Local Self-Reliance versus Power Politics: Conflicting Priorities of National Development

“The Cocoyoc Declaration,” United Nations General Assembly document (A/C.2/292) of 1974, discusses self-reliance in this context. It is quoted and discussed in Galtung Johan O'Brien Peter Preiswerk Roy (editors), Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development (London: Bogle-l'Ouverture, 1980), pp.401–411.

The most famous statement on this type of strategy is Schumacher E.F. , Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered (London: Blond and Briggs, 1973). See also, George McRobie, Small is Possible (New York: Harper and Row, 1981) and Guy Gran, Development by People: Citizen Construction of a Just World (New York: Praeger, 1983).

This is the position taken by Johan Galtung, “The Politics of Self-Reliance,” ch.20 in: Galtung, Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development and other authors in this volume. See also Kothari Rajni , Environment and Alternative Development, WOMP Paper 15 (New York: Institute for World Order, 1981): Samuel L. Parmar, “Self-Reliance in an Interdependent World,” in: Erb Guy F. Kallab Valeriana (editors), Beyond Dependency: The Developing World Speaks Out (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council, 1975), pp. 165–169. Poona Wignaraja, “From the Village to the Global Order: Elements in a Conceptual Framework for ‘Another Development’,” Development Dialogue, vol 1, 1977, pp.35–48; and Mary Anderson, Self-Reliant Development: A Comparison of the Economic Development Strategies of Mohandas Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung and Julius Nyerere, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1978.

Preiswerk Roy , “Sources of Resistance to Self-Reliance,” ch. 19 in: Galtung , Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development; and Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1971).

Kohr Leopold , Development Without Aid: The Translucent Society (New York: Schocken Books, 1979); and Chadwick Alger, “The Role of People in the Future Global Order,” Alternatives, vol 4, no 2, October 1978, pp.233–262.

The most cited works in the world order literature are probably those of Richard Falk and Johan Galtung. See for example Galtung Johan , The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective (New York: Free Press, 1980); and Richard Falk, A Global Approach to National Policy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975).

Amin Samir , “Self-Reliance and the New International Economic Order,” Monthly Review, vol 9, no 3, July/August 1977, pp.1–21. For an analysis of one such case see Thomas Biersteker, “Self-Reliance in Theory and Practice in Tanzanian Trade Relations,” International Organization, vol 34, no 2, Spring 1980, pp.229–264.

Such views are shared by most Third World policy makers and proponents of the New International Economic Order. See Streeten Paul , Development Perspectives (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981), pp. 193–212. As with several of the authors discussed, Streeten spans the communitarian and statist positions. Also Manfred Beinefeld, Summary paper on the deliberations of a conference on “Self-Reliance as a National and Collective Development Strategy,” Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, November 11–13, 1979. For further arguments supporting self-reliance as a way of achieving autonomy with respect to the international system see Mahbub ul Haq, The Poverty Curtain: Choices for the Third World (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975) and John Gerard Ruggie, “International Interdependence and National Welfare,” ch.1 in: Ruggie John Gerard (editor), The Antinomies of Interdependence: National Welfare and the International Division of Labor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

Much of this writing is based on mercantilist thought, a long-standing tradition in Western political economy but one which is less often cited than the predominant liberal paradigm. For a discussion of its historical development see Bowden Witt , An Economic History of Europe Since 1750 (New York: American Book Co., 1937). Besides the eighteenth and nineteenth century American and German mercantilist schools, there was also an important school of protectionist writers in Romania in the 1920s which has recently undergone some reanalysis by writers interested in contemporary self-reliance. An important example of this school is Mihail Manoilesco, The Theory of Protection and International Trade (London: P.S. King and Son, 1931). For a contemporary reanalysis of this school see Jowitt Kenneth (editor), Social Change in Romania 1860–1940 (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1978). There is also evidence that an open world economy was by no means universally perceived as the correct road to international recovery after World War II. For an analysis of this debate see Craig Murphy, The Emergence of the NIEO Ideology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984).

For an analysis of self-reliance as a stage during which interdependence can be renegotiated on better terms see Senghaas Dieter , “Dissociation and Autocentric Development: An Alternative Development Policy for the Third World,” ch.12 in: Merritt Richard L. Russett Bruce M. (editors), From National Development to Global Community: Essays in Honor of Karl W. Deutsch (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981).

This debate is summarized and analyzed in Alker Hayward R. Jr. Biersteker Thomas J. , “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire,” International Studies Quarterly, vol 28, no 2, June 1984, pp.121–142.

Galtung , “The Politics of Self-Reliance,” is the only author reviewed who has adopted this multilevel framework within which to discuss self-reliance: his definition of self-reliance includes most of the characteristics outlined in Table 1 but normatively he is closest to the values associated with individual and local self-reliance.

Some reasons for the failure of regional integration schemes in the Third World are given in Axline Andrew W. , “Underdevelopment, Dependence and Integration: The Politics of Regionalism in the Third World,” International Organization, vol 31, no 1, Winter 1977, pp.83–105.

For two such designs for “real world” nation-states see Rousseau Jean-Jacques , “Constitutional Project for Corsica” in: Rousseau, Political Writings, Watkins Frederick , ed. and trans. (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Government of Poland, translated (with an introduction and notes) by Willmoore Kendall (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972).

For Rousseau's views on direct democracy see “The Social Contract,” particularly p.109: Rousseau Jean-Jacques , The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Mankind, ed. with intro. by Crocker Lester G. (New York: Washington Square Press, 1976).

I use the term “men” without any ambivalence since, whatever Rousseau said about men he never intended to apply to women. For a full discussion of Rousseau's views on women see Okin Susan Moller , Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp.99–194.

