A tentative comparison of mainstream and alternative approaches to poverty
The year 2000 marked a new international consensus to put poverty reduction at the centre of international development efforts. The United Nations General Assembly solemnly adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Amongst the eight MDGs the reduction by half of the proportion of people living with less than a dollar a day until 2015 assumes primary importance. In the same year the World Bank dedicated its flagship publication the World Development Report (WDR) to the issue of poverty and titled it Attacking Poverty (World Bank 2000). This international emphasis on poverty and poverty reduction is seen by some commentators as a new poverty agenda in international development, or - with reference to the World Banks 1990 WDR on poverty - as the new “new poverty agenda” (Maxwell 2001). However, although there is broad based international agreement on poverty reduction as the overarching goal for development, there is less agreement on how to achieve this goal and a vivid debate is under way.
Despite the risk of oversimplifying the current debate on poverty and poverty reduction I suggest that the positions in the debate can be divided into two great narratives. The first narrative frames poverty as “lack of”. This approach characterises poor people as agents of change suffering from a lack of certain assets and as lacking sufficient access to markets. This approach, which could be called the current mainstream approach to poverty, is endorsed by organisations like the World Bank and IFAD (2001). In the academic community it is often associated with researchers in the neo-classical economics and new institutionalist tradition. The second narrative frames poverty as a social relation. This approach characterises poor people as suffering from processes of marginalisation and exclusion, emphasising power imbalances. This approach, which could be called the alternative approach, is often endorsed by NGOs and civil society movements. In the academic community it is often associated with researchers in the tradition of political economy.
This essay attempts to give an overview of how the poor are characterised and conceptualised in what I would call the mainstream and the alternative approach to poverty reduction. In order to do this both approaches will be contrasted along three lines of inquiry. First, an outline of how both approaches characterise the poor and where they differ in their assumptions about poverty will be given. This will be followed by a short account of the different methodologies to measure poverty that both approaches usually rely on. Thereafter, the main policy implications of the poverty knowledge as embodied in the two approaches will be delineated. Finally, I will briefly discuss the internal coherence of each approach pointing out their main weakness and draw a conclusion. The focus throughout the essay will be mostly on rural poverty, which according to IFAD (2001) covers three quarters of the global income poor.
The characteristics of the poor
To sketch how the mainstream approach to poverty reduction frames and characterises the poor I will use as references the World Development Report (WDR) 2000/2001 published by the World Bank (2000) and the Rural Poverty Report(RPR) 2001 published by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD 2001). Both documents show a striking similarity in the language and concepts they use to characterise the poor. Identifying a clear cut alternative approach to poverty is, however, a more difficult endeavour. Although many NGOs and civil society movements differ from the mainstream approach as presented in the World Bank and IFAD documents it is hard to identify an ideal-type alternative approach embodied in a specific organisation or document. In reality most non-mainstream development organisations share some assumptions with the mainstream position about the characteristics of the poor and differ in others. To construct an ideal-type alternative approach I will base my inquiry on some academic authors who write on this subject from a political economy perspective and on the Chronic Poverty Report 2004/2005 published by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2005).
The mainstream approach as embodied in the WDR 2000/2001 and the RPR 2001 must be seen in the wider context of a significant shift that has happened over the last three decades in the mainstream development discourse. After the 1980s and early 1990s focus on macro-economic stability, structural adjustment and market reforms, a new consensus emerged towards the end of the 1990s. This new consensus was built on the realization that economic growth was a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction. In order to make progress in reducing poverty pro-poor growth, improved access to health and education by the poor and properly functioning institutions were needed. This new consensus, sometimes called post-Washington consensus (Saad-Filho, 2005), forms today the mainstream approach to poverty reduction and is shared by the major International Financial Institutions and most of the donor community.
The WDR 2000/2001 acknowledges the need for an agenda that goes beyond the purely economic domain to attack poverty. The report puts forward a framework for action in three areas, which are: promoting opportunity, facilitating empowerment and enhancing security. An effective strategy to reduce poverty, according to the report, will require concerted action in all three areas by the government, civil society, the private sector, and poor people themselves. Within this general framework the WDR suggests to think about poverty in terms of the assets the poor posses. These assets are of several kinds:
• Human assets
• Natural assets
• Physical assets
• Financial assets
• Social assets
The returns to these assets that poor people will be able to generate depend on the poor people’s access to markets. Both the WDR 2000/2001 and the RPR 2001 describe the poor in terms of their lack of the above mentioned assets and emphasise the importance of market access for poor people. In this framework the role of the state is to invest in the assets of the poor, who then in turn use these assets as agents of change and self-development. The following quote from the PRP 2001 exemplifies this belief in the agency of the poor to change their own lot which is underlying the current mainstream approach.
"Poverty reduction is not something that governments, development institutions or NGOs can do for the poor. The poor themselves have to seize responsibility, as agents of change, for their own development" (IFAD 2001, p. 229).
The WDR however, recognizes that there might also be structurally poor, who not only suffer from a lack of assets and market access but whose poverty is linked to social identity. In general however, it is fair to say that both reports characterise the poor as rational agents of change who react to price incentives in order to maximise the return to their assets. The role of the state in this framework is one of investing in poor people’s assets and to enable them to participate in the market. Using a slightly sarcastic quote from John Sender, the current mainstream approach to characterize the poor could be summarized as follows.
"In the currently fashionable theoretical framework, the poor are self-employed ‘agents’, playing maximizing games in imperfect rural markets. They simply need additional ‘assets’, purchased through access to micro-credit provided by more perfectly functioning rural markets, to smooth the process of their transition into membership of the petty bourgeoisie" (Sender 2002, p.40).
An alternative approach to poverty can be associated with a line of thinking that defines poverty less as an individual characteristic and more as a social relation. In this perspective the poor are mainly characterised by suffering from processes of marginalisation, discrimination and exploitation. To portray this position I will draw on two authors in the tradition of political economy namely Kay (2006) and Sender (2002 and 2003) and on the Chronic Poverty Report 2004/2005 published by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2005) of the University of Manchester.
Cristóbal Kay in a survey article on rural poverty and development strategies in Latin America concludes that “poverty is a social relation embedded in particular multivariate structures” (2006, p.494). From this perspective then poverty can not be understood by certain characteristics of the poor like their lack of assets or insufficient access to markets. Rather poverty is a structural phenomenon which the current socio-economic system reproduces on a daily basis. This perspective which has much in common with neostructuralist ideas put forward by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) sees state intervention as a pivotal condition for changing the plight of the poor.
John Sender (2003) challenges what he calls the hegemonic assumptions concerning the characteristics of the poor in the mainstream literature on rural poverty. According to his own studies (see Sender 2002) the poorest rural households can not be characterized as self-employed agents simply lacking assets and market access. Rather, so Sender (2003), the poorest rural households are usually characterized by relying on the income of non-educated women engaging in manual agricultural wage labour. An account that characterises the poor as self-employed agents of change is thus lacking the empirical basis and misses out the crucial employment-poverty nexus. Improving the lot of the poorest households then calls for an improvement in employment conditions rather than an investment in assets to foster self-employment.
The Chronic Poverty Report 2004/2005 published by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2005) also highlights the social dimension of poverty. According to this report people who suffer from chronic poverty also often suffer from discrimination and disadvantage resulting from their position within their households, communities or countries. The report identifies several bases of discrimination, among them are: oppressive labour relations, ascribed status (ethnicity, religion and caste), gender, stigmatised ill-health and age. The report thus provides a further alternative approach to characterise the poor that differs quite radically from the mainstream approach.
Measuring poverty
It is not surprising that different assumptions about who the poor are and what their characteristics are will also lead to differences in the methodological approaches to measuring poverty. This section will try to give a short overview about some key issues in the current debate on methodology to measure poverty. Again there is the risk here of oversimplifying, but I will try to distinguish the mainstream poverty research approach from an alternative research approach by the relative importance both approaches give to either quantitative or qualitative research methods.
The mainstream approach to poverty measurement is a money metric approach based on household income and expenditure surveys. This approach which is often associated with the World Bank, calculates poverty with relation to an international poverty line of 1 Dollar a day. Any individual below this international poverty line is automatically considered poor. The money metric approach to poverty measurement is prominently used to measure the success or failure of the international community to reach the Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty by half in 2015. The advantage of this approach to poverty measurement is that it allows for highly aggregated statements about global and regional trends in poverty reduction. The World Bank (2000) recognizes that the money metric approach has some weaknesses. These weaknesses, so the World Bank, are mainly the sometimes poor quality of data and the fact that household surveys cannot reveal inequalities within households. It must be noted here that the World Bank also uses qualitative methods for its poverty research, the most famous example for this being the Voices of the Poor reports. In general, however, it is fair to say that most of the World Bank and thus mainstream poverty research is based on a quantitative money metric approach.
Harris (2006) critiques mainstream poverty research for its failure to address structural and relational factors for explaining poverty. For him most of the mainstream poverty research abstracts from concrete class and power relationships. By doing so it opens up the way to reduce the problem of poverty to the characteristics of individuals. Alternative approaches usually try to incorporate historical and sociological reality into the research design and put more emphasis on qualitative research methods. Such approaches often try to combine qualitative with quantitative methodologies (see for example Sender, Oya and Cramer, 2006). The advantage of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods for poverty research is that it can lead to an understanding of poverty that is rooted in a social context (White 2002).
Policy implications of poverty knowledge
The differences in poverty knowledge as embodied in the two approaches outlined above naturally manifest themselves in quite different policy prescriptions for poverty reduction. Although it is nearly impossible to provide a short characterisation that does justice to the two approaches, I will, in the following, try to highlight the main policy elements of each approach.
Poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs) have become the primary policy device for international development institutions (Craig and Porter 2003) and can thus be regarded as the main vehicle for the implementation of mainstream poverty knowledge. The PRSP framework is based on the assumption that national ownership is needed for successful poverty reduction policies (UNCTAD 2002, p.173). PRSPs thus constitute, at least in theory, a move away from previous one-size fits all policy prescriptions towards process conditionality that allows developing countries to develop their own approach to poverty reduction. However, in reality the macroeconomic policy content of most PRSPs is quite similar and does not constitute a radical break with past World Bank or IMF policies (Craig and Porter 2003; Cling, Razafindrakoto and Roubaud 2002).
In line with the previously outlined characterisation of the poor as agents who need more assets and market access, the mainstream approach expects poverty reduction to be mainly driven by private sector development and household enterprises. With regards to macro-economic policy environment for poverty reduction the WDR 2000/2001 suggests:
"Some economic policies – such as openness to international trade, sound monetary and fiscal policies (reflected in moderate budget deficits and the absence of high inflation), a well developed financial system, and a moderately sized government – are also strongly conducive to economic growth" (World Bank 2000, p.49).
Furthermore the report suggests that policies should be put in place to build up the human capital and physical assets of the poor (World Bank 2000, p.57). In general then, the policy prescriptions associated with the mainstream approach to poverty reduction can be summarized by macro-economic stability, economic growth, trade openness and investment in poor people’s assets.
As the previous sections have shown alternative poverty knowledge tends to see structural constraints to poverty reduction where the mainstream approach tends to see individual constraints (lack of assets). Alternative approaches to poverty reduction therefore generally propose some sort of state intervention to ease structural constraints to poverty reduction and are less optimistic about the virtues of the market. Alternative approaches to poverty reduction are also more likely to focus on the status and conditions of labour and to emphasise the poverty-employment nexus (Osmani 2003). With reference to rural poverty Sender (2002; 2003) points out that a theoretical framework that characterizes the poor as self-employed agents misses out the most important route to poverty reduction. For him the most secure way out of poverty is not self-employment but rather access to secure and decent wage labour. Furthermore, Sender (2002) advocates labour friendly legislation and a strengthening of trade unions as means to improve the living standard of the poor. To summarize then, policy prescriptions associated with the alternative approach to poverty reduction would tend to promote wage employment and emphasise the role of the state or collective action in poverty reduction.
Discussion and conclusion
One might argue that the distinction between mainstream and alternative approaches to poverty and poverty reduction is, to some extent, a false dichotomy. The reality of the work of most aid organisations is more complex and not easily couched within either of the above outlined approaches. Nevertheless, presenting the debate about poverty reduction in these two ideal-typical forms has the advantage to show the strong linkages between assumptions about the poor and different choices in methodology and how these in turn inform different policy prescriptions. The following will shortly discuss these linkages and then conclude by highlighting the major weakness associated with each approach and make a suggestion for the way forward.
The tendency in the mainstream narrative to take the individual or household as key analytical unit is coherent with a characterisation of the poor as self-employed agents who need more assets and market access. This characterisation is also consistent with a neoliberal policy framework that discourages state intervention in the economy. In a situation where neither capitalist investment nor state employment is available, the rural poor necessarily have to be characterized as self-employed agents of change.
The alternative narrative is characterized by a tendency to abstract from individual agency and to take class, gender, ethnicity, etc. as analytical unit which is coherent with a characterization of the poor as suffering from unjust social relations. This characterisation is consistent with a qualitative research design that is able to highlights social relations. The policy implication of this narrative is that the poor have to be aided by some sort of collective action (state, trade unions, social movements, etc.) because it is believed that the market will simply reproduce the existing unjust power relations.
From the preceding discussion it becomes clear that the main distinction between mainstream and alternative approaches to poverty is centred on the question of agency. Poverty reduction in the mainstream narrative is mainly achieved through individual agency, whereas in the alternative approach it is mainly achieved through some form of collective action. Both approaches, in their ideal typical form, have considerable weaknesses. A mainstream policy approach that mainly advocates individual agency and market based solution risks to simply reproduce poverty and social injustices. An alternative approach favouring stronger state involvement also risks to be ineffective. This is especially so in Sub-Saharan Africa where the poor in general have not been served well by their own state. And it is not clear why and how this could suddenly change. To conclude, the poor are probably best served by ideologically unbiased analysis and poverty reduction strategies that are well rooted in a socio-historic context and which draw on the full range of social actors available for the task at hand.
References
Chronic Poverty Research Centre, (2005) “Chronic Poverty Report 2004-05”, available at http://www.chronicpoverty.org/resources/cprc_report_2004-2005_contents.html
Cling, J.P., Razafindrakoto, M. and Roubaud, F. (2002) “The PRSP Initiative: Old Wine in New Bottles?” ABCDE-Europe Conference paper, 24-26 June Oslo.
Craig, D. and Porter, D. (2003) “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: A New Convergence”, World Development, 31 (1): pp. 56-69.
Harris, J. (2006) “Why Understanding of Social Relations Matters More for Policy on Chronic Poverty than Measurement”, available at http://www.chronicpoverty.org/pdfs/2006ConceptsConferencePapers/Harriss-CPRC2006-Draft.pdf
IFAD, (2001) The Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty: Rural poverty Report 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.ifad.org/poverty/index.htm
Kay, C. (2006) “Rural Poverty and Development Strategies in Latin America”, Journal of Agrarian Change, 6 (4): pp. 455-508.
