Development and International Relations

A Critical Introduction

Anna Dickson

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780745614953, 9780745614946
• eBook ISBN: 9780745666204
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This introductory textbook examines the role of the Third World and the processes of development from the study of international politics and argues that in an increasingly globalized world development can no longer be seen as an isolated practice.

Part I

Development Revisited

Development and International Relations: Theory and History

Introduction

This chapter examines the uneasy relationship between the question of development and the discipline of IR. While this uneasiness may in fact be the logical outcome of the manner in which both the development discourse and IR are constructed, it is not inevitable. This chapter begins by looking at the theory and practice of IR, and how the question of development has been excluded from the discipline. The chapter then explores what the question of development might contribute to the debate. The next section examines what a focus on the question of development in IR might mean. Does it imply that development theory is contributing its concepts and techniques to IR, or that IR is providing the case materials for the study of development? I suggest that IR should by definition include the question of development in a global context within its ambit. This demands at the very least a more inclusive and globally focused discipline.

The theory and practice of IR

‘The systematic study of the relations between states had begun to take shape by the middle of the seventeenth century’ (Olson and Groom, 1991, p. 1). Olson and Groom point to the emergence of the European state system with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) as the birth of world politics as we know it today. Der Derian and Shapiro (1988), on the other hand, argue that the French Revolution and its repercussions signalled the end of interdynastic relations and the beginning of modern international relations between states.

Both these examples refer to the emergence of the practice of modern ‘Western’ IR. In contrast, it is often claimed that IR as an academic discipline emerged in the aftermath of World War I. For example, in Britain the first chair in IR was established at Aberystwyth in 1919. Others argue that IR has always existed and been studied through political theory, law or history.¹

The distinction being made here is between IR constituted as a formal academic discipline, supported by networks of academic staff, specialized journals and specific theoretical traditions, and IR as international affairs or events explained through different disciplines. Thus it is possible to characterize IR as the academic discipline, and as that which the discipline seeks both to explain and understand (and sometimes to predict).

The distinction is a positivist one, between the theory of IR and its practice. Positivism assumes it is possible to observe and know an objective reality, independent of our subjective values. It assumes that our subjective values and beliefs do not influence, or are not part of, the way in which we view the world, and that it is possible to view world events impartially and explain them in a rational manner. Post-positivists, on the other hand, would argue that theory always precedes any observations we might make about the world; that is, theories of IR have been constructed to explain particular realities which they have already defined and circumscribed. IR is by this account a discipline which has constructed its own boundaries, its own ways of theorizing about the world, and its own means of knowing and explaining the nature of international practice. The discipline of IR is also able to influence the way international practice is carried out because it has a legitimating effect. For example, hopeful diplomats may study theories of diplomacy before entering the foreign services of their countries, or theories of deterrence could be said to have influenced the nature of the Cold War. Thus theory and practice are intimately related to each other. It is this latter assumption that informs this book.

However, this book is concerned not so much with the relationship between social practice and discourse as with the claim that the discourse has been a partial one. Thus it is possible to say that IR, the discipline, has been selective in its collection, recording and understanding of events, and so has ignored a significant part of the international system it seeks to explain. As such it has been a more partial explanation than it should be if its definitional focus is international; IR by definition should be at least international² in its scope.

It is perhaps worth mentioning here that there is an on-going debate about the assumed universalism of IR and particular cultural traditions. IR (among other disciplines) has often assumed the desired replication and universalization of particular Western traditions, norms and values whilst ignoring non-Western ones; this amounts to what S. Amin (1988) refers to as ‘Eurocentrism’. While this book does not specifically seek to highlight non-Western traditions of IR,³ one of its aims is to incorporate the study of the ‘developing countries’ and their processes of development within the discipline of IR. Perhaps the means to do so lies outside of the discourse as it is presently construed, although I do not think this is inevitable. The intention is to grasp at a more inclusive discipline (that is, inclusive of the particularity of development) rather than assume the universalism of Western experience. The first step towards this is to look at how IR has excluded the question of development from its ambit.

How has development been omitted from IR?

IR began as an interdisciplinary field drawing insights from law, philosophy, history, sociology and political theory. This has proved both its weakness and its strength. It has left the discipline open to the criticism that it is not really a discipline in its own right, and consequently IR has been amalgamated with various others, most often with the study of politics. It has also, however, meant that those studying IR can draw widely from other fields of study.

