Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Modernization theory, Dependency theory and World Systems.

QUESTION ONE; Modernization theory, Dependency theory and World Systems.
Modernisation Theory according to Mouton (2001;27) refers to the transformation which takes place when a traditional or pre-modern society changes to such an extent that new forms of technological organizational or social characteristics of advanced society encompassing many different disciplines as it seeks to explain how society progresses, what variables affect that progress, and how societies can react to that progress. The theory of modernization normally consists of three parts: (1) identification of types of societies, and explanation of how those designated as modernized or relatively modernized differ from others; (2) specification of how societies become modernized, comparing factors that are more or less conducive to transformation; and (3) generalizations about how the parts of a modernized society fit together, involving comparisons of stages of modernization and types of modernized societies with clarity about prospects for further modernization. Mouton (2001;28) elaborates that the theory’s assumption modernization is a liner progress he further postulates that the theory was an attempt to provide the theoretical framework to describe the road that newly decolonized countries of the 1960s in Africa, Asia and Latin America lead to take in order to reach their development destination. Modernization theory encompasses the world of globalization, where cultural mores and ideas are easily spread throughout the world, leading to a sort of universal culture that serves as a baseline for all cultures
Dependency theory propounded by Frank Grunder, Griffiths (2005;168) states that it is the body of social science theories which suggests that the wealthy nations of the world need a peripheral group of poorer states in order to remain wealthy. Dependency theory states that the poverty of the countries in the periphery is not because they are not integrated into the world system, but because of how they are integrated into the world system. According to Griffiths (2005;169) it challenged the dominance of the modernization strategies in the mid 20th century as the integration of the peripheral countries into the world system led to neo-colonialism not liberalization, underdevelopment not development due to continued dependency and unequal exchange. Whilst the modernization theory implies that development occurs when separate modern sector is established with a particular society and gradually integrates the traditional sector itself the dependency theory is against this initiative as it leads to exploitation and dependency.
World systems Theory propounded by Immanuel Wallerstein according to Mouton (2001;13) is strategy for explaining institutional change that focuses on whole intersoceital systems rather than single societies. Wallerstein proposed that the nations states exists in a within a broad political, economic and legal framework which he calls the “world system”. The World Systems theory is driven primarily by capitalist accumulation and geopolitics in which the business institutions fought for power and wealth. The world system proposes international division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries. According to Robertson and Scholte (2007;1306) World Systems theory can be understood as stratification system composed of dominant core societies and dependent peripheral and semi- peripheral regions. The semi- periphery is composed of large and powerful states in the third world for example Mexico, Brazil and South Africa that have intermediate levels of economic development while the core is composed of hegemonic states such as United States and Britain the core countries have integrated economies with primary, secondary and tertiary sector. While the periphery are those countries that produce raw materials without the manufacturial sector Burundi, Zambia and Namibia mostly of the third world countries. The addition of the semi periphery according to Griffitns (2005;86) by Wallersteirn allows the world theorists to escape the notion of stagnationsm linked to the dependency theory and it links to more to the globalization world polity thesis.
Question Two: Present a critique on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund
Criticism of the World Bank and the IMF encompasses a whole range of issues but they generally centred on the concern of the approaches adopted by the World Bank and the IMF in formulating their policies. This includes the social and economic impact these policies have on the population of countries who avail themselves of financial assistance from these two institutions.World Bank and the IMF are concerned about the conditionalities imposed on borrower countries. The World Bank and the IMF often attach loan conditionalities based on what is termed the 'Washington Consensus', focusing on liberalisation of trade, investment and the financial sector, deregulation and privatisation of nationalised industries. According to Baylis and Smith (2001;232) the conditionalities results in loss of states sovereignty and loss of state authority to govern its own economy as national economic policies are predetermined under the structural adjustment packages.
