Introduction
There are fundamental challenges related to development in every era of human history. From the historical focus on expansion of imperial power and colonial rule in order to attain supplies of raw material and cheap labour, often in the form of slavery; to the gradual emergence of social progression in the form of concepts such as social justice, democracy, and equity during the post-world-war period. Earlier developmental approaches were centered on raising living-standards by promoting increase in productivity to provide goods and services to a growing population. As Jonathan Harris pointed out, many international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations were set up to achieve this goal.5
This approach was widely accepted at the time, and is shown by W.W. Rostow in his publication on economic development, The Stages of Economic Growth in 1960, where he proposed that development occurred through stages, and developing countries are transformed through economic “take-off” to mature societies of mass consumption, like those of the western world.5,8 Over time new policies were implemented, and different approaches to development have been emphasized. In particular, a focus on basic needs in the 1970’s, such as the advocacy of universal education, nutrition, health, sanitation, and employment for the impoverished, was in contrast to structural adjustments of bureaucracies and markets in the 1980’s which urged trade liberalizations and market reforms. Supporters of basic needs policies were critical of the structural adjustment approach as they argued that gains in economic efficiency were often at the expense of further inequality and hardship for poor, developing...
... middle of paper ...
...n Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[4] Goodwin, N.R. (2003). “Five Kinds of Capital: Useful Concepts for Sustainable Development.” Global Development and Environment Institute: Working Paper 03-07.
[5] Harris, J.M. (2000). “Basic Principles of Sustainable Development.” Global Development and Environment Institute: Working Paper 00-04.
[6] Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B. (1993). “Intergenerational Transfers and the Social Discount Rate.” Environment and Resource Economics 3 (Aug): 337-58.
[7] Nissanke, M., Thorbecke, E. (2007). “Linking Globalization to Poverty.” United Nations University – Policy Brief. (No.2, 2007)
[8] Rostow, W.W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.
[9] Toman, M.A. (1992). “Difficulty in Defining Sustainability.” Resources (106): 3-6.
“I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.”
...ieve for all. Concluding his speech, the president reminds us that we are the hope; we ARE the change. Obama finishes his address thanking God and proclaiming, “may He forever bless these United States of America.” For the final push of ethos to conclude his speech.
44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, in his 2009 Presidential Inaugural Address, prompts the American people to a call to action in the unfolding national economic crisis. Obama’s purpose is to comfort and assure, as well as inspire, the people of this nation. He adopts a passionate and motivational tone to bring everyone together as a country. Obama clearly articulates and effectively calls his audience to make a difference through the use of allusions, anaphora, and imagery in order to empower and influence the American people in their time of detrimental economic crisis.
In a nation that thrives on diversity, it has become more important than ever to maintain coherency. Being the country with the longest standing constitution, the United States holds a very special position in the world. Its fellow citizens-white or black, man or woman, gay or straight-are what serve as the foundation of this free republic. In his Inauguration Speech on January 21st, 2013, President Barack Obama spoke of the strength of the United States as derived from the unity of the American people. He further continues to convey a major point: that to maintain this prosperity requires continued perseverance, which can only be accomplished by a continued sense of togetherness across the nation. Through the use of a distinct
He wanted to motivate each and everyone to come together and tackle this crisis. He also uses history as an effective tool in order awake our citizens for the new change. First, he asserts the struggles faced by our ancestors, “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood………. humility and restraint”(2009). As he described struggles of the past; later in his speech he also talks how our past generations successfully faced this problems. Through emotional appealing examples from the history,he managed to stimulate strong spirit of patriotism and sense of pride among us to take responsibility for the new change. Further, Obama proclaims, “ Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking
Both arguments concerning the obstacles to development make valid points. The neoliberalism position focuses on the misguided policies enforced by the developing states. They argue that excessive government control of the domestic and the international economy of the state prevents economic growth, while fiscal discipline and non-intervention by the state’s governments allows the economy to stimulate. On the other hand, the dependency theory perspective, which focuses on the global order between rich and poor nations, argues that the wealthy states exploit the weak states, therefore, producing underdevelopment and global inequality.
