Poverty Amidst Plenty

World Political Economy And Distributive Justice

Edward Weisband

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367299484
• eBook ISBN: 9781000307863
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Edward Weisband's pioneering text is destined to transform the current teaching of world political economy at both the introductory and the advanced level. Outlining the moral principles and ethical concepts fundamental to grasping the human significance of poverty, he clearly reveals what is often hinted at but rarely stated–that the political dimensions of poverty and distributive justice constitute the organizing framework of the study of world political economy. Against a backdrop of readings, Professor Weisband's insightful, interpretative essays generate an interdisciplinary discussion, a synthesis of theoretical perspectives and value orientations, providing students with a critical comprehension of the complex workings of the world economy. The essays link basic approaches to world politics and international relations, international law and organization, international sociology, development studies, and moral philosophy to give texture to such basic theories as modes of production, dependency, world systems, unequal exchange, the labor theory of value, free-trade liberalism, neomercantilism, Marxism, and neo-Marxism. Alternative value orientations are also explored, including realist and neo-realist, conservative and liberal, egalitarian and cosmopolitan, radical and materialist. Poverty Amidst Plenty combines theory and analysis with historical and normative perspectives to offer students a relevant, prescriptive, and most of all, human picture of the far-reaching system that governs much of our lives.

Part One
The Political Economy of Development

Developmental Economics and Political Economy of Development

The objective of world political economy is to explain poverty amidst plenty in a noncircular manner relevant to the normative concerns of distributive justice. We thus turn to the set of preliminary questions raised in Chapter One: What is distributive justice? What is political economy? What is poverty? But in order to answer these questions, we must first consider the specific analytical enterprise that concentrates upon economic change in poor countries—namely, economic development.

Economic development involves the process of transforming the aggregate economic conditions of societies that sustain some or all of the following characteristics: high levels of unemployment, bare levels of subsistence, slow or distorted forms of growth, low levels of national income or savings and high levels of indebtedness, low levels of domestic investment, high levels of urbanization, and depleted rural or agricultural sectors.

Developmental economics as a subfield of the discipline of economics concentrates on the evolution of developing economies and thus upon the methods of assessing economies stricken by poverty. To accomplish its aims, developmental economics seeks to alter deplorable socioeconomic conditions by

1. fostering efficient use of domestic resources;
2. promoting increases in levels of economic productivity; and
3. accelerating economic growth as measured by rising levels of national income, domestic savings, and internal investment.

Economic development is thus the substantive theoretical and analytical focus of developmental economics. The analytical perspective of this subfield differs from that adopted within the subfield of political economy of development. The character and scope of inquiry of the latter are outlined in Part One.

Michael P. Todaro, an economist, suggests possible connections between the two subfields by providing an especially broad definition of development, one that suggests a realm of investigation beyond developmental economics:

Three equally important aspects of development are: (1) raising people’s living levels, i.e., their incomes and consumption levels of food, medical services, education, etc., through “relevant” economic growth processes; (2) creating conditions conducive to the growth of people’s self-esteem through the establishment of social, political, and economic systems and institutions which promote human dignity and respect; and (3) increasing people’s freedom to choose by enlarging the range of their choice variables, e.g., increasing varieties of consumer goods and services.¹

Todaro’s emphasis on the relationship of political and social institutions to economic growth and, in turn, his stress on the relationship of economic growth to human dignity and welfare are not only suggestive of technical economic issues relevant to developmental economics; they also demonstrate the transdisciplinary concerns of political economy of development. Developmental economics is a subfield of economics focusing on the technical aspects of development; the political economy of development is a subfield of world political economy dedicated to the examination of political economy and, thus, of the social, political, and moral consequences of change brought on as a result of economic development. The political economy of development is a subfield of world political economy in that it is devoted to the analysis of social change within the confines of individual societies rather than across two or more economies as in the case of world political economy.