Maxwell, S. (2001), “WDR 2000: Is there a New “New Poverty Agenda?”, Development Policy Review, 19 (1): pp. 143-149.
Osmani, S.R. (2003), “Exploring the employment nexus: topics in employment and poverty”. Report prepared for the Task Force on the Joint ILO-UNDP Programme on Employment and Poverty. Available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/recon/poverty/download/osmani.pdf .
Reddy, S.G. and Pogge, T.W. (2003) “How not to count the poor”. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=893159.
Saad-Filho, A. (2005) “From Washington to Post-Washington Consensus: Neoliberal Agendas for Economic Development”, in: A. Saad-Filho and D. Johnston (eds.) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press.
Sender, J. (2002), “Women’s Struggle to Escape Rural Poverty in South Africa”, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2 (1): pp. 1-49.
Sender, J. (2003) “Rural Poverty and Gender: Analytical Frameworks and Policy Proposals” in Chang (ed) Rethinking Development Economics. London: Anthem Press.
Sender, J., Oya, C. and Cramer, C. (2006), “Women Working for Wages: Putting Flesh on the Bones of a Rural Labour Market Survey in Mozambique”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 32 (2): pp. 313-333.
UNCTAD, (2002) The Least Developed Countries Report, New York: UNCTAD. Available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ldc2002_en.pdf .
White, H. (2002) “Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in Poverty Analysis”, World Development, 30 (3): 511-522.
World Bank, (2000) World Development Report, 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, New York: Oxford University Press.
Freitag, Jänner 05, 2007
Donnerstag, Dezember 28, 2006
Francisco de Goya (1746 - 1828): "El sueño de la razón produce monstruos"
Wie dieses Bild Goya's zu interpretieren ist, ist unklar, da sueño mit Traum oder Schlaf übersetzt werden kann. Allerdings scheint mir "der Traum einer (universalen) Vernunft gebiert Ungeheuer" die interessanteste Interpretation dieser Radierung Goya's zu sein.
Donnerstag, Dezember 14, 2006
The trinity of learning: a critical perspective
Lifelong learning and continuous professional development have attracted a lot of attention during the last years both from academics and from practitioners. Talk is even of learning becoming the distinctive mark of modern societies – the so called learning society. Tight (1998) sees the concept of learning in modern societies becoming part of a trinity of: lifelong learning, the learning organization and the learning society. This learning trinity is thus “articulating the importance of continuing learning for survival and development at the levels of the individual, the organization and society as a whole” (ibid., p. 254).
What are the factors that can explain this rising interest in learning on all levels of the learning trinity (macro-level, meso-level, micro-level)? How is this emphasis on learning linked to the wider societal change brought about by globalisation and what is the driving force that is shaping the modern notion of learning? What are its implications for the practice of HRM and what does lifelong learning mean for the employee? This essay will try to answer these questions from a critical perspective. The paper is structured as follows: first, a short overview over recent economic and social changes triggered by globalisation will be given. This will be followed by a short presentation of the concept of the flexible firm developed by Atkinson (1984) which provides an important analytical frame for analyzing recent changes in the workplace affecting the employees. Then the meaning of learning will be analyzed on the three levels of the learning trinity: 1) the learning society and in how far can it be regarded as a panacea against unemployment, 2) HRM and its relation to employee learning and development, 3) life-long learning and its implications for employees. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn about the character and perspectives of the learning society.
The triumph of competition
The world economy has undergone massive changes in the last twenty years and globalisation has become the catchword to describe this phenomenon. Stability and long-term prospects have become notions of the past; change is the defining principle of our age (Giddens & Hutton 2000). More and more parts of our societies and our own lives are organised according to market principles and are thus following a logic of competition. This process has not suddenly started out of a void. A continuity of events leading to globalisation can be traced back as far as the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century. However, a series of political and technological events starting in the late 70s have given the decisive push to globalisation and have made it possible. What have been these events and what are still the drivers for this development?
The political and economic theory that prepared the grounds for globalisation is often referred to as neoliberalism. This school of thought was developed during the 1960s and 1970s by such prominent thinkers as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Michael Polanyi. In essence, neoliberalism calls for minimum involvement of the state in economic matters and advocates for unregulated trade and markets. Policies following neoliberal ideas were put into reality during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Internationally neoliberal recipes were pursued by the World Bank and the IMF. The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s then allowed for a culmination of neoliberal practice worldwide with rapid capital market and labour market liberalisation, privatisation of state enterprises and properties and a push for open markets around the world.
On the technology side a decisive thrust for globalisation was the world-wide communications revolution produced by global TV networks, cheap telecommunications and the Internet. In addition, transport of people and goods has become much cheaper during the last two decades and has allowed for a massive increase in product trade and tourism.
Globalisation has thus undoubtedly led to a fierce increase in competition on the macro level between countries, on the meso level between companies and the micro level between employees. On the macro level the effects are that countries are competing for investors trying to provide tax incentives and reducing labour cost. On the meso level the effects are companies striving for constant innovation and a maximum of flexibility. And on the micro level the employees are affected by a deregulated labour market and have to remodel themselves as entrepreneurs constantly investing in their employability to achieve some kind of job security.
The flexible firm
The flexible firm is a term coined by John Atkinson (1984) in the early 1980s. Although Atkinson developed his model before the “hot phase” of globalisation, the increased competition brought by globalisation has made his model even more relevant and describes now something that has become a reality for many businesses and employees around the world. The model of the flexible firm can be seen as a response of businesses to an economic environment that is characterised by constant change and short term decisions.
The Atkinson model (Atkinson 1984) of the flexible firm distinguishes three kinds of manpower flexibility that firms are trying to achieve: functional, numerical and financial. Functional flexibility means that employees are able to perform different tasks and activities and that the firm can shift employees between the tasks as required. Numerical flexibility means that the firm can easily increase or decrease its workforce according to market demand for its products. Financial flexibility means that the pay system of the firm allows for a high degree of differences in remuneration of employees for example through assessment-based pay.
To achieve these three types of flexibility the modern firm divides its workforce into a core and peripheral groups. The core group of workers consists of high skilled employees that are difficult to substitute like managers, technicians, craftsmen, etc. The emphasis for the core group is on functional flexibility and training. The peripheral groups consist of a low skilled workforce that can easily be substituted and the emphasis for the firm is on numerical flexibility. Thus, it’s unlikely for the firm to provide training opportunities to peripheral staff.
For Atkinson (1984, p.38) the flexible firm implies two sorts of change for the employee. “First, the gap between the conditions of employment of these different groups of worker is widening. At the core, job security, single status conditions and performance-related pay systems contrast with the relatively poor conditions, insecurity and pay levels driven down by competition in the labour market, which are found among most peripheral and external groups. Second, the numerical balance between these groups appears to be changing, with some managers anxious to push as many jobs as possible into peripheral categories.”
Learning society - a panacea against unemployment?
As mentioned above globalisation and the resulting emphasis on competitiveness can be seen as the defining principle of our age. Globalisation, the flexible firm, the flexible employee and the idea of a learning society are not independent phenomenons but very much interrelated. Edwards (1997, p. 41) argues that “it is the requirement to increase flexibility and competitiveness which has resulted in the current focus of interest on lifelong learning and its concentration in the realms of economic policy. This is a position which is shared across the political spectrum, including by business and trade union organisations, as well as major political parties and international organisations, such as the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.”
A multiplicity of discourses and notions exist with regards to the learning society. Edwards (1997, p. 184) distinguishes three major strands of discourses of a learning society which can be summarised as follows:
“The learning society is an educated society, committed to active citizenship, liberal democracy and equal opportunities. This supports lifelong learning….. The aim is to provide learning opportunities to educate adults to meet the challenges of change and citizenship.”
“A learning society is a learning market, enabling institutions to provide services for individuals as a condition for supporting competitiveness of the economy….. The aim is for a market in learning opportunities to be developed to meet the demands of individuals and employers for the updating of skills and competences.”
“A learning society is one in which learners adopt a learning approach to life, drawing on a wide range of resources to enable them to support their lifestyle practices. This supports lifelong learning as a condition of individuals in the contemporary period to which policy needs to respond.”
Edwards (1997, p. 185) notes that “it is the notion of a learning society which embeds a learning market that has become dominant in recent years.” This is understandable if one assumes that the political emphasis on a learning society in recent years was mainly triggered by economic globalisation. In a globalized world national economies compete against each other in order to attract foreign capital and direct investments and to retain local investments. With regards to the labour force foreign and local investment is attracted by two main factors: 1) the cost of labour and 2) the skills of the workforce. Although attempts have been made to reduce labour costs in many European countries, it is clear that this is not a viable road for highly developed countries to compete on the world market. However, the development of a skilled workforce in order to compete internationally is a socially accepted goal and thus explains the political popularity of discourses of a learning society.
Unemployment is still very high within many countries of the European Union (see for example Walwei 2001) and is thus on of the major political concerns. For politicians the pursuit of a learning society discourse offers two advantages. First, the idea of a learning society suggests that high levels of employment can be gained without significant reduction in labour costs if sufficient emphasis is put on the training and education of the workforce. A hypothesis which has not yet been validated (Morris 1999). Second, the idea of a learning society introduces a division of responsibility for employment between politics, business and the employee. It’s no longer the sole responsibility of politicians to secure high levels of employment, but part of the responsibility now rests with the employees who have to increasingly invest in their skills in order to qualify for employment.
With regards to the practices of life-long learning Edwards (1997, p.110) identifies three major trends: “the development of open and distance learning, the moves towards outcomes-based assessment and accreditation, and the reconstitution of workplaces as learning organisations.” The development of open and distance learning aims at increasing access to learning and training for adults, for whom it would be difficult to attend institutions on a regular basis. The variety of learning environments and the multiplicity of learning providers produces a need for outcomes-based assessment and accreditation. Employee learning also takes place at the workplace itself. Many organisations have realised the potential for workplace based learning and turn them into learning organisations in order to increase their competitiveness.
The deregulation of labour markets, the political emphasis on a learning society or live long learning and the requirements of workforce flexibility of many modern organisations have created a new environment for employees. The workforce is increasingly being divided into core workers and peripheral workers. Whilst generally core workers benefit from the modern day work environment with its emphasis on flexibility and life-long learning, peripheral workers tend to loose out on employment rights, access to learning opportunities and other benefits accruing to core workers.
Under conditions of a learning society the access to training becomes a fundamental issue for every employee. Rainbird (2000, p. 184) notes that “in a deregulated training system, where there are neither individual rights of access to training nor an obligation on employers to invest in training, an emphasis on individual responsibility for learning might be expected to reinforce patterns of inequality.” To close the widening gap between core and peripheral workers the question of employee rights for education and training becomes increasingly important. Research shows that peripheral workers in the UK tend to have substantially less access to training than core workers (Rainbird 2000). “Until training and skills development are treated as a collective good regulated by all the stakeholders (not just employers) and employees have an entitlement to the different types of work-based learning and are supported by structures which positively encourage them to take advantage of them, it is difficult to see how patterns of inequality of access can be effectively challenged (ibid., p. 195).”
The political emphasis on life-long learning and a learning society is sometimes justified with the prospect of the creation of high skills economies and the subsequent reduction in unemployment and low skills jobs. However, Crouch et al. (1999) note that over recent years in the USA, Japan and some European states, net employment growth has not been in high skill jobs but in part-time low-skill jobs. Likewise Grugulis (2003) observes that “most jobs in Britain demand few skills”, and that a high skills route for competitiveness has not yet been adapted by British companies. Morris (1999) therefore sees a danger of national overspending on training and education, as “there is little or no unequivocal evidence that this investment will lead to a reduction in unemployment.”
HRM and employee learning and development
The management of employees has undergone significant changes in the last two decades. The most obvious sign for this change is a shift in the denomination of the practice of managing employees from “Personnel Management” to “Human Resource Management”. According to Legge (1995) this shift in language has its roots in globalization, changes that occurred in product and labour markets, new technologies and a swing to right-wing i.e. neoliberal political ideologies. Storey (1995, p.5) proposes the following definition for Human Resource Management: “Human resource management is a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personal techniques.” A distinction between “hard” and “soft” normative models of HRM can be made. Hard models of HRM are characterized by “utilitarian instrumentalism” whereas soft models are characterized by “developmental humanism” (Henry and Pettigrew, cited in Legge 1995).
Employee learning and development plays an important role in modern Human Resource Management. Modern organisations usually have a HR development strategy, which defines what are the learning and development needs for the organisation and who should be involved in training activities (Torrington et al. 2005). The Human Resource manager has a broad array of methods of learning and development at his disposal, which can be divided in three broad categories:
1) Off-job methods: education and training courses
2) Learning on the job: Manager coaching and teaching, Mentoring, Peer relationships, self-development
3) Open, distance and e-learning
In recent years two developments with regards to employee training can be observed. First, greater emphasis is laid on individuals taking ownership for their learning needs. And second, a shift from formal development programmes to more informal trainings such as on-the-job development, mentoring, peer relationships and self-development (Torrington et al. 2005). Two possible explanations could be provided for this phenomenon. Informal training programs through their more personal nature might be more effective. But modern organisations might also prefer informal training programs as they tend to be less costly for the organisation because the training burden is put on the shoulders of the employee and has not to be financed directly by the organisation.
The provision of employee learning and development activities as defined through a HR strategy may differ for core and peripheral workers. As mentioned above, peripheral workers in general are less likely to benefit from learning and development opportunities provided by firms than core workers. This fact could be interpreted in the sense that many firms combine “hard” and “soft” models of HRM in reality. Hard models of HRM, which have more of an instrumental view of the employee don’t put an emphasis on learning or development of the employee. This approach is more likely to be adopted towards peripheral workers. In soft models of HRM, which have a more holistic view of the employee, learning and employee development play an important role. According to Legge (1995) soft models of HRM usually focus on generating employee commitment and are thus more likely to be directed towards core workers. The provision of learning and employee development activities can be a powerful tool to generate employee commitment. The extent to which learning and development activities are provided can thus be seen as an indicator of whether a firm adopts a “hard” or a “soft” model of HRM.
The increased emphasis on employee learning and development brings up the question of pay. How are new skills acquired through learning rewarded? This question becomes especially important if the skills have been acquired through individual learning or peer-learning and thus constitute an extra effort on behalf of the employee. How are new skills assessed and how are employees motivated to invest in this kind of self-training? New pay system and skill based pay may be seen as an answer. New pay writers advocate for payment systems that are variable and contingent on performance. Moreover, the variable elements in new pay system are not consolidated over time but have to be continually re-earned through high performance. As learning generally improves the employee performance, new pay systems could be seen as an adequate tool to motivate employees to invest in their own learning. However, several problems are associated with new pay systems. Heery (2000) observes that new pay systems imply a transfer of risk from employers to workers. Moreover, new pay systems might not have the desired effect and may ultimately be counterproductive. Heery (2000) cites two case studies of skill-based pay that both describe “employee dissatisfaction with and resistance to the technique and its tendency”.
