Different Schools, Same Problems: Development Theory in the Twentieth Century
Van der Merwe and Dodd begin by analysing what is meant by the notion of underdevelopment as well as exploring its historical antecedents in Northern-led colonialism in the Global South. Reflecting on some of the major development thinking as a response to political-economic events at the time, and critiquing some of the early schools of development theory, notably modernisation theory, dependency theory, and world systems theory, the chapter highlights the tensions between endogenous and exogenous explanations for underdevelopment. The government-business-media (GBM) complex is tentatively offered as a means of reconciling these opposing explanations of underdevelopment. The GBM complex further caters for this bifurcated analysis by incorporating both descriptive (endogenous) and structural (exogenous) levels of analysis. What emerges is that asymmetrical development is hardwired into the relational aspect of capitalist development, and while country-level reforms are beneficial, they must be coupled with careful, individualised, and tailored insertion into the global political economy.
- Aseka, E. M. (1993). Historical roots of underdevelopment and environmental degradation in Africa. Transafrican Journal of History, 22, 193–205.Google Scholar
- Nwomwu, F. O. (2016). The paradox of natural resource abundance and widespread underdevelopment in Africa. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies, 11(2), 52–69.Google Scholar
- Reyes, G. (2001). Four main theories of development: Modernisation, dependency, world system, and globalisation. Revista Critica de Ciencias Sociales y Juridicas, 4(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Udoka, I. A. (2005). History and the challenge of underdevelopment in the 21st century Africa. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 16, 72–80.Google Scholar
- Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar