Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 295-306 Pergamon Press pk. 1988. Printed in Great Britain

Book Reviews

Dev$opment theory: the background to the debate in the dghties

Population and Development in the Third World (Methuen Introductions to Development), A. Findlay and A. Findlay, 84 pp., 1987, Methuen, London, 0.50

Dewlapment and Underdevelopment in Historical Per- spestjve: Populism, Nationalism and Industrialization, G. Kitcding, 196 pp., 1982 (reprinted 1986), Methuen, London, ES.50

The Ipevelopment of Capitalism in Africa, J. Sender and S. Smith, 177 pp., 1986, Methuen, London, f7.95

I hdve always been m favour of a little theory. We must have Th ught; else we shall be landed back in the dark ages (George Eli !I t, Middlemarch, Chapter 3).

Development studies are pre-eminently a field where a clear theoretical framework is essential. They frequently deal with very large issues and several countries. Allan and Anne Findlay’s slim volume Population and Development in the Third World introduces key issues: the statistics of population growth, mortality and fertility patterns and the concept of the demographic transition. They review the relatkn of population growth to food, work and govern- ment policy. The book meets the requirements of its target audience - upper school, first year university - with up- to-date details, a summary at the end of each chapter and five case studies. The daunting facts of population growth are carefully studied, apart from an apparent proof- readjng slip on page 46. Still, there is a lack of an overview. There is a failure of any announced theory, although assumptions are of course present. In the context of the Green Revolution, the Findlays write: ‘If the world is a ‘!global village”, as is often claimed, it is to be hoped that international flows of goods, ideas and technology will take ~place, assisting in the alleviation of overpopulation; and bopulation-resource imbalances.’ But this belief in the insertion in the international trading system has been a central point at issue in the development debate of the last quarter of a century. The fear quickly arose that Third World nations would be forced into dependence on the great industrial powers.

The hear origins of ‘dependency theory’ are to be found in a model drawn from development being something to be passed, like a football along the back line. What was claimed to have worked in Europe with the Marshall plan after World War II would be applied to the Third World - say, Latin America. Investments would be sprinkled and ‘trade would blossom. The dependency theorists, Frank being a chief figure, rejected this as leading to the development of underdevelopment, a worsening of their plight, not a betterment. Walter Rodney was to demon- strate How Europe Under-developed Africa (Dar es Salaam, 1972). The answer, it was urged, could only be in

self-reliance by, and among, Third World countries. It was a logical enough outgrowth of the post-colonial experi- ence .

Dependency was, however, more of a metaphor than a theory. It was too simple - not too simple to have great appeal, but too simple to have substantial explanatory power. Canada, for example, was in some ways dependent on the United States, but it made no sense to include it in the Third World. Moreover, the core and periphery of a world system were understood too exclusively in terms of trade. In the seventies, therefore, more emphasis was laid on the realm of production rather than exchange. Samir Amin, an Egyptian intellectual with a considerable follow- ing in Africa, might be cited as an example of one who developed the notion of unequal exchange, not simply on the basis of trade, but in the price of labour power which tends to be higher in the centre and lower at the periphery, so that there was a transfer of value from one to the other.

Self-reliant growth was still central to any discussion of Third World strategy. Only in that way would a country be free to choose its development path. T.J. Byres, in the later 1970s saw only two roads away from poverty for the Third World, either socialism or capitalism. Between the two, however, he recognised that there was a cul-de-sac which he described as neo-populism. He characterised this as having an emphasis on social equality, a mystical faith in the countryfolk, an opposition to the city and a distaste for industry (Byres, 1979). He recognised these characteristics in the work of Michael Lipton (Lipton, 1977; Venturi, 1966) and pointed out that the tradition was quite old. This lead was taken up, from a different perspective, by Gavin Kitching Development and Underdevelopment in Histor- ical Perspective: Populism, Nationalism and Industrializ- ation. Kitching wrote a textbook and presented an argument; the former is perhaps stronger than the latter. He traces the roots of populism to the Ricardian socialists and Sismondi early in the nineteenth century and brings it forward to the Owenites and Proudhon, although he recognised (p. 30) that some of them can be as properly claimed for the socialist and trade union tradition. This leads into a full and interesting discussion of Russian populism which is marked by an acceptance of some form of industrialism, provided it is state dominated. His chief text here is Chayanov’s The Theory of Peasant Economy (1925) which argued against the idea of differentiation among the peasantry and, indeed, claimed that peasant farming was not capitalist, but could compete very successfully against capitalists. This offered an alternative framework for economic growth. The relevance to those who were much later to preach against the ‘urban bias’ of development studies is obvious. In the area of depen- dency, Kitching points out the readiness of the Russian populist tradition to accept foreign economic assistance while rejecting cultural dominance. The transition to the development theorists is via the European peasant parties of the inter-war years with their anti-urbanism and emphasis on redistribution of land for securing economic growth.