Life-long learning and its implications for employees
How does a culture of life-long learning look like for employees, what are it’s implications? The most obvious implication is that the “front end” model which links childhood with education and adulthood with work, is being replaced. Learning in adulthood can rarely be full-time because of the requirements imposed by work, nevertheless it is similar to childhood learning in the sense that it is becoming compulsory (Tight 1998). Bureaucratic careers are becoming more unlikely because of the fact that large corporations have become lean and flat and are constantly restructuring themselves. This leads to a situation where the employee needs to invest in his own skills in order to adapt to these rapid changes, if he wants to move up the career ladder or avoid finding himself suddenly in the category of “surplus” workers. Learning is thus a sensible strategy for an employee in order to keep “fit” for both company internal and external job markets through the “acquisition of externally validated credentials, in-house training programmes, social contacts and networks” (Brown et al., p.118).
Life-long learning is increasingly being seen as a means to develop individual employability in an uncertain world. In order to increase his employability the employee is encouraged to regard himself as an investment object and to develop a skills portfolio through self-motivated learning activities. However, employability is an ambiguous concept and it is not clear that individual learning will always lead to an increase in employability. Some authors (Hillage and Pollard, cited in Brown et al. 1998, p. 118) see employability as being “about having the capability to gain initial employment, maintain employment and obtain new employment if required’. Brown et al. (2003) see this definition as ideologically loaded. They argue that employability is rather determined by labour market conditions than individual capabilities.
A strong link between organizational strategies of business process reengineering, downsizing or lean management and the pressure on employees to subdue them “voluntarily” to a regime of life-long learning can be observed. The mentioned strategies usually lead to a qualitative and quantitative intensification of work. This results in the need to have a labour force that is able to do more in less time which is only possible if the employee expands his skills. Thus results an emphasis on learning and employee qualification. However, the short–term interests of shareholder value driven companies often does not allow for these companies to invest sufficiently in training their employees to cope with the new requirements imposed. Even if financially the company would be willing to invest in employee training, many lean organisation encounter difficulties to send employees on training as nobody will be able to replace them during their absence. This can lead to a situation where the weight of learning imposed through new organizational strategies is mainly carried by the employee. Thompson (2003) sees little evidence that employers are living up to the expectations of carrying their part to foster employee learning. He states that “not only are employees being asked to take over responsibility for career development, studies show that employers are making less investment in training and skill development, in part because of fear that such investment will be lost through redundancy or exit from their firm” (ibid., p 365).
From an individual perspective the life-long learning agenda can also be understood as an attempt to move from peripheral work positions into the core group. However, this strategy will not work for all employees, as the positions available within the core group are limited. If the base of “core” jobs does not expand, a greater supply of better educated employees might only increase the competition for these kinds of jobs and thus lead to a deterioration of working conditions for the core. This problem has become more acute with the rise of mass higher education because it is creating a mass market of well educated workers. Brown et al. (2003) refer to this phenomenon when they state that “the idea that the ‘more you learn the more you earn’ has a degree of validity as long as other people are not learning the same things, otherwise one is running to stand still“ (ibid., p.110).
The implications of the life-long learning agenda for the individual employee must be seen within the broader context of increased competition brought about by globalisation. The logic of competition demands that the employee is acting like an entrepreneur, meaning that he is willing to take risks and being ready to invest in himself. Failure to do so may result in self-inflicted unemployment. The constant talk about the learning society may lead to a situation where structural unemployment is mainly being seen as a problem of the individual. Thus a silent transfer of risk from the society to the individual is happening. Ulrich Beck (2000, p.167) refers to this when he says “your own life – your own failure.”
Conclusion
The essay started with a short outline of the rise of competition and flexibility as the main organizational principles in modern societies. It then analyzed the meaning of learning at the levels of the society, the organization and the individual and discovered important relationships between competition and the meaning that learning has acquired within these tree spheres. The notions of a learning society and life-long learning can thus clearly be linked to a wider process of increasing competition brought by globalisation. Notions of learning not related to competitiveness and employability such as personal growth and fulfilment through learning are not playing a dominant role in the current discourse. The potentially liberating effects of a learning society are thus not being achieved.
Many critical questions arise whilst analysing the current notion of a learning society, like who determines, what should be learnt and for what purpose? Who has to carry the financial burden of continuous learning? How much control should individuals have over their involvement in lifelong learning? It stands to fear that the predominant notion of learning will become an instrumental one with view of the job market rather than as ends-in-itself.
Oberlindober (2005) sees the knowledge and learning society potentially to turn into a horror vision. In that vision learning in the context of a learning society is nothing else than the extension of work time. Reduction of work time in favour of the extension of training periods will ultimately reduce the free time available to humans, in which they determine, what they do. The learning society may become one of unequal chances, in which the access to knowledge and education is depending upon social group affiliation. To put simple: a highly educated ruling elite may arise, that prescribes the remainder of the population what useful knowledge is and what they should learn.
References:
Atkinson, J. 1984, “Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations”, Personnel Management, Vol. 16, No. 8.
Beck U. 2000, “Living your own life in a runaway world: individualisation, globalisation and politics” in Giddens, A. and Hutton, W. (eds.), “On the edge – Living with global capitalism”, Jonathan Cape, London.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S. 2003, “Employability in a Knowledge-driven Economy”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16, No. 2.
Crouch, C., Finegold, D. and Sako, M. 1999, “Are Skills the Answer? The Political Economy of Skills Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Edwards, R. 1997, “Changing places? – Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society”, Routledge, London.
Giddens, A. and Hutton, W. (eds.) 2000, “On the edge – Living with global capitalism”, Jonathan Cape, London.
Grugulis, I. 2003, “Putting Skills to Work: Learning and Employment at the Start of the Century”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13, No 2, pp. 3-12.
Heery, E. 2000, “The New Pay: Risk and Representation at Work” in Winstanley and Woodall (eds.) Ethical Issues in Human Resource Management. London: Macmillan. pp. 172-188.
Legge, K. 1995, “HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas” in Storey, J. (ed.), Human Resource Management – A Critical Text, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Morris, H. 1999, “Does the learning society pass the test?”, HRDI, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 157-162.
Oberlindober, H. 2005, „Kritik der Wissensgesellschaft - Mythendekonstruktion als Kernaufgabe gewerkschaftlicher Bildungspolitik“, Retrieved November 8, 2005, from http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/arbeitsalltag/ho-wissen.html.
Rainbird, H. 2000, “Skilling the Unskilled: access to work-based learning and the lifelong learning agenda”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 13, No. 2.
Sennett, R. 1998, “The Corrosion of Character. The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism”, New York: Norton.
Storey, J. 1995, “Human resource management: still marching on, or marching out?”, in Storey, J. (ed.) Human Resource Management – A Critical Text, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Thompson, P. 2003, ‘Disconnected Capitalism’. Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 17, No.2, pp. 359-378.
Tight, M. 1998, “Lifelong Learning: Opportunity or Compulsion?”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46, No.3, pp.251-263.
Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. 2005, “Human Resource Management”, 6th edition, Prentice Hall
Walwei, U. 2001, “High employment and social security: Vision or illusion in a globalized world?”, International Social Security Review, Vol. 54, No.1.
Lifelong learning and continuous professional development have attracted a lot of attention during the last years both from academics and from practitioners. Talk is even of learning becoming the distinctive mark of modern societies – the so called learning society. Tight (1998) sees the concept of learning in modern societies becoming part of a trinity of: lifelong learning, the learning organization and the learning society. This learning trinity is thus “articulating the importance of continuing learning for survival and development at the levels of the individual, the organization and society as a whole” (ibid., p. 254).
What are the factors that can explain this rising interest in learning on all levels of the learning trinity (macro-level, meso-level, micro-level)? How is this emphasis on learning linked to the wider societal change brought about by globalisation and what is the driving force that is shaping the modern notion of learning? What are its implications for the practice of HRM and what does lifelong learning mean for the employee? This essay will try to answer these questions from a critical perspective. The paper is structured as follows: first, a short overview over recent economic and social changes triggered by globalisation will be given. This will be followed by a short presentation of the concept of the flexible firm developed by Atkinson (1984) which provides an important analytical frame for analyzing recent changes in the workplace affecting the employees. Then the meaning of learning will be analyzed on the three levels of the learning trinity: 1) the learning society and in how far can it be regarded as a panacea against unemployment, 2) HRM and its relation to employee learning and development, 3) life-long learning and its implications for employees. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn about the character and perspectives of the learning society.
The triumph of competition
The world economy has undergone massive changes in the last twenty years and globalisation has become the catchword to describe this phenomenon. Stability and long-term prospects have become notions of the past; change is the defining principle of our age (Giddens & Hutton 2000). More and more parts of our societies and our own lives are organised according to market principles and are thus following a logic of competition. This process has not suddenly started out of a void. A continuity of events leading to globalisation can be traced back as far as the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century. However, a series of political and technological events starting in the late 70s have given the decisive push to globalisation and have made it possible. What have been these events and what are still the drivers for this development?
The political and economic theory that prepared the grounds for globalisation is often referred to as neoliberalism. This school of thought was developed during the 1960s and 1970s by such prominent thinkers as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Michael Polanyi. In essence, neoliberalism calls for minimum involvement of the state in economic matters and advocates for unregulated trade and markets. Policies following neoliberal ideas were put into reality during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Internationally neoliberal recipes were pursued by the World Bank and the IMF. The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s then allowed for a culmination of neoliberal practice worldwide with rapid capital market and labour market liberalisation, privatisation of state enterprises and properties and a push for open markets around the world.
On the technology side a decisive thrust for globalisation was the world-wide communications revolution produced by global TV networks, cheap telecommunications and the Internet. In addition, transport of people and goods has become much cheaper during the last two decades and has allowed for a massive increase in product trade and tourism.
Globalisation has thus undoubtedly led to a fierce increase in competition on the macro level between countries, on the meso level between companies and the micro level between employees. On the macro level the effects are that countries are competing for investors trying to provide tax incentives and reducing labour cost. On the meso level the effects are companies striving for constant innovation and a maximum of flexibility. And on the micro level the employees are affected by a deregulated labour market and have to remodel themselves as entrepreneurs constantly investing in their employability to achieve some kind of job security.
The flexible firm
The flexible firm is a term coined by John Atkinson (1984) in the early 1980s. Although Atkinson developed his model before the “hot phase” of globalisation, the increased competition brought by globalisation has made his model even more relevant and describes now something that has become a reality for many businesses and employees around the world. The model of the flexible firm can be seen as a response of businesses to an economic environment that is characterised by constant change and short term decisions.
The Atkinson model (Atkinson 1984) of the flexible firm distinguishes three kinds of manpower flexibility that firms are trying to achieve: functional, numerical and financial. Functional flexibility means that employees are able to perform different tasks and activities and that the firm can shift employees between the tasks as required. Numerical flexibility means that the firm can easily increase or decrease its workforce according to market demand for its products. Financial flexibility means that the pay system of the firm allows for a high degree of differences in remuneration of employees for example through assessment-based pay.
To achieve these three types of flexibility the modern firm divides its workforce into a core and peripheral groups. The core group of workers consists of high skilled employees that are difficult to substitute like managers, technicians, craftsmen, etc. The emphasis for the core group is on functional flexibility and training. The peripheral groups consist of a low skilled workforce that can easily be substituted and the emphasis for the firm is on numerical flexibility. Thus, it’s unlikely for the firm to provide training opportunities to peripheral staff.
For Atkinson (1984, p.38) the flexible firm implies two sorts of change for the employee. “First, the gap between the conditions of employment of these different groups of worker is widening. At the core, job security, single status conditions and performance-related pay systems contrast with the relatively poor conditions, insecurity and pay levels driven down by competition in the labour market, which are found among most peripheral and external groups. Second, the numerical balance between these groups appears to be changing, with some managers anxious to push as many jobs as possible into peripheral categories.”
Learning society - a panacea against unemployment?
As mentioned above globalisation and the resulting emphasis on competitiveness can be seen as the defining principle of our age. Globalisation, the flexible firm, the flexible employee and the idea of a learning society are not independent phenomenons but very much interrelated. Edwards (1997, p. 41) argues that “it is the requirement to increase flexibility and competitiveness which has resulted in the current focus of interest on lifelong learning and its concentration in the realms of economic policy. This is a position which is shared across the political spectrum, including by business and trade union organisations, as well as major political parties and international organisations, such as the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.”
A multiplicity of discourses and notions exist with regards to the learning society. Edwards (1997, p. 184) distinguishes three major strands of discourses of a learning society which can be summarised as follows:
“The learning society is an educated society, committed to active citizenship, liberal democracy and equal opportunities. This supports lifelong learning….. The aim is to provide learning opportunities to educate adults to meet the challenges of change and citizenship.”
“A learning society is a learning market, enabling institutions to provide services for individuals as a condition for supporting competitiveness of the economy….. The aim is for a market in learning opportunities to be developed to meet the demands of individuals and employers for the updating of skills and competences.”
“A learning society is one in which learners adopt a learning approach to life, drawing on a wide range of resources to enable them to support their lifestyle practices. This supports lifelong learning as a condition of individuals in the contemporary period to which policy needs to respond.”
Edwards (1997, p. 185) notes that “it is the notion of a learning society which embeds a learning market that has become dominant in recent years.” This is understandable if one assumes that the political emphasis on a learning society in recent years was mainly triggered by economic globalisation. In a globalized world national economies compete against each other in order to attract foreign capital and direct investments and to retain local investments. With regards to the labour force foreign and local investment is attracted by two main factors: 1) the cost of labour and 2) the skills of the workforce. Although attempts have been made to reduce labour costs in many European countries, it is clear that this is not a viable road for highly developed countries to compete on the world market. However, the development of a skilled workforce in order to compete internationally is a socially accepted goal and thus explains the political popularity of discourses of a learning society.
Unemployment is still very high within many countries of the European Union (see for example Walwei 2001) and is thus on of the major political concerns. For politicians the pursuit of a learning society discourse offers two advantages. First, the idea of a learning society suggests that high levels of employment can be gained without significant reduction in labour costs if sufficient emphasis is put on the training and education of the workforce. A hypothesis which has not yet been validated (Morris 1999). Second, the idea of a learning society introduces a division of responsibility for employment between politics, business and the employee. It’s no longer the sole responsibility of politicians to secure high levels of employment, but part of the responsibility now rests with the employees who have to increasingly invest in their skills in order to qualify for employment.
With regards to the practices of life-long learning Edwards (1997, p.110) identifies three major trends: “the development of open and distance learning, the moves towards outcomes-based assessment and accreditation, and the reconstitution of workplaces as learning organisations.” The development of open and distance learning aims at increasing access to learning and training for adults, for whom it would be difficult to attend institutions on a regular basis. The variety of learning environments and the multiplicity of learning providers produces a need for outcomes-based assessment and accreditation. Employee learning also takes place at the workplace itself. Many organisations have realised the potential for workplace based learning and turn them into learning organisations in order to increase their competitiveness.