What then is the focus of IR, and how has it omitted the question of development? It is important to recognize that IR has been constructed by the West, typically in the UK after World War I and in the USA after World War II. Consequently IR has reflected the concerns of academics (and of policy makers) from these countries, and has not always been keen to engage in theoretical debates originating outside them.

The first of the so-called ‘great’ debates in IR occurred between two rival interpretations and understandings of the international system: the idealist (or Utopian) and the realist perspectives. While idealism perhaps had the potential to create a more inclusive discipline, realism, reflecting very much the post-war hegemony of the USA, narrowed the scope of the debate significantly.

After World War I, the victorious powers, namely the USA and the UK, agreed that war, a legitimate tool of conflict resolution, was catastrophic in its consequences and should therefore be avoided at all costs. This consensus, the idealist tradition, held that international society was essentially social in character, with various norms and values creating a fundamentally moral context within which states act. Thus war was seen as the product of misunderstandings amongst potentially moral beings in an international society (Hollis and Smith, 1991).⁴

Realism in contrast, ushered in by the publication in 1939 of E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–39, challenged the idealist belief that politics could be the realization of ethics, and that an orderly international society of states could exist. Realists argued that states, unlike individuals, could not act in response to an abstract moral ideal; they were by their very sovereign nature destined to compete with all other states for power and security in an essentially anarchical international system. ‘Anarchy’ in this context refers to the absence of any supranational authority; that is, to the fact that there is no world government or sovereign power to monitor or regulate the behaviour of states.

A large volume of realist literature was therefore concerned with the causes and consequences of conflict in the international system, and specifically conflict amongst the great powers. When realism triumphed after World War II, the focus of IR became one of maintaining the external security (and in effect the sovereignty) of the state in the face of international anarchy. International politics was termed high (read: ‘important’) politics. In contrast domestic issues, such as development, were considered to be low politics and not the concern of IR. Realism thus made an explicit distinction between the international and the domestic, based on the presence or absence of sovereignty.

While economic processes are clearly related to state capacities, IR also made an explicit distinction between the economic and the political. IR was about politics. The question of development, on the other hand, was an economic one. Thus the lens through which IR viewed the world was one which highlighted the importance of international political concerns and did not therefore include the concerns of national economic development.

The focus on power and security⁵ (see chapter 9) was given credence by the Cold War, which provided fodder for the growth of security or strategic studies. Framed in realist terminology, power became the means and the end by which the state survived. Importantly, the Cold War emerged at the same time as the process of decolonization was accelerating. This had implications for the manner in which the Third World was viewed.

Historically, most of the Third World was incorporated into large empires and was studied as part of colonial policy, mainly through international history. Independence struggles were approached from the point of view of how to devolve power peacefully, the potential effects of the loss of empire, or the study of those politicians who paved the way for decolonization. International history was written from the more powerful nations’ point of view.

The emerging Third World states were not major power players. Reason dictated that those states which had no influence on (power in) the international system were not the focus of IR. Instead the Third World became a matter of foreign policy concern; a place where Communism must be contained. Crisis in the Third World was recognized; the Vietnam War, the invasion of Grenada, the existence of Cuba, even the success of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have all been part of the study of IR. To the extent that the developing countries have presented a threat to international security, they have been watched and studied not so much for their own contribution to the extant international system, but as part of the wider concern for international order.

Finally, IR did not seek to be a discipline which concerned itself with normative questions; that is, with questions about prescribed forms of conduct or with moral standards (Barry, 1981). Indeed in its recent past IR has sought to rid itself of its more normative tradition in idealism, believing that there is no room for morality between states (C. Brown, 1992). Realism claimed that international politics should be approached in a more rational and scientific manner, with careful analysis of the cause and effect of states’ actions. Realism contended that the rights and duties of states did not go beyond political boundaries. Consequently questions about international justice, the distribution of resources between states, or the extent of poverty in the world could not properly be addressed (O. O’Neill, 1993, p. 308).

Political realism remains the predominant, but not the only, perspective in IR. It has greatly influenced the manner in which IR has evolved. Subsequent to the debate between idealism and realism there was another (less significant) debate between realism and behaviouralism.⁶ Since the 1980s it has often been argued that there are three rival paradigms in IR: realism/neorealism, liberalism/pluralism and neo-Marxism, each offering a different view of the world. The debate between these perspectives is termed the ‘Inter-Paradigm’ debate.

