Theories of political development

January 29, 2011 2:56 pm

Posted in Uncategorized
Objective Level

There are two strands of learning I have drawn from considering the theories and
history of political development:
Firstly, when tracing ideas of political development in the 20th and 21stcentury, we
see how the study of political development was born in the 1950s as the US and the
Soviet Union contested over how economic growth could be achieved. Academic
thinking has varied widely on how political and economic development come about.
The state planning of Communist states was challenged by the US led modernisation
approach with Rostow theorising about five stages of economic growth, five
processes of political development that states must undergo in order to achieve
modernity. (Ruttan, 1991, What happened to political development). Ideas of social
evolution, social differentiation, secularisation, cultural modernisation and moving
from traditional to modern dominated thinking about the processes of political
development (Smith, 2003, Understanding Third World Politics). Criticism of the
modernisation approach began to emerge though with the question of whose
progress modernisation theory was referring to and the validity of assuming
tradition equalled backwardness and an obstacle to development (Smith 2003).
Modernisation theory was criticised for making assumptions about the homogenous
nature of culture and tradition, the supremacy of Western ideals and the possibility
of replicating the Western experience whilst all the time failing to take into account
the importance of the influence of external forces (Smith 2003).
An alternative approach to political development grew out of what became known as
dependency theory, where developing countries were seen as existing to support the
development of rich countries. World capitalism and particularly trade were not seen
as engines of economic growth, rather they were responsible for under developing
the Third World (Ruttan 1991). Dependency theory also had its critics though as
similarly to modernisation theory, it does not draw lessons from history. It doesnt
recognise that class relationships within developing countries can change and
therefore influence the relationships with the metropolis (Smith 2003). Dependency
theory also tends to focus on economics at the expense of politics, as well as being
undermined by the empirical evidence of the growth and development seen within
previously poor countries, particularly the East Asian tigers. Moving into the 1980s,
the ascendancy of neoliberalism meant that an interest in political culture and the
politics of development evaporated, with the importance of the role of the markets in
development being elevated to a seemingly unchallengeable position.
Cracks in the neoliberal hegemony began to show by the early 1990s though and an
interest in good governance began to appear. Thus began the rediscovery of politics
in development. Neoliberalism was criticised for presuming that all countries were
the same and underestimating the importance of a states political context. By the
21st-century, a post development, grassroots politics had gained prominence, with
attempts to get politics away from the centre and put power into the hands of the
people becoming more commonplace.
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in political development failed
states and the importance of State building are very much on donors agendas,
particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terror. If we can learn
anything from the past 60 years of development, it would perhaps be that
development is not a discipline in itself, it is a field of interdisciplinary studies.
Secondly when examining the importance of political development as a
process, different interpretations of its relationship with economic development and
patterns of social organisation are revealed.
North et el (Violence and the Rise of Open-Access Orders, 2009) discuss political
development in the terms of the patterns of social organisation, or social orders which
societies follow. States can be differentiated into foraging orders, limited access
orders and open access orders. The importance of politics can be seen in the way
these different orders control violence within societies, with open access orders
enforcing rules in an impersonal manner and limited access orders, being formed on
the basis of personal relationships between elites, therefore, controlling violence
through power balances and negotiations between those elites.
Both North el al and Ruttan believe that political development has a dynamic
relationship with social and economic development. To North el al, political
development creates new forms of social, political and economic organisation, which
in turn, as illustrated in the example of open access orders, enables states to cope with
shocks better. Ruttan believes economic and political development are a collaborative
processes and therefore, the thinking should be more joined up, something which up
until now, has not really been the norm.
An interesting conclusion which Ruttan makes is in relation to authoritarian political
organisation and economic growth. The dominant view has been that good
economics is liberal economics, and therefore good governance is Western, liberal
governance. Ruttan challenges this somewhat by concluding that when a state is at