The deregulation of labour markets, the political emphasis on a learning society or live long learning and the requirements of workforce flexibility of many modern organisations have created a new environment for employees. The workforce is increasingly being divided into core workers and peripheral workers. Whilst generally core workers benefit from the modern day work environment with its emphasis on flexibility and life-long learning, peripheral workers tend to loose out on employment rights, access to learning opportunities and other benefits accruing to core workers.
Under conditions of a learning society the access to training becomes a fundamental issue for every employee. Rainbird (2000, p. 184) notes that “in a deregulated training system, where there are neither individual rights of access to training nor an obligation on employers to invest in training, an emphasis on individual responsibility for learning might be expected to reinforce patterns of inequality.” To close the widening gap between core and peripheral workers the question of employee rights for education and training becomes increasingly important. Research shows that peripheral workers in the UK tend to have substantially less access to training than core workers (Rainbird 2000). “Until training and skills development are treated as a collective good regulated by all the stakeholders (not just employers) and employees have an entitlement to the different types of work-based learning and are supported by structures which positively encourage them to take advantage of them, it is difficult to see how patterns of inequality of access can be effectively challenged (ibid., p. 195).”
The political emphasis on life-long learning and a learning society is sometimes justified with the prospect of the creation of high skills economies and the subsequent reduction in unemployment and low skills jobs. However, Crouch et al. (1999) note that over recent years in the USA, Japan and some European states, net employment growth has not been in high skill jobs but in part-time low-skill jobs. Likewise Grugulis (2003) observes that “most jobs in Britain demand few skills”, and that a high skills route for competitiveness has not yet been adapted by British companies. Morris (1999) therefore sees a danger of national overspending on training and education, as “there is little or no unequivocal evidence that this investment will lead to a reduction in unemployment.”
HRM and employee learning and development
The management of employees has undergone significant changes in the last two decades. The most obvious sign for this change is a shift in the denomination of the practice of managing employees from “Personnel Management” to “Human Resource Management”. According to Legge (1995) this shift in language has its roots in globalization, changes that occurred in product and labour markets, new technologies and a swing to right-wing i.e. neoliberal political ideologies. Storey (1995, p.5) proposes the following definition for Human Resource Management: “Human resource management is a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personal techniques.” A distinction between “hard” and “soft” normative models of HRM can be made. Hard models of HRM are characterized by “utilitarian instrumentalism” whereas soft models are characterized by “developmental humanism” (Henry and Pettigrew, cited in Legge 1995).
Employee learning and development plays an important role in modern Human Resource Management. Modern organisations usually have a HR development strategy, which defines what are the learning and development needs for the organisation and who should be involved in training activities (Torrington et al. 2005). The Human Resource manager has a broad array of methods of learning and development at his disposal, which can be divided in three broad categories:
1) Off-job methods: education and training courses
2) Learning on the job: Manager coaching and teaching, Mentoring, Peer relationships, self-development
3) Open, distance and e-learning
In recent years two developments with regards to employee training can be observed. First, greater emphasis is laid on individuals taking ownership for their learning needs. And second, a shift from formal development programmes to more informal trainings such as on-the-job development, mentoring, peer relationships and self-development (Torrington et al. 2005). Two possible explanations could be provided for this phenomenon. Informal training programs through their more personal nature might be more effective. But modern organisations might also prefer informal training programs as they tend to be less costly for the organisation because the training burden is put on the shoulders of the employee and has not to be financed directly by the organisation.
The provision of employee learning and development activities as defined through a HR strategy may differ for core and peripheral workers. As mentioned above, peripheral workers in general are less likely to benefit from learning and development opportunities provided by firms than core workers. This fact could be interpreted in the sense that many firms combine “hard” and “soft” models of HRM in reality. Hard models of HRM, which have more of an instrumental view of the employee don’t put an emphasis on learning or development of the employee. This approach is more likely to be adopted towards peripheral workers. In soft models of HRM, which have a more holistic view of the employee, learning and employee development play an important role. According to Legge (1995) soft models of HRM usually focus on generating employee commitment and are thus more likely to be directed towards core workers. The provision of learning and employee development activities can be a powerful tool to generate employee commitment. The extent to which learning and development activities are provided can thus be seen as an indicator of whether a firm adopts a “hard” or a “soft” model of HRM.
The increased emphasis on employee learning and development brings up the question of pay. How are new skills acquired through learning rewarded? This question becomes especially important if the skills have been acquired through individual learning or peer-learning and thus constitute an extra effort on behalf of the employee. How are new skills assessed and how are employees motivated to invest in this kind of self-training? New pay system and skill based pay may be seen as an answer. New pay writers advocate for payment systems that are variable and contingent on performance. Moreover, the variable elements in new pay system are not consolidated over time but have to be continually re-earned through high performance. As learning generally improves the employee performance, new pay systems could be seen as an adequate tool to motivate employees to invest in their own learning. However, several problems are associated with new pay systems. Heery (2000) observes that new pay systems imply a transfer of risk from employers to workers. Moreover, new pay systems might not have the desired effect and may ultimately be counterproductive. Heery (2000) cites two case studies of skill-based pay that both describe “employee dissatisfaction with and resistance to the technique and its tendency”.
Life-long learning and its implications for employees
How does a culture of life-long learning look like for employees, what are it’s implications? The most obvious implication is that the “front end” model which links childhood with education and adulthood with work, is being replaced. Learning in adulthood can rarely be full-time because of the requirements imposed by work, nevertheless it is similar to childhood learning in the sense that it is becoming compulsory (Tight 1998). Bureaucratic careers are becoming more unlikely because of the fact that large corporations have become lean and flat and are constantly restructuring themselves. This leads to a situation where the employee needs to invest in his own skills in order to adapt to these rapid changes, if he wants to move up the career ladder or avoid finding himself suddenly in the category of “surplus” workers. Learning is thus a sensible strategy for an employee in order to keep “fit” for both company internal and external job markets through the “acquisition of externally validated credentials, in-house training programmes, social contacts and networks” (Brown et al., p.118).
Life-long learning is increasingly being seen as a means to develop individual employability in an uncertain world. In order to increase his employability the employee is encouraged to regard himself as an investment object and to develop a skills portfolio through self-motivated learning activities. However, employability is an ambiguous concept and it is not clear that individual learning will always lead to an increase in employability. Some authors (Hillage and Pollard, cited in Brown et al. 1998, p. 118) see employability as being “about having the capability to gain initial employment, maintain employment and obtain new employment if required’. Brown et al. (2003) see this definition as ideologically loaded. They argue that employability is rather determined by labour market conditions than individual capabilities.
A strong link between organizational strategies of business process reengineering, downsizing or lean management and the pressure on employees to subdue them “voluntarily” to a regime of life-long learning can be observed. The mentioned strategies usually lead to a qualitative and quantitative intensification of work. This results in the need to have a labour force that is able to do more in less time which is only possible if the employee expands his skills. Thus results an emphasis on learning and employee qualification. However, the short–term interests of shareholder value driven companies often does not allow for these companies to invest sufficiently in training their employees to cope with the new requirements imposed. Even if financially the company would be willing to invest in employee training, many lean organisation encounter difficulties to send employees on training as nobody will be able to replace them during their absence. This can lead to a situation where the weight of learning imposed through new organizational strategies is mainly carried by the employee. Thompson (2003) sees little evidence that employers are living up to the expectations of carrying their part to foster employee learning. He states that “not only are employees being asked to take over responsibility for career development, studies show that employers are making less investment in training and skill development, in part because of fear that such investment will be lost through redundancy or exit from their firm” (ibid., p 365).
From an individual perspective the life-long learning agenda can also be understood as an attempt to move from peripheral work positions into the core group. However, this strategy will not work for all employees, as the positions available within the core group are limited. If the base of “core” jobs does not expand, a greater supply of better educated employees might only increase the competition for these kinds of jobs and thus lead to a deterioration of working conditions for the core. This problem has become more acute with the rise of mass higher education because it is creating a mass market of well educated workers. Brown et al. (2003) refer to this phenomenon when they state that “the idea that the ‘more you learn the more you earn’ has a degree of validity as long as other people are not learning the same things, otherwise one is running to stand still“ (ibid., p.110).
The implications of the life-long learning agenda for the individual employee must be seen within the broader context of increased competition brought about by globalisation. The logic of competition demands that the employee is acting like an entrepreneur, meaning that he is willing to take risks and being ready to invest in himself. Failure to do so may result in self-inflicted unemployment. The constant talk about the learning society may lead to a situation where structural unemployment is mainly being seen as a problem of the individual. Thus a silent transfer of risk from the society to the individual is happening. Ulrich Beck (2000, p.167) refers to this when he says “your own life – your own failure.”
Conclusion
The essay started with a short outline of the rise of competition and flexibility as the main organizational principles in modern societies. It then analyzed the meaning of learning at the levels of the society, the organization and the individual and discovered important relationships between competition and the meaning that learning has acquired within these tree spheres. The notions of a learning society and life-long learning can thus clearly be linked to a wider process of increasing competition brought by globalisation. Notions of learning not related to competitiveness and employability such as personal growth and fulfilment through learning are not playing a dominant role in the current discourse. The potentially liberating effects of a learning society are thus not being achieved.
Many critical questions arise whilst analysing the current notion of a learning society, like who determines, what should be learnt and for what purpose? Who has to carry the financial burden of continuous learning? How much control should individuals have over their involvement in lifelong learning? It stands to fear that the predominant notion of learning will become an instrumental one with view of the job market rather than as ends-in-itself.
Oberlindober (2005) sees the knowledge and learning society potentially to turn into a horror vision. In that vision learning in the context of a learning society is nothing else than the extension of work time. Reduction of work time in favour of the extension of training periods will ultimately reduce the free time available to humans, in which they determine, what they do. The learning society may become one of unequal chances, in which the access to knowledge and education is depending upon social group affiliation. To put simple: a highly educated ruling elite may arise, that prescribes the remainder of the population what useful knowledge is and what they should learn.
References:
Atkinson, J. 1984, “Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations”, Personnel Management, Vol. 16, No. 8.
Beck U. 2000, “Living your own life in a runaway world: individualisation, globalisation and politics” in Giddens, A. and Hutton, W. (eds.), “On the edge – Living with global capitalism”, Jonathan Cape, London.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S. 2003, “Employability in a Knowledge-driven Economy”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16, No. 2.
Crouch, C., Finegold, D. and Sako, M. 1999, “Are Skills the Answer? The Political Economy of Skills Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Edwards, R. 1997, “Changing places? – Flexibility, lifelong learning and a learning society”, Routledge, London.
Giddens, A. and Hutton, W. (eds.) 2000, “On the edge – Living with global capitalism”, Jonathan Cape, London.
Grugulis, I. 2003, “Putting Skills to Work: Learning and Employment at the Start of the Century”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13, No 2, pp. 3-12.
Heery, E. 2000, “The New Pay: Risk and Representation at Work” in Winstanley and Woodall (eds.) Ethical Issues in Human Resource Management. London: Macmillan. pp. 172-188.
Legge, K. 1995, “HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas” in Storey, J. (ed.), Human Resource Management – A Critical Text, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Morris, H. 1999, “Does the learning society pass the test?”, HRDI, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 157-162.
Oberlindober, H. 2005, „Kritik der Wissensgesellschaft - Mythendekonstruktion als Kernaufgabe gewerkschaftlicher Bildungspolitik“, Retrieved November 8, 2005, from http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/arbeitsalltag/ho-wissen.html.
Rainbird, H. 2000, “Skilling the Unskilled: access to work-based learning and the lifelong learning agenda”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 13, No. 2.
Sennett, R. 1998, “The Corrosion of Character. The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism”, New York: Norton.
Storey, J. 1995, “Human resource management: still marching on, or marching out?”, in Storey, J. (ed.) Human Resource Management – A Critical Text, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Thompson, P. 2003, ‘Disconnected Capitalism’. Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 17, No.2, pp. 359-378.
Tight, M. 1998, “Lifelong Learning: Opportunity or Compulsion?”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46, No.3, pp.251-263.
Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S. 2005, “Human Resource Management”, 6th edition, Prentice Hall
Walwei, U. 2001, “High employment and social security: Vision or illusion in a globalized world?”, International Social Security Review, Vol. 54, No.1.
The progressiveness of capitalism - or the value of Marx for development studies
In the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital, we can find Karl Marx making the following statement: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future” (Marx 2000a, p.453). A first uncritical reading of this statement would clearly suggest that Marx is presenting us here a simple, stagist conception of socio-economic evolution. And indeed, as Wood (1984, p.95) pointed out, much of the criticism of Marxism in recent years has focused on his alleged simple and deterministic conception of history. On such grounds Marxist theory could easily be dismissed as a grand narrative not capable of adequately capturing the contingencies of modern socio-economic development.
Besides the alleged deterministic view of socio-economic evolution that does not go down well with the post-modern mindset, Marxism has also been challenged on the grounds of recent historical events. The last decades have seen important politico-economic changes which have had and continue to have significant repercussion on the academic discussion of Marxist theories. The collapse of ‘real existing socialism’ and the subsequent procession of capitalism around the globe have led to a justified scepticism towards the relevance of the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution. These historical events seem to undermine one of the basic tenets of Marxism which holds that the development of the productive forces in a given society will inevitably lead to changes in the mode of production. Although a historically unprecedented period of productivity growth has occurred in the OECD countries since the turn of the 19th century, no major change in the mode of production has occurred in these countries. And with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc a transition to socialism seems further away then ever. Moreover, if we consider the spread of capitalism around the globe and the increasing economical divergence between the OECD countries and the rest of the world (Prichett 1997) the theory of the progressiveness of capitalism that is sometimes ascribed to the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution seems to be seriously challenged.
On the basis of the above mentioned historical events Kiely (1995) identifies an impasse in Marxist inspired development studies. The purpose of this essay then is to assess whether Marxist theory is still capable of providing useful insights for the study of development or if it has reached its expiry date. The scope and format of this essay however, do not allow for a discussion of the totality of Marxist theory and thought. Rather, I shall choose one specific aspect of Marxist theory to demonstrate its relevance for development studies. The subject chosen is, however, one that holds a crucial position in the body of Marx’s work; it is the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution.
The above quote from the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital provides the focus for the discussion of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution and its relevance for development studies. This then suggests the following structure for this essay. First, in order to judge whether it is justified to ascribe a stagist interpretation of socio-economic evolution to Marx, it is necessary to put the above mentioned quote into the wider context of Marxist thought. This will be done by shortly outlining Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution drawing on his own writings. Secondly, the influence of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution on development studies will be discussed. It will be shown that this influence has found its main materialisation in the discussions about the progressiveness of capitalism. This then, so I hope, will allow me to draw a conclusion assessing the value of Marxist theory for development studies.
Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution
Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution must be understood as part of his method of historical materialism. This term, also known as the materialist conception of history, plays a crucial role in Marxism and forms, according to Bottomore (1991), the social scientific core of Marxist thought. The main elements of Marx’s conception of historical materialism can be found in the Preface to his 1859 Critique of Political Economy (Marx 2000) and The German Ideology (Marx 2000b). To put it very crudely it can be said that in these two writings Marx presents a view that it is the socio-economic processes that form the basis of human society and that all other aspects – in Marxist terminology called superstructure – are secondary phenomena. However, as McLellan (2000, p.142) rightly points out, Marx’s strong emphasis on the importance of the socio-economic base for the development of society by no means implies that he was a “simple economic determinist”.
A second crucial element for Marx’s historical materialism is the concept of class and its relevance for an understanding of history. In The Communist Manifesto (Marx 2000c, p.246) Marx and Engels clearly spell out the importance of class when they write: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Within historical materialism class rule and conflict play the important role of forcing economic productivity of a given society beyond the level of subsistence (Bottomore 1991). It is in this sense that Marx writes in The Poverty of Philosophy “No antagonism, no progress” Marx (2000f, p.213).
Another important building block for understanding Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution is the mode of production. In the Preface to A Critique of Political Economy Marx (2000) elegantly outlines what he understands as mode of production and how different modes of production are linked to various stages in the evolution of human society. A mode of production for Marx is a structure of social relations that is basically defined by two antagonistic classes struggling over the means of production, the only exception being the primitive-communal and the communist mode of production (Brewer 1989). In a passage in the Preface well worth citing in length, Marx describes the interrelationship between modes of production and the developing productive forces which will eventually lead to communism.
“In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism.” (Marx 2000, p.426)
The Preface to A Critique of Political Economy quite clearly suggests a stagist conception of human history where different societies pass through successive progressive stages of development. However, various writers point out that this stagist view of history should be ascribed to the early Marx. McLellan (2000, p.143) points out that the later Marx seems to favour a case-by-case study of development over simple universal pronouncements of the course of history. Also Bottomore (1991) contends that Marx’s modes of production and the stages of history are not to be taken as general laws of history. He points out that Marx in his letter to Mikhailovsky denied that his material conception of history was an “historico-philosophical theory of the general path every people is fated to tread, whatever the historical circumstances in which it finds itself” (Marx 2000d, p.618).
For Marx a change in the mode of production necessarily implies a change in property relations. Of particular interest for Marx is the passage from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production. In Capital Vol. 1 Marx (1981) identifies ‘primitive accumulation’ as the main process through which capitalist property relations emerged in 16th century England. Marx (1981, p.874-875) describes the process as follows: “So-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production.” Once the process of ‘primitive accumulation’ and the establishment of capitalist property relations are completed the capitalist mode of production leads, according to Marx, to a rapid development of the forces of production. In The Communist Manifesto Marx expresses his view about the progressive historic function of capitalism when he credits the bourgeoisie with the creation of “more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” ( Marx 2000c, p.249). Furthermore, Marx identifies the bourgeoisie as a class that is driven around the whole globe by its need for an ever expanding market. It thus creates, in the words of Marx (2000c, p.249) “a world after its own image.”
The above sketches of historical materialism, modes of production, stages of history and capitalist development provide the framework for an understanding of Marx’s statement in the preface to the first German edition of Capital. To repeat once again Marx there states: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future” (Marx 2000a, p.453). As indicated above, taken out of the context of Marx’s work this statement could easily be interpreted as a stagist version of socio-economic development. Furthermore, this interpretation is supported when we take into consideration that Marx in the same passage of the preface talks of socio-eocnomic laws and tendencies that work “with iron necessity towards inevitable results” (Marx 2000a, p.453). However, it should be noted that Marx might have had a political intention whilst writing the preface. Marx addresses in the preface the German audience and specifically links the experience of England, which was more industrially developed in those times, to that of Germany. By stating that the more developed country shows the less developed an image of his own future he implies for his German readership that the conditions of labour in Germany will deteriorate as they did in England. Patnaik (2006) rightly points out that Marx in many of his writings was very much preoccupied with furthering the prospect of a European Revolution. It is therefore necessary to keep in mind the specific historical context and Marx’s revolutionary intentions when interpreting his work.
It is probably this preoccupation with a European Revolution that explains why Marx has written so little about non-European countries and their development prospects. However, Marx recognized the need to include these countries in his theory of socio-economic evolution and therefore introduced the Asiatic mode of production. This mode of production is a rather stagnant one and does not necessarily lead to higher stages of development, unless it is disrupted by outside influences - for example colonialism. Faced with discussions about the application of his analysis of modes of production and stages of history to the Russian peasantry, Marx makes it clear in his letter to Vera Sassoulitch that his analysis “is expressly limited to the countries of western Europe” (Marx 2000e, p.623).
Is capitalism progressive? Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution and the study of development
Marx has been and continues to be an inspiration for scholars and writers in development studies. Especially his conception of socio-economic development, its implication for the transition between different modes of production and the impact of capitalism on non-capitalist social structures has stimulated a long debate within the academic community. Much of this debate has focused on the question of the progressiveness of capitalism and related to this on a discussion of imperialism. The following will quickly outline the main discussions in both fields and contrast them with some empirical data.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx clearly ascribes an overwhelming progressive tendency to capitalism in the sense that it massively develops the productive forces of a given society and thus prepares the material basis for passing from capitalism to socialism. The debate on the progressiveness of capitalism is thus one that gets to the core of the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution. Weeks (1985-86) locates the most important disagreement amongst Marxist scholars over the question whether capitalism in its advanced stage is progressive or not. This question is important for development studies as it necessarily relates to the impact that advanced capitalism is having on the developing world. Weeks (1985-86) proposes an interesting periodization of capitalism’s impact on pre-capitalist societies to assess the progressiveness of capitalism. His periodization consists of three stages that are characterized by different forms of capital exports to the developing world. In the first stage, which is characterized by the export of commodity capital, capitalism is not progressive as it tends to strengthen pre-capitalist social relations. The impact of the second stage, which is characterized by the export of money capital, is contradictory. It is only in the third stage, distinguished by the export of productive capital, that capitalism has a progressive impact on developing countries.
The question of capitalism’s capacity to develop the productive forces of a given society – or in other words the progressiveness of capitalism – is also at the heart of the Marxist inspired debate on imperialism. Brewer (1989) distinguishes two lines of Marxist theory concerning capitalism as a world system. One line, so Brewer, highlights the progressiveness of imperialist capitalism whereas the other line focuses on the exploitative dimensions of imperialist capitalism. The first line of thought is usually associated with Bill Warren (1980) and the second with dependency theories as developed by Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein. Which line of thought is closer to Marx own thinking is difficult to assess. Marx’s writings on the impact of capitalism on developing countries are few and deal mainly with British colonial rule in India. Marx’s view on questions of imperialism can not be regarded as a clear cut. Indeed, both lines of thought – the theory of progressiveness of capitalism and the dependency theory - can claim the authority of Marx. For example in The Communist Manifesto Marx (2000c, p.249) praises the ability of the bourgeoisie to develop the productive forces of society and at the same time accuses the bourgeoisie of making the East dependent on the West.
Which of the above mentioned interpretations on the progressives of advanced capitalism is more relevant for a contemporary analysis of development is probably more a matter of empirical research than one of the right exegesis of Marx. For the purpose of empirical research the question on the progressiveness of capitalism can be framed in terms of the debate on convergence or divergence of the global economy. Prichett (1997) shows that there has been considerable divergence over the last 150 years in terms of growth rates on a world scale. He identifies a general pattern of convergence between developed economies and a pattern of divergence between developed and developing economies. Weeks (1999) provides a nuanced Marxist reading of this phenomenon using the concepts of primary and secondary uneven development. His analysis implies a long term convergence among developed economies and divergence between developed and undeveloped economies just as Prichett’s (1997) empirical study of growth rates seem to prove.
Conclusion - The value of Marx for development studies
Weeks (1999) shows that Marxist theory combined with empirical studies can still provide powerful insights for the study of development. This gives reason to believe that the impasse in development studies as identified by Kiely (1995) might have been a temporal one and that a more nuanced version of Marxism is making a comeback - at least in the field of academia. Kiely (1995) ascribes the impasse in Marxist inspired development theory as mainly a result of what he calls “orthodox Marxism”. The orthodox version of Marxism, according to Kiely, is one that fetishizes Marxist categories and turns Marxism into a dogma. Three features are characteristic of the orthodox version of Marxism. These are: “first, a unilinear account of history; secondly, an optimistic assessment of the “modernizing influence” of capitalism and colonialism; and thirdly, an assertion that the development of the productive forces is the main agency of history” (Kiely 1995, p.13). It is exactly these features that led Marxist theorizing in development studies into an impasse and Kiely suggests a focus on the Marxist method as opposed to Marxist dogma as a way out of the impasse. Following Kiely, a focus on the Marxist method would reject any stagist interpretation of socio-economic evolution and instead stress the contingent nature of the outcome of historically specific class struggles.
From the above discussion it becomes clear that Marxist theory should not be (ab)used to predict the future development of a given country in a deterministic manner. Two important elements must be highlighted for an understanding of Marx’s famous statement in the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital cited above in the introduction to this essay. First, the historical-political context in which Marx was writing and his preoccupation with furthering the possibility of a European revolution must be kept in mind. Second, the quote should not be understood as predicting a similar development in different countries, but rather as suggesting that similar mechanism – in particular the class struggle over the means of production – are at work in any given society. This means that we can expect societies with similar class structures – like it has been the case for England and Germany in the 19th century – to proceed along similar path of development. It does however not mean that the outcomes of different class struggles are in any way predetermined or predictable by the use of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution.
To conclude we can therefore say that the value of Marxist theory for contemporary development studies should not be sought after in specific Marxist statements or predictions. These statements and predictions, for example about the progressiveness of capitalism, were necessarily bound up with the specific historical context in which Marx was writing. As Lukács (1923) pointed out, “it is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book”, but rather an emphasis on the Marxist method that defines the value of Marx. It is therefore the Marxist method and specifically his focus on class struggle as the key site for the movement of socio-economic evolution that assures the continuing importance of Marx for development studies.
References
Bottomore, T. (ed.) (1991) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brewer, A. (1989) Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. London: Routledge.
Kiely, R. (1995) Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press.
Lukács, G. (1923) History & Class Consciousness. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm] Accessed 7 November 2006.
Marx, K. (1981) Capital, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, K. (2000) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.424-427 (Preface to A Critique of Political Economy)
Marx, K. (2000a) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.453-455 (Capital 1, preface to the first German edition, 1867)
Marx, K. (2000b) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.175-208 (The German Ideology)
Marx, K. (2000c) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.245-272 (The Communist Manifesto)
Marx, K. (2000d) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.617-618 (Letter to Mikhailovsky)
Marx, K. (2000e) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.617-618 (Letter to Vera Sassoulitch)
Marx, K. (2000f) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.631-632 (The Poverty of Philosophy).
McLellan, D. (ed.) (2000) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patnaik, P. (2006) ‘Karl Marx as a Development Economist’, in: Jomo K.S. (ed) The Pioneers of Development Economics: Great Economists on Development. London: Zed Books.
Prichett L. (1997) ‘Divergence, Big Time’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (3) pp.3-17.
Warren, B. (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Weeks, J. (1985-86) ‘Epochs of Capitalism and the Progressiveness of Capital’s Expansion’, Science and Society pp.414-435.
Weeks, J. (1999) The Expansion of Capital and Uneven Development on a World Scale. CDPR Discussion Paper 0999, Centre for Development Policy & Research, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Wood, E.M. (1984) ‘Marxism and the Course of History’ New Left Review 147, pp.95-107.
In the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital, we can find Karl Marx making the following statement: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future” (Marx 2000a, p.453). A first uncritical reading of this statement would clearly suggest that Marx is presenting us here a simple, stagist conception of socio-economic evolution. And indeed, as Wood (1984, p.95) pointed out, much of the criticism of Marxism in recent years has focused on his alleged simple and deterministic conception of history. On such grounds Marxist theory could easily be dismissed as a grand narrative not capable of adequately capturing the contingencies of modern socio-economic development.
Besides the alleged deterministic view of socio-economic evolution that does not go down well with the post-modern mindset, Marxism has also been challenged on the grounds of recent historical events. The last decades have seen important politico-economic changes which have had and continue to have significant repercussion on the academic discussion of Marxist theories. The collapse of ‘real existing socialism’ and the subsequent procession of capitalism around the globe have led to a justified scepticism towards the relevance of the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution. These historical events seem to undermine one of the basic tenets of Marxism which holds that the development of the productive forces in a given society will inevitably lead to changes in the mode of production. Although a historically unprecedented period of productivity growth has occurred in the OECD countries since the turn of the 19th century, no major change in the mode of production has occurred in these countries. And with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc a transition to socialism seems further away then ever. Moreover, if we consider the spread of capitalism around the globe and the increasing economical divergence between the OECD countries and the rest of the world (Prichett 1997) the theory of the progressiveness of capitalism that is sometimes ascribed to the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution seems to be seriously challenged.
On the basis of the above mentioned historical events Kiely (1995) identifies an impasse in Marxist inspired development studies. The purpose of this essay then is to assess whether Marxist theory is still capable of providing useful insights for the study of development or if it has reached its expiry date. The scope and format of this essay however, do not allow for a discussion of the totality of Marxist theory and thought. Rather, I shall choose one specific aspect of Marxist theory to demonstrate its relevance for development studies. The subject chosen is, however, one that holds a crucial position in the body of Marx’s work; it is the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution.
The above quote from the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital provides the focus for the discussion of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution and its relevance for development studies. This then suggests the following structure for this essay. First, in order to judge whether it is justified to ascribe a stagist interpretation of socio-economic evolution to Marx, it is necessary to put the above mentioned quote into the wider context of Marxist thought. This will be done by shortly outlining Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution drawing on his own writings. Secondly, the influence of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution on development studies will be discussed. It will be shown that this influence has found its main materialisation in the discussions about the progressiveness of capitalism. This then, so I hope, will allow me to draw a conclusion assessing the value of Marxist theory for development studies.
Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution
Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution must be understood as part of his method of historical materialism. This term, also known as the materialist conception of history, plays a crucial role in Marxism and forms, according to Bottomore (1991), the social scientific core of Marxist thought. The main elements of Marx’s conception of historical materialism can be found in the Preface to his 1859 Critique of Political Economy (Marx 2000) and The German Ideology (Marx 2000b). To put it very crudely it can be said that in these two writings Marx presents a view that it is the socio-economic processes that form the basis of human society and that all other aspects – in Marxist terminology called superstructure – are secondary phenomena. However, as McLellan (2000, p.142) rightly points out, Marx’s strong emphasis on the importance of the socio-economic base for the development of society by no means implies that he was a “simple economic determinist”.
