation. Conflict theorists also point out that poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth and the failure to meet basic needs, constitute a source of structural violence that lies at the heart of many conflicts, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the spiral of poverty, indebtedness and conflict is most visible (Willett.200b:1171). “The deep cleavage between rich and poor and the effects of the neoliberal word order on the lives of millions of people in the global periphery (boundary), represent a deep form of structural violence that lies at the heart of the current global system” According to Rogers, the neoliberal economic system embodies a form of social injustice that has produced a ‘revolution of unfulfilled expectations’ reaching a climax (culminating)in the insurgencies and instability in Latin America, North-Africa and the Middle East. The Chiapas movement in Mexico is an example of resistance against neoliberalism (in Willett.2001a:1158).

Neoliberalism’s and Globalisation’s failure and impact on worldwide economic security

Globalisation has not been able to do what supporters of neoliberalism expected it to do. Globalisation did not achieve economic convergence as expected. Very few countries have actually reaped benefits from globalisation; instead, they are being faced with increased poverty, mass unemployment, social fragmentation and political instability (Willett.2001a:1155). The neoliberal policies of IFI’s and transnational corporations to enforce and strengthen globalization has not only failed with regards to state collapse and causing structural violence and conflict, but it also impacts people, communities and states negatively in the sense that it reverses growth instead of improving it. The Pearson Commission report, 30 years ago recognized the problem when it stated that “the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries has become the central problem of our times” (UNDP.1999:11). This statement has proved right over the last three decades, with the income gap doubling between the world’s richest fifth and its poorest fifth, to 74 to 1. Add to the gap, migration, environmental pressure, conflict, instability and other problems rooted in poverty and inequality, a true picture of the dilemma is created (UNDP.1999: 11).

What impacts our human security, more specifically our economic security? Kaplinsky mentions that the Achilles heel of globalization is economic security (Willett.2001a:1159). He explored the link between globalization and economic security and came to the conclusion that there is a link between growing levels of economic insecurity and the sustainability of globalization. He found that opening of markets, whilst allowing holders of scarce skills to benefit, the less skilled were marginalized, which increased economic insecurity for these larger sections of the population (Willett.2001a:1159).

Neoliberalism has furthermore impacted the functioning and legitimacy of individual states. Neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, have rolled back the role of the state on a spectrum of issues in such a serious manner as to subvert the capacity of the state to control and protect the internal life of society, which in turn has led to the contestation of state legitimacy, especially in regions where the state was already weak, and eventually to total state collapse, where state structure, authority, law and political order have fallen apart, for example, Sierra Leone (Willett.2001a:1160). Total state collapse in turn leads to fragmented societies, increased human insecurity and increased social unrest, violence, crime and armed conflict (Willett.2001a:1160). The International Forum on Globalisation points out that globalisation policies, not only increase poverty, but also that it contributes towards inequality between and within nations (Prabhakar.2003:304).

Although Neoliberal policies of trade liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation, to emphasise globalisation’s dichotomous nature again, led to a growth in world output and increased global volumes of trade and capital mobility, the evidence of greater weight suggests that globalisation leads to increased economic volatility, undermining the economic security of millions of people, widening the gap between the winners and losers, losers that represents 1.3 billion people in 89 developing countries, who are worse off now than 10-15 years ago (Willett.2001b:1168). While certain nations have been strengthened by the process of economic integration, the twin forces of globalisation, namely the ICT revolution and market liberalisation, has weakened many other (Willett.2001b:1171). This two sided, dichotomous characteristic of globalisation, which simultaneously includes and excludes, integrates and fragments the global community, is impacting people worldwide, either negatively or positively, depending on which side of the global fence you are. The elite in industrialised nations cannot complain with their increase in wealth, but for most in the developing world, this decrease in wealth and widening fissure, signals increased economic insecurity.

Not only states are transformed by neoliberal policies that enforce globalisation, other institutions are being transformed and are forced to make changes. Ghai (1997:1) points out that globalisation has contributed towards major changes to the role and responsibilities of a wide range of institutions, such as families, civil society institutions, business corporations, states and supranational organisations. He further points out that one of the important consequences of the changes associated with globalisation has been the increased insecurity at the level of the individual and family (Ghai.1997:1). 

