The tyranny of development<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on developing economies by
\nSidhesh Kaul, an observer of regional economic and political
\naffairs based in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): On Jan. 20, 1949, president Harry Truman, in his
\ninaugural speech before the congress, christened impoverished
\nnation states as \"underdeveloped areas\" of the world.<\/p>\n
In one master stroke president Truman crystallized the \"us
\nversus them poor folks\" or the \"rich North versus poor South\"
\nparadigm and thus provide a reliable benchmark by which
\neconomists have been able to compare countries.<\/p>\n
Truman envisioned the United States as the leader of the pack,
\nthe torchbearer of development, with the rest of the globe --
\nespecially the South -- as laggards. Truman saw the world as an
\neconomic playground where countries compete for a competitive
\ngrandstand position on the gross national product scale -- this
\nphilosophy being premised on the assumption that a civilization's
\nreal progress is measured by the level of its productive output.<\/p>\n
Truman's development policy and world view spelt out the bound
\nduty of the rich North to coax the straggling South to enter this
\nrace.<\/p>\n
But coaxing poorer nations into metamorphosing themselves into
\ncredible competitors in a global economic arena was a gargantuan
\ntask that required the North to inject capital, transfer
\ntechnology and bring about a shift from the \"old ways\" in the
\nSouth.<\/p>\n
Attitudes to work and governance, loyalty networks, values and
\nhabits of most of the conglomerated South were tangibly different
\nfrom the developed North. Consequently these differences were
\nviewed as obstacles to growth (although there was a brief period
\nof lavish praise for \"Asian Values\" in between Japan's
\npostholocaust resurgence as an economic power and the current
\neconomic crisis), a premise that has recently regained currency
\nin the ongoing economic crisis.<\/p>\n
To convert the South into credible models involved
\noverpowering the barriers to growth and recasting countries in
\nmolds that the North could deal with. Consequently countries were
\ntreated as bland and lifeless economic models with scant regard
\nfor the fragile societal implications, a wretched habit that
\npersists to this day.<\/p>\n
Transforming the South, comprising of countries that were not
\nbuilt around the premise of accumulation, meant the systematic
\ndismantling of established societal frameworks and institutions;
\nrevamping of laws and regulations; changing the decision making
\nprocess in society; tinkering and fine tuning the local outlook
\non what comprises good civil governance; and the eroding
\nestablished and traditional patterns of agriculture, production
\nand commerce.<\/p>\n
All this so that the \"laggard\" South could share in the fruits
\nof development with the richer North. The questionable
\nbenevolence unleashed by the richer countries via their global
\ndevelopmental policies, to which history is witness to the
\ntravails of debt-burdened impoverished nations, has made it
\nimpossible for Third World countries to exit the race.<\/p>\n
Almost 50 years have passed by since the implementation of
\nthese policies but the gap between the richer and the poorer
\ncountries has widened even more, although what these efforts have
\nsuccessfully done is to give birth to and nourish and enlarge a
\ngrowing middle class elite.<\/p>\n
The richer countries, not surprisingly, have cornered a major
\nportion of the global increase in productivity.<\/p>\n
A mere glance at the newly independent countries would reveal
\nthat theirs today is merely a continuation of their colonial
\npast, albeit in a more politically correct and sophisticated way;
\none could propound that development and neocolonialism are terms
\nthat could be interchangeably used.<\/p>\n
The patterns of subjugation and dependence are similar
\nalthough the instruments deployed are considerably refined and
\nsophisticated. However the powers that be have at times not
\nhesitated to coax and persuade recalcitrant developing economies
\nin less subtle ways, either overtly or covertly.<\/p>\n
The new world view on development has enabled the governments
\nof richer countries to squeeze concessions from the recipients in
\na manner that is less problematic and troublesome than directly
\nassuming the worries of colonization.<\/p>\n
While Truman was outlining his views that winter morning in
\n1939, foreign policy professionals and heads of large
\ncorporations had gathered in Washington to discuss how the
\npostwar, postcolonization economies could be best shaped to
\nsatisfy American economic interests.<\/p>\n
It was this discussion that spilt over to the Bretton Woods
\nConference of 1944. At the talks there were two erroneous
\nassumptions that were made: a) That economic growth and enhanced
\nworld trade would benefit everyone and b) that planet earth would
\nnot impose any restrictions to growth.<\/p>\n
This historical meeting saw the birth of the World Bank and
\nthe International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the seeds for the
\nGeneral Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) were sown.<\/p>\n
Since their inception, and through their structural adjustment
\nprogram, the World Bank and the IMF have been pressuring the
\n\"southerners\" to open borders and to metamorphose their economies
\nfrom self-sufficient units to one that focuses on export
\nproduction. Trade agreements negotiated under the GATT umbrella
\nhave in turn supported this metamorphosis.<\/p>\n
To some extent the goals that were set at the Bretton Woods
\nConference have been met -- international trade has increased by
\na factor of almost 15 and economic growth has increased six fold.
\nBut the World Bank, IMF and GATT have failed to alleviate poverty
\nand close the widening gap between the rich and the poor.<\/p>\n
In the world view of the rich nations, domination over the
\nworld's resources and markets is ultimately going to decide the
\nbalance of power in the years to come and the Bretton Woods
\nConference (and the institutions that it gave birth to) are steps
\nin that direction.<\/p>\n
New alliances are being forged and cartelized blocs formed,
\ndriven by economic, political and commercial reasons.
\nInterference in local affairs is unavoidable.<\/p>\n
Brute force as an instrument of domination is passe. For poor
\ncountries this scenario poses the devil's alternative -- reject
\nthe benevolence and face deadly isolation or open up the borders
\nto capital, technology, imports and cultural change and bow to
\nthe precedent condition of structural adjustment programs.<\/p>\n
The postcolonization era has seen a systematic methodology of
\nsubjugation being deployed by the wealthier nations. The practice
\nof nurturing indigenous elite continues since colonial times.<\/p>\n
These western-trained elite swear by the tenets of the Truman
\ngospel and in fact are too far removed from ground reality or the
\naspirations of their poor brethren. These elite are the effective
\ninstruments of the North and harbingers of change. The North in
\nturn supports their efforts by generous injections of technology
\nand capital.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-tyranny-of-development-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}