The subfield of political economy of development therefore evaluates the possibilities of fundamental change designed to permit the poor to benefit from the social gains wrought by economic growth or development. It examines the relationship between politics, power, class, and social structure, on the one hand, and the dynamics of social change in development, on the other. In particular, political economy of development depicts the processes by which transformations in social, economic, and political structures affect the living standards of massive numbers of people within societies located mostly in South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central and Latin America.

Political economy of development as a subfield of world political economy thus examines economic growth and/or economic development from the precise perspective of how the poor fare when economic growth or economic development occurs. It asks whether their quality of life, however calculated, becomes better or whether it actually worsens once aggregate or overall economic conditions have improved. These questions represent the major concerns of a political economy of development, and they are illuminated in Chapters One, Two, and Three.

To speak of development is usually to speak of events, institutions, processes, and structures within specific societies. One way to study development from a political economy perspective is to measure and explain poverty domestically within more than one society and to compare findings across them. This set of procedures enables us to balance our assessment of the conditions of poverty on a country-to-country basis. As a consequence of these analytical orientations, moreover, political economy of development tends to dwell upon the socioeconomic and political dynamics internal to particular societies.

This method also permits us to scrutinize on a comparative basis the factors that accelerate poverty, as opposed to those that appear to diminish it. In this way, we can identify patterns of consistency and deviation, which in turn may yield further insights. The specific aim of Chapter Two is to illustrate possible ways of analyzing alterations in poverty and distribution of income during the process of development within poor countries. The purpose of such an exercise within a perspective devoted to political economy is to observe whether and to what extent distributive justice is enhanced by development.

To ask where poverty occurs is a question that appears simple enough— simple, that is, until we ponder the sheer variety of living standards around the world. Accordingly, the readings of Chapter Two briefly outline the units of analysis relevant to a systematic examination of poverty, including that of the “poverty line.” It is only by locating, or “drawing a line around” the precise incidence of poverty that we are able to examine it. Such an effort represents a preliminary phase in judging how injustice occurs within the world political economy.

Another critical unit of analysis in political economy of development is income distribution. Is development conducive to greater or lesser degrees of equality in income distribution? Empirical examination of income distributions, especially those of households within and across lesser developing countries, provides a quantitative measure that enables us to discern how income is disbursed and how “unfair” gaps in income levels appear or disappear as a consequence of economic growth and development. This approach, in turn, permits us to review how inequalities in income distribution reinforce or weaken social divisions relevant to poverty amidst plenty.

The readings in Chapter Two also explore a thesis initially proposed by the well-known economist, Simon Kuznets—namely, that as poor countries develop economically, income distributions within them establish a statistical path traceable in the shape of a “U-shaped curve.” Accordingly, gaps in income distribution worsen once development in poor countries commences, but they diminish as development matures. The validity of the Kuznets thesis, and of various hypotheses subsequently put forth to explain it, has led to a lively debate that is partially conveyed by the selected readings.

Political economy of development is thus a subfield seeking to establish generalizations about income distribution, social change, and economic growth based upon observations concerning development within many individual societies. In addition to this, however, measuring income distribution represents an important first step in the process of applying philosophical standards of justice to explanations of poverty. But we must also undertake a prior exercise central to the field of political economy. This involves an investigation of the relationship of power to distributive justice. It is this very orientation that distinguishes a political economy of development from developmental economics. Such an analytical perspective is illustrated in Chapter Three, which assumes awareness of the debate in political economy often referred to as the “relative autonomy of states.”

The “Relative Autonomy” Debate: Do States Make a Difference?

As previously suggested, the field of world political economy looks broadly at the relationship of politics to economics against a background created by normative standards of distributive justice. Since sovereign states are the primary political units within the world political economy, their capacity to pursue effective policies relating to poverty, income distribution, and distributive justice becomes a matter of great theoretical interest and, occasionally, intense debate.