Globalisation has also impacted the power relations among social groups and has greatly increased the power of business and financial groups that replace the collapsed state and may affect not only the stability, but also the economic security of citizens (Ghai.1997:7-9). He further mentions that it is the rapidity of change that enhances economic insecurity even more and , “when institutions and mechanisms in place to cushion security begin to crumble under the impact of the same forces, the effect is intensified” (Ghai.1997: 8-9). The social insecurity due to the effects of globalisation, also adversely affects individuals and families with regards to mental stress and strain, manifested in different forms of psychological and physical ailments, ranging from depression, heart attacks and strokes to suicide (Ghai.1997:10). The human, social, and economic costs insecurity are almost never taken into account by decision makers(Ghai.1997:10.

The impact of neoliberalism and globalisation on human (economic) security in Africa

Africa, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, has been severely impacted by the consequences of neoliberal policies, such as market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, not taking Africa’s special needs into consideration. Africa’s explosive demographic situation, with high birth rates; excessive child death rates due to malnutrition and the AIDS epidemic, have led to the establishment of a program to halve extreme poverty by 2015, under the name “Millennium Development Goals”, by IFI’s like the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD, as well as the UN and other NGO’s (Eanes.2009:60) Eanes, however, thinks that these goals are too ambitious (Eanes.2009:6) The MDG’s are critiqued by many.

Amin (www.debtireland.org) critiqued each MDG and then outlined the ‘real goals’ of these processes in 5 points, which we might call ‘The Real Millennium Development Goals’, namely extreme privatization, aimed at opening new fields for the expansion of capital; the generalization of the private appropriation of agricultural land; the commercial opening within the context of maximum deregulation, the equally uncontrolled opening up of capital movement; and the fact that States are forbidden in principle from interfering in economic affairs. The MDG’s seem to enhance the neoliberal principles of globalisation, and the goal of halving extreme poverty, serve only as a mask to hide the IFI’s real intention.

According to Eanes (2009:62) has globalisation impacted African people and governments in the following way, namely: the fact that African economies has been integrated into the capitalist economy, has made “colonialism” provide a legal tool for the dependence of African economies on western economies; Privatization has intensified the integration of African countries in production and finance global systems, encouraging the flow of capital investment and attracting the ownership by foreign capital of former public-held companies; Africa became the dump place of a series of products ( literature, cinema or music) that have little to do with African people, obliterating African culture and leading to a Eurocentric vision of reality; Globalization has subverted the autonomy and self-determination of African peoples ( The burden of external debt of the developing countries in 1994 had already reached 2 trillion dollars, according to the World Bank. Mass poverty has caused citizens to be deprived of a meaningful existence); The lack of governmental incentives to local production, the subversion of local production by high imports, the exchange rate devaluation and the depletion of foreign reserves caused by marginalization and underdevelopment by development agents; The fact that it has not been easy for governments to ensure social protection, one of their core functions and the one that has helped many developed nations maintain social cohesion and domestic political support; and lastly, the damaged the natural environment of Africa. (The Niger Delta and the Ogoni people in particular, affected by oil exploration in the region, which has ravaged marine life and environment, has affected the supply of drinking water and caused a number of diseases)

An example being mentioned within the South-African context is the 300 000 Chinese working in the wholesale business, based in South-Africa (Matsamuto.2009:115). They have set up eight wholesale centres in Johannesburg with more than 2000 shops. During the Christmas season of 2007, they reportedly sold more than one billion US$ in merchandise. These businesses do not contribute towards the South-African economy. Goods are brought in from China and profits are sent back, so the capital does not rotate in South-Africa. Yet, the South-African government has done nothing to limit Chinese business activities, which has led to many small-scale business people in South-Africa losing their jobs due to this phenomenon (Matsamuto.2009:115). Market liberalisation and deregulation has thus led to unemployment in South-Africa.

Conclusion

Market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation are neoliberal policies created and enforced by International Financial Institutions, which are in fact mere puppets of the U.S to strengthen globalisation, with the end result the growth of capitalism, which in turn benefits the already rich industrialised North, at the expense of the masses in the Third World, whose human, specifically economic, security is being adversely affected by the collapse of the state and consequent increases in conflict, violence and crime. The dichotomous nature of globalisation makes change very difficult, since there are a lot of people, especially the already rich and powerful who benefit from neoliberal policies. 

The IMF, World Bank, WTO and OECD, with structural adjustment programmes, development aid and established Millennium Development Goals, seem on the surface at least to address issues of poverty reduction and human security, but a lot of evidence points toward the fact these attempts further increase human insecurity worldwide. It seems the Developmental State model of the 1960’s and 1970’ had better results as the current neoliberal model of development, but reverting back to the old system, is a lot to ask, with the hegemonic US dictating everything.

Bibliography

1. Amin, S. 2006. The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the South. Available at: http://www.debtireland.org/resources/The-Millennium-Development-Goals-southern-view.doc (accessed on 13/5/2010)
2. Bank Information Centre. 2010. World Bank. Available at: http://www.bicusa.org/en/Institution.5.aspx?gclid=CNir-I39z6ECFRI-lAodEwsJJQ (accessed on 13/5/2010)
3. Conteh-Morgan, E. 2006. Globalization, State failure, and collective violence: The case of Sierra Leone. International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 11, Number 2. Available at: http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol11_2/11n2C-M.pdf
4. De Long, J.1999. "Globalization" and "Neoliberalism". Chronicle of Higher Education: Berkeley University. Available at: http://www.ub.es/prometheus21/articulos/archivos/GlobNeo.PDF (accessed on 11/5/2010)
5. Eanes, A. 2009. International Conference: Africa & Globalization “Learning from the past, enabling a better future” Available at: http://www.unu.edu/globalization/2009/files/UNU-UNESCO_2009_Africa.pdf (accessed on 8/5/2010)
6. Gender and Health. 2010. What is globalisation? Available at: http://www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/globalization/globalization_what_is-01.jsp (accessed on 13/5/2010)
7. Ghai, D.1997. Economic Globalization, Institutional Change and Human Security. Available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/unrisd/econ-glob-97e.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
8. Kotz, D. 2000. Globalization and Neoliberalism. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Glob_and_NL_02.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
9. Linden, I. 2003. The Global Political Economy, in Analysing Contemporary Development Debates and Issues: a reader, compiled by PDS Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
10. Matsamuto, J. 2009. International Conference: Africa & Globalization “Learning from the past, enabling a better future” Available at: http://www.unu.edu/globalization/2009/ files/UNU-UNESCO_2009_Africa.pdf (accessed on 8/5/2010)
11. Prabhakar, A. 2003. A critical reflection on globalisation and inequality: A new approach to the Development of the South, in Analysing Contemporary Development Debates and Issues: a reader, compiled by PDS Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
12. UNDP.1999. Human Development Report: “Globalization with a human face”. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1999_en_overview.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
13. Wikipedia. 2010. International Monetary Fund. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund (accessed on 13/5/2010)
14. Willett, S. 2001. Introduction globalization and security, in Human Security and Development: a reader, compiled by L Cornwell. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
15. Willett, S. 2001. Insecurity, conflict and the new global disorder, in Human Security and Development: a reader, compiled by L Cornwell. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.

- Soli Deo Gloria - 

Post-development versus Development

The contribution of Post Development to:

(a) Debates on Development and;

(b) Debates on the welfare of the poor and marginalized people in global capitalism.

By: Henry Badenhorst

20 March 2010

Abstract

Development and Post-development are in a titanic battle for the souls of the Two/Third world or ‘Social majorities’.  Development is heavily critiqued as serving the purposes of the ’social minorities’ in forcing the masses to convert to western culture and beliefs. Post-development in its rhetoric language use, in an academical sense, offers no real practical alternatives. Post-modern grassroots movements seem to appear on stage as the hero to save the oppressed masses from development.

Introduction

Sachs starts his book; The Development Dictionary with these incredible words` `The last forty years can be called the age of development. This epoch is coming to an end. The time is ripe to write its obituary'' (Blaikie.2000:1036) and furthermore, he states “the idea of Development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crime have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work. Moreover, the historical conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development has become outdated” (Pieterse.2000:285). Esteva in his rhetoric goes as far to say that Development stinks and that it’s a malignant myth which threatens social majorities. (Pieterse.2000:286) 

Development is heavily criticized by Post Development thinkers and vice versa. Development advocates agree that even though post development has no cure or alternatives for development, it does have a valuable contribution towards Development and towards the struggle for human welfare of poor and marginalized people in global capitalism. Post-development will be conceptualized, if that is indeed possible, by looking at its contradictions. Post-development will be further explored by looking at the critique it has against development. The critique that post-development display towards development will be analyzed, measured and critiqued. Lastly, the contribution that post-development has had on the struggle for human welfare by poor and marginalized people will be discussed i.t.o. grassroots movements that have sprung up in the mainly Two/Thirds world where social majorities have to combat against modernism and neo-liberalism instituted by social minorities.

