Alternative Development as Political Practice

See for example, Alvares Claude , ‘Deadly Development’, Development Forum, Vol. 9, No. 7, (October 1983); Ashis Nandy, ‘Development and Authoritarianism’, Journal for Entwicklungspolitik, November 1986.

The recent tendency of some Third World governments to bring the voluntary sector closer to the administration of conventional development projects and to delegitimize their political role of protest and action for alternative development is best illustrated by the new policy of the Indian government towards the voluntary and non-governmental organizations. For details see ‘On Threats to Non-party Political Process: A Report on a Lokayan Dialogue’, Lokayan Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 2 (April 1985). For a more extensive debate on this issue see Lokayan Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 3/4, pp. 1–51.

For a detailed analysis of changes in the post-war model of development and their implications for the world economy see Fröbel Folker Heinrichs Jurgen Kreye Otto , ‘Dead End: Western Economic Responses to the Global Economic Crisis’, in Addo Herb , Development as Transformation: Reflections on the Global Problematique (United Nations University, 1985), pp. 86–110.

On implications of the new strategies of the conventional model for the Third World countries see, Fröbel Folker Heinrichs Jurgen Kreye Otto , ‘The Global Crisis and Developing Countries’, in Addo Herb , Development as Transformation, ibid., pp. 111–124.

For want of a better term I have characterized here the neo-Marxist reformulations of the dependency thesis, the literature on ‘internationalization of capital' and on the crisis of the world capitalist system as ‘structuralist alternative'. I have ignored some important nuances among various positions within this genre of literature. For, lately, they all seem to converge in viewing alternative development in the context of the crisis of the world economy.

For some representative writings on the dependency school see Cardoso F. H. , ‘Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications’ in Stefan Alfred (ed.), Authoritarian Brazil: Policies and Future (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973); C. Furtado, Economic Development of Latin America: Historical Background and Contemporary Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Andre Gunder Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967). For a Marxist reformulation of the dependency thesis see Samir Amin, Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment, 2 Vols. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974).

With the emergence of newly industrialized countries the dependency thesis was reformulated, even transformed. This gave rise to different theories of internationalization of capital. See, for example, Marcussen H. S. Torp J. E. , The Internationalization of Capital: The Prospects for the Third World (London: Zed Press, 1982). Instead of unequal exchange and trade terms these theories emphasize export of capital from the centre to the peripheries. While this brings the peripheries under the domination of the world capitalist system, it is held that such internationalization of capital does not enhance the growth possibilities of the peripheral countries; it only enhances the centre's sphere of operation internationally. By far the most substantive contribution in this regard is: Folker Fröbel, J. Heinrichs, Otto Kreye, The New International Division of Labour: Structural Unemployment in Industrialized Countries and Industrialization in Developing Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).

Lately, there seems to have emerged among the writers in the dependency tradition a broad consensus on the issues of world economy. Recent works of Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin indicate a movement towards the world system approach associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. Admittedly, there are some important differences among them, marked by the different ideological origins of these writers and the intellectual journeys made by them in arriving at the respective crystallizations of their positions. Hence, for example, the differences between Wallerstein and Amin with respect to the role of class struggle and the salience of modes of production in their analyses. Nonetheless they share a common perspective on the working of the world capitalist system and its impact on the Third World countries. Both the area of convergence and the differences among them are made explicit in a book co-authored by Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein: Dynamics of Global Crisis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1982). That there is continuity of the basic dependency thesis in the literature on internationalization of capital and on world system analyses and that they all share a certain structuralist perspective is shown by Magnus Blomstrom and Bjorn Hettne in their Development Theory in Transition: The Dependency Debate and Beyond (London: Zed Books, 1984), pp. 182–192.

For a comprehensive treatment of issues raised in this genre of literature see Magnus Blomstrom and Bjorn Hettne (note 5).

Unlike even orthodox Marxism, which had an explicit theory of revolutionary action and an agency of revolution, these analyses do not have any notion of an actor or an agency for implementing their political agenda. Lacking political criteria for evaluating action, they often view the new popular movements in reductionist terms and characterize them as ‘retrogressive'. See, for example, Samir Amin's recent article, ‘Apropos the Green Movements’ in Addo Herb , Development as Social Transformation, (note 3), pp. 271–281.

Both on the analysis of emerging multiple dualisms and on the need for evolving politics addressed to multiple dualisms by the grassroots movements see Kothari Rajni , ‘The Non-party Political Process’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 5 (February 1984); ‘Flight into the 21st Century: The millions will be stranded’, Times of India, April 27, 1986; ‘Masses, Classes and the State’, Alternatives, Vol. 11, No. 2 (April 1986), pp. 167–183.

This tendency is best illustrated in a recent article published by an official journal of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) attacking the grassroots movements. See, Karat Prakash , ‘Action Groups/Voluntary Organizations: A Factor in Imperialist Strategy’, The Marxist: Theoretical Quarterly of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Vol. 2, No. 2 (April-June 1984).

The literature on ‘normativist alternative’ comprises a variety of conceptualizations emphasizing different normative elements of theory, and also actions in terms of initiating and supporting movements. It is difficult to take account of all these in the present paper. For our purpose the term ‘alternative normativist approach’ refers to the literature identified as such by Bjorn Hettne in his monograph reviewing the literature on development theories. See, Hettne Bjorn , Development Theory and the Third World (Sarec Report, 1982), Ch. IV, pp. 75–98.

For a detailed treatment of this issue, see my ‘The Knowledge-Power System and Action Groups: The Role of Participative Research’, Social Action, Vol. 34, April-June, 1984.

For a detailed analysis of ideologies, organizations and activities of the grassroots movements, see my ‘Grassroots Stirrings and the Future of Politics’, Alternatives, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 1983), pp. 1–24.

For more details on the problems faced by grassroots movements and their political role, see my ‘Grassroots Initiatives in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 6, February 1984.

For elaboration of the concept of non-party political movements and on the transformative potentials of these movements, see Kothari Rajni , ‘Non-Party Political Process’, (note 8).

While one can find several such organizations and movements operating on the ground in these countries in specific geographical areas and while they have found some expression in the theoretical literature on alternative development and in the form of ‘case studies’, this phenomenon has not yet received the recognition and treatment it deserves by the social scientists as well as by the writers on alternative development.

For the literature on movements and initiatives referred to here see, for America Latin Borda Orlando Fals , Knowledge and People's Power: Lessons with Peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico and Columbia, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1985; Gustavo Esteva, ‘Generating People's Spaces’, Alternatives, Vol. 12, No. 1 (April 1987), pp. 125–152. For Asia see, Vandana Shiva, ‘Ecology Movements in India’, Alternatives, Vol. 11, No. 2 (April 1986), pp. 255–273; Anisur Rahman, ‘The Theory and Practice of PAR’, in Orlando Fals Borda (ed.), The Challenge of Social Change (Sage Publishers, 1985), pp. 107–132. For an earlier pioneering study in the field of PAR see, Niranjan Mehta, Md. Anisur Rahman, G. V. S. De Silva, Ponna Wignaraja, ‘Towards a Theory of Rural Development’, Development Dialogue, 1979:2. Also see Ponna Wignaraja, ‘From the Village to the Global Order’, Development Dialogue, 1977:1. For a cross-section of reportage on the new initiatives see the special issue of Development: Seeds of Change, Village Through Global Order (SID, Rome), 1981:1. Also see Development, 1985:3.