29.05.2008PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE SHOULD CHOSE
Although according to Kozma Prutkov “it is impossible to embrace immense,” however, this is what the UN state-members are busy with in their every day activity. The agenda of this unique international organization includes all the spheres of human vital activities. So, by the character of activity I have to face the progressing experience of many countries of the world. While considering the relevant issues of agenda, it is very useful to have rich scientific and practical materials in our disposal: It has come to prove that there is nothing new in this sphere: problems our society has today are identical to those all the developing countries confronted and are confronting during the 63-year UN activity. It goes without saying that beside the issues concerning the world and global security, the most important of the organization’s activity is “development.” In solving this very task are reveled differences the states have in the process of making and historical development. On the example of most of the developing countries one may make sure that the “growing” process itself doesn’t guarantee a country’s social-economic development. In this article I want to share some of my considerations concerning to “development.”
The concept of “development” itself includes different spheres of society’s activity. The problems of social development, economic development, political development, democratic development, cultural development are today actual in all the countries of the world. In a few of these countries making minority, the imperators of development are dictated by the necessity of further improvement of living standard and satisfying new demands and requirements of the society. In other countries making majority and inhabiting 70% of world population, solution of some of the above mentioned problems sometimes determines the existence of a human and a state.
Disputes concerning to first priority of realizing the above mentioned tasks of development are not interrupted. The part of “lawmakers” of social progress struggles for the priority of political development. The other part, more probably making the majority, is more concerned in economic development.
This dilemma is not incidental: politics and economics are the two considerably important and determining factors of up-to-date society, and their interdependency is more actual for better determination of perspectives and sequence of realizing the task of development. As demonstrated by the experience of many countries, their optimal combination, namely right determination of corresponding priories and the time of their realization creates prerequisites for progress. Besides, wrong enlistment of preferences dooms a country to stagnation and chronicle poverty.
To make it more clever let’s make a theoretic excursus.
Up-to-date political economy determines five objectives of development. The two of the following objectives pursue solution of tasks of economic character:
- economic growth
- ensuring of equity
Traditional interpretation of growth in economy supposes growth of Gross National Product (GNP) per head. This objective was set to be a priority in the entire developing world soon after decolonization of the African Continent and Asian countries. However, it was soon found out that economic growth practically didn’t improve living condition of people inhabited in those countries. Moreover, after independence was gained most of the population of the former European colonies rolled down into poverty and finding themselves trapped in poverty hasn’t been able to get out of there since. Accordingly, the tasks of “allocation” and “justice” are brought to the forefront. It is not by chance that at the end of 1970s the problem of ensuring “justice” became as important as ensuring economic growth.
Ensuring “justice” in its turn supposes realization of the following two subgoals:
- Reduction of abject poverty, i.e. annual income of population shouldn’t be lower than the defined minimum level.
- Reduction of inequality, i.e. reduction of income level differences of the poorest and richest population strata.
After decolonization in the state building process of the world development were conducted debates on the priority of democracy in contrast to stability. Thus, since the end of 1950 and beginning of 60s many practical men and experts engaged in the problems of “the third world” denoted ensuring of democracy as precondition of development, exceptionally having in mind the models of the western liberal democracy. However, at the end of 1960s the objective of political order and stability drew back urgency of ensuring democracy becoming a subject of special concern. It remained unchanged till 1980s and with the collapse of a few “leading” authoritarian “regimes” in Asia and Latin America, the problem of transferring into democratic governing was again brought to the forefront.
In that way, the imperative of political development of society in its turn determined the following group of objectives:
- The objective of democratic development
- the objective of ensuring democracy
The fifth objective was as a one of political and economic character at the same time – the objective of ensuring the state autonomy, that’s to say to provide a state with full right controlling over the whole complex of national objectives. It is quite natural that together with decolonization process this very objective acquired special importance, and its realization was often on the account of economic and diplomatic development.
Along with interchange of development priorities were also changing requirements and preconditions of financial and technical assistance provided by donor countries and International Financial Institutions (IFI) to developing countries.
It is not by chance that politicians have always been facing the problem of determining priorities and sequence of their realization. This demand correspondingly gave birth to suggestions by the subject researchers. There are three main schools engaged in the mentioned problem dominating in the present-day political economy.
Thus, the liberal school declares profound compatibility, and, accordingly, opportunity for simultaneous realization of the above mentioned objectives of political and economic development. The logic of this conception is quite simple: economic growth leads to gradual and “fairer” allocation of incomes and wealth, which is the irreplaceable precondition of development of democratic institutions, and, in that way, reduction of social conflicts inside the society and provision of low and order and stability. In the end such a development will make preconditions for absolute control over “their national affairs.” The countries which have completely realized such a scenario are very few, and among such countries of late development is traditionally considered to be Japan, and with some reserves – Costa Rika.
The second school stresses up conflictology of the above mentioned objectives, and, accordingly, impossibility of simultaneous and successful realization of economic and political development problems: all the good can not happen at once.
The third school calls for the necessity of working out such a methodology of development, which would make a ground for “reconciliation” of conflicts existing in the very beginning of development. At that, it is emphasized that if simultaneous development of economic and political components is not possible, than the progress is insured by means of better determination of priorities and the ways they may be solved.