The simplistic and highly misleading view that depicts the poorer world as passive victims at the mercy of the powerful West has meant that postwar paradigms or in-arguments “for how to conceptualize and overcome development challenges” (City of Johannesburg, 2006) have failed to achieve long-term development outcomes. For example, modernization theory (MT) stated that with investment and planning from the Industrial West, all states could follow a liner process of development where traditional sectors of the economy and rigid social structures would be abandoned and replaced by modern social organisation (Nabudere, 1997; Jolly et. al., 2004; MacKinnon & Cumbers, 2011). In other words, it was believed that once Rostow’s ‘take-off’ stage was
To begin with, it is necessary to discuss some basic information about the current system in place. Neoliberal capitalism is an economic system that promotes free market policies of liberalization, deregulation, privatization, and the cutting of social support systems. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are two key organizations that help spread free market policies through globalization by implementing structural adjustment programs as conditions for any aid or support to any third world developing countries. Once structural adjustment programs are put into place they tend to disrupt developing countries’ economies and end up making them even worse off than before. Before the 1980s, developing countries had a per capita growth rate of more than 3%, once structural adjustment programs were put into place growth rates dropped to 1.7% (Hickel 2012: 7).
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by 'development ladder' is that development happened in a sequential process through stage by stage while the second premise underpinned by ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards West's values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies. Thus, Rostow's 'development ladder' is highly challenged as it gathers a lot of critiques.
One of the most notorious thinkers in the twentieth century in regards to Economic Growth and Development was W.W. Rostow. He was an American economist and public figure in the government. Before Rostow’s theory, people attitudes toward economic development were based on the theory that modernization was portrayed by the Western world. The Western World had the wealthier and more powerful countries in that day and age. These countries and nations were able 1to advance from the initial stages of underdevelopment. Therefore, other countries should model themselves after the West World and seek to have a liberal democracy and a more modern state of capitalism.
In today’s age of emerging globalisation and global governance, every country in this world are connected as one global economy. It is evident that poverty in developing countries cannot be ignored by the West, as our society today is interwoven among different networks of global trade, diplomacy and economic co-operations through various institutions such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, the effectiveness of the foreign policies drafted by these organizations can be questioned as it has done little to reduce poverty in poor nations. The new global economic order is seen as being harsh on the poor. Through the Western countries’ superior bargaining power, poor countries are often exploited through their weaknesses, ignorance, or even corruptibility so that the negotiations often result in greater benefit for Western countries.
When looking through the topic of development, two drastically different ways to assess it arise. The majority of the western world looks at development in terms of per capita GNP. This means each country is evaluated on a level playing field, comparing the production of each country in economic value. Opposite this style of evaluation is that of the alternative view, which measures a country’s development on its ability to fulfill basic material and non-material needs. Cultural ties are strong in this case as most of the population does not produce for wealth but merely survival and tradition.
The way push and pull factors turned it to be ineffective are the sources of the mistake. The development experts know what actions achieve development, and the money and advice the north has provided can achieve development, but they need to consider country particular conditions as ‘Single Administrative Documents’ (SADs) do not fit to successfully derive SAPs. Finally, the development process is not solely the responsibility of the development experts or individual groups and financial institutions (IMF, WB). The development shall be achieved through participatory development approach. To encapsulate this, the burden of the failure, which today it is considered as mistake shall be cleaved proportionately to development experts (for neglecting various other exogenous conditions to the growth), creditors in the north (for recommending similar prescriptions for all debtors), and debtors in the south (for unproductive spending strategies, corruption and lack of accountability).
Development fundamentally is both complex and ambiguous. In recent years, Development has taken on the limited meaning of the practice of development agencies, especially in focusing on reducing poverty and the Millennium Development Goals. (Thomas, 2004: 1, 2) The definition of development is a controversial field. The Implicit value assumptions and associated policy responses are rationally linked to the nature of the definitions employed. These values are central to disputes about the definition of development – improve what, ways to improve it and the question of who decides? For much of the post-World War II period development has been defined in a long-term view with an emphasis on socio-economic structural transformation. Since the 1990s, development comes to be defined with a shorter horizon related to the policy objectives and performance indicators like the growth of income per capita and poverty reduction. The United Nations poverty reduction target for 2015, known as the Millennium Development Goals, is significantly higher in the latter
...liberalisations have had adverse consequences for some – including the poorest people – but should we automatically condemn trade initiatives because it means that one person loses or is pushed into poverty? The identification of hardship arising from a generally desirable policy reform should stimulate the search for complementary policies to minimise the adverse consequences and reduce the hurt that they unintentionally cause (Winters, 2002). ‘No country has successfully developed its economy by turning its back on international trade and long-term foreign investment’; although trade alone may not offer a solution for poverty reduction, the OECD and DFID have recently published reports identifying that combining aid and trade initiatives and encouraging the integration of trade and aid could progressively and sustainably alleviate poverty (OEDC, 2009; DFID, 2005).