What is Development? Contrast the evolutionary models of development as elaborated by Marx and Parsons.

  Development’ International development professionals categorise countries into ‘more’ or ‘less’ developed. This post explores the meanings and origins of these terms, looking at the concepts of first, second and third world, before looking at the criticism that such systems of classification are ethnocentric, western constructions. This post has primarily been written for students studying the Global Development option for A-Level Sociology.

The term development is used in several ways, but most sociologists agree that development should mean, at the very least, improvement or progress for people who desperately need positive change in their lives. The main debates about development are underpinned by modernity, meaning that development agencies such as the World Bank and the United Nations aim to replicate within developing societies the material and cultural experience of modern Western societies such as the United Kingdom and the United States.

Consequently, most sociologists believe that development is about achieving economic growth, and the positive consequences which have generally stemmed from that, such as improvements in life expectancy, mass education and social welfare. This generally means that most countries in Europe are defined as being ‘more developed’ while countries in Sub-Saharan Africa tend to be defined as the ‘least developed’.

Development is at the center of the sociological enterprise. There is a healthy debate over the relative importance of the material and cultural foundations of development – and with it, society. The Marx vs. Weber debate on the origins of capitalism stimulated subsequent generations of sociologists to develop their own statement on the material vs. cultural determinants of industrialization and the rise of modern societies. Weberians have looked for the functional equivalents of Protestantism elsewhere in the world. (Eisenstadt 1968) Other sociologists have broadened Weber’s analysis to identify a broad array of cultural and organizational factors need to transform traditional societies into modernizing economies, such as an “interest in material improvement” (Levy 1966), a demand for institutional autonomy that began in Protestant churches but extended into the political and economic realms (Fulbrook 1983), a “disciplinary state” (Gorski 2003), a “manufacturing social formation” (Gould 1987), or a “world culture” (Meyer 1997).

In contrast, scholars who share Marx’s preference for materialist models (Chirot 1985, Collins 1986, Hall 1985) argue for the centrality of power in the formation of capitalism – and the ability of elites to transform economic institutions for their own advantage. Mann (1993) argues that capitalism emerged from the interstices of structures created by actors with social power. Lachmann (2000), in a comparative study of early capitalist development in Western Europe, finds capitalist development was at first an inadvertent result of conflicts among feudal elites.

Wallerstein (1974-89, Arrighi 1994, Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997) emphasize international relations of domination either through market mechanisms or the coercive force associated with empire. From this point of view Europe’s success came directly from their exploitation and underdevelopment of China and the rest of the capitalist periphery. In important works, Tilly (1990) and Mann (1993) offer a reminder of the profound relationship of capitalist development to state formation and war-making. “Primitive” capitalist accumulation was profoundly affected by coercion and imperialism. Sociologists looking at late capitalism would make similar arguments, linking development to extraction of surplus value from the global south, and the use of military Keynesianism to support capital accumulation in the core.

Teasing out the manner in which these political and economic processes intertwine and operate according to distinct logics is a central challenge for contemporary scholars focused on development.

Weberians have responded to the challenge of developing transnational models by introducing the concepts of globalization and global culture, forces capable of constraining nations and states (Meyer et al. 1997). Throughout the debate on globalization, which now pervades sociology as a discipline, an emphasis on development remains a central concern.

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

Any University Assignment Solution

WhatsApp - 8409930081 (Paid)