Furthermore, since the specific emphasis within the subfield of political economy of development is domestic processes of change affecting poverty and justice, Chapter Three inquires into the role and status of states, politics, and governmental institutions and policies in pursuing the goals of distributive justice and equity. To raise this issue is to begin to ponder the extent to which sovereign states may be deemed liable for not pursuing justice at home in accordance with transnational standards of distributive justice.

Analysis of the major instrumentalities within the world economy, capable of advancing the causes of distributive justice, centers on a discussion widely referred to as the “relative autonomy of states” debate. Chapter Three, especially the readings contributed by Richard R. Fagen, James Petras, and Martin Staniland, introduces this debate, which is fueled by conflicting views over the capacity of states and the willingness of governments to bring about changes favorable to the poor. More specifically, controversy swirls around the theoretical issue of whether development can operate independent of economic and class forces, given that these forces predominate over the occurrence of change within lesser developing countries and in ways that tend systematically to disadvantage the poor.

This debate, located at the heart of the subfield of political economy of development, consists largely of disagreements that result from an intellectual clash between those who stress the influence of socioeconomic or class networks and structures, on the one hand, and those who emphasize the role of political institutions of governments, on the other, in determining patterns of social change relevant to poverty and distributive justice. In other words, disagreement has arisen over the relationship between “class” forces and government policies within poor countries during development. Many Marxist-oriented scholars consider the state to be less sovereign than has been widely assumed by mainstream observers. Economic forces and class structures, they argue, severely limit the policy options and developmental strategies available to the governments of lesser developing countries, particularly the options and strategies geared toward the poor. Consequently, domestic development within these societies does not—indeed, cannot—occur autonomously.

Why this emphasis upon relative autonomy, then, as opposed to no autonomy at all? Responses to this question vary, but Marxian analysis often refers to struggles among segments of the rich and ruling classes that control production and the flows of capital investment. It follows, so the argument goes, that governments must retain some degree of autonomy from ruling classes, even though they are ultimately controlled by them, in order to mediate the conflicts that occasionally break out among the ranks of ruling elites. If governments could not act independently of the class elements that dominate them, they would fail to protect the interests of the ruling classes as a whole—and such protection, from this standpoint, is their very purpose. Governments are not sovereign entities but merely the relatively autonomous creatures of the class forces that dominate them. Therefore, the political decisionmaking process that determines economic development invariably reflects, directly or indirectly, the web of class interests that binds states and restrains governments. For those who accept this argument, politics remains secondary to economics.

If politics and state sovereignty are assumed to be relatively autonomous, moreover, so must be the process of development. Analysts of the relative autonomy persuasion suggest that patterns of domestic development can best be understood as the articulations, or reflections, of class forces beyond the control of states or of politics. This assertion contains major implications for any attempt to link concrete instances of poverty to abstract standards of distributive justice. Domestic poverty, according to those who subscribe to this view, represents an articulation, that is, an expression of deeply structured forces in which states and their governments are embedded. One should look not only at the impacts of power and domination but also at those generated by class and exploitation. As a result, sovereign states and the governments that represent them cannot but pursue policies that in the long run reinforce, rather than diminish, the intractabilities of poverty.

The conclusion derived from this logic is clear: Injustice is the natural consequence of states; wherever states are, so will there be injustice. The dismal conclusion to be drawn is that there exists no political mechanism by which to pursue social change and development configured around notions of distributive justice except revolutionary resistance. Accordingly, one should stress not development but underdevelopment in the study of political economy. The proper framework regarding the problems of poverty and equity should be not the political economy of development but the political economy of uneven development, a topic outlined in Part Two.

Policy Strategies, State Realism, and Political Economy

Within the framework established by the “relat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Statement of Purpose: Toward a Pedagogy
• Introduction
• PART ONE THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEVELOPMENT
• PART TWO THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT
• PART THREE THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF STATES IN THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER
• Conclusion: The Morality of States and Cosmopolitan Justice