the beginning of its development, authoritarian political organisation can facilitate
rapid economic growth. It is only when a country is developed to a point of middle-
income status, that authoritarianism becomes an obstacle to economic development.
Emotional level
The session touched on the fact that there has been a rediscovery of the importance
of politics in development. I do find it rather astounding that the importance of
politics was ever lost ever since I gained an interest in development, within a few
weeks of starting work in Kenya, its always seemed evident that politics is the root
of the poverty problem. I remember hearing Bill Clintons campaign phrase from
1992 its the economy stupid! The same phrase comes to mind when thinking of
politics, poverty and development my own version being its politics stupid!
Reading through the various theories and frameworks, it is comforting to know that,
despite their flaws theories of political development actually exist! I find it
frustrating though that political development was neglected during the 80s and 90s
considering development purely as an economic process to me seems illogical. On a
human level, it can almost make you angry, because when you look at the failures of
the 80s and 90s and the billions of dollars that were practically poured down the
drain, you begin to imagine the billions of individuals who remained in poverty
because of the economic tunnel vision of international financial institutions.
I also find it frustrating how the limited access orders which North and et al refer to
seem to be trapped somehow by the very mechanisms which enable them to exist.
Yes elite bargaining and dominant coalitions mean that there is some level of
security, preventing anarchy from reigning, however, the rent seeking and
monopolies which emerge from such personalised systems of rule mean many
countries seem unable to cope with change or shocks or avoid those sustained
periods of negative economic growth which the authors believe must be averted in
order to achieve development. Limited access orders may bring about a good level of
security but the means which they use to do this actually prevents them from making
the transition to an open access orderits a frustrating circle to observe.
Interpretive level
Political development has been at the heart of social science it is at the heart of the
great political philosophers writings the works of Marx, Weber, Durkheim. The
works of these authors cannot be underestimated in terms of their influence, not just
on social science as a discipline, but on the way that states are run; on the way that
societies have grown and developed and on the way political and social change has
occurred. Therefore, if Marx, Weber, Durkheim and their contemporaries considered
political development as a fundamentally important concern, it would seem that the
donor community should hold it as an equally fundamental concern, with this being
reflected in their policies and programs. DFIDs development of Drivers of Change
assessments and the USAID equivalent suggest this concern has been taken on board,
but its important that concerns are not just reflected in the wording of policy but that
they also come out in practice.
USAID country governance assessments though reflect the donors strong association
of good governance with democracy. In Ruttan (1991), Abbas Pourgerami, has a
similarly positive view of the relationship between democracy as he believes that
democracy has a positive impact on economic growth. This assertion would seem
to be rather contentious as a country with one of the highest economic growth rates
in the world, China, has managed to achieve this growth rate without democracy.
Additionally, African countries which were part of the democratisation wave of the
1990s, may well have achieved more positive rates of economic growth, but whether
economic growth can be interpreted as development is questionable when income
inequality remains and is even increasing in many countries.
What seems to be important when thinking about political development, and its
relationship with the growth of the state and economic development, is to take as
holistic and interdisciplinary approach as possible. Modernisation and
underdevelopment approaches fell short in terms of their rather narrow focuses, to
the exclusion of the analysis of important factors which influence the processes of
political development. There is a danger that the rather overwhelming good
governance agenda could begin to repeat some of the same mistakes, with its
unrelenting focus on the requirements of the agenda overriding the importance of a
particular countrys context and the reality of historical experience.
Decision level
Applying todays session, Ive learnt that its important to consider process as well as
outcomes. There has been a good deal of disagreement over the process of political
development from state planning to market led development; from modernisation
theory to dependency theory; from the good governance agenda playing itself out
today. Political development is a process and ultimately must be grounded in more
than theoretical concepts, it must be grounded in relevant, historical experience,
something I will take on board whenever I consider what development interventions
are appropriate in different countries.
What is political development? Examine various crises as identified by Lucian
Pye.

