Contemporary Theories of Development

Introduction
Since the end of World War II, we have been experiencing a worldwide struggle for the
improvement of living conditions in the so-called developing countries. At the beginning, there
was little query as to the causes of underdevelopment; the newly independent countries as well
as United Nations bodies and industrialized countries tried to promote development by
applying measures like the introduction of know-how through the assignment of experts, the
expansion of education, the development of infrastructure, etc., i.e., they followed the example
of the industrialized countries.
In the course of time it became obvious that this was more or less a treatment of symptoms
instead of causes, and the gap gradually widened between the developed and less developed
countries of this world.
Only in more recent times has the viewpoint of developing countries gained momentum in
development theory. This has great practical implications: development theory offers the
justification for policies. The answer to the question "What is development or
underdevelopment?" determines which strategies, policies, projects, what type of industry, or
what organization of agriculture should be considered to be in line with development goals or
detrimental to these. Different positions in development policy are based on differences in
underlying development theories.

Modernization Theory
According to modernization theory, internal factors in the countries, such as illiteracy,
traditional agrarian structure, the traditional attitude of the population, the low division of
labour, the lack of communication and infrastructure, etc., are responsible for
underdevelopment. Differences in structure and historical origin are considered of little
importance; international dependencies are not taken into account.
Consequently, a change of these endogenous factors is the strategy for development. The
industrialized countries are the model for economy and society, and this model will be reached
sooner or later. There is a continuum between the least and the most developed country and
each country has its position on this line. The difference as compared to the industrialized
countries is the degree of backwardness which has to be made up for.
Suitable measures are the modernization of the production apparatus, capital aid, transfer of
know-how, so that the developing countries can reach the stage of industrialized countries as
soon as possible. Development is seen as an increase of production and efficiency and
measured primarily by comparing the per capita income.
Modernization theory is exacerbated by Rostow’s stages of development, it presupposes that
for developing countries to develop they must follow all the below Rostow’s stages of
development

1. Traditional society. This is an agricultural economy of mainly subsistence farming, little

of which is traded. The size of the capital stock is limited and of low quality resulting in
very low labour productivity and little surplus output left to sell in domestic and
overseas markets
2. Pre-conditions for take-off. Agriculture becomes more mechanised and more output is
traded. Savings and investment grow although they are still a small percentage of
national income (GDP). Some external funding is required - for example in the form of
overseas aid or perhaps remittance incomes from migrant workers living overseas
3. Take-off. Manufacturing industry assumes greater importance, although the number of
industries remains small. Political and social institutions start to develop - external
finance may still be required. Savings and investment grow, perhaps to 15% of GDP.
Agriculture assumes lesser importance in relative terms although the majority of people
may remain employed in the farming sector. There is often a dual economy apparent
with rising productivity and wealth in manufacturing and other industries contrasted
with stubbornly low productivity and real incomes in rural agriculture.
4. Drive to maturity. Industry becomes more diverse. Growth should spread to different
parts of the country as the state of technology improves - the economy moves from
being dependent on factor inputs for growth towards making better use of innovation to
bring about increases in real per capita incomes
5. Age of mass consumption. Output levels grow, enabling increased consumer
expenditure. There is a shift towards tertiary sector activity and the growth is sustained
by the expansion of a middle class of consumers.

Dependency Theory
According to dependence theory, the cause of underdevelopment is the dependence on
industrialized countries while internal factors of developing countries are considered irrelevant
or seen as symptoms and consequences of dependence. The development of industrialized
countries and the underdevelopment of developing countries are parts of one historical
process. Developing countries are dependent countries. The economic and political interests of
industrialized countries determine their development or under development. The goals are
superimposed. Underdevelopment is not backwardness but intentional downward
development.
The distinction between underdevelopment and underdevelopment places the poorer
countries of the world is a profoundly different historical context. These countries are not
"behind" or "catching up" to the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they
lagged behind the scientific transformations or the Enlightenment values of the European
states. They are poor because they were coercively integrated into the European economic
system only as producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were
denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with dominant
states
As to the causes of dependence, the various theories differ, economic factors always
dominating. External trade concentrate on economic relations between countries. Imperialism
theories stress the politico economic interest, concentration on the deformation of internal
structures by dependence perpetuates the situation.
Explanations of dependency theory indicate that the relations between dominant and
dependent states are dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states tend to
not only reinforce but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a very
deep seated historical process, rooted in the internationalization of capitalism
Dependence theory concentrates on explanations of the genesis of underdevelopment and
pays little attention to strategies for overcoming this situation. Implicit development here
means liberation, end of structural dependence, and independence.
World System Theory
For Wallerstein, "a world-system is a social system, one that has boundaries, structures,
member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces
which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to
its advantage.
Among the most important structures of the current world-system is a power hierarchy
between core and periphery, in which powerful and wealthy "core" societies dominate and
exploit weak and poor peripheral societies. Technology is a central factor in the positioning of a
region in the core or the periphery. Advanced or developed countries are the core, and the less
developed are in the periphery.
Peripheral countries are structurally constrained to experience a kind of development that
reproduces their subordinate status. The differential strength of the multiple states within the
system is crucial to maintain the system as a whole, because strong states reinforce and
increase the differential flow of surplus to the core zone. This is what Wallerstein called
unequal exchange, the systematic transfer of surplus from semi proletarian sectors in the
periphery to the high-technology, industrialized core. This leads to a process of capital
accumulation at a global scale, and necessarily involves the appropriation and transformation of
peripheral surplus.
On the political side of the world-system a few concepts deem highlighting. For Wallerstein,
nation-states are variables, elements within the system. States are used by class forces to
pursue their interest, in the case of core countries. Imperialism refers to the domination of
weak peripheral regions by strong core states. Hegemony refers to the existence of one core
state temporarily outstripping the rest. Hegemonic powers maintain a stable balance of power
and enforce free trade as long as it is to their advantage. However, hegemony is temporary due
to class struggles and the diffusion of technical advantages. Finally, there is a global class
struggle.

