The UPSC Blog

Civil Services Exam, UPSC etc.

Anti development Thesis: Concept in pub ad syllabus

without comments

The anti development thesis can be a confusing concept in the syllabus of Mains public administration. Some students are discussing it and you can read the details below or see the link for full text

 

this one is posted by Kunal

kunal
Anti development …
Against the idea and methods of devlopmental….due to reaosn
1. Environmental degradation due to devlopement
Dev mainly concerned on economic devl …lead to more problem of pollution , slums , GHG etc ….. climate unsustainable…..
later various climat initiatives …rio earth summit 92, copenhagen , montreal protocol etc………stresses on env sustainability
2. Social cost ….. Dev led to uprooting of some communties….and exploitation
eg … narmada bachao andolan , current POSCO case …. these are anti devlomental movements…
3. Feminism …. dev male dominated, women bind devloment…dint recog the role of women …..her household activities….etc…..
many women cmissions etc emerged for the same…..
4. certain theorist— applied dependency theores—- west using east for their own purpose….. east becomig dependent on west ……
5. Food security …… too much mal nutrition in Africa…but they r growing cash crops like tea, cofee for trade…..is this devlopmemt? …… food shld not be traded just like other commercial items like steel , minerals, oil etc…..
However criciticms for anti devel
1. dint look into the positives of developments..
2. Dint suggest the solutions……if not this then wht shld be done..

 

Pratik…
Good one….it was posted by me ….at that time….i had narrow understanding of public administration ….infact these r just examples
Essence of Anti-Development thesis is the criticism of the efforts of Development Administration(DA) by certain section of society who analysed the negatives of the work done by Development administration……
Who criticised?
1. Some environmentalists— above examples
2. Some sociologists ( mainly feminists ) who thought development is not considering gender perspectives (….leading to GEI— Gender empowerment index , some national and international NGO’s criticised DA work as male driven only)
3. Some local communities who thought Development is westernizing their economies—above examples
4. Some religious fundamentalists who thought DA thinkers thinks only western community (christian) is developed….they thought their efforts is leading to spread of christianity and also these fundamentalists have perception that DA thinkers thinks –Islamism is anti-development
Again criticism
1. Over reaction to western society
2. Dint talked about their own definition and actions of development
3. Neglected many positives of development ( give examples of 1980 developments )
etc
etc so on….
My last year post is very narrow….pls dont read in that perspective

And yaa one more point
one more actor who criticised …..some theorits —-Dependency theorists ( point 4 of the post by Pratik)
Dependency theorists thought that due to heavy financial aid provided by developed world for development ….it is leading to dependency of developing on to developed …..like for financial aids , setting up of industries etc……
These theorists criticised DA because they were highly tensed for the huge deficits and some developing countries fell into Debt trap — they thought that these developing economies need to finance the aid again from the developed itself

 

r u people sure that these are anti development thesis……????coz…in sociology we read different modles of development ..envoirmentalist,gandian,modern,marxist ,hegalian , femenist..etc etc…they have diff conception of development..but dont claim them selves anti development…..these alternative emerged as critic of modernity based form of development…
i have little confusion please someone clarify

 

@Harsh
Whole Idea of Anti-development Thesis is that
These critics are not against the development……
…they are against the consequences (too much negatives) of development……which these sections of society are tensed about and who are really effected due to the initiatives of the efforts of Development administration
@All
Another idea of Anti-development idea is that this mass section of society want that they do not want that some few people enjoy the fruits of development ….and y only they feel the negatives of these development initiatives…….
So one of the conclusion of Anti-Development thesis is that …….there should be largest of the largest mass participation in the initiatives of development ……..
So the conclusion of anti-development thesis is actually called for Truly Bottom up approach , truly participative model of development considering all the critics sections of the society as well.

 

the things which Kunal wrote is correct, there is no problem with the explanation…
the logic is simple, its not just development, one get ‘anti’ to something when the things are not done in a proper way (like benefit to all, no corruption, 3e’s in achieving certain objective, equity, etc), same in case of development..
For example, suppose ur state started getting developmental projects and naturally ur state is developing but on the other hand the law and order condition started getting bad due to emergence of Mafia and some other bad elements. in this case though we appreciate the development but will criticize more the bad elements bcz one can live with less development and good law and order condition bcz of prevailing peace and tranquility in the society, if other things are available.
so if the development has to be taken place then it should be in a proper way…

 

r u people sure that these are anti development thesis……????coz…in sociology we read different modles of development ..envoirmentalist,gandian,modern,marxist ,hegalian , femenist..etc etc…they have diff conception of development..but dont claim them selves anti development…..these alternative emerged as critic of modernity based form of development…
Ya that is the same question which boomed into my mind and I did quite a research on it.I found that in socio we have 2 schools i.e critical theorists like Habermas and post modern theorists like Harvey and Chonskey…now the former is not the anti-dev which is in pub add as this school was in 1930s but the latter i.e post modern school emerged in 1970s and this is anti-dev..
now it has taken new phase post 1990 like feminism,environmentalism
Correct me if I am wrong..