However, the three paradigms start from different assumptions about the nature of the international system, the character and significance of its units, and the processes at work.⁷ Thus there is no objective means for choosing between them, and hence not much real debate (Hollis and Smith, 1991). Despite their incommensurability, both the liberal/pluralist and the neo-Marxist perspectives have challenged a number of realist assumptions and altered the focus of IR, so that questions of development (albeit in a limited form) have not been entirely excluded.

Briefly, the liberal/pluralist school of thought encompasses both transnationalism – that is, the claim that the state is no longer the dominant actor in the international system but is challenged by other, non-state actors – and interdependence – that is, the belief that increasing links between national economies make states more vulnerable to events in other parts of the world (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The existence of other actors and their activities in various spheres means that power no longer resides in states alone, and that the national (or state) interest becomes difficult to define or identify. The transnational approach points to new types of actors and activities, which changes the nature of international relations from interstate relations to a more multifocal approach. The interdependence perspective claims that increased trade, investment and technology linkages lead to increased vulnerability and sensitivity between actors. IR thus becomes a function of economic linkages as well as of world politics.

The liberal/pluralist perspective has held a certain appeal for the Third World because it seems to imply that all states are linked by their mutual vulnerability. No longer, as in realism, are weak states unimportant; interdependence implies there is a mutuality of interests between the North and the South. Thus in 1974, the call for a new international economic order (NIEO) argued that changes in the global economic order which would help to develop the Third World were essential for the future progress of the whole world. However, interdependence, as it was conceived, applied only to the North. Some states (in the North) were more equally interdependent than others (in the South). The NIEO was in effect stillborn, and the South quickly lost faith in the myth of the universality of interdependence. (For more discussion of the NIEO, see chapter 7.)

The Marxist tradition has traditionally only occupied a small part of IR. It was revitalized in the nineteenth century through the study of imperialism, but was ignored again by mainstream IR until the 1970s. The neo-Marxist tradition which emerged out of Latin America in the 1950s, provided an analysis of a capitalist world economy which incorporates an industrialized centre, or core, and an underdeveloped periphery. In this sense, by including the periphery in its analysis, it is more ‘international’ than the other paradigms have been.

The neo-Marxist or dependency paradigm became for scholars in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, as well as Marxists scholars in the West, the theoretical and ideological perspective through which they viewed the world. At its heart was the question of development; that is, how best and under what conditions development can occur, and what the obstacles to development are. The catalyst for interest in neo-Marxism by IR scholars was provided by the confrontational nature of North–South relations in the 1970s and its impact on the international system. However, since then neo-Marxist approaches have tended to be depicted as fringe elements of the discipline (Olson and Groom, 1991). Although the neo-Marxist paradigm is recognized, and listed (Korany, 1986), it is not used to explain phenomena. This may in part be due to the deficiencies of the paradigm in terms of its explanatory potential (and this will be explored later). However, it is also a result of the discipline being seen through the lens of the hegemonic powers and their concerns. Consequently only relatively few IR scholars have grappled with the question of development.

Thus it is possible to argue that the manner in which the discipline of IR has been constructed has made it inhospitable to engaging with questions of development, in particular in the Third World. There is in effect an institutionalized inertia in traditional IR which discourages research on the question of development.

What can the question of development contribute to IR?

Implicit in the term ‘development’ is some degree of teleology; that is, it implies a process of change and transformation in a particular, purposeful direction. As a starting point we shall assume development to be an on-going process of qualitatively ameliorated social, political and economic change – that is, progressive change which improves and sustains the quality of life of human society. (The means by which this will be achieved does not concern us immediately.) This definition does not assume a single specified end point; the act of development is an on-going process (rather than a stage).

If we ask whether the process is the same for all societies, the answer must be negative. Nor is it the same in all historical periods. Different temporal and cultural environments make possible different development outcomes. This should not imply that there is no value in comparative studies of development policy and practice. Comparative studies help us to make sense of, or organize, processes which have enough in common to make their differences significant. Even if particular development experiences appear to be unique, we can only understand them as such with reference to other experiences of development.

The way we decide what constitutes meaningful development will necessarily include some element of subjective choice. Anthropologists argue about whether tribal societies should be left in their traditional state or be given the benefits of civilization as we know it. Conservatives, in general, argue that traditional society is necessarily good because it upholds tested values. Yet societies do change, through internal dynamism and external responses, and what we seek to understand when studying development is the nature of these changes and the forces which influence them.

Development studies, as a f...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Tables of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I Development Revisited
• Part II The Global Economy and Development
• Part III The Third World in the Emerging World Order
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index