Developmental Geographies - Book Report/Review Example

Part 3: One commonly used word in political and geographical connotations is the word ‘development’. If you ask a person what the word means, no onecould probably give a same response to the question. For one person, it could be education, while for others it could mean availability of jobs. Others may say that it is industrialization. For some it is globalization, for others, the term means a stumbling block for development. Power’s book has come at the right time and provides a lucid explanation that transcends traditional thinking on the aspect of ‘developmental geographies’. For a critical reader, it has the ability to make one think about development in new ways and spatial dimensions. This paper will provide a brief summary of the author’s arguments, a review of the strengths of these arguments, its overall strengths and weaknesses, and the personal observations about the book. The author’s arguments: It appears that Power’s critical argument is that the term development is difficult to define. He further states that the term and its meaning are in fact controlled to a large extent by the West and other developed nations. It is these powers who assign definitions to the term and expect that it should be accepted in totality by other developing and under-developed economies. Powers state that the central argument of the book is with regard to the role played by these dominant nations and international organizations (like the UN). In his introductory chapter, Powers argues that no one is really conscious of how the term is viewed by say, Chinese, the Africans, the Russians, and those who believe in the Islamic faith. He uses the terms ‘Eurocentric’ and ‘Americocentric’ to illustrate the above views. Ironically, Power adds that even though the United States is considered to be the riches nation in the world, the level of poverty in the country is still an area of concern. This is true for other developed societies as well. He refers to Marx in stating that the capitalistic approach which forms the basis of today’s development policies will only bring about inequality and not development in its real sense. The author states the components of development as seen now is often contradictory. One area of development may result in the stagnation or downfall of another sector. Powers also takes pains to review the role these dominant nations and international organizations (like the UN). The author also looks at popular and accepted theories like Keynesianism, Fordism, Marxism, post-colonial theory, and neo-liberalism, arguing that none of these can help to provide a blanket development model that can be used in all situations. He is particularly critical about the benefits of neo-liberalism and the globalization. Neo-liberalism is the buzzword of the development experts and organizations today. On the whole, Power argues that the current developmental model in the “global capitalist economy, it could be argued, produces inequality and uneven development in a kind of zero-sum game where for every winner there is a loser, for every place that comes to share in global wealth another is pushed out of the equation” (Power 9). For example, high levels of automation can result in quality products at cheaper prices which can bring in foreign exchange. But it can also result in a loss of employment opportunities which is harmful especially in countries with large populations. This could lead to discontentment and unrest (due to even poorer living conditions) compared to a situation that existed before the implementation of Eurocentric developmental models. Review of the strengths of Power’s arguments: As mentioned earlier, Power has written about a wide area regarding the skewed concept of developmental policies as seen today. Some of the major arguments are reviewed here for its rationality and validity. A major strength that can be observed is the Power does not simply state these arguments as his own. He has done extensive research on all of them using relevant publications by prominent persons and organizations. With regard to his observation on the skewed idea of development, this is what he states. Referring to studies by experts like Potter and Gilbert, he states that a majority of studies on development have been done in the more developed parts of the world. For example, India and China, whose combined population that practically dwarfs those of the regions of the developed world have not been studied in depth. Economists and other experts focus more on countries in North America and Europe (includes Eastern parts of the region also). This is an example why developmental theories focus on the models that work in some areas may not work in others. One of the areas in which he has written extensively is the concept of neo-liberalism. The major fault is that this concept focuses on fast track growth which sidelines social and welfare factors. As a result, many policies (like subsidies and other forms of aid) will have to be abandoned in order to create a lean government that is ready for an open market system. The net result is that it shuts the way for developmental models suited to a particular region. Power states that in the current model, economics dictate the terms to the society and not the other way around. The problems caused by this approach are echoed in other studies as well. “While the neoliberals are anxious to point out their victory over inflation and their taming of government deficit, the Mexican economy has been plagued by modest growth, declining or stagnant living standards, massive migration into the United States and the near elimination of much of the small-business sector” (Cypher & Dietz 218). Power just provides the concept of Keynesianism as a part of the phase two of the conventional developmental model as shown in table 3.1. He equates it with Socialism, Marxism, and Neo-classic economic models. Here also the indication is a blanket development policy that does not take individual needs and considerations of nations (or regions) into account. All these models propose a high level of state intervention and restrictions on free trade. The collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union, the Unification of communist East Germany with its capitalistic western counterpart, and the relaxation of trade restrictions by China are examples that such forms of developmental boxes will not work towards a balanced development of a region. Power also criticizes the Post-colonial theories in the sense that the development models echoes the Eurocentric perception seen in other models. Even though it talks of relevant factors like oppression, slavery, migration, and resistance, the ways to correct the lack of development in colonies does not address their specific needs. This can be seen from the lack of development of many colonies, especially those in Africa. Referring to the studies of Guha, Spivak, and Chakravarty (regarding post-colonial India), Power argues that these development policies as put forth in Post-colonial theories do not in any way help to develop the marginalized sections of the society. In other words, it does increase the per-capital income and GDP of a country which are the primary yardstick used to measure development. But it does not in anyway help to measure and correct income inequality. A review of the strengths of the book: Power has used extensive reference to other studies in supporting his views and arguments. It can be said that he has developed his arguments on the basis of other serious studies by authors and organizations and not just hearsay. It is solid evidence which is supportive of his views given in the book. Another strength is that his writing has the power to make the reader rethink about the current developmental polices that are used universally without any real regard to the specific needs and requirements of a particular region or country. The third one is that he has covered not only developmental theories that have evolved over the time, but also referred to fiction that reflects the actual situation that exists in a particular region. Examples are Power’s references to authors like Coetzee, Marquez, and Naipaul. A review of the weaknesses of the book: Critically examining the book, the one and only major weakness is that Power does not provide a workable alternate theory of development. The issues that he has raised only further complicate models containing elements that are contradictory in nature. Examples include loss of employment due to automation and curtailment of aid and subsidies in order to create a lean government. Conclusion: It can be emphatically stated that Power’s book has succeeded in providing this writer, new perspectives regarding development geographies. It has effectively conveyed that the current development strategies developed by advanced countries have failed in providing overall and balanced development. In fact, even these countries have not fully achieved overall development. It encourages out-of-the-box thinking and stresses that a model that works in a particular region might not be effective elsewhere. Further in-depth studies especially in underdeveloped and developing countries are needed to provide more knowledge to provide a workable development strategy. A model that takes into consideration, economic and social wellbeing should be developed for each region. The net result is that a blanket developmental model will not work across all the regions and countries of the world. References Cypher, James, Dietz, James, L. The process of economic development, Routledge. 2008     Power, Marcus. Rethinking development geographies. Routledge. 2004. Read More