The IMF and World Bank have been criticized for furthering economic interests at the expense of human life as it hurts women, disabled people and vulnerable in society far more than other social actors. Bond (2001;235) elaborates how the IMF and World Bank funded the Apartheid regime in SA in the 1960s on the wake of the 1960 Sharpville massacre when the sanctions movement gathered steam the bank granted loans worth US 45million to Pretoria as it ignored international condemnations of apartheid. Imposition of these conditionalities to financial flows has resulted in the third world countries especially Africa to turn droughts into famine as the financial debts of these countries increase to an extent not repayable. State collapse has been massively linked to the activities of these monetary institutions.
Bond (2001;233) further postulates that the monetary institutions impose Eurocentric notion of development and modernity downgrades democracy by propping up friendly authoritarian regimes; serves transnational corporate and banking interests. Eurocentric models of economic development do not work in Africa as they are not familiar with historical and society backgrounds. Bond (2001;238) elaborates that the widespread of the failure of IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programmes across South Africa and indeed across the world is not disputed. IMF and World Bank interventions usually leave a country worse off than before.
Several projects have been undertaken in the third world countries from Kariba dam construction in Zimbabwe to Lake Volta in Ghana the effects of the projects have been disastrous to the environment, human life and wildlife. Within the World Bank, there are concerns about the types of development projects funded by the IBRD and the IDA. Many infrastructural projects financed by the World Bank Group have social and environmental implications for the populations in the affected areas and criticism has centred on the ethical issues of funding such projects. For example, World Bank-funded constructions of hydroelectric dams in various countries have resulted in the displacement of indigenous peoples of the area.World Bank and IMF governance structures which are dominated by industrialised countries. According to Bond (2001;238) decisions are made and policies implemented by leading industrialised countries—the G7—because they represent the largest donors without much consultation with poor and developing countries. The interests of the poor countries are not represented enough they become subjects to imposed economic policies by IMF and World Bank.
However it must be considered that the IMF and World Bank have opened up the economic markets for the developing countries and help them to engage with global economy according to Bond (2001;232) they have promoted sensible investment and involved in policies to alleviate poverty, to enhance the role of women development and to promote development and environmental sustainability.
Question three: How has the historical legacy of colonialism and apartheid affected access to ownership of land in South Africa
Acts of brutality, racial oppression and undesirable horrors to human kind that were associated with the apartheid era and colonialism left a historical legacy for majority deprivation of land ownership in South Africa. Colonization according to Hendricks (2001;290) wrenched away large tracts of land of Africa land and confined African access to land to reserves areas that were later called “native lands”. Series of brutal legislative laws were passes by the colonial authorities to divorce Africans their sole of survival and means of production the land Glen Grey Act 1894, Land Native Act 1913 and the Land act 1936. This was in the bid to create labour supply for the diamond, gold mines and agricultural lands for the whites According to Hendricks (2001;290) prohibition of land purchase by Africans outside these reserves was accompanied by a battery of legislative impediments of African urbanization the Land Native Act in 1913 decreed that Africans could not own land in urban areas and that they are were to be “temporary sojourners” in the towns allowed only to reside only to minister to the needs of whites.
In contemporary South Africa this historical legacy can still be noticed as the debate for land distribution created by the apartheid and colonial history is on the centre stage of all political frontiers. Land reform is critical not only in terms of providing historical redress for centuries of colonial settler dispossession, but also in terms of resolving the national democratic revolution in South Africa. The 1997 white Paper on South African Land Policy according to Andrew ( 2007;139) included components restitution of land unjustly taken because of the apartheid laws, redistribution of land through the market and third a land tenure reform which meant reviewing customary tenure and private ownership. But still majority of the population still live in abject with no the means of production the land as the implementation of these legislations have demonstrated to be dysfunctional.

According to the official statistics according to Freeman (2004;161) 10 years end of the apartheid, only 3% of the land had been under willing-buyer, willing seller scheme whilst Twala (2004;67) elaborates of the 68,878 land restitution claims received, only 12,678 had been settled, benefiting less than 40,000 predominantly urban households more than 40 percent of which had received monetary compensation instead of land restoration. The failure of the government pursuing capitalist objectives to redistribute the land has been shown since the transition to democracy has clearly linked the government to the colonial government of depriving land to the majority of the population. Hendricks (2007;299) clearly elaborates that one of the legacy of the apartheid was the concentration of property in the hands of the few which is the current situation nothing has change to resolve this pas inadequacy and imbalances.