295

296 Book Reviews

This part of Kitching’s book is original and of undeniable interest. It must be said, however, that it seems to lack rigour at some points. The definition of populism (p. 21) speaks of opposition to industrialization and large scale industry. So broad a definition would subsume not only many socialist thinkers but also romantic conservatives; space would have to be found for Carlyle, for example. Further, the suggested links between the populist thinkers and development theorists are rather unsatisfactory. Various words are used to describe the connexion (pp. 21, 63, 152,155,158, 175 and 178). On p. 152 the dependency theorists are the heirs of populism but on p. 177 they are not the direct descendants. Again, there are some surprising omissions from the populist tradition: the populists of the New World are largely ignored, although Byres’ article had pointed to them.

The appeal of the book will surely be in the ‘user-friendly’ discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various development theories. It is admirably clear and well balanced, but comes down finally against the populists. Industrialization is necessary. So is international trade - thus self-reliance is largely rejected.

Byres had suggested that there were only the socialist and capitalist roads. Kitching, in the early eighties, cast doubt on both. Certainly the socialist option seemed under challenge from left and right. Bill Warren and his student, Sheila Smith, argued for the success of capitalism in the Third World (Warren, 1980; he had foreshadowed these views in articles in the early 1970s). At this time the achievements of some Third World capitalist states were trumpeted (e.g. Brazil and Singapore) and the free-market advocates were already gathering. The target, especially perhaps for Smith and her co-author, John Sender, was Samir Amin. He rejected their criticisms and reasserted the verities of- the tradition of the theories of imperialism in an article in 1983.

For Amin, there was a world capitalism that constrained peripheral economies. A radical break was necessary for them to develop. The chief contradiction was between imperialist capital and the peoples of the periphery, so that there was a link between national liberation and socialist transition. The result of these struggles were different in each case. Sometimes the political struggles produced a clear socialist outcome, at other times a statist outcome. The results might not be clearly progressive but the gains that were made had to be protected. ‘The question of delinking results from this historical situation; it is not possible for the forces which aspire to advancing the outcome of the contradictions in a socialist direction to subject themselves, through too strong an insertion in the world system, to the influences of the logic of capital’ (Amin, 1983; see also Smith and Sender, 1983). Delinking was not the end of the story, however, it did not settle the struggle, but once socialism was established the inter- national system could be rejoined without fear of sub- ordination or threat from a comprador bourgeoisie. This led to an important further point. The question was, said Amin, posed wrongly by Smith and his other critics. It was not a matter of explaining the inequalities of development by reference either to the class structure and forces of production internal to a society or else to external domination. One had to take a view which comprehended the two. It was not enough to understand classes ‘. . at the immediate level in their local (or national) environ- ment . . .’ (Amin, p. 376).

John Sender and Sheila Smith’s The Development of Capitalism in Africa may be seen as an extended reply to Amin. It is true that Amin is not mentioned, but the whole issue which he raised makes its presence felt by its absence. The book is an extended argument that ‘. . . the emergence of capitalist social relations of production constitutes the central,dynamic process in a wide range of African societies . . .’ (p. 128). Self reliance is rejected. African countries need to develop a successful trade strategy and have failed to do so because of the dominance of the Amin-style theories with their emphasis on self- sufficiency and inequitable core relationships with devel- oped countries. The pessimism about involvement in world trade is unjustified.