 

give a thought

democracy and Good governance are contradiction in terms.
1.structural adjustments
2.good governance-NPM based hence anti poor
3.top down approach of GG rather than bootom up of participatory democracy
4.GG by multilateral body believes in one best way.democracy is plural.

Sachin Thakur
give a thought
democracy and Good governance are contradiction in terms.
1.structural adjustments
2.good governance-NPM based hence anti poor
3.top down approach of GG rather than bootom up of participatory democracy
4.GG by multilateral body believes in one best way.democracy is plural.
1. Structural adjustments—- RUle of law, Independent judiciary, free and fair elections, etc……Are they against Democracy?
2. Good Governance—-out of 8 …it talks about Equity—-Pro-poor…..Wht democracy says…….NPM is one way to reduce wastage only….GG is not Anti-poor….it specifically talks about Equity
3. GG—– One of the feature out of 8 is Governance shld be participatory…..how is it top down ?
4. Multi-Lateral agency provided solution to a problems which was leading to corruption, misuse of power, unbalanced development, rich–richer, poor–poorer—– is that bad?…

 

what you said are true but good governance as mandated by world bank etc ALSO requires the inevitable participation of PRIVATE SECTOR for availing its funds and it was in this context try to analyse good governance vs democracy.
your points are true but represent one side of the picture.i mentioned the statement in the light of ant-development thesis.

background

1.1950-1960
centralist development.after the great depression 1930;led to emergence of keynesian philo and state led dev eg–new deal.
robert chambers–aeroplane view.
2.1970-80
growth centric to people centric.
according to chambers–helicopter view.
in both these cases experts thought that they knew about the population and development is what the center views and plans.
these type of dev plans cud not solve the complex problems of developing nations.it was in the context that development from below assumed importance.
the anti dev thesis
divided into two waves–1st and 2nd.
contd..

1st wave

*held that dev models in 3rd world counries very costly.
large number of people displace from homes due to construction of dams,industrial activities,mining etc.displacement caused impoverishment.Cost and benefits hve not been equally divided amon people.
This wave QUESTIONED THE VERY CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT.
HALLMARKS:
1.interest not in dev alternatives but in alternatives of dev hence rejection of entire paradigm.
2. interest in local and indegenious knowledge;promotion of pluralistic grassrooot movements.
3.critical stance towrads established scientific discourses.
criticism–too vague
doesnt provide useful alternative.
highlights only negative points;not the +ve aspects

2nd wave

2ND WAVE THEORISTS POINTED OUT THAT LACK OF INTRUMENTALITY /ALT APPROACH DOES NOT PROVIDE GROUND TO DISMISS POST DEV ENTIRELY.
acknowledging that development is far more COMPLEX AND DIVERSE.it not only acknowleges the diff between west and non west but also within these regions.eg-heterogeneity in african culture.
the 2nd wave was NOT AGAINST ENDING DEVELOPMENT AS ESPOUSED BY T
HE FIRST WVE.neither it called for return to earlier modes of primordial life.
for the 2nd wave theorists alternative dev must be INSPIRED AND LED FROM WITHIN.(no externally forced like i mentioned).this APPROACH argues that developing world has a responsiblity of their own economic and social development in accordance with their priorities and plans and reflected by their political and cultural diversities.hence development has to be initiated from within the system rather than depending on external agencies

different modes of community organization

1.grass root organization
2.pressure group ctivities
3.participatory action research
popular participation(elections etc)———to——–community participation
pseudo————to—————authentic participation
coercive———to—————spontneous participation

cricticism

1.conflicts and rivalies are not uncommon among poor.so romantic visison of harmony not entirely feasible.
2.some amount of external intervention necessary as people are not organized enuf.
3.child marriage,khp pnchyat etc ie deeper social evils. need externl control

examples—some are repetition of kunal’s post

1.enviromentalism
2.feminism
3.cosmopolitan vslocalism—-rise of local movements against intrusion into local culture
4. Fundamentalism
5.opposition to sate led development

kunal

in earlier post u had written
one more actor who criticised …..some theorits —-Dependency theorists ( point 4 of the post by Pratik)
Dependency theorists thought that due to heavy financial aid provided by developed world for development ….it is leading to dependency of developing on to developed …..like for financial aids , setting up of industries etc……
These theorists criticised DA because they were highly tensed for the huge deficits and some developing countries fell into Debt trap — they thought that these developing economies need to finance the aid again from the developed itself
it was in this context that i mentioned good governence not in its general notion of rule of law,transparerncy,accountability,etc.

mohit bhatt has provided three connotaions to good governnace.
1.as a more encompassing phenomenon–role of plurality of institutions
2.as an idea linked to INTERNATIONAL AID CONDITIONALITY.
3.as incorporating ideals–rule of law,transparency,human rights,participatory development.
the second aspect has been criticized as —-the world bank is seeking to"politicize" the otherwise technical issue of aid conditionality.Moreover THERE CAN BE DIVERSE WAYS OF GOVERNING IN MULTI-CULTURAL CONTEXTS.Critics also pointed out that it is like "one best way" of classical theory and is unsuitable in pesent governance which demands more open-endedness than rigisity.(SYSTEM’ s Theory).
As far as the 1st and 3rd connotations are concerned,as you said they are always welcome.