A second crucial element for Marx’s historical materialism is the concept of class and its relevance for an understanding of history. In The Communist Manifesto (Marx 2000c, p.246) Marx and Engels clearly spell out the importance of class when they write: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Within historical materialism class rule and conflict play the important role of forcing economic productivity of a given society beyond the level of subsistence (Bottomore 1991). It is in this sense that Marx writes in The Poverty of Philosophy “No antagonism, no progress” Marx (2000f, p.213).
Another important building block for understanding Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution is the mode of production. In the Preface to A Critique of Political Economy Marx (2000) elegantly outlines what he understands as mode of production and how different modes of production are linked to various stages in the evolution of human society. A mode of production for Marx is a structure of social relations that is basically defined by two antagonistic classes struggling over the means of production, the only exception being the primitive-communal and the communist mode of production (Brewer 1989). In a passage in the Preface well worth citing in length, Marx describes the interrelationship between modes of production and the developing productive forces which will eventually lead to communism.
“In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism.” (Marx 2000, p.426)
The Preface to A Critique of Political Economy quite clearly suggests a stagist conception of human history where different societies pass through successive progressive stages of development. However, various writers point out that this stagist view of history should be ascribed to the early Marx. McLellan (2000, p.143) points out that the later Marx seems to favour a case-by-case study of development over simple universal pronouncements of the course of history. Also Bottomore (1991) contends that Marx’s modes of production and the stages of history are not to be taken as general laws of history. He points out that Marx in his letter to Mikhailovsky denied that his material conception of history was an “historico-philosophical theory of the general path every people is fated to tread, whatever the historical circumstances in which it finds itself” (Marx 2000d, p.618).
For Marx a change in the mode of production necessarily implies a change in property relations. Of particular interest for Marx is the passage from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production. In Capital Vol. 1 Marx (1981) identifies ‘primitive accumulation’ as the main process through which capitalist property relations emerged in 16th century England. Marx (1981, p.874-875) describes the process as follows: “So-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production.” Once the process of ‘primitive accumulation’ and the establishment of capitalist property relations are completed the capitalist mode of production leads, according to Marx, to a rapid development of the forces of production. In The Communist Manifesto Marx expresses his view about the progressive historic function of capitalism when he credits the bourgeoisie with the creation of “more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” ( Marx 2000c, p.249). Furthermore, Marx identifies the bourgeoisie as a class that is driven around the whole globe by its need for an ever expanding market. It thus creates, in the words of Marx (2000c, p.249) “a world after its own image.”
The above sketches of historical materialism, modes of production, stages of history and capitalist development provide the framework for an understanding of Marx’s statement in the preface to the first German edition of Capital. To repeat once again Marx there states: “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future” (Marx 2000a, p.453). As indicated above, taken out of the context of Marx’s work this statement could easily be interpreted as a stagist version of socio-economic development. Furthermore, this interpretation is supported when we take into consideration that Marx in the same passage of the preface talks of socio-eocnomic laws and tendencies that work “with iron necessity towards inevitable results” (Marx 2000a, p.453). However, it should be noted that Marx might have had a political intention whilst writing the preface. Marx addresses in the preface the German audience and specifically links the experience of England, which was more industrially developed in those times, to that of Germany. By stating that the more developed country shows the less developed an image of his own future he implies for his German readership that the conditions of labour in Germany will deteriorate as they did in England. Patnaik (2006) rightly points out that Marx in many of his writings was very much preoccupied with furthering the prospect of a European Revolution. It is therefore necessary to keep in mind the specific historical context and Marx’s revolutionary intentions when interpreting his work.
It is probably this preoccupation with a European Revolution that explains why Marx has written so little about non-European countries and their development prospects. However, Marx recognized the need to include these countries in his theory of socio-economic evolution and therefore introduced the Asiatic mode of production. This mode of production is a rather stagnant one and does not necessarily lead to higher stages of development, unless it is disrupted by outside influences - for example colonialism. Faced with discussions about the application of his analysis of modes of production and stages of history to the Russian peasantry, Marx makes it clear in his letter to Vera Sassoulitch that his analysis “is expressly limited to the countries of western Europe” (Marx 2000e, p.623).
Is capitalism progressive? Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution and the study of development
Marx has been and continues to be an inspiration for scholars and writers in development studies. Especially his conception of socio-economic development, its implication for the transition between different modes of production and the impact of capitalism on non-capitalist social structures has stimulated a long debate within the academic community. Much of this debate has focused on the question of the progressiveness of capitalism and related to this on a discussion of imperialism. The following will quickly outline the main discussions in both fields and contrast them with some empirical data.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx clearly ascribes an overwhelming progressive tendency to capitalism in the sense that it massively develops the productive forces of a given society and thus prepares the material basis for passing from capitalism to socialism. The debate on the progressiveness of capitalism is thus one that gets to the core of the Marxist conception of socio-economic evolution. Weeks (1985-86) locates the most important disagreement amongst Marxist scholars over the question whether capitalism in its advanced stage is progressive or not. This question is important for development studies as it necessarily relates to the impact that advanced capitalism is having on the developing world. Weeks (1985-86) proposes an interesting periodization of capitalism’s impact on pre-capitalist societies to assess the progressiveness of capitalism. His periodization consists of three stages that are characterized by different forms of capital exports to the developing world. In the first stage, which is characterized by the export of commodity capital, capitalism is not progressive as it tends to strengthen pre-capitalist social relations. The impact of the second stage, which is characterized by the export of money capital, is contradictory. It is only in the third stage, distinguished by the export of productive capital, that capitalism has a progressive impact on developing countries.
The question of capitalism’s capacity to develop the productive forces of a given society – or in other words the progressiveness of capitalism – is also at the heart of the Marxist inspired debate on imperialism. Brewer (1989) distinguishes two lines of Marxist theory concerning capitalism as a world system. One line, so Brewer, highlights the progressiveness of imperialist capitalism whereas the other line focuses on the exploitative dimensions of imperialist capitalism. The first line of thought is usually associated with Bill Warren (1980) and the second with dependency theories as developed by Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein. Which line of thought is closer to Marx own thinking is difficult to assess. Marx’s writings on the impact of capitalism on developing countries are few and deal mainly with British colonial rule in India. Marx’s view on questions of imperialism can not be regarded as a clear cut. Indeed, both lines of thought – the theory of progressiveness of capitalism and the dependency theory - can claim the authority of Marx. For example in The Communist Manifesto Marx (2000c, p.249) praises the ability of the bourgeoisie to develop the productive forces of society and at the same time accuses the bourgeoisie of making the East dependent on the West.
Which of the above mentioned interpretations on the progressives of advanced capitalism is more relevant for a contemporary analysis of development is probably more a matter of empirical research than one of the right exegesis of Marx. For the purpose of empirical research the question on the progressiveness of capitalism can be framed in terms of the debate on convergence or divergence of the global economy. Prichett (1997) shows that there has been considerable divergence over the last 150 years in terms of growth rates on a world scale. He identifies a general pattern of convergence between developed economies and a pattern of divergence between developed and developing economies. Weeks (1999) provides a nuanced Marxist reading of this phenomenon using the concepts of primary and secondary uneven development. His analysis implies a long term convergence among developed economies and divergence between developed and undeveloped economies just as Prichett’s (1997) empirical study of growth rates seem to prove.
Conclusion - The value of Marx for development studies
Weeks (1999) shows that Marxist theory combined with empirical studies can still provide powerful insights for the study of development. This gives reason to believe that the impasse in development studies as identified by Kiely (1995) might have been a temporal one and that a more nuanced version of Marxism is making a comeback - at least in the field of academia. Kiely (1995) ascribes the impasse in Marxist inspired development theory as mainly a result of what he calls “orthodox Marxism”. The orthodox version of Marxism, according to Kiely, is one that fetishizes Marxist categories and turns Marxism into a dogma. Three features are characteristic of the orthodox version of Marxism. These are: “first, a unilinear account of history; secondly, an optimistic assessment of the “modernizing influence” of capitalism and colonialism; and thirdly, an assertion that the development of the productive forces is the main agency of history” (Kiely 1995, p.13). It is exactly these features that led Marxist theorizing in development studies into an impasse and Kiely suggests a focus on the Marxist method as opposed to Marxist dogma as a way out of the impasse. Following Kiely, a focus on the Marxist method would reject any stagist interpretation of socio-economic evolution and instead stress the contingent nature of the outcome of historically specific class struggles.
From the above discussion it becomes clear that Marxist theory should not be (ab)used to predict the future development of a given country in a deterministic manner. Two important elements must be highlighted for an understanding of Marx’s famous statement in the preface to the first German edition of Das Kapital cited above in the introduction to this essay. First, the historical-political context in which Marx was writing and his preoccupation with furthering the possibility of a European revolution must be kept in mind. Second, the quote should not be understood as predicting a similar development in different countries, but rather as suggesting that similar mechanism – in particular the class struggle over the means of production – are at work in any given society. This means that we can expect societies with similar class structures – like it has been the case for England and Germany in the 19th century – to proceed along similar path of development. It does however not mean that the outcomes of different class struggles are in any way predetermined or predictable by the use of Marx’s conception of socio-economic evolution.
To conclude we can therefore say that the value of Marxist theory for contemporary development studies should not be sought after in specific Marxist statements or predictions. These statements and predictions, for example about the progressiveness of capitalism, were necessarily bound up with the specific historical context in which Marx was writing. As Lukács (1923) pointed out, “it is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book”, but rather an emphasis on the Marxist method that defines the value of Marx. It is therefore the Marxist method and specifically his focus on class struggle as the key site for the movement of socio-economic evolution that assures the continuing importance of Marx for development studies.
References
Bottomore, T. (ed.) (1991) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brewer, A. (1989) Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. London: Routledge.
Kiely, R. (1995) Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press.
Lukács, G. (1923) History & Class Consciousness. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm] Accessed 7 November 2006.
Marx, K. (1981) Capital, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, K. (2000) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.424-427 (Preface to A Critique of Political Economy)
Marx, K. (2000a) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.453-455 (Capital 1, preface to the first German edition, 1867)
Marx, K. (2000b) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.175-208 (The German Ideology)
Marx, K. (2000c) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.245-272 (The Communist Manifesto)
Marx, K. (2000d) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.617-618 (Letter to Mikhailovsky)
Marx, K. (2000e) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.617-618 (Letter to Vera Sassoulitch)
Marx, K. (2000f) Karl Marx: Selected Writings (ed. by D. McLellan). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.631-632 (The Poverty of Philosophy).
McLellan, D. (ed.) (2000) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patnaik, P. (2006) ‘Karl Marx as a Development Economist’, in: Jomo K.S. (ed) The Pioneers of Development Economics: Great Economists on Development. London: Zed Books.
Prichett L. (1997) ‘Divergence, Big Time’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (3) pp.3-17.
Warren, B. (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Weeks, J. (1985-86) ‘Epochs of Capitalism and the Progressiveness of Capital’s Expansion’, Science and Society pp.414-435.
Weeks, J. (1999) The Expansion of Capital and Uneven Development on a World Scale. CDPR Discussion Paper 0999, Centre for Development Policy & Research, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Wood, E.M. (1984) ‘Marxism and the Course of History’ New Left Review 147, pp.95-107.
Dienstag, Dezember 12, 2006
Defending biocultural diversity - Development Studies in postmodern times.
These are interesting times in development studies. The demise of the socialist alternative in its real existing form and the rise of postmodern theorizing in the social sciences have opened up the field for new perspectives. The most exciting of these perspectives evolve around what is termed alternative development and post-development. Traditionally development studies in its modernization and dependency versions has been mainly concerned with the question of economic growth. And of course, current mainstream development theory and practice in its neoliberal form still is primarily concerned with economic growth. However, the ground is shifting and alternative and post-development writers now direct the focus towards questions of culture and environmental concerns. Some of these writers put forward powerful critiques of the deeply troublesome consequences of development and economic growth from ecological, anthropological and feminist perspectives. Development in itself, so it seems, has become a deeply problematic enterprise.
To assess the relevance of these new and sometimes radical perspectives on development they must be understand within a larger context of an increasing problematisation of modernity. Many of the beliefs that constitute the core of modernity like for example the belief in universal values, scientific reason or steady socio-economic progress have increasingly become problematical. On a theoretical level this problematisation of modernity is most forcefully formulated by postmodern theories as the demise of grand narratives (Lyotard 1984).
The purpose of this essay is twofold. Firstly, to analyse the impact of the above mentioned problematisation of modernity on its closely related concept of development. Secondly, to assess the usefulness of alternative and post-development theories as a way forward for development studies. The structure of the essay is as follows. To start with a short description of the increasingly problematic nature of modernity will be given. This is necessary, as some of the more radical writers within post-development can not be understood without a reference to the concept of modernity as a whole. Next the shift in development studies from the problem of development to development as the problem will be described. This shift is mainly expressed in the form of post-development theory of which a short presentation and critique will be given. Finally, a conclusion concerning the value and the future challenges for post-development will be drawn.
The problematic nature of modernity
Berman (1983) in his seminal work on modernity locates the origins of this chapter in human history in the sixteenth century. He describes modernity as a contradictory phenomenon in which “all that is solid melts into the air”, a phrase that Berman borrows from the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels. Modernity promises “growth, transformation of ourselves and the world”, but simultaneously “threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are” (ibid, p.15). At the heart of modernity we can thus locate a relentless drive towards construction and destruction. In the following I will suggest that there are strong reasons to believe that it is the destructive elements of modernity that are increasingly taking precedence over the constructive ones. The increasing awareness of the problematic nature of modernity manifests itself in several areas. Subsequently I shall provide a brief sketch of some of the most important critiques that seriously challenge the believe in the progressive nature of modernity.
Max Weber was probably one of the first writers to spell out some of the destructive consequences of modernity. In his first influential publication The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, written in 1904, he sees the tendency of an increasing rationalization of modern life which ultimately traps the human being in an iron cage. This critical stance towards rationality and modernity is then further developed in his opus magnum Economy and Society, published in 1922, where he describes the development of modernity and industrial society as an increasing process of disenchantment of the world.
In philosophy the disenchantment with modernity and rationality already began in the late 19th century with Nietzsche as one of the first critics of modernity. In 20th century philosophy the critique of modernity reached a first forceful height with the theories developed by the Frankfurt School. Under the effect of Fascism and the Holocaust Horkheimer and Adorno (2002) analysed the negative consequences of modernity as an effect of what they called instrumental rationality. In the 1970s another important critique of modernity was then formulated by Foucault. Through a thorough examination of the disciplinary function of modern institutions and the relationship between power and knowledge Foucault paved the way for postmodern thought in philosophy. One of the key features of this way of thinking is the total criticizability of everything (See Foucault 2003). The immense criticizability of every aspect of modernity is now an established fact in philosophy. The extent, however, to which modernity itself has to be rejected and replaced by postmodernity is still strongly disputed. For Habermas (1981) the project of modernity can still be saved, whereas Lyotard (1984) thinks the project of modernity has reached its end and liquidated itself. What is however not disputed, regardless of whether one favours Lyotard’s or Habermas’ interpretation of modernity, is the demise in the explanatory power of any sort of totalizing theory – with orthodox Marxism being the classical example for such a grand narrative.