It is well to recall that we are not dealing with barren theories but with pressing realities. So, before looking at Sender and Smith it might be as well to glance at an example. In 1980 the Southern African Development Co- ordination Conference was formed from nine countries in the region. In a sense it is a special case because of the threat of South African dominance in the region and the destabilizing effects of apartheid, still there is no mistaking it as a product of the dominant ideology in development in the late seventies. It emphasises delinking, south-south co-operation and it is centred on production, not trade. Energy, communications and agriculture sectors have been among the most active. From the start the projects presented to aid donors co-operating in the construction of SADCC have been for infrastructure and productive functions, such as concrete plants in Mozambique and tractor assembly in Zimbabwe. There is the paradox that the aid ties increase the integration into the world capitalist system (socialist countries have played little part as donors) but SADCC has insisted on setting the priorities and diversifying the sources of assistance. The ideology of self-reliance in co-operation with neighbours - essential for so many land-locked states - has persisted through the eighties despite the enormous cost of South African destabilization and the inroads of the ‘more market’ policies of the I.M.F. and the World Bank. And this continues in a group of states with very varied ideologies. Considering the broader issue of self-reliance, A.M. Baba wrote: ‘There is nothing necessarily “Marxist” about putting forward a case for delinking from the so- called “world market”; it is plain common sense. You don’t need to be a Marxist to know that the economic structure we have inherited from colonialism . . does siphon off most of our economic surplus to our “trading partners” in the developed world . . . and as long as this situation continues there will be nothing left to accumulate in order to reinvest for extended reproduction or development’ (Baba, 1986).

Sender and Smith provide a succinct account of the development of capitalism in Africa in the twentieth century. Very reasonably, they limit their case studies to eleven sub-Saharan states. They provide a sketch of the developments in the pre-capitalist and colonial situations. They then focus on proletarianization, in the belief that the productive organization whereby direct producers sell their labour power is at the centre of capitalism. In considering the post-colonial period, their emphasis is on the role of the state which they see as important for late industrialization. In tracing that, they stress the develop- ment of the productive forces in recent years, measuring these by growth in GDP, manufacturing as a proportion of GDP and growth of machinery imports. The presentation

Book Reviews 297

is very clear if sometimes a little over didactic. It does not have the elegance of John Iliffe, The Emergence of African Capimlism (1983), but is better furnished with statistical and economic evidence. A trenchant last chapter contrasts the ‘effective reality’ of African capitalism with the ‘wishful thinking’ of those who aim for self-reliance in countries where socialism is not on the agenda and those who would argue that capitalism is deformed in Africa. The ‘$capegoatism’ of blaming foreign powers for the ills of the African economies should, they claim, be replaced by a government activated drive for developing exports and getting right the balance of macro-economic variables.

This is a book with a message. As such, the omissions may catch the reader’s eye. The role of pre-capitalist for- mations is played down, (in the twentieth century they are not survivals, rather ‘inventions of tradition’), the sheer variety of capitalism (what are we to do about petty commodity production?) and the importance of gender (treated by a brief description, rather than analysis) disappear from view. It would also have been valuable to have isome sense of the continental and world operations of imperialism. Even the section on the colonial period tends to ignore all that is beyond the borders of the colony. The southern African colonies of Britain were heavily influenced by the labour demands of the gold mines but those mines were a major British interest and a concern of the imperial administration. There is a real risk of getting the picture wrong if the attempt is made to present the making of an African working class without the imperial dimension.

A very interesting chapter on the post-colonial period lays emphasis on the crucial role of the state in the process of accumulation. Sender and Smith document the growth in state expenditure, the state encouragement of import substrtution industry, the subsidies, protection and the incentives for business. The state has operated to con- solidbte the bourgeoisie through credit priority, access to land, import licences and so on. The comparison to be made here is possibly with what has been termed dominion or white settler capitalism (Ehrensaft and Armstrong, 19811 Denoon, 1983). There, too, a high level of state intervention existed and it may have fulfilled some of the same functions. The authors offer material which would be useful for a comparison which has not, except in relation to South Africa, previously been made.