S. Huntington, one of the most prominent contemporary political scientists, expressed conflictogenity of relations between the economic growth on the one hand and inequality, stability, democracy and autonomy on the other, through so called “paradox of growth.” According to this regularity, the high level of the variable “A” (economic growth) is associated with the high level of variable “B” (it may be the index of inequality, stability and democratic society). But the high rate of growth of the variable “A” not only doesn’t suppose indispensable growth of the variable “B,’ but also may further the latter one’s reduction. In reality, as the experience of developing countries and transitional economies has shown, high rate of growth of economy on the present stage of transformation not always furthers solution of such problems as reduction of inequality, provision of democracy or development of democracy. The mentioned conflict among the growth in economy on one hand and equality, stability and democracy on the other, brought to contesting the logic of the liberal theory of development I’ve mentioned about above.
At the same time it is noteworthy that all the political schools are almost single minded in their opinion concerning the priority of ensuring stability and order to democracy.
Stability in developing countries was provided by different methods of political regulation. Skipping the details one may say that aim at limiting political participation.
As Aleksis de Tokvil mentioned in his 19 century immortal work “Democracy in America”: “Among the laws ruling the human society there is one, which seems to be more precise and clearer than the others. If people must remain civilized or become so, than their skills to associate with one another must be reinforced and perfected to the extent the conditions for equal participation grow.”1
Developing this idea S. Huntington supposed that in many developing countries the reason of political instability is failure to carry out this very precondition: equality in political participation potential grows faster than “the skill to associate with one another.” Social-economic and political changes, namely, urbanization, access to education, freedom of the press and availability of information develop political consciousness and enlarge possibilities for political participation, in that way washing away traditional principles of the authority. As a result, the rate of social mobilization and enlargement of political participation turn up to be high and the rate of political institutionalization – low. Such a scenario is in the end fraught with political instability and disorder. It is not by chance that after long experiments of political liberalization of the society all the newly independent countries preferred stability to democracy.
It is also clear that prolonged restrictions on political participation may call into question the legitimacy of authorities with all the consequences to follow. That’s why temporarily restriction on political participation must be somehow “compensated” and “justified.” As the experience of such developing countries as South Korea, Taiwan (CPR), Singapore has shown legitimacy of the ruling regimes was provided on the account of high rate and quality of economic growth. The results of social-economic development of the mentioned countries have come to demonstrate qualitative differences of economic growth. In comparison with traditional interpretation of economic growth, the authoritative school of contemporary economists includes four components into the perception of economic development: new investments ensuring real increase in income; qualitative growth of labor productivity in the leading branches of industry; transition into production of export-oriented products and services with higher additional coast. In the above mentioned countries the political regimes managed to ensure economic growth meeting all the mentioned criteria. On the other hand, political institutionalization of society preceded broad involvement of the mass into political process. It goes without saying that South Korea, Taiwan (CPR) were not deprived of incorporation of large sections of the public into political participation, however, only after 10-15 years of intensive economic growth and unprecedented industrialization. By means of such a combination of priorities the development of the South Asian countries was possible to determine in a right way and to compare the priorities, in that way giving solution to social-economic development and the problem of political development.
It is quite clear that not any restriction on political participation automatically ensures analogical results. And what is more, as the experience of most of the developing countries has demonstrated, their elites also made an attempt to work out conditions, which were to ensure both political stability through reproduction of the ruling elite and economic growth. However, “game rules” only ensured realization of the political component of the project on the account of long-term social-economic development. According to an economist D. Valdener, “seemingly strong leaders found themselves in their own institutional trap.”2
As for Armenia, one may say that the accuracy in determining priorities of further development stimulates for the possibility of solving national problems. Successful geopolitical contest with resource-full Azerbaijan supposes internal political stability with simultaneous provision of qualitative growth in national economy. The fundament of the past 7-8 years of extensive economic growth under the conditions of economic stability made all the preconditions to ensure a qualitatively new level of economic growth. The reports of the World Bank and International Currency Reserves Reserves the objectives achieved and at the same time suggest actual tasks of realizing reforms for the generation to come.
The experts from IFI pay special attention to the difficulties of keeping high rate of growth for the long-term perspective because of limited possibilities of extensive development. There is an agreed consent among the economists – two quite different tasks. The first one requires a package of reforms destined not to “suppress” the present potential of economy by taxes. The second task is more difficult: it requires creation of reliable and well-thought institutional grounding so as to support dynamism of economy and ensure its flexibility to suppress possible internal shocks in the long term. It is generally accepted that those tasks suppose perfection of functioning institutions and founding of the new ones, further improvement of the industrialist midst and provision with free competition, carrying out of balanced financial-monetary policy, consolidation and guarantying of property rights, strengthening of the judicial system independence and struggle against corruption.
The experience of developing countries has come to demonstrate that there is a verity of versions to realize the above mentioned principles by means of different institutional “packages.”
The existing institutional landscape determines both the potential and restrictions in choosing the package of reforms. Each of these “packages” has its value and ensures corresponding return depending on the number of factors, including financial, political resources and restrictions, as well as the level of administrative competitiveness of the state apparatus. From this standpoint the skill to carry out reforms supposes right choice of reform objectives out of practically unlimited set of combinations of institutional storages. The conception presented by a well known economist, D. Rodrik, supposed identification of the most serious and emergency “narrow spots” hampering more effective functioning of economy, and, accordingly, realization of measures for them to get “enlarged.” Such a strategy makes it possible to use the resources at hand more rationally and carry out a more effective monitoring of the measures to be taken and evaluation of their final results.
1Alexis deTocqueiville, «Democracy in America».
2David Waldner, State Building and Late Development.
Return
Another materials of author