Besides the long history of philosophical critique of modernity and the recent post-modern turn which rejects many core concepts of modernity I would like to point out a second field, from which a serious threat to the legitimacy of the modern project arises. This field is constituted by the increasing realization of the destructive impact of modernity on the environment and the increasing rate of loss in biodiversity as well as the world’s cultural diversity. This is a challenge that goes to the heart of the question of human survival. The late 20th century was full of environmental catastrophes that caught the attention of the media and that pinpoint to the extent of the challenge (Chernobyl, Bhopal, Exxon-Valdez, the destruction of the rainforests, climate change, etc.). Although the destructive force of modernity in the cultural realm is less likely to make big newspaper headlines it is nevertheless equally alarming. If we take the amount of languages spoken as an indicator for cultural diversity than the estimated loss in cultural diversity over the next hundred years is of an unprecedented magnitude in human history. In a report published by WWF International and Terralingua Oviedo and Maffi (2000) quote an estimate that of the currently spoken 6000 native languages as much as 90% will be extinct within the next hundred years. And of course with the extinction of these languages their cultural universe as well is doomed to disappear. Taken together the current rapid loss in biocultural diversity would justify classifying our epoch as what I would call the age of loss.
From the problem of development to development as the problem
The postmodern scepticism of grand narratives and the rising concerns with biocultural diversity have not gone by without affecting the study of development. A sort of Entzauberung or disenchantment has occurred within development studies over the last two decades. Albeit one that is different from what Max Weber used to denote with this term. The status of development as a universally desirable goal has become increasingly questionable. For some writers development itself has turned into the problem.
First signs of disillusionment with the explanatory power of existing perspectives on development emerged with the impasse debate in development studies. Booth (1985) argued that development studies had reached an impasse. This impasse in development sociology, so Booth, was mainly resulting form Marxism’s meta-theoretical framework which aims at demonstrating the necessity of socio-economic phenomena. A critique closely linked to the postmodern scepticism towards grand narratives. Although opposed positions can be found (see Brass 1995) the identification and interpretation of the impasse as formulated by Booth seems now widely accepted within development studies (see for example Kiely 1995 or Schuurman 1993). Nearly a decade after his 1985 article on the impasse in development studies, Booth (1994) identifies a new research direction which he sees as a way out of the impasse. This new direction within development research, which Booth calls “post-impasse” research, is one that is mainly focused on diversity. Notwithstanding this focus on diversity there is currently no single coherent research model within development studies. However, what seems clear is that both modernisation theory and dependency theory have not survived “the onslaught of the 1990s post-modernism” (Gardner and Lewis 1996, p.12).
Broadly speaking then the demise of the grand narratives in the form of modernisation and dependency theory has opened up the room for new and interesting research directions. The most exciting ones, so I contend, are alternative development and post-development. What distinguishes them from the grand narratives is their emphasis on diversity and the rejection of totalizing perspectives. The boundaries between what is considered as alternative development and what is considered post-development theories are sometimes fluid. However, alternative development is most often associated with participatory development (see Chambers 1997). Participatory development in turn has to a large extent become integrated into mainstream approaches to development (World Bank 2006), what makes its status as alternative approach somehow dubious. Post-development on the other side hast resisted this integration. In fact its very rejection of development makes it particularly unattractive for becoming part of the mainstream development discourse.
Nevertheless, post-development understood as reflection and radical critique of the problematic nature of modernity can provide important impulses for development studies. Post-development theories come in many different forms and shapes. I shall focus the subsequent discussion of post-development on the texts and theories as put forward by Rahnema and Bawtree (1997) in their Post-development Reader. The underlying theme in most post-development writings is a decisive shift away from the problem of development as mainly concerned with economic growth towards an understanding of the problematic influence of development itself. Although they vary in the degree to which they reject economic growth and technological progress[1] they all show a common preoccupation with preserving biocultural diversity.
It comes as no surprise that within the field of post-development theory the cultural critique of development should have been most forcefully formulated by anthropologists. Many of them (see for example Norberg-Hodge 1997) study and document the process of disenchantment that is brought about by development and the devastating effects it has on vernacular communities in the developing world. This critical anthropological perspective is a distinguishing feature of post-development. Modernization theory for example was concerned with endogenous constraints to development and saw vernacular and indigenous cultural identities as an obstacle to development. Dependency theory on the other hand was mainly concerned with exogenous structural constraints to development and had little concerns for cultural issues.
Escobar (1995) formulates a heavy criticism of development from a Foucauldian perspective. He sees most of development theory and practice as a powerful tool for normalizing the world, with dire consequences for vernacular and indigenous cultures. Development in its mainstream version as practiced by the World Bank, so Escobar, is conceived as a mainly technical intervention where cultural elements are regarded as residual variables. For Escobar then (1995, p. 44) it comes as no surprise that development should have become a destructive force for Third World cultures.
The ecological critique of development is not an exclusive domain of post-development writers, and indeed has a longer history than most of post-development theory. Already in the early 1970s it became clear that the ecological impact of growth oriented development would be devastating. Most noteworthy in this respect is the publication in 1972 of the Limits of Growth by the Club of Rome. The critical insights of this report soon became integrated into mainstream perspectives of development in the form of sustainable development as for example in the Brundtland Report published in 1987. The ecological critique of development can thus hardly be attributed solely to post-development writers. However, what distinguishes many of the post-development writer’s ecological critique from more mainstream versions like sustainable development is their more radical approach and their emphasis on a simple, non-consumerist lifestyle. Whereas advocates of sustainable development often put their emphasis on an efficiency revolution in order to reduce the use of natural resources, post-development writers focus more on a sufficiency revolution.[2] Mahatma Ghandi’s ideas on simplicity (Ghandi 1997) seem to be particularly influential within post-development theory. Sachs (1997), one of the most pronounced post-development writers, calls for an efficiency and sufficiency revolution in order to prevent the looming ecological disaster.
Some critiques of post-development
Post-development has attracted a lot of criticism. And indeed its sometimes provocative posture and wholesale rejection of development makes it an easy and attractive target for criticism. I shall put forward three examples to illustrate this point. Rahnema (1997) for example compares Development with AIDS and calls it a socio-cultural variety of the virus, AIDS II so to say. Escobar (1995) describes poverty in the third world as if it was only a discursive invention by the World Bank aiming at subjugating the third world. Sachs (1992, p.1) in his development dictionary boldly states “(T)he idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape.” The use of so dramatic images and language does not benefit the cause of post-development and can rightly be criticized. However, they might be resulting out of a sense of urgency and need to wake up the people, that most of the academic literature on development is missing.
Post-development is sometimes accused of paying too much attention to diversity and neglecting aspects of social inequality. Schuurman (2000) argues that inequality rather then diversity should be the main focus for development studies. Equally Nanda (1999) observes that post-development has supplemented the problem of inequality with that of inauthenticity or diversity. And more gravely, Nanda suggests that this lacking concern for inequality can lead to perverse outcomes. Nanda presents examples from the Indian Farmer’s movement where a post-development rhetoric rather than serving the poor helps to maintain existing power structures. This is a strong critique; however it would be awkward to imply that the theoretical and practical concern for diversity implies any kind of endorsement of social inequality on behalf of post-development.
It is sometimes alleged that post-development theory with all its post-modern emphasis on epistemological and cultural relativism does not provide solutions for current pressing development concerns. Kincaid and Portes (1994, p.8) for example state that “postmodernism as a model for development studies offers a form of intellectual escapism in which the painful realities of contemporary economic and social crisis are concealed behind the analysis of texts and cultural forms.” And indeed this critique may be true for some proponents of post-development. However, as illustrated by the variety of approaches put forward in the Post-Development Reader (Rahnema and Bawtree 1997) post-development is much more than just endless post-modern inspired discourse analyses.
Lastly it can be asked do the people in the third world want post-development. Do they want to be left alone and not disturbed by the “blessings” of western style modernity and technology? Corbridge (1998) for example in a critique of post-development states that he hasn’t yet met a man or a woman in rural India who would not welcome a fan and the electricity that powers this fan. And surely post-development would be wrong if it advocated a lifestyle that negated third world people this sort of comfort provided by modern technology. However, the general emphasis on the grass-roots level and bottom up processes of change should suffice to convince that the aim of post-development is not one of imposing a backward lifestyle on third world people which they themselves would reject.
Conclusion
The postmodern critique of modernity has seriously undermined the legitimacy of the universal development prescriptions of the past. Whereas the focal point for many of the more traditional approaches to development seemed to have been progress and growth, the focal point for new approaches like alternative and post-development is diversity. This focus on diversity also implies a changing role of agency in development. Most of the hitherto development theory has emphasized the role of the state as the agent of development. Post-development, with its praise for civil society and the grassroots level has undoubtedly positioned itself against any sort of developmentalist state model.
Post-development understood as a radical defence of biocultural diversity against the destructive forces of modernity has its place in development study. It provides important new directions for a radical critique of capitalism and neoliberalism. Whereas Marxism focuses its critique mainly on the economically exploitative dimensions of capitalism, post-development writers focus their critique on the environmentally and culturally destructive elements of capitalism. This angle of critique as show above proves to be a most forceful one. And, so it seems to me, it is one that can link the daily experience of third world people and western people in a way that the Marxist critique of exploitation can not.
Post-development at its best is thus a radical defence of biocultural diversity. At its worst it is a post-modern aberration in endless discourse analysis of World Bank texts. The best of post-development literature encourages us to look at development from the perspective of its losers. It does not call on the third world to develop and become like us. Rather, it calls for more simple and more respectful ways of living as well in the North as in the South. The unwillingness, however, of many authors to put forward a concrete political project to radically defend biocultural diversity is a serious limitation to the practical value of post-development. Many post-development writers seem to content themselves with praising resistance at the grassroots level. Local resistance, however, if it is not channelled into some form of international action will not be enough to reverse the prevailing destructive trends. If post-development wants to be relevant in the long term, it will need to engage in theorising collective forms of action on an international level. Doing this, without falling back into old totalizing categories, will be the great challenge for post-development in the future.
References
Berman, M. (1983), All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. The Experience of Modernity, London: Verso.
Booth, D. (1985), “Marxism and Development Sociology: Interpreting the Impasse”, World Development, Vol. 13, No.7, pp.761-787.
Booth, D. (ed.) (1994), Rethinking Social Development, Harlow: Longman.
Brass, T. (1995), “Old Conservatism in ‘New’ Clothes”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 516-540.
Chambers, R. (1997), Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Corbridge, S. (1998), ‘’Beneath the Pavement Only Soil’: The Poverty of Post-Development’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp138-148.
Escobar, A. (1995), Encountering Development. Princeton: University Press.
Foucault, M. (2003), Society must be defended: lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-76, London: Allen Lane.
Gandhi, M. (1997), “The Quest for Simplicity: ‘My Idea of Swaraj’,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Gardner, K. and Lewis, D. (1996), Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge, London: Pluto Press.
Habermas, J (1981), The Theory of Communicative Action, London: Beacon Press.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B. and Lovins, L. H. (2000), Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution, London: Earthscan.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (2002), Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Illich, I. (1997), “Development as Planned Poverty”, in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Kiely, R. (1995), Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press.
Kincaid, A.D. and Portes, A. (1994), “Sociology and Development in the 1990’s: Critical Challenges and Empirical Trends”, in Kincaid, A.D. and Portes, A. (eds.), Comparative National Development, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Marglin, F.A. and Marglin, S.A. (eds.) (1990), Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture and Resistance, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nanda, M. (1999), “Who Needs Post-Development? Discourses of Difference, Green Revolution and Agrarian Populism in India,” Journal of Developing Societies, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1997), “Learning from Ladakh,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Oviedo, G. and Maffi, L. (2000), “Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation,” [http://www.terralingua.org/EGinG200rep.pdf] Accessed 1 December 2006.
Rahnema, M. (1997), “Development and the People’s Immune System: The Story of Another Variety of AIDS,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.) (1997), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (1997), “The Need for the Home Perspective,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992), The development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power, London: Zed Books
Schuurman, F. (2000), “Paradigms lost, paradigms regained? Development studies in the twenty-first century,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No.1, pp 7-20.
Schuurman, F.J. (ed.) (1993), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory, London: Zed Books.
Von Weizsäcker, E.U., Lovins, A. B. and Lovins, L. H. (1995), Factor four: doubling wealth, halving resource use: the new report to the Club of Rome, London: Earthscan.
World Bank (2006), “Participation and Civic Engagement,” [http://www.terralingua.org/EGinG200rep.pdf] Accessed 11 December 2006.
[1] See for example Marglin and Marglin (1990, p.1) who state that their criticism is directed against modernization and development not against growth or progress in health and education. For a position rejecting growth and technological progress see for example Illich (1997).
[2] The efficiency approach towards sustainable development is best exemplified in concepts like Factor 4 (von Weizsäcker, Lovins and Lovins 1995) or Natural capitalism (Hawken, Lovins and Lovins 2000).
These are interesting times in development studies. The demise of the socialist alternative in its real existing form and the rise of postmodern theorizing in the social sciences have opened up the field for new perspectives. The most exciting of these perspectives evolve around what is termed alternative development and post-development. Traditionally development studies in its modernization and dependency versions has been mainly concerned with the question of economic growth. And of course, current mainstream development theory and practice in its neoliberal form still is primarily concerned with economic growth. However, the ground is shifting and alternative and post-development writers now direct the focus towards questions of culture and environmental concerns. Some of these writers put forward powerful critiques of the deeply troublesome consequences of development and economic growth from ecological, anthropological and feminist perspectives. Development in itself, so it seems, has become a deeply problematic enterprise.
To assess the relevance of these new and sometimes radical perspectives on development they must be understand within a larger context of an increasing problematisation of modernity. Many of the beliefs that constitute the core of modernity like for example the belief in universal values, scientific reason or steady socio-economic progress have increasingly become problematical. On a theoretical level this problematisation of modernity is most forcefully formulated by postmodern theories as the demise of grand narratives (Lyotard 1984).
The purpose of this essay is twofold. Firstly, to analyse the impact of the above mentioned problematisation of modernity on its closely related concept of development. Secondly, to assess the usefulness of alternative and post-development theories as a way forward for development studies. The structure of the essay is as follows. To start with a short description of the increasingly problematic nature of modernity will be given. This is necessary, as some of the more radical writers within post-development can not be understood without a reference to the concept of modernity as a whole. Next the shift in development studies from the problem of development to development as the problem will be described. This shift is mainly expressed in the form of post-development theory of which a short presentation and critique will be given. Finally, a conclusion concerning the value and the future challenges for post-development will be drawn.