What is Post-Development?

Post-development is according to Stewart (2007:4) a fundamental and radical rejection of the whole of Development, including its institutions, language, and objectives. Pieterse paints post-development as a “radical reaction to the impasse of development theory and policy” (Stewart.2007:4), which” starts out from a basic assessment that attaining a middle-class lifestyle for the majority of the world population is impossible” (Pieterse.2000:285). As summarised in Stewart (2007:4), there are four claims of post-development according to Pieterse. 

Firstly, post-development attacks the way in which development characterizes poverty. Secondly, it tries to highlight development’s entanglement with forms of westernization. Thirdly, it claims that modernism, “the worship of progress” and the dominance of science all work together to serve dominant minorities. Fourthly, it claims that development works as an ideological discourse and that different actions in the development field all assist to confirm and support this ideology. These four claims are discussed later in more detail. 

Post-development strongly rejects alternative development, since according to Esteva, it only acts as a deodorant trying to cover the stench of ‘Development’ (Stewart.2007:4). Post-development concerns itself with unmasking the whole development discourse, exposing ideas such as development, progress, poverty and equality as all comprised due to their links to the failed project of development (Stewart.2007:5). It may also be wise to include the meaning of Development thinking since without a development ideology there won’t be post-development thinking. Up to the mid 1980s, development thinking, all development theories, and the international aid industry shared three paradigms, namely; essentialising the Third World and its inhabitants as homogenous; an unconditional belief in progress and in the make-ability of society; and the importance of the nation-state in realising that progress (Schuurman.2000:392). Since the mid-1980s, these three paradigms have “lost their hegemonic status, and have been replaced by a loose set of partly descriptive, partly heuristic (involving trial and error) notions like civil society, social capital, diversity, and risk”, according to Schuurman (2000:392).

Development thinking being an “interventionist and managerialist discipline, steeped in social engineering and the ambition to shape economies and societies”, involves itself in telling others what to do “in the name of modernization, nation-building, progress, mobilization, sustainable development, human rights, poverty alleviation, and even empowerment and participation” (Pieterse.2000:292). Post-development is a response to this discourse or thinking, in that it rebels against this authoritarian sensibility, due to its aversion to control (Pieterse.2000:292).

Post-development’s criticism of Development

Post-development, first of all, attacks the way ‘development’ defines poverty. Poverty according to the development approach implies real material poverty (Pieterse.2000:287). Shiva, as post-development thinker, argues that it should not be, mentioning subsistence economies, serving basic needs through self-provisioning, which are not necessarily poor in the sense that they are deprived (Pieterse.2000:287). Development’s idea of poverty, according to Shiva, includes those who do not participate overwhelmingly in the market economy, neither consuming commodities provided for and distributed through the market (Pieterse.2000:287). Rahnema points out, that, pro-development advocates represent poverty as the world’s impoverished, incapable of doing anything for themselves, furthermore refusing the help of do-gooders (Pieterse.2000:287). Instead, it is the economics of development which is truly pauperizing leading to poverty alleviation and elimination to slip off the map (Pieterse.2000:287).

Post-development secondly, highlights development’s entanglement with forms of Westernisation. Development is used as a tool to force countries to adopt or to convert them, to Western culture, beliefs, customs and practices in matters such as law, economics, industry, lifestyle, etc. Latouche critiques development by stating that it has been and will always be “the westernization of the world” (Pieterse.2000:288). Escobar argues that development is external, based on the model of the industrialized world (Pieterse.2000:288). According to Kothari, development only took over where colonialism left off (Pieterse.2000:288). Thus sounds the critique that post-development thinkers have for Development’s involvement and equation with westernization.

The third ‘claim to fame’ of post-development, is its critique of development’s involvement with modernism, the “worship of progress” and science, all working together to advance dominant minorities. This critique of modernism fits in with the critique of westernization (Pieterse.2000:288). Development thinking represents “the new religion of the West”, according to Rist, but on the other hand, it is to be said that the worship of progress is not only limited to the West (Pieterse.2000:288). Part and parcel to this critique of modernism is the critique of science, where science is viewed as power (Pieterse.2000:288).