Approaches to Development
Top-Bottom approach
According to Popple, (1995), the top-bottom approach is the concern of ruling groups to
incorporate and integrate subordinate groups into the dominant ideology in order to ensure
their own security and sustainability, and in this psyche they claim to rescue and reform the
"deserving" poor.
According to Cooksey & Kikula (2005, P. 3), Top-Bottom approach being the most common
method all over the world is utilized by governments and foreign donor agencies in project
implementation and their adaptation of these includes that it “allow rapid, large scale spending
of budgets in accordance with pre-established timetables and also gives government planners,
donors and the bureaucrats an illusory feeling of control and efficiency”.
The top-bottom approach in community development looks at the developmental strategies of
the community from the top and be able to forecast what would the communities be like when
such programmes are implemented, and the top here involves the government, donor agencies
and other organization. Likewise the investors use Top-down investing approaches and this
involves analyzing the "big idea" by looking at the economy and try to forecast which industry
will generate the best returns.
Similarly, Larice & Macdonald, (2007) said that top-bottom encourages already prepared
proposals to be implemented by the authority therefore it’s easy to focus at the community
consultation process, since the authority predefined the project, and it is not time consuming
for the development process as the whole process is controlled by the professional actors
without the communities consulted in the implementation. Finally that there is more effective
use of resources by using professional expertise to mobilize, co-ordinate and interpret
community options.
The top-bottom approach should be organized such that the experts assimilate the locals and
integrate them in the programmes so as to have effective impact and the goals of the projects
realized, hence collective learning situations established and strengthened relationship
between experts and locals as they shared knowledge and experiences of development.
Arguments against top-bottom
 It assumes structured plans and designs, cost and implementation period for projects
without considering the variance in the sociocultural and environmental situations in
locations.
 It assumes also the same co-operation from communities where the projects are to be
located without considering the variations in culture, living pattern and exposures to
 new technologies. The approach erroneously assumes also that the communities are
naïve and don’t know what is good for themselves hence the ‘top” plans for them and
impose such decisions on them
 The danger of the top-bottom is that it is a continuous colonialist tendencies of
exploiting the resources of the developing countries under the guide that they were
helping them to develop
 Bureaucracy and related evils such as corruption

Bottom up Approach
Bottom –up approach means involving the communities at the various levels of the
development programme and covers the definition phase, implementation, evaluation and the
revision of the programme either directly or through those bodies representing collective
interests such as the professional organizations, women’s’ groups, cultural associations, etc.
The local communities are involved through consultation or by involving them in the
partnership which makes them to see the programme as their own and put in all efforts to
ensure the successful realization of the goals and sustainability of it too (Isidiho and Sabran,
2015). The bottom-top method involves respecting the ideas and culture of the communities
involved, incorporating the needs and visions of the rural people in project execution and
respecting their sociocultural diversity coupled with their economic life style and then improve
on it for the realization of the goals of the project and its sustainability too. Players in this
programme has to be transparent and adaptable to the grass root.
A bottom – up approach would entail the experts from the government or foreign organizations
trying to dress in the local attires and adjust to their culture for full integration and acceptance
from the rural communities. Imagine how the communities would feel seeing a foreigner
coming to discuss with them dressed in local fabric and style and speaking also their local
dialect.
The bottom-up approach also involves actively involving the few elites in the community and
the community leaders in the project design, planning, implementation and evaluation. Project
selection under the bottom-top involves allowing the communities to choose among list of
projects the one that they desire most in line of hierarchy, this is against the top- bottom style
of imposing projects on the rural communities by the leaders and governments, ad hoc group of
independent experts etc. even when such projects are not the priority of the communities.
It is also very important that before any project/ programme is to be implemented in a locality,
there is need to identify the various associations and groups existing in such communities and
having a pre project discussion with them would help to sensitize the communities on the
projects. Such organizations may involve traditional rulers and their cabinet, farmers
association, non-farming professionals, other working residents, non-working residents, local
political representatives, environmental associations, Cultural associations, Women’s
associations, youth wing etc.
Arguments against Bottom up approach
 Limited resources
 Difficult to scale it up
 Difficult to coordinate the stakeholders