This Paper Is a Part of My Course Assignments in Development -Studies Course. It Is in Comparative Development and the Main Intent of It Is to Explicate That, at Least so Far, There Is No Model of Development That Seems
NAME: Qekisi M.
COURSE: DS 403 – 3A: Comparative Development
TITLE: 2. Using African countries’ experience with both state centred and liberal models, demonstrate that there is no ideal model for development.
INTRODUCTION:
The post-colonial regimes in Africa were predisposed to taking a developmental trajectory that was administered by the government. Accelerated industrial growth was to be attained through massive public spending, and the administration of the new professional elite; thus the path taken was structuralism, corporatism or socialism. The systems were not in vogue with the donor community who saw the government as wasteful, inefficient and running a patron-client enterprise. They (donors) prescribed liberal policies through the Washington Consensus with all its utopian, fruitful returns; like the former, pessimism has loomed and with many countries looking for an alternative. In these, focus will be on demonstrating that corporatism and neo-liberal policies have failed African development.
1. STATE CORPORATISM:
Corporatism is divided into state run corporatism and societal corporatism. State corporatism, as it is the focus of this paper, is dominated by elites within the state, who may have even created the functional organizations. State corporatist practices are usually found in authoritarian regimes (King, 2012).
Many African leaders who took office after independence struggle believed that long term development could only be achieved if society was disciplined. They governed through de jure or de facto single party mechanisms. In this, the state apparatus such as the army and police are inseparable with the higher echelons of the party and they are often used to crush descend cohesively. For example, Dr Kamuzu Banda led the Malawi Congress Party which negotiated independence from Britain in 1964. His party won
COURSE: DS 403 – 3A: Comparative Development
TITLE: 2. Using African countries’ experience with both state centred and liberal models, demonstrate that there is no ideal model for development.
INTRODUCTION:
The post-colonial regimes in Africa were predisposed to taking a developmental trajectory that was administered by the government. Accelerated industrial growth was to be attained through massive public spending, and the administration of the new professional elite; thus the path taken was structuralism, corporatism or socialism. The systems were not in vogue with the donor community who saw the government as wasteful, inefficient and running a patron-client enterprise. They (donors) prescribed liberal policies through the Washington Consensus with all its utopian, fruitful returns; like the former, pessimism has loomed and with many countries looking for an alternative. In these, focus will be on demonstrating that corporatism and neo-liberal policies have failed African development.
1. STATE CORPORATISM:
Corporatism is divided into state run corporatism and societal corporatism. State corporatism, as it is the focus of this paper, is dominated by elites within the state, who may have even created the functional organizations. State corporatist practices are usually found in authoritarian regimes (King, 2012).
Many African leaders who took office after independence struggle believed that long term development could only be achieved if society was disciplined. They governed through de jure or de facto single party mechanisms. In this, the state apparatus such as the army and police are inseparable with the higher echelons of the party and they are often used to crush descend cohesively. For example, Dr Kamuzu Banda led the Malawi Congress Party which negotiated independence from Britain in 1964. His party won
References: Brett, E., A. (2005). From corporatism to liberalism in Zimbabwe: Economic policy regimes and political crisis (1980-1997). Crisis States Research Centre, LSE: London. Dibua, J., I. & Ibhawoh B. (2003). Deconstructing Ujamaa: The Legacy of Julius Nyerere in the Quest for Social and Economic Development in Africa. Africa Jounal of politics, 8(1). Keller, K., M. (1996). Structure, agency and political liberalization in Africa. Africa Jounal of politics, 1(2), 202-216. King, S. (2012). Political Transitions and New Socioeconomic Bargains in North Africa. http//www. a f d b . o r g [Accessed 12/04/2013]. Menocal, A., R. (2004). And if there was no state?: critical reflections on Bates, Polanyi and Evans on the role of the state in promoting development. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 765–777. Titeca, K. (2006). Political patronage and political values: The developmental impact of the political patronage and its impact on shaping the political values of rural Uganda. Afrika Focus, 19(1-2), 43-67. ----------------------- [pic]