The final claim of post-development is that it sees development as an ideological discourse. Escobar states that the ‘discourse of Development’ has been a ‘mechanism for the production and management of the Third World (Pieterse.2000:289-290). The rhetoric doesn’t stop there, it is also described by Esteva as a ‘Frankenstein type dream’, an ‘alien model of exploitation’ that reflects urban bias (Pieterse.2000:290). What is needed, according to Escobar, instead of development, is a different regime of truth and perception, suggesting an undertaking of an ‘archaeology of Development’ implying a change in the order of discourse and mind shift in the way we think (Pieterse.2000:290,294).

Other critiques against development include that of Lumis, who declares an end to development since it’s inherently anti-democratic (Pieterse.2000:292). However it’s not only states who form part of this ‘development managerialism’, but also international financial institutions and NGO’s, who all “share a lack of humility” and is a “key characteristic of the development power/knowledge complex” (Pieterse.2000:292). Alternative development is thus seen by post-development as alternative managerialism, enforcing their suspicions and therefore not considering alternative development as alternatives to development, instead of rejecting that too (Pieterse.2000:292). Should the alternative, as Roe suggests, be to do nothing? (Pieterse.2000:292).

Criticisms of Post-Development

Putting post development under the spotlight exposes certain truths about it. In emotive language, post-development thinkers have proclaimed the evil of development as an instrument in the hands of social minorities to modernize and to westernize the unwilling masses of the Two/Third world and bring them in step with their beliefs, customs and practices as a mechanism of control and to force subservience. This blatant rejection of cultural autonomy by Western powers is done in the good name of ‘development’, which postmodernists and post-development thinkers reject as being conducive to the welfare of the masses or Two/Third world, as Esteva and Prakash refer to. Even though being tempted to be swayed by emotive language use by post-development thinkers, there is another side to the coin. Post-development does indeed have its faults and shortcomings, which can be criticized.

Post-development’s claims and critique of development, as discussed above, have also been critiqued by pro-development advocates. Pieterse (2000:287) argues with regards to post-development’s critique of market representation and its link to poverty, according to pro-development advocates, that less market representation not necessarily implies more social presentation, lest we romanticize poverty and equate it with purity. Post-development’s second critique of development namely Development equals westernization, especially that of Kothari’s where it's argued that westernization took over from colonization, is vehemently attacked by Pieterse that this view is as old as the modernization theory, which “calls to mind the momentum and pathos of decolonization, the arguments against cultural imperialism, Coco-colonisation, Mcdonaldisation and the familiar cultural homogenization thesis according which western media, advertising, and consumerism induce cultural uniformity” (Pieterse.2000:288). 

It’s furthermore “one-sided” and “old hat” and it “denies the agency of the Third World and denies the extent to which the South also own development” (Pieterse.2000:288). The fact is that the South has contributed towards recent development perspectives, such as dependency theory, alternative development and human development (Pieterse.2000:288). Pieterse criticizes Latouche and others over their broad use of the term ‘The West’, since sharp historical differences between North-America and Europe exist (Pieterse.2000:288).

Post-development’s third claim or criticism towards development is against modernism, science and the “worship of progress”. Even though Pieterse recognizes the fact that technological progress is at times placed above human development, he makes the point that even states in the South are guilty of using science as an instrument of power as proved by examples of India’s high modernization drive and Indonesia’s experimental aircraft technology industry(Pieterse.2000:289). Although Rist sees development as the ‘new religion of the West’, the fact remains that it’s not restricted to the West and that an “aversion to modernism also exists in the West” (Pieterse.2000:289). Science is not all bad; it can be used for good, such as ecological movements using scientific methods to monitor energy use pollution and climate changes (Pieterse.2000:289).

The last claim or critique by post-development about development is that it works mainly as an ideological discourse, used as a mechanism for the production and management of the Third World. Pieterse criticizes Escobar’s perspective as a broad and uneven mixture of exaggerated claims, sustained by weak examples (Pieterse.2000:290). It’s broad in the sense that it combines vocabularies such as post-structuralism, social movement theory and development; uneven in that his perspective (which represents post-development’s perspective), centres on anti-development without giving a clear delineation between anti-development and alternative development; and exaggerated in that his position “hinges on a discursive trick, a rhetorical ploy of equating development with ‘Development’” (Pieterse.2000:290). “Escobar’s perspective on actual development is flimsy and based on confused examples, with more rhetoric than logic” (Pieterse.2000:290).