But what was the state? It is disappointing that Sender and Smith do not address the theoretical issues involved. Indeed the theoretical elements of the work are perhaps a little unsatisfactory. Colonial trade and production is analysed in terms of linkage, an ongoing activity giving rise to pressures to take up new activity (p. 10). This is not very helpful, only leading to a shopping list of connected activities. But the disguised conflict with the theorists of imperialism and dependency has influenced this approach: the authors are anxious to emphasise connections and to rebut the notion of enclave production - the concept that development tended to take place in self-contained enclaves, say around a port, with few carry over effects for the rest of the country. Yet, a study of Lowveld Zimbabwe shows that the multinationals there have created such enclaves (Teichova et al., 1986). Again, all that the reader is offered by way of a theory to underpin the case for industrialization via import substitution is ‘an appropriate balance of macro-economic variables’. These are foreign exchange, wage and incentive goods and the financing of public investment, but it is not clear what overall analysis suggests these considerations rather than others.

Sender and Smith believe that the development of an appropriate export strategy is impeded by the, in their view, mistaken adherence of some African states to notions of self reliance drawn from theories of imperial- ism. Their argument is that there is a demand for African exports but some governments are not taking the initiatives to seek these markets (pp. 113-127). They point to the way in which some states are able to sustain growing exports in a particular commodity, say, cocoa. while others show declining volumes in the same commodity. Such a case is, of course, difficult to demonstrate for the situation of the states are rather different. There are divisions within the market for what is ostensibly the same commodity and the phenomenon of enforced bilaterialism sometimes makes it difficult to change the location of markets. There are so many variables to be considered that, while the reader can be grateful for the points raised, there is the sense that much remains to be said. Often the path of their reasoning would lead -if they would let it - back to the world system. For example, to claim that commodity concentration - Zambian reliance on copper, for example - is not an important area of earnings instability seems to involve a consideration of world prices for such commodities and how they are set.

It is surprising that there is a failure to give extended consideration to the multinational corporations. These constitute a major threat to Third World countries recognised by the appointment of a U.N. Commission from 1974. The debates there bring out the need for the regulation of negative practices in such areas as the balance of payments, taxation, the transfer of technology and conservation. The companies have resources beyond those of some states and themselves constitute a threat to sovereignty. Both Kitching and Smith/Sender might have better appreciated the significance attached to self reliance if they had studied the multinationals more closely (Teichova et al., 1986, pp. 351-361).

The affirmation of self reliance, the perception of the dangers of too close an integration in the world trading system, is not some romantic gesture by those with a memory of the colonial past; it is a pressing reality. The constraints imposed, are still present. Sender and Smith recognise that the economic fortunes of Mozambique are influenced by the war being conducted by the M.N.R., but still think that they can isolate ‘. . . key macro-economic choices . . subject to domestic control . . .’ (p. 112). This belief arises in part from the nature of the theory which they are using and perhaps is also a product of the emphasis which they put on the role of the state in development. Economic issues cannot be consigned to one box and post-colonial conflicts to another. The black joke that the only industrial growth in Mozambique is in factories producing artificial limbs makes the point. There, the process of accumulation can no more be considered without the bandits than can the early stages of Soviet economic development be considered without the Civil War and foreign intervention.

The debate on the theories of imperialism continues unabated in the eighties. Refinements are being made. Few would argue now that nations as such are being exploited; there is more sensitivity to class structures with- in and between the core and periphery, if one chooses to use those terms. Lenin and Hilferding in that respect, seem more, not less, relevant (Lenin, 1916; Hilferding, 1981).

LUKE TRAINOR University of Canterbury, New Zealand

298 Book Reviews

References

Amin, S. (1983) Expansion or crisis of capitalism. Third World Quarterly 5, 361-385.

Baba, A.M. (1986) Ideologies and the Third World. Third World Book Review 1, 14.

Byres, T.J. (1979) Of neo-populist pipe-dreams: Daedalus in the Third World and the myth of urban bias. Journal of Peasant Studies 6, 210-244.

Denoon, D. (1983) Settler Capitalism. Oxford. Ehrensaft, P. and Armstrong, W. (1981) The formation of

dominion capitalism, economic truncation and class structure. In Inequality, Moscovitch, A. and Drover, G. (eds). Toronto.

Hilferding, R. (1910) Finance Capital (transl. Watnick, M. and Gordon, S. 1981, London). Chapter 2.5 ‘The Proletariat and Imperialism’.

Lenin, V.I. (1916) Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Lipton, M. (1977) Why Poor People Stay Poor. A Study of Urban Bias in World Development. London.