The origin of the term 'Political Development' can be traced to 1950's when a large
number of American political scientists were attempting to study the political
dynamics of the newly emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Huge
amounts of statistical and quantitative data on the social, political, economic and
demographic aspects of these nations were collected to analyze their attitudes, values
and behaviour patterns.
However, the term is still in the process of evolution and there is hardly any
unanimity among the scholars on the constituent of political development. Such
inconsistency is partly on account of inter-disciplinary focus and partly a
manifestation of ethnocentric bases.
1. Daniel Learner in his "The Passing of the Traditional Societies, Modernization of
the Middle east" equates political development with political modernization.
W. W. Rustow treated political development as a typical phenomenon of the industrial
society. He was of the opinion that the industrial societies are the patterns setters of
political development for other societies.
Edward Shils treated political development as nation state building. S.P. Verma has
listed five categories of Shils stages of political development: L Political Democracy
2. Tutelary Democracy
3. Modernizing Oligarchy
4. Totalitarian Oligarchy
5. Traditional Oligarchy
Kenneth Organski saw political development in terms of:
Firstly, Political unification.
Secondly, Industrialization.
Thirdly, National Welfare.
Fourthly, Abundance (material affluence).
According to S.P. Verma "the greatest drawback of these studies was that they treated
political development as a dependent variable, generated by something else, a
worldwide wave of modernization, nationalism or democracy, and not as an
independent or intervening variable which in its own turn could shape things". Hence
forth, political scientist sought to devise alternative meaning of development political.
Gabriel Almond defined political development as "the increased differentiation and
specialization of political structures and the increased secularization of political
culture". Effectiveness, efficiency and capability were seen as benchmark of political
development, referred by Coloman as "Development Syndrome".
Lucian W. Pye, one of the outstanding experts on political development identified
three levels, viz., population, government performance and organization of the polity;
where political development could be observed. According to him, there are three
essential attributes of political development.
These are:
Firstly, Equality: which signifies,
-mass participation -universal laws
-recruitment on the basis of merit rather than a scripture criterions.
Secondly, Capacity: which signifies
-governmental performance -efficiency and effectiveness -secular orientation
Thirdly, Differentiation: which meant
-diffusion and specialization of structures -division of labour -specialization based on
integration
S.P. Huntington sought to evacuate parasitic world of political development.
According to S.P. Verma, "his criteria for political development were
institutionalization of political organizations and procedures". He highlighted that
political development is not a unidimensional phenomenon. Rather, the institution
decay and dissolve and grow mature.
F.W. Riggs gave the concept of development trap. His contention is that there should
be balance between equality and capacity. An emphasis on the one will lead to neglect
of another and get into 'development trap'. Criticism
1. There is no unanimity among scholars on the meaning, content and nature of
political development.
2. There is a tendency to see political development in parasitic terms, as something
dependent on other variables.
3. There is ethnocentric bias in much of the literature on political development.
Political development is identified with political modernization and modernization is
taken to mean westernization, by most scholars.
4. They fail to after a sound model for analyzing political process in developing
countries.
5. It was a historical view in the sense that it role promoted anti-communist, pro-
American political stability as Robert Packehham has pointed out.
6. S.P. Verma accuses the western theorists of emphasizing order and stability at the
cost of more general shared view on liberty or other value.
7. Most of the theories fail to articulate a integrated view of political development. As
S.P. Verma has pointed out, "economic growth and political stability are not aims in
themselves but means to something else".
Evaluation of Debate on Political Development:
Much of the debate on political development fails to arrive at conclusion due to (a)
Unidirectional approach (b) different variables and (c) value preferences of the
theorists. There is complete neglect of a country's history and its various political
traditions.
It has following implications: Firstly, they fail to see that development and
underdevelopment are the two sides of the same coin. As S.P. Verma observes "It is
this over-development on the part of one- third of the world (within which also large
masses continue to live under conditions of under development) which is
responsible, by and large. For the under development of the so called developing
world.
The situation can be resolved only if the third world countries decide to take a line of
development better suited to their history, culture and genius as well as to fast
changing international environment. Consequently, the concept of political
development needs to be intertwined with the problems of economic backwardness
and dependency.
Secondly, the concept of political development needs to be evaluated in terms of the
existing political orientation and larger objective of two political systems. It must not
be something imposed from above. Only significant western ideals should be
emphasised in this context. Moreover, these ideals have to be integrated with the
socio-economic realities of the developing countries.
Thirdly, the stability of political system, though significant aspect cannot become the
end in itself. The prospect of political system is severely paralyzed if it continues to
suffer breakdown. Such problems are more pronounced in developing countries.
Such problems can be better addressed; its national viability becomes an important
variable of political development.
According to S.P. Verma "A viable national system.... mean the existence in the nation
state of a society in which the various groups are, more or less, congruent, in the sense
that there is harmonious elite-sub-elite-mass relationship and the political elites
drawing their moral and material sustenance from the society are able to use the
human and natural resources available to them in an effective manner". Thus, the
aspects of nation building as an ethical objective must take along the task of state
building.