The problematic nature of modernity
Berman (1983) in his seminal work on modernity locates the origins of this chapter in human history in the sixteenth century. He describes modernity as a contradictory phenomenon in which “all that is solid melts into the air”, a phrase that Berman borrows from the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels. Modernity promises “growth, transformation of ourselves and the world”, but simultaneously “threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are” (ibid, p.15). At the heart of modernity we can thus locate a relentless drive towards construction and destruction. In the following I will suggest that there are strong reasons to believe that it is the destructive elements of modernity that are increasingly taking precedence over the constructive ones. The increasing awareness of the problematic nature of modernity manifests itself in several areas. Subsequently I shall provide a brief sketch of some of the most important critiques that seriously challenge the believe in the progressive nature of modernity.
Max Weber was probably one of the first writers to spell out some of the destructive consequences of modernity. In his first influential publication The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, written in 1904, he sees the tendency of an increasing rationalization of modern life which ultimately traps the human being in an iron cage. This critical stance towards rationality and modernity is then further developed in his opus magnum Economy and Society, published in 1922, where he describes the development of modernity and industrial society as an increasing process of disenchantment of the world.
In philosophy the disenchantment with modernity and rationality already began in the late 19th century with Nietzsche as one of the first critics of modernity. In 20th century philosophy the critique of modernity reached a first forceful height with the theories developed by the Frankfurt School. Under the effect of Fascism and the Holocaust Horkheimer and Adorno (2002) analysed the negative consequences of modernity as an effect of what they called instrumental rationality. In the 1970s another important critique of modernity was then formulated by Foucault. Through a thorough examination of the disciplinary function of modern institutions and the relationship between power and knowledge Foucault paved the way for postmodern thought in philosophy. One of the key features of this way of thinking is the total criticizability of everything (See Foucault 2003). The immense criticizability of every aspect of modernity is now an established fact in philosophy. The extent, however, to which modernity itself has to be rejected and replaced by postmodernity is still strongly disputed. For Habermas (1981) the project of modernity can still be saved, whereas Lyotard (1984) thinks the project of modernity has reached its end and liquidated itself. What is however not disputed, regardless of whether one favours Lyotard’s or Habermas’ interpretation of modernity, is the demise in the explanatory power of any sort of totalizing theory – with orthodox Marxism being the classical example for such a grand narrative.
Besides the long history of philosophical critique of modernity and the recent post-modern turn which rejects many core concepts of modernity I would like to point out a second field, from which a serious threat to the legitimacy of the modern project arises. This field is constituted by the increasing realization of the destructive impact of modernity on the environment and the increasing rate of loss in biodiversity as well as the world’s cultural diversity. This is a challenge that goes to the heart of the question of human survival. The late 20th century was full of environmental catastrophes that caught the attention of the media and that pinpoint to the extent of the challenge (Chernobyl, Bhopal, Exxon-Valdez, the destruction of the rainforests, climate change, etc.). Although the destructive force of modernity in the cultural realm is less likely to make big newspaper headlines it is nevertheless equally alarming. If we take the amount of languages spoken as an indicator for cultural diversity than the estimated loss in cultural diversity over the next hundred years is of an unprecedented magnitude in human history. In a report published by WWF International and Terralingua Oviedo and Maffi (2000) quote an estimate that of the currently spoken 6000 native languages as much as 90% will be extinct within the next hundred years. And of course with the extinction of these languages their cultural universe as well is doomed to disappear. Taken together the current rapid loss in biocultural diversity would justify classifying our epoch as what I would call the age of loss.
From the problem of development to development as the problem
The postmodern scepticism of grand narratives and the rising concerns with biocultural diversity have not gone by without affecting the study of development. A sort of Entzauberung or disenchantment has occurred within development studies over the last two decades. Albeit one that is different from what Max Weber used to denote with this term. The status of development as a universally desirable goal has become increasingly questionable. For some writers development itself has turned into the problem.
First signs of disillusionment with the explanatory power of existing perspectives on development emerged with the impasse debate in development studies. Booth (1985) argued that development studies had reached an impasse. This impasse in development sociology, so Booth, was mainly resulting form Marxism’s meta-theoretical framework which aims at demonstrating the necessity of socio-economic phenomena. A critique closely linked to the postmodern scepticism towards grand narratives. Although opposed positions can be found (see Brass 1995) the identification and interpretation of the impasse as formulated by Booth seems now widely accepted within development studies (see for example Kiely 1995 or Schuurman 1993). Nearly a decade after his 1985 article on the impasse in development studies, Booth (1994) identifies a new research direction which he sees as a way out of the impasse. This new direction within development research, which Booth calls “post-impasse” research, is one that is mainly focused on diversity. Notwithstanding this focus on diversity there is currently no single coherent research model within development studies. However, what seems clear is that both modernisation theory and dependency theory have not survived “the onslaught of the 1990s post-modernism” (Gardner and Lewis 1996, p.12).
Broadly speaking then the demise of the grand narratives in the form of modernisation and dependency theory has opened up the room for new and interesting research directions. The most exciting ones, so I contend, are alternative development and post-development. What distinguishes them from the grand narratives is their emphasis on diversity and the rejection of totalizing perspectives. The boundaries between what is considered as alternative development and what is considered post-development theories are sometimes fluid. However, alternative development is most often associated with participatory development (see Chambers 1997). Participatory development in turn has to a large extent become integrated into mainstream approaches to development (World Bank 2006), what makes its status as alternative approach somehow dubious. Post-development on the other side hast resisted this integration. In fact its very rejection of development makes it particularly unattractive for becoming part of the mainstream development discourse.
Nevertheless, post-development understood as reflection and radical critique of the problematic nature of modernity can provide important impulses for development studies. Post-development theories come in many different forms and shapes. I shall focus the subsequent discussion of post-development on the texts and theories as put forward by Rahnema and Bawtree (1997) in their Post-development Reader. The underlying theme in most post-development writings is a decisive shift away from the problem of development as mainly concerned with economic growth towards an understanding of the problematic influence of development itself. Although they vary in the degree to which they reject economic growth and technological progress[1] they all show a common preoccupation with preserving biocultural diversity.
It comes as no surprise that within the field of post-development theory the cultural critique of development should have been most forcefully formulated by anthropologists. Many of them (see for example Norberg-Hodge 1997) study and document the process of disenchantment that is brought about by development and the devastating effects it has on vernacular communities in the developing world. This critical anthropological perspective is a distinguishing feature of post-development. Modernization theory for example was concerned with endogenous constraints to development and saw vernacular and indigenous cultural identities as an obstacle to development. Dependency theory on the other hand was mainly concerned with exogenous structural constraints to development and had little concerns for cultural issues.
Escobar (1995) formulates a heavy criticism of development from a Foucauldian perspective. He sees most of development theory and practice as a powerful tool for normalizing the world, with dire consequences for vernacular and indigenous cultures. Development in its mainstream version as practiced by the World Bank, so Escobar, is conceived as a mainly technical intervention where cultural elements are regarded as residual variables. For Escobar then (1995, p. 44) it comes as no surprise that development should have become a destructive force for Third World cultures.
The ecological critique of development is not an exclusive domain of post-development writers, and indeed has a longer history than most of post-development theory. Already in the early 1970s it became clear that the ecological impact of growth oriented development would be devastating. Most noteworthy in this respect is the publication in 1972 of the Limits of Growth by the Club of Rome. The critical insights of this report soon became integrated into mainstream perspectives of development in the form of sustainable development as for example in the Brundtland Report published in 1987. The ecological critique of development can thus hardly be attributed solely to post-development writers. However, what distinguishes many of the post-development writer’s ecological critique from more mainstream versions like sustainable development is their more radical approach and their emphasis on a simple, non-consumerist lifestyle. Whereas advocates of sustainable development often put their emphasis on an efficiency revolution in order to reduce the use of natural resources, post-development writers focus more on a sufficiency revolution.[2] Mahatma Ghandi’s ideas on simplicity (Ghandi 1997) seem to be particularly influential within post-development theory. Sachs (1997), one of the most pronounced post-development writers, calls for an efficiency and sufficiency revolution in order to prevent the looming ecological disaster.
Some critiques of post-development
Post-development has attracted a lot of criticism. And indeed its sometimes provocative posture and wholesale rejection of development makes it an easy and attractive target for criticism. I shall put forward three examples to illustrate this point. Rahnema (1997) for example compares Development with AIDS and calls it a socio-cultural variety of the virus, AIDS II so to say. Escobar (1995) describes poverty in the third world as if it was only a discursive invention by the World Bank aiming at subjugating the third world. Sachs (1992, p.1) in his development dictionary boldly states “(T)he idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape.” The use of so dramatic images and language does not benefit the cause of post-development and can rightly be criticized. However, they might be resulting out of a sense of urgency and need to wake up the people, that most of the academic literature on development is missing.
Post-development is sometimes accused of paying too much attention to diversity and neglecting aspects of social inequality. Schuurman (2000) argues that inequality rather then diversity should be the main focus for development studies. Equally Nanda (1999) observes that post-development has supplemented the problem of inequality with that of inauthenticity or diversity. And more gravely, Nanda suggests that this lacking concern for inequality can lead to perverse outcomes. Nanda presents examples from the Indian Farmer’s movement where a post-development rhetoric rather than serving the poor helps to maintain existing power structures. This is a strong critique; however it would be awkward to imply that the theoretical and practical concern for diversity implies any kind of endorsement of social inequality on behalf of post-development.
It is sometimes alleged that post-development theory with all its post-modern emphasis on epistemological and cultural relativism does not provide solutions for current pressing development concerns. Kincaid and Portes (1994, p.8) for example state that “postmodernism as a model for development studies offers a form of intellectual escapism in which the painful realities of contemporary economic and social crisis are concealed behind the analysis of texts and cultural forms.” And indeed this critique may be true for some proponents of post-development. However, as illustrated by the variety of approaches put forward in the Post-Development Reader (Rahnema and Bawtree 1997) post-development is much more than just endless post-modern inspired discourse analyses.
Lastly it can be asked do the people in the third world want post-development. Do they want to be left alone and not disturbed by the “blessings” of western style modernity and technology? Corbridge (1998) for example in a critique of post-development states that he hasn’t yet met a man or a woman in rural India who would not welcome a fan and the electricity that powers this fan. And surely post-development would be wrong if it advocated a lifestyle that negated third world people this sort of comfort provided by modern technology. However, the general emphasis on the grass-roots level and bottom up processes of change should suffice to convince that the aim of post-development is not one of imposing a backward lifestyle on third world people which they themselves would reject.
Conclusion
The postmodern critique of modernity has seriously undermined the legitimacy of the universal development prescriptions of the past. Whereas the focal point for many of the more traditional approaches to development seemed to have been progress and growth, the focal point for new approaches like alternative and post-development is diversity. This focus on diversity also implies a changing role of agency in development. Most of the hitherto development theory has emphasized the role of the state as the agent of development. Post-development, with its praise for civil society and the grassroots level has undoubtedly positioned itself against any sort of developmentalist state model.
Post-development understood as a radical defence of biocultural diversity against the destructive forces of modernity has its place in development study. It provides important new directions for a radical critique of capitalism and neoliberalism. Whereas Marxism focuses its critique mainly on the economically exploitative dimensions of capitalism, post-development writers focus their critique on the environmentally and culturally destructive elements of capitalism. This angle of critique as show above proves to be a most forceful one. And, so it seems to me, it is one that can link the daily experience of third world people and western people in a way that the Marxist critique of exploitation can not.
Post-development at its best is thus a radical defence of biocultural diversity. At its worst it is a post-modern aberration in endless discourse analysis of World Bank texts. The best of post-development literature encourages us to look at development from the perspective of its losers. It does not call on the third world to develop and become like us. Rather, it calls for more simple and more respectful ways of living as well in the North as in the South. The unwillingness, however, of many authors to put forward a concrete political project to radically defend biocultural diversity is a serious limitation to the practical value of post-development. Many post-development writers seem to content themselves with praising resistance at the grassroots level. Local resistance, however, if it is not channelled into some form of international action will not be enough to reverse the prevailing destructive trends. If post-development wants to be relevant in the long term, it will need to engage in theorising collective forms of action on an international level. Doing this, without falling back into old totalizing categories, will be the great challenge for post-development in the future.
References
Berman, M. (1983), All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. The Experience of Modernity, London: Verso.
Booth, D. (1985), “Marxism and Development Sociology: Interpreting the Impasse”, World Development, Vol. 13, No.7, pp.761-787.
Booth, D. (ed.) (1994), Rethinking Social Development, Harlow: Longman.
Brass, T. (1995), “Old Conservatism in ‘New’ Clothes”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 516-540.
Chambers, R. (1997), Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Corbridge, S. (1998), ‘’Beneath the Pavement Only Soil’: The Poverty of Post-Development’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp138-148.
Escobar, A. (1995), Encountering Development. Princeton: University Press.
Foucault, M. (2003), Society must be defended: lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-76, London: Allen Lane.
Gandhi, M. (1997), “The Quest for Simplicity: ‘My Idea of Swaraj’,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Gardner, K. and Lewis, D. (1996), Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge, London: Pluto Press.
Habermas, J (1981), The Theory of Communicative Action, London: Beacon Press.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B. and Lovins, L. H. (2000), Natural capitalism: the next industrial revolution, London: Earthscan.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (2002), Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Illich, I. (1997), “Development as Planned Poverty”, in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Kiely, R. (1995), Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press.
Kincaid, A.D. and Portes, A. (1994), “Sociology and Development in the 1990’s: Critical Challenges and Empirical Trends”, in Kincaid, A.D. and Portes, A. (eds.), Comparative National Development, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Marglin, F.A. and Marglin, S.A. (eds.) (1990), Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture and Resistance, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nanda, M. (1999), “Who Needs Post-Development? Discourses of Difference, Green Revolution and Agrarian Populism in India,” Journal of Developing Societies, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1997), “Learning from Ladakh,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Oviedo, G. and Maffi, L. (2000), “Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation,” [http://www.terralingua.org/EGinG200rep.pdf] Accessed 1 December 2006.
Rahnema, M. (1997), “Development and the People’s Immune System: The Story of Another Variety of AIDS,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.) (1997), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (1997), “The Need for the Home Perspective,” in Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.), The Post-Development Reader, London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992), The development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power, London: Zed Books
Schuurman, F. (2000), “Paradigms lost, paradigms regained? Development studies in the twenty-first century,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No.1, pp 7-20.
Schuurman, F.J. (ed.) (1993), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory, London: Zed Books.
Von Weizsäcker, E.U., Lovins, A. B. and Lovins, L. H. (1995), Factor four: doubling wealth, halving resource use: the new report to the Club of Rome, London: Earthscan.
World Bank (2006), “Participation and Civic Engagement,” [http://www.terralingua.org/EGinG200rep.pdf] Accessed 11 December 2006.
[1] See for example Marglin and Marglin (1990, p.1) who state that their criticism is directed against modernization and development not against growth or progress in health and education. For a position rejecting growth and technological progress see for example Illich (1997).
[2] The efficiency approach towards sustainable development is best exemplified in concepts like Factor 4 (von Weizsäcker, Lovins and Lovins 1995) or Natural capitalism (Hawken, Lovins and Lovins 2000).
Abonnieren
Kommentare (Atom)