For Rousseau's views on education see The Government of Poland. Also “The First Discourse” which is a condemnation of the corrupting influence of a scientific education: Rousseau Jean-Jacques , The First and Second Discourses, Masters Roger D. (editor), (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964).

Rousseau, “Social Contract,” p.31. See also “Discourse on Political Economy,” pp.209–240 in: Rousseau Jean-Jacques , On the Social Contract with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy, Masters Roger D. Masters Judith R. , trans. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), pp.212–213.

See Rousseau , Social Contract” for a discussion of the general will.

Ibid, p.56.

Rousseau , The Government of Poland, p.81 and “Project for Corsica,” p.283.

Friedrich List, The National System of Political Economy (London: Longman's Green, 1904). This analysis also draws on List's “Outlines of American Political Economy,” reprinted in: Margaret Hirst, Life of Friedrich List (London: Smith Elder, 1909).

List, National System, p.90. See also all of ch.12 for a discussion of the development of productive powers.

Ibid., p.132.

Ibid., ch.5, pp.47–53. This analysis of Anglo-Portuguese commercial relations is remarkably similar to a contemporary study of the same subject by Sideri S. , Trade and Power: Informal Colonialism in Anglo-Portuguese Relations (Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1970). This study is particularly interesting in that it reanalyzes Ricardo's famous example of comparative advantage over time.

Ibid., pp.143, 327.

My analysis of Gandhi's views on self-reliance draws extensively on Gandhi Mohandas K. , Collected Works, 90 vols. (Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1958-).

Ibid., vol 47, p.91.

Ibid., vol 69, pp.218–219.

Das Amritananda , Foundations of Gandhian Economics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979), pp.63–65.

For a comparison of Gandhi's and Nehru's economic policies see Krishna Raj , “Nehru-Gandhi Polarity and Economic Policy,” Mainstream, August 5, 1978.

Nehru Jawaharlal , Independence and After: A Collection of Speeches, 1946–1949 (New York: John Day, 1950), p. 145.

Norman Dorothy (editor), Nehru, The First Sixty Years, 2 vols. (London: The Bodley Head, 1965), vol 1, p.373, vol 2, pp.179–180.

For a favorable analysis of the Green Revolution see Etienne Gilbert , India's Changing Rural Scene 1963–1979 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982).

This tension is the subject of an unpublished manuscript by Weiner Myron , “Capitalist Agriculture, Peasant Farming and Well Being in Rural India,” 1983.

Critics of the Green Revolution include Frankel Francine R. , India's Political Economy, 1947–1977 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), ch.7; and Wolf Ladejinsky, “Ironies of India's Green Revolution,” Foreign Affairs, vol 48, no 4, July 1970, pp.758–768. For a more general critique of a capitalist agricultural society see L.C. Jain, Grass Without Roots: Rural Development Under Government Auspices (New Delhi: Institute of Social Studies Trust, 1983).

For an important analysis of the problems of the Indian bureaucracy see Heginbotham Stanley J. , Cultures in Conflict: The Four Faces of Indian Bureaucracy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975).

Analyses that support this interpretation of the priorities of Indian development include Mellor John W. , The New Economics of Growth: A Strategy for India and the Developing World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976); and Lawrence A. Veit, India's Second Revolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976).

A reevaluation of the goals of this strategy and its adequacy for alleviating poverty is the subject of an ongoing debate in India today. See Bhagwati Jagdish N. , “Growth and Poverty,” unpublished manuscript, May 1985.

Norman , Nehru: The First Sixty Years, vol 1, p.76.

For an analysis of foreign aid to India see Weiner Myron , “Assessing the Political Impact of Foreign Assistance,” ch.3 in: Mellor John W. , India: A Rising Middle Power (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979).

For analyses of foreign investment and foreign trade respectively see Kidron Michael , Foreign Investments in India (London: Oxford University Press, 1965); and Desai Padma , Tariff Protection and Industrialization (Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation, 1970).

Norman Nehru : The First Sixty Years, vol 2, p.302, vol 2, p.455, vol 2, p.468.

For an analysis that argues that Indian development was driven by the necessity to modernize in order to achieve national power see Nayar Baldev Raj , The Modernization Imperative and Indian Planning (Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1972).

Mellor John Oldenburg Philip , “India and the United States,” ch.1 in: Mellor, India: A Rising Middle Power. See also Onkar Marwah, “India's Military Power and Policy,” ch.4 in: Marwah Onkar Pollack Jonathan D. (editors), Military Power and Policy in Asian States: China, India, Japan (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980) and Stephen P. Cohen and Richard L. Park, India: Emergent Power? (New York: Crane, Russak, 1978).

Norman Nehru : The First Sixty Years, vol 2, p.98.

These various viewpoints are outlined in Gourevitch Peter , “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,” International Organization, vol 32, no 4, Autumn 1978, pp.881–911.

Political science in the United States is evidencing an increased interest in the role of the state in shaping social, political and economic processes. See Evans Peter B. Rueschemeyer Dietrich Skocpol Theda (editors), Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

For a relevant historical discussion of state building in the West see Tilly Charles (editor), The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

This attempt to renegotiate India's position within the prevailing world capitalist economy, rather than to opt out of it, is consistent with the predictions of the world system's literature. See Wallerstein Immanuel , The Politics of the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p.50.

See ibid., p.144 where Wallerstein argues that any transformation to a more egalitarian society can only be achieved through a transformation of the whole global capitalist system. Wallerstein is also of the opinion (p.107), that the contemporary world system would not allow any one state to “secede” unilaterally.