The historical legacy of the apartheid era in conclusion led to land ownership by the majority in the contemporary period uncertain as the minority who benefited from the affirmative action of the apartheid government are reluctant to give up their land under the willing buyer willing seller notion. However the most shocking situation is the government reluctance to solve the issue of land distribution.
Question four What is participatory development and what is the importance of civil society Participatory development according to Roodt (2001;470) describe active involvement by people in civic and developmental organization, political parties and local government, with the purpose of influencing or having a say in decision that affect their lives. Participatory development promotes equity and accepts that the exercise of decision making power at the local level is as legitimate as it is at the national level. Roodt (2001;447) its an attempt to decrease top to bottom approach in developmental activities that do not yield popular support, bottom up approach more appropriate as the beneficiaries of any proposed development participate through their organizations in determining the type of development most relevant to their needs and may participate in the implementation and subsequent monitoring of development.
Participation leads to the societal needs being addressed according to Roodt (2001;447) within the political spectrum is the radical approach that advocates for participation as it leads to self actualisation which enables people to take control of their lives simultaneously challenging the dominating classes and their political regime. Participation development fosters grassroot involvement, accountability and transparency in developmental issues. Roodt (2001;474) the current status of participatory development is reflected in what has become known as ‘People Centred Development’ which is participatory of the majority of the population in the process of development.

Civil Society according to Hunt (2001;16) refers to a realm of social interaction independent of the state decisively influenced by the development of the modern concept of the market economy as a social institution that can function in the absence of direct moral and political supervision. Hegel’s account according to Hunt (2001;16) of civil society is the sphere of social interaction that develops with the modern emancipation of individual economic acquisitiveness from traditional moral, political and religious constraints. Importance of civil society is that they are grassroots organization in organizing for a cause, monitoring Government performance, poverty reduction, policy influencing (advocacy),social accountability, rights and political socialization, justice and legal aid, health, human Rights monitoring and outreach to poor communities. According to DFID White Paper (2006;1) fostering good governance is by no means the main objective of CSOs (Civil Society Organizations), CSOs can compliment, inform, influence or challenge the state- a role often referred to as demand side of governance. CSOs in Africa have been involved in participatory planning, policy and budget formulation they bring sectoral expertise and understanding of realities on the ground as they are grassroots organizations entrenched within society structures. Civil Soceity increase citizen participation in political and economic of the State according to DFID White Paper (2006;3) it strengthens state accountability, social accountability which involves direct of indirect participation of ordinary citizens in policy, programme or political cycle.
Andrew N; 2007 Conflicts over Land and Water in Africa James Currey Ltd UK
Baylis J and Smith S (2005) Globalisation of World Politics An introduction to international relations, 3rd edition Oxford University Press; Oxford
Bond, P ( 2001). “The IMF and Bank Reconsidered” in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp231-249
Civil Socety and good governance DFID practice paper Briefing September 07 2005
Freeman L.2005 South Africa’s Zimbabwe Policy; Unravelling the Contradictions; Journal of Contemporary African Studies South Africa
Hendricks,F (2001) “Land Policies and Democracy” in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp283-286
Graaf, J (2001). Theorizing Development” in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp5-9
Graaf and Venter,D (2001). “Understanding the world Systems’ in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp77-95
Griffiths M; 2005 Encyclopedia of international Relation and Global Politics Routledge New York
Hunt D.L 1996;Civil Society and the Idea of a commercial Replublic,” Western Models Routledge Newyork
Roberstson R and Scholte J; 2007 Encyclopedia of Globalization volume 4 U-Z MTM Publishing Inc Newyork
Roodt. M ( 2001) “Land Restitution in South Africa; An overview in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp305-315
Roodt,M (2001) Participation, Civil Soceity and development” in Coetzee, J et al (eds) Development; Theory,Policy and Practice ,Oxford Univesity Press;Oxford pp465-466