Sachs in 1992, found the concept of development outdated (Schuurman.2000:395). He gave the following reasons, namely that; the belief in ecology led and will always lead to ecological disasters; the concept of development was an ideological weapon in East-West conflict, which no longer exists; the welfare gap between North and South is growing instead of shrinking; and development leads to a loss of diversity, which is boring (Schuurman.2000:395).

Post-development thinking is fundamentally uneven, since it concerns itself with much discourse, yet the actual language use is indulgent and sloppy (Pieterse.2000:293). Pieterse (2000:293) accuses Escobar of playing games with rhetoric by referring to development as ‘Development’ suggesting it’s the same, in fact, essentializing ‘development’. Pieterse (2000:293) argues that Sachs makes the call on the one hand for the banishment of development, yet in this call for banishment, he suggests that it’s possible to define development unambiguously. Escobar does the same, on the one hand “he caricatures ‘Development’ and argues for ‘alternatives to development’, yet on the other hand, he pleads for redefining development”, contradicting himself (Pieterse.2000:294). The contradictions seem endless, on the one hand rubbing shoulders with anti-intellectualism, yet on the other calling for ‘complex discursive operations’ (Pieterse.2000:295). Pieterse (2000:293) remarks that it seems necessary for post-development to essentialize development, in order to radically repudiate development. This dichotomous thinking by post-development is rather confusing and as Pieterse rightly remarks, they tend to “turn on a language game rather than an analysis (Pieterse2000:293).

There are several problems according to Pieterse with the dichotomous line of thinking posed by post development thinkers. Firstly, some of their claims are simply misleading and it misrepresents the history of development, such as Esteva and others who refer in the Development Dictionary to Truman in the 1940s who started the development era, when in fact in the South it started with colonial economics, a much older history than development (Pieterse.2000:293). Secondly, dichotomic thinking “underrates the dialectics and the complexity of motives and motions in modernity and development” (Pieterse.2000:293). Lastly, “post-development’s attitude towards real, existing development is narrow”. Post-development literature only seems to cite instances that concern Africa, Latin America, and India (Pieterse.2000:293).

Post-development does receive positive feedback. Even Pieterse, the critic of post-development, is ready to admit that Development suffers from ‘psychological modernism’, where technological progress is placed above that of human development, a condition that post-development heavily criticize, leading to their rejection of development (Pieterse.2000:288). He, furthermore, admits that post-development makes positive claims and that it’s associated with affirmative counterpoints, such as indigenous knowledge and cultural diversity (Pieterse.2000:294). Post-development “opts for ‘Gandhian frugality’, not consumerism, for conviviality (pleasantness), for grassroots movements and local struggles” (Pieterse.2000:294). Post-development furthermore takes the critique of development to the point of retreat from business-as-usual, which can be a creative position from which an alternative practice can grow (Pieterse.2000:296).

Post-development heavily criticizes development, but it offers no or very little solutions or alternatives. The development dictionary, compiled by Sachs, where nineteen development concepts are critiqued by different post-development thinkers, does not significantly go into what courses of action should be taken instead of development (Stewart.2007:5). The general trend in post-development literature is to stop at critique (Pieterse.2000:294). Rist, for example, states that “alternatives are not his affair” (Pieterse.2000:294). We have thus an endorsement of the status quo and in effect more of the same, exposing post-development’s core weakness (Pieterse.2000:294). An exception to this general trend of no alternatives to development, is the post-development reader by Rahnema, that includes a lot more material on alternatives to development, most notably a whole section on “the vernacular world” about the economic and cultural resources present in indigenous societies; and traditions unharmed by development (Stewart.2007:5). Another section, suggests new post-development social and perceptual spaces, meaning localities, philosophies of simplicity, inner spaces and different ways of experiencing the present (Stewart.2007:5). The alternatives suggested seem to have romantic and conservative element aimed at the welfare of traditional and indigenous societies, on the on hand, yet on the other hand, these suggestions have great moral sensitivity and awareness of the dimensions in the lives of the poor (Stewart.2007:5).

