Theories of Development
Theories of Development
Theories of Development
Development should be the priority of any country. Its accomplishment rests on the
shoulders of the government and the citizens of the country. Development goes
beyond the financial stability of a country; whether its GDP is outstandingly
progressive over a period of time or not. So far, it is general knowledge that
development of any country encompasses both the wellbeing of its finances and its
citizenry. For development to be achieved a country has to undergo certain changes in
social and administrative institutions, political conditions, moral values, etc. The main
goals of development are as follows: improving the quality of life of citizens; growth
of gross national product (GNP); and promoting sustainable development.
Several theories have been formulated in order to explain these changes that occur in
underdeveloped countries in an attempt to achieve overall growth. The classic post-
World War II theory is one of such and it is dominated by four major schools of
thought:
For the purpose of this essay, attention is devoted to the analyzing the Structural
Change Model -which is championed by both W. Arthur Lewis and Hollis B.
Chenery- and the Linear-Stages-of-Growth Model which is championed by Walt W.
Rostow and Sir Roy Harrod & Evsey Domar. Background information of these
models will be discussed which will help us construct a conclusion as to how
applicable or realistic they are in explaining the stages of development in Third World
Countries of the World. Furthermore, based on discussions, this paper identifies which
of the two growth models is superior.
The Harrod-Domar model makes use of a Capital-output Ratio (COR). If the COR is
low a country can produce more with little capital but if it is high, more capital is
required for production and value of output is less. This can be denoted in a simple
formula of K/Y=COR; where K is the Capital stock and Y is Output because there is a
direct proportional relationship between both variables.
There are several criticisms to the assumptions of this model. Let’s start with the
assumption of laissez-faire. It is almost impossible for underdeveloped nations to
undertake certain large projects without the help of the government. As a growing
economy, the private sector has limitations to what they are able to contribute for the
growth of its country and this is where the government intervenes.
Also, as much as savings and investments are necessary for development, it is not
enough. The savings ratio might be constant but low and cannot support the amount of
productivity the country might want to undertake. There are other arrangements that
have to be put in place to complement the savings and investment.
In order to illustrate the structural change model, we’ll consider two approaches, they
are:
The Lewis model was presented in the mid 1950’s and gained popularity amongst
other development theories between 1960’s and 1970’s. This model is applicable in
surplus labor developing countries of the world like China. Two- sector surplus labor
model as the name implies considers two sectors in an underdeveloped economy, they
are an overpopulated rural agricultural sector with marginal labor productivity equal
to zero- this is because agriculture generally under employs workers and a withdrawal
of the excess supply of labor will not result in a loss of output (Lewis, 1954). The
other is a highly urbanized and industrial manufacturing and service economy where
the excess labor migrates to. In this model, Lewis (1954) assumes that there is
employment creation in the urbanized sector that can accommodate the excess labor
being transferred from the rural subsistence economy.
Furthermore, Lewis (1954) added that since this industrialized economy is run by
capitalists, wages paid for labor is fixed instead of it being paid according to the value
imparted on the goods during production. After which the excess of profit over wages
is then re-invested to acquire capital goods and equipment for the purpose of capital
accumulation which results in an expansion of output.
Several contrary arguments have been raised concerning Lewis’ model. There have
been disagreements that his assumptions merely explain the realities of what goes on
in most developing countries. The first questionable fact is that job creation will be
able to match capital accumulation in the work force because if profits are re-invested
in laborsaving capital equipment then the excess labor might get laid off leading to
unemployment of the masses. Although output might increase as well as GDP, the
welfare of the people might remain unchanged.
This is one of many arguments. Moreover, in recent times, Lewis’ theory has been
modified and extended by economists such as John C.H. Fei and Gustav Ranis.
Another Structural Change Model approach is that of Hollis Burnley Chenery (1918-
1944) which is called the Patterns of Demand theory. Chenery’s model defines
economic development as a set of interrelated changes in the structure of an
underdeveloped economy that are required for its transformation from an agricultural
economy into an industrial economy for continued growth in addition to accumulation
of capital both human and physical (Chenery, 1960).
Although, Chenery’s approach better explains the structural change model, it also has
its limitations. One of the criticisms against the Chenery’s structural change model is
that it shortchanges critical valuables judgement. Again, in his analysis of Chenery’s
theory, Krueger identified areas of market failure emanating from exploitation of
static comparative advantage inferior for less developed countries to a more protective
or interventionist approach which merely focuses on producing dynamic comparative
advantages. This observation bears some relevance to the protection mechanism
established under the ‘Common Exchange Tariff (CET)’ mechanism for ECOWAS
member countries. Here, there is clause in the CET that allows Nigeria to use tariffs to
protect some local industries (Echenin, 2015). In spite of these limitations, Chenery’s
model is useful for economic growth where different countries with varying economic
systems are able to support each other in terms of economic relations. On this note,
this model suits the economic development efforts of developing countries against the
backdrop of globalization (Greider, 1997).