I learnt in an earlier module that the different approaches to development came about as theorists and practitioners identified what was missing from the previous approaches. Development politics seem to have suffered the same fate, entering the spotlight as concerns grew with the prevailing approaches to development. One wonders, what is this development politics? Fukuyama (2011), according to a review by Laws and Leftwich (2012, p.9), defines it as that where the three components of state, rule of law and accountability are present and co-existing in a stable relationship. The review identified Fukuyama’s definition of the components as follows:
- the state: that “centralised source of authority that holds a monopoly over military power”. The conditions necessary for the development of a state are those which allow ownership of resources and the ability to defend such ownership from threats, internal and external to the state.
- The rule of law: The formalised and written translations of those norms and customs, that are necessary for the distribution of power relations and are independent of political hierarchy
- Accountability: this is the checks and balances that are instituted to limit the power of states to maintain protection of the interests of the public
Youtube User Terry Orlieb holds an interesting discussion on Fukuyama’s concept of development at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4EX4f0lfP8
It is interesting that the description of the components all sound like they are working with “best case scenarios”. For example, the state should be able to defend its citizens and resources, but what if such is not possible because of lack of resources? Would there be less of a state? Perhaps this line of inquiry is looking at scenarios that do not quite match the definition and how the relevant gaps are bridged.
Some countries have seemingly progressed to a place of political development, generating a phrase of “getting to Denmark”. There is however, uncertainty regarding the replicability of the process of getting there. Even if this mystery is decoded, it would be instrumental to be mindful of the application of modernisation to developing countries; that system which saw a translation of socio-economic paths from western developed countries to dissimilar developing countries, with less than expected results. Learning lessons from the progress of other countries notwithstanding, it can be rewarding to leverage the human resources of countries to develop “home-grown” political development. In countries like mine there is an availability of trained people who are often under-utilised by the available environment. Why not tap into such resources to generate ideas for political development and further, cultivate mechanisms to allow such input to be taken into consideration?
Attention on politics in development was reignited in the 1990s, indirectly through the concerns with governance because of factors such as the following, according to Carothers and de Gramont (2013, pp.57-63):
- Disillusionment with the prevailing market approach theories that were popular amongst the aid community and donor community. This disillusionment was attributed to things like encountering weak states which failed to effectively implement market-led initiatives (or so institutions like the World Bank concluded); changes in the prevailing literature that decried the weaknesses of the market-led approaches.
- Changes in the international political environment such as the fall of the Soviet Union and the rush of support for democracy as well as increasing public concerns with human rights.
Carothers and de Gramont’s (2013) discussion focused on the aid community (with flows from the developed to the developing world) and they noted interesting things, including:
- The resurgence of interest in governance was not meant to replace the market-oriented approaches but rather for the former to reinforce and support the latter
- Aid became conditional on implementing governance-related agenda, particularly in relation to democratisation, which was deemed necessary to attain socio-economic progress. This was despite the lack of consensus that democracy, the primary vehicle through which the governance concerns were being channelled, was empirically tied to socio-economic progress.
Despite the new attention on politics, Carothers and de Gramont (2013, pp.76-79) noted that the aid community had an almost superfluous relationship with the politics of the aid recipients; failing to respond to deep-rooted political concerns even as reforms were instituted to address political development. Additionally, there was a failure to recognise the true starting place of governance which blunted the impact of development initiatives that were being implemented on inaccurate assumptions. Occurrences like these led to calls for good enough governance (by authors such as Merilee Grindle, 2004). I think it would be interesting to look at literature (the honest ones…as we are reminded by Ha Joon-Chan’s 2002 “kicking away the ladder) which explores political development progress of the developed world, not to be duplicated but to inform understanding.
In other considerations for political development, one can look at institutions (both formal and informal) as discussed by Nic Cheeseman (2018) specifically in Africa; making a case for the synergies and relationships between the formal and informal institutions in the region’s political development. In my own peculiar realities, I see the wisdom in his call for the recognition of the import of informal institutions since they often play big roles in the formal setup. For example, in the aftermath of natural disasters some communities become first responders before the authorised first responders arrive…they check on the neighbours, clear blocked roads and help the vulnerable.
All in all, political development is an intricate thing which is informed by history, local realities, the nature of institutions, inter alia.
Bibliography
Burnell, P. J., Rakner, L. & Randall, V., 2014. Changing analytical approaches to the study of politics in the developing world. In: Politics in the developing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13-28.
Carothers, T. & de Gramont, D., 2013. The new politics agenda. In: Development aid confronts politics: the almost revolution. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ch.2.
Chang, H.-J., 2007. Kicking away the ladder, development strategy in historical perspective. London: Anthem Press.
Grindle, M. 2004. Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance: An international Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17(4), pp. 525 – 548
Laws, E.
& Leftwich, A., 2012. Bringing history back in: the three big books,
summaries and some questions. [Online]
Available at: http://publications.dlprog.org/Bringing%20History%20Back%20in.pdf
[Accessed 28 January 2019].
Ortlieb, T.,
2016. Fukuyama Political Development. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4EX4f0lfP8
[Accessed 16 February 2019].
Musings on Politics and Its inner Workings 