Post-development critique does not amount to a “Foucaultian” critique of development, even though post-development texts are usually associated with the concepts of Michel Foucault, such as ‘archaeology of development’, ‘autonomous production of truth’, and most notably ‘discourse’ (Ziai.2004:509,511). “Following Foucault, Post-development sees development as a discourse” (Ziai.2004:510). Ziai (2004: 510-511), however, points out five post-development deviations from Foucault. Firstly, post-development development discourse does not take into account the diversity of four decades of development theory, policy, and alternative approaches, whereas Foucaultian archaeology claims that the unity of discourse is constituted by its rules and not by common assumptions, emphasizing breaks, differences, and discontinuities. Secondly, “post-development writers remain captured within a traditional objectivist critique of ideology”, where development’s universal promise of prosperity is unmasked as a ‘deceitful mirage’ or ‘malignant myth’ and whereby development discourse is accused as being a political project whereby Third World societies are being restructured according to the needs of the West, an idea which Foucault explicitly rejected (Ziai.2004:510). Thirdly, essentialization of development, as a frequent phenomenon in post-development literature, unlike Foucaultian literature (Ziai.2004:510) Fourthly, post-development texts are stuck within a sovereign, repressive concept of power, which is only partly accurate, whereas Foucault has overcome this narrow perspective on power in his later works (Ziai.2004:511). In the last instance, whereas post-development texts criticizes industrial modernity as ‘gulag’ and ‘holocaust’, yet simultaneously romanticizing pre-modern subsistence communities, Foucault on the other hand insists that power is ubiquitous in the sense that is to be found in international institutions as well as local and self-evident relations and discourses (Ziai.2004:511).

Skeptical Post-development’s connectedness with radical democracy is another point brought forward by Ziai (2004:519). The criticisms and demands of skeptical post-development are in agreement with those of radical democracy (Ziai.2004:519). Relations of oppression and exploitation in the and culture, knowledge and the relationship to nature are important and significant to post-development texts, but gender and the relations of oppression is a blind spot (Ziai.2004:519). Post-development is similar to Laclau & Mouffe’s project of radical and plural democracy where democratic struggles for equality and liberty are extended to a wide range of social relations (Ziai.2004:519). Post-development tries to extend struggles for self-determination in the South, to seemingly harmless efforts aiming at ‘development’ and in general to various structures of modern societies such as market, state, and science (Ziai.2004:519). 

Existing power structures have to be radically decentralized and power has to remain at the local level, as Lummis points out: “democracy is a critique of centralized power of every sort”, which also implies a critique of the system of political representation (Ziai.2004:519). Radical democratic/post-development critique not only challenges the principle of political representation, but also the principle of epistemological representation, which is the ability to represent the world conceptually and symbolically, enabling the disengaged observer to manipulate that world (Ziai.2004:519). “Sceptical post-development could be seen as a manifesto of radical democracy in the field of ‘development’ policy and theory”, extending social conflictuality to the area of development policy and development aid, through formulating relations of subordination implicit in development discourse, as relations of oppression(Ziai.2004:520).

Post-Development’s overall contribution to the struggle for human welfare

The Chiapas movement in Mexico, comprised of different Indian peoples, signals the uprising of ‘social majorities’ against the ‘global project’. These grassroots movements are born “from disillusionment with the ballot box and party political apathy and from popular resistance to conventional forms of participation” (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86). Post-development writers like Esteva and Prakash state that the end of the economic era has come and that development, which once offered hope of eternal life to economic societies, has instead “dug their graves” (Esteva & Prakash.1998:93). Can these grassroots movements, consisting of ordinary men and women, and who are seeking to go beyond the premises and the promises of modernity, actually contribute towards human welfare for the social majorities or masses? These movements who are non-political, non-violent, open to all creeds and religions, non-intellectual, detached from abstract ideologies, proven by success stories like those of the Chiapas, can indeed avoid the mainstream minority march towards global progress and development.

Development over the last four decades has only succeeded in worsening the five centuries of modernization, which preceded development, in the way that ‘social minorities’ have consumed the cultural and natural spaces of the ‘social majorities’, with the intention of developing them for ’progress’, economic growth and progress (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89). The social minorities are not lying down in this war; they have continued to resist the inroads of that modern world into their lives in an effort to save their families and communities. They have resisted modernization, intended for their betterment, but it has made its mark and created a lot of destruction, leaving them less human, suffering indignity and dehumanization, being forced out of their traditional communal spaces, which they occupied for centuries, by social minorities (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89). Neo-liberal policies continue to push these ‘social majorities’ further into the wastelands of the modern world, considered by social minorities as human surpluses making too many babies, over-populated, disposable and redundant (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89). No wonder social majorities feel the way they feel and why many more are acting in the best way they can, collectively.