1. Just think of Weberian Model ……weberian Model was based on Ideal model
He provided excellent ideas about Bureaucracy(B)
If the B functioned on weberian manner …..then it wud have been excellent……but it dont function in that menner
Weberian model remains the Ideal Mental construct
Similarly Good Governance is based on Ideal Model also …….that is Democracy..
What are ideal features of Democracy
Consensus Oriented
Participatory
following the Rule of Law
Effective and Efficient
Accountable
Transparent
Responsive
Equitable and Inclusive
these 8 are also the features of Good Governance also
If these 8 features of Democracy functions according to perfect ideal model ….then there would not be any problem

but What happens In democracy………when it applies all these 8 principles ….it contradicts these all 8 features of GG
How?
1. GG says ….there shld be elections…..free and fair…….so Democracy provides free and fair elections….so GG says bring democracy to ensure this feature
but when applied in real terms…wht is happening in Democracy In developing countries…..
Election system —- First past the post electoral system…….get votes = opposition + 1 and win elections and come to power…..
What happened in elections…….How much the ruling govt gets the votes?…..40% of the total people in the country and win…………it is not the govt of majority ….it is the govt of minorty people only……..Is it participative ?
No……..So the manner of elections in Democracy contradicts participatory nature which is against Democracy
2. And who comes to positions of power during election?……
those who have Muscle and money power can contest elections and win elections…..
So are these free and fair?
So Democracy doesnt provide this solution which is again participatory nature of GG
3. Again ……does democracy provides solution to criminalisation of polity ?…..Election watch says most of MPs are criminals
Rule breaker becomes the Rule maker …..which is against the feature of Rule of Law of GG ………Does democracy functioning provide this solution?
3. What the Govt do ?…….fragmentation of society on the basis of religion, caste etc to gain support of the people…….Does democracy provides any solution to this problem?
This hampers again Inclusiveness of the soceity ….Govt functions for those sections of soeciety who voted them ..
this is again against the inclusiveness feature of GG (Good governance)

i agree with ur answer from the GS point of view.
but yaar GOOD GOVERNANCE as a term was first highlighted in 1989 by World bank.so from pub ad point of view we have to analyse good governance from the perspective of world bank.
apart from the factors you have listed, there is this AID CONDITIONALITY factor which has been criticized VEHEMENTLY as it goes aginst SOVEREIGNTY.
(please refer mohit bhatt book.it is given nicely there)
and so in my opinion this question is a two-sided one.
as far as GOOD governance in GENERAL is considered(with no aid conditionality,world bank etc) your answer is very apt.
But i think we cant leave out World bank/development agencies while discussing Good Governance

4. What happens in policy making?……
In order to gain the ppl support……make populist policies …..which are economically unviable …….u see the range of subsidies, and other benefits……instead of empowering people , govt distribute them free of cost……….
GG says that there shld be NPM…..efficiency and economy….but In democracy wht govt do is Economically unviable policies ……Does democratic functiong provide the solution to this?
here it is again a contradiction between rational policies and democratic functioning
5. Democracy says concensus…….Co-alition of many parties provides inclusive parcitipation and concensus building…
but in terms of functioning wht happens
Corruption and policy paralysis as seen recently in India

And u cannt go on Criticising Democracy in this manner
half of the answer shld be criticism of statement
that only Democracy features can ensure GG
i think u can write how it supports

Now..
Y I have accepted this answer for this question
I have googled regarding Democracy and GG
I found that in 2008-2009 , there have been studies in Developing countries ….
which says this only
http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/publications/workingpapers/no.47.pdf
refer this link
this is public admin man
read this whole document
After reading this document ….i accepted this views
UPSC must have asked this question due to these studies only…..this is my guess

e-governance is there since long bak but recenly lot of CAPACITY bUILDING efforts are on ..in other worlds people are no longer e-iiliterate as compared to 1990s.
NPM was brought to remove deficiencies like red-tape,ineffieciency in admin.NPM relies on effieciency,downsizing,private sector etc so if e gov can fulfill the criteria of efficiency etc so why not vouch for e- gov instead of ANTI -POOR NPM??

Written by upsc aspirants

August 2nd, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Leave a Reply