Smith, J. and Sender, J. (1983) A reply to Samir Amin. Third World Quarterly, 5, 650-656.

Teichova, A., Levy-Leboyer, L. and Nussbaum, H. (eds) (1986) Multinational Enterprise in Historical Perspec- tive, p. 337. Cambridge.

Venturi, F. (1966) Roots of Revolution. Warren, B. (1980) Imperialism Pioneer of Capttalism.

London.

Rural New Zealand: What Next? L.T. Wallace and R. Lattimore (eds), 1987. Agrobusiness and Economic Re- search Unit, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, NZ$29.70 pb

From 1984 the New Zealand Labour Government, follow- ing the preachings of its tough and determined Finance Minister, Roger Douglas, embarked on one of the most dramatic switches in public policy ever experienced by a democracy. New Zealand was going broke. Its public borrowing was dangerously high, nearly half its payments were in the public service, and inefficiency was rife. Agriculture had been specially favoured since, prior to the commitment by Britain to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community, New Zealand essen- tially earned its living as an agricultural exporter to its dominant Commonwealth partner. The Douglas reforms changed all that. Public subsidies were slashed or re- moved, state run departments became publicly owned corporations with boards of directors and performance targets worthy of the toughest requirements in the private sector, and competition was built into all public invest- ment.

For the farming community, the shock was profound. Virtually all price support and investment grants were phased out. The New Zealand agricultural economy is essentially unprotected. Advice for agricultural develop- ment became chargeable. Marketing and other services were also subject to charges. In short, the New Zealand agricultural scene went through the experience that many would like to see happen in Britain, except that in New Zealand there is neither money nor votes in conservation or tourism as part of a tertiary sector agriculture. New Zealand farmers are on their own.

This volume does not address the effects of these dramatic changes. Partly, this is because the story is too recent, so a complete and faithful picture would be difficult to re- produce. But equally the problem lies in the dearth of statistics pertaining to New Zealand agriculture prior to 1984. For the student of the changing political economy of agriculture, there is precious little documentation of the New Zealand experience. What a shame, because that experience should have much to tell us in the European Community.

Surely then, this book falls far short of its promising title. It was thrown together in a hurry. Twenty-nine con- tributors were reputed to complete their manuscripts during the early phase of a New Zealand summer. Few produced anything original, the co-ordination between chapters is poor and the lack of attention to the future- orientated theme is a major failing. What does emerge is a useful historical compilation of New Zealand agriculture as it was up to the era of ‘Rogernomics’. There are some sound chapters on the role of agriculture in the New Zealand economy (about 14% of GDP in 1984/5) on farm structure and income (less agglomeration than has been happening in the U.K. and not quite so impoverished as in Britain), and on the changing pattern of farm labour (surprisingly stable from 1900 to 1980 with virtually no drift off the land). The chapters on the patterns of subsidy are interesting for their historical significance and in revealing how dramatic recent changes have been, as are the two articles on agricultural advice. But in general this is a descriptive rather than prescriptive text, the influence of the editors appears rather ephemeral, and the necessary sharp focus of forecastable analysis is noticeably lacking.

The evidence suggests that New Zealand farmers are holding their own. About lo-20% have gone out of business since 1980, but not dramatically more since 1984, Diversification into goats, deer and special breeds of sheep and cattle has been a prominent feature, as has the shift to horticulture, where the international markets are more robust. New Zealand farmers have also formed tough marketing organisations both abroad and internally, so the products are being sold. The main problem is the high domestic interest rate which penalises the entrepreneur with bright but risky ideas. The kiwi farmer of the future is more likely to be a business person than an agriculturalist. So far there is no scope for the environment in all this, and no sign of public support even for publicly valued by- products of good husbandry. New Zealand farmmg is in danger of becoming very aggressive and unloved.

TIMOTHY O’RIORDAN School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia, U.K.

Environmental Law, David Hughes, 1986, Butterworths, London, f14.94

As environmental issues in their many varied forms have become increasingly common topics for debate and dis- cussion in parliament, council chambers, the media and the classroom, it is appropriate that a text should be published which seeks to provide a detailed and compre- hensive commentary on the ‘structure and development of environmental law’ not only within the U.K., but also