These postmodern (post-development) grassroots movements have certain characteristics. Like the Chiapas movement, they shun political platforms or ideologies; it has no interest in seizing power from the government; membership is not exclusive; it has a collective leadership, made up out of elected representatives; its contemporary, using modern means of communication; and it adopts a political style that is post-modern (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86). One is tempted to add, by the people for the people. They are furthermore, deliberately open; they distrust leaders and centralized political direction; they avoid the temptation to control or lead the social forces they activate; they opt for flexible organizational structures, which they use for concerted action rather than for channeling demands; and they first exhaust any democratic and legal means, before resorting to direct action or revolt (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86).

A distinction must be made, however, between grassroots post development and academic development. Grassroots post-modernism is initiatives autonomously organized by the people themselves for their own survival, flourishing and enduring, and antagonistic to the state and its formal and corporate structures (Esteva & Prakash.1998:92). Academic post-modernism agrees, but they leave some modern ‘sacred cows’ untouched, unwilling to dissect or deconstruct ‘certainties’, left unquestionable by post-development thinkers (Esteva & Prakash.1998:91). According to Esteva and Prakash (1998:91-92), there are three sacred cows left untouched by post-development academics, namely; The myth of global thinking, that economic globalization will now provide the ‘manna’, development failed to provide until the mid 1980s, goods and services the ‘social minorities’ now enjoy will be accessible to ‘social majorities’; secondly, universal human rights, as spelled out in the UDHR, that will accompany this global economy; and lastly, the myth of the individual self, accompanied by human rights that will be incorporated into this global economy, to become a ‘member’ with full rights and privileges of the club and society of homos economicus.

The benefits of grassroots movements include the fact that culturally diverse groups of people continue to find movements like the Zapatista movement, very relevant for their own struggles, seeing that there are vital lessons to be learned from these movements on finding ways to react against the evils that are plaguing their lives (Esteva & Prakash.1998:90). Common men and women are leading the way walking beyond the oppressive reign of homos economicus and homos educandus, away from development’s salvation, towards options that offer real hope for the masses (Esteva & Prakash.1998:93). The inevitable breakdown of modernity, terrorizing ‘social minorities’, is now being used by ‘social majorities as opportunities for “regenerating their own traditions, cultures and their unique indigenous and other non-modern arts of living and dying” (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89).

Conclusion

Development discourse and Post-development critique of development seems to be in a titanic battle for the souls of the Two/Thirds social majorities of the world. Development replaced modernization after World War II, but it seems that the hegemonic paradigms that all development theory shared had been watered down and globalization and neo-liberalism now dictate development. Social minorities use ‘development’ as a tool to force ‘social majorities’ to adopt western culture and beliefs. Post-development thinkers make wild accusations, albeit contradictory, about development, eventually rejecting it in totality, yet offering no genuine alternatives to development. 

Development critiques post-development as using rhetoric language and for making contradictory statements. Grassroots post-development movements seem to offer real solutions to the masses out there, who would like to regenerate their lost cultures and beliefs, whereas post-development academics are more all insults and rhetoric, yet no-action, no-alternatives. One is almost swayed by the emotive language use by post development academics, and feels very tempted to join the march against the ‘global project’. Post-development however, offers no real alternatives to development and I could only go so far as to support post-development/post-modern grassroots movements where on a practical scale the ‘monster of development’ is faced by collectiveness on a day to day concrete scale.

Bibliography

1. Blaikie, S.2000. Development, post-, anti-, and populist: a critical review: Environment and Planning A 2000, volume 32. Great Britain: Pion.
2. Esteva, G & Prakash, M. 1998. Beyond Development, what?, in Analysing contemporary development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
3. Pieterse, J. 2000. After post-development, in Analysing contemporary development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
4. Schuurman, F. 2000. Paradigm lost, paradigm regained? Development Studies in the twenty-first century, in Analysing contemporary development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
5. Stewart, P. 2007. Only Study guide for DVADEBT. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
6. Ziai, A. 2004. The ambivalence of post-development: between reactionary populism and radical democracy, in Analysing contemporary development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.

- Soli Deo Gloria -