Political Development: Conceptual Explanation

Political development is a more elusive concept than economic development. It is

more controversial in normative terms and more difficult to measure in empirical and
operational terms. It is used frequently by both normative and non-normative or
existential thinkers. Normative theorists stress that a political system develops as it
approaches the good political order.

They devote less attention to systematic statement of conditions which give rise to
and maintain political development, and are more concerned with specifying ends
and justification for having such political development. The existentialists spend
more time on specifying the characteristics of what they regard as politically
developed systems and the conditions and processes which give rise to them. Lucian
W. Pye has vividly examined diversity in the explanation of the concept of political
development.

Political development has been variously explained as:

1. Political prerequisite of economic development;

ADVERTISEMENTS:

2. The politics typical of industrial and advanced societies;

3. Political modernisation under which advanced nations are regarded as pace-
setters;

4. The operations of a nation-state;

5. Administrative and legal development, it includes all colonial practices and

authoritative structures;

6. Mass mobilisation and participation involving new standards of loyalty and

demagoguery;

7. The building of democracy;

8. Stability and orderly change;

9. Mobilisation and power; and

10. One aspect of a multi-dimensional process of social change regards it unnecessary

to isolate political development from other aspects coming under the total process of
modernisation.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

There are other interpretations also, such as, national self-respect, attainment of
dignity in international affairs, etc. But according to Pye, most of them create
confusion. According to him, these various interpretations share some broad
characteristics, which can provide the basis of agreement.

He categorises them under three aspects and interlinks them in the form of
development syndrome:
(a) Spirit or attitude towards equality:
It includes participation, universalistic nature, standards of achievement etc.;

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(b) Capacity of political system:

ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is related to outputs: economy, performance of government, effectiveness and
efficiency, rationality in administration, and secularisation of public policies; and

(c) Differentiation:
It involves increase of structures, institutions, division of labour, specialisation,
followed by ultimate sense of integration. Thus, political development, according to
him, is a three-dimensional process of equality, capacity, and differentiation. He
admits that these do not necessarily or easily fit together.

Rather, acute tensions and problems are generated by them. Pressure for greater
equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation can reduce
equality by stressing the importance of quality and special knowledge. His
development syndrome is also unilinear. Problems of equality relate to political
culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system.

Capacity-problems involve the performance of authoritative structures of

government. Problems pertaining to differentiation strike at the performance of the
non-authoritative structures and the general political process in the society at large.
In any case, political development revolves around the relationships between
political culture, the authoritative structures, and the general political process.

Mehta opines that Pye interprets development by incorporating almost every

conceivable feature of the American political system. Pye finds the development-
process as evolution of society from incoherent homogeneity to coherent
heterogeneity, with capacity to solve developmental problems.

Alfred Diamant conceives it as a process by which political system acquires an

increased capacity to sustain successfully and continuously new types of goals and
demands and the creation of new types of organisation. For this process to continue
over time, a differentiated and centralised polity must come into existence. It must be
able to command resources from and power over wide spheres and regions of the
society.

Almond visualises it as the acquisition by political systems of a new capability, in the

sense of a specialised role structure and differentiated orientations, which together
give a political system the possibility of responding efficiently, and more or less,
autonomously to a new range of problems. Both Almond and Powell reiterate that
political development shows the formation of new capabilities, with specialised role-
structure and differentiated orientation which enables the political system to deal
with new challenges.

Hagan also finds it as the formation of new structures and patterns which enable a
political system to cope with its fundamental problems. Samuel P. Huntington
characterises political development as institutionalisation which can be applied
both to past and present. For him, it is the development of institutions to meet
peoples demands. According to him, this process of institutionalisation can go
forward and breakdown and can decay as it has happened many times in the past.

He wants to use it as a value-free concept, applicable to all types of societies.

However, Pennock and Smith put a caution that it should not be measured in terms
of the ability of political systems to survive only but also to satisfy the demands of
those who are subject to its rule. The system has to satisfy them with political goods.
Riggs also concurs with him and observes that political development opens a number
of choices to satisfy political goals.