Lecture: Political Development and Modernization

1: What  are the characteristics of the countries about which this course is concerned: Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East.?

What distinguishes them from United States, Great Britain, Germany. Poverty?, Rural and agricultural?  Unsophisticated technology? Political characteristics. Weak government? Absence of democracy?

BUT government in Iraq NOT weak? Average per capita income in Saudi Arabia is $6,790 while it is $200 in Sierra Leone and $800 in Sri Lanka (former Ceylon) . Is Saudi Arabia proportionately MORE developed than Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka or just has more money from oil. How do you know?  What do you measure? Is there one scale for what is development.?

Why not include Eastern European countries formerly part of Soviet Union in course?? Why not include Ireland?

a. Third World
Vicky Randall calls these countries Third World countries what does this mean:
 

a)Mostly former colonies of European countries

b) countries which failed to develop economically after becoming independent from former colonial powers

c) Most trying to create nation states out of diverse groups of people

LACK: democracy, equality, sustained economic gowth and effective policies to combat poverty

 why 3rd?  1st is developed, industrialized countries such as US, 2nd Communist countries (differing in having strong, authoritarian control over economy, society and polity gone now but certain aftermath of communism suggest discusses these former communist countries separate from other poor countries AND therefore I am not covering them, here).

Third World Countries also referred to as  the poorer half of the North-South debate because most of the developing countries are in the southern hemisphere. Not a very useful distinction because there are developed countries in the south (Australia for example)

b. Development and Modernization
Alternatively these countries are called under developed and this implies that they are moving on a scale from being underdeveloped to being developed. In fact, of course, definitions of development are arbitrary and depend on the orientation of people who express them but there is a connotation of moving from something inferior to something superior or mature. Human being are said to be developed when they mature physically and mentally.  Most common definitions of development were advanced by Western scholars (from US, Great Britain) and discussions on development became very widespread when Britain, France and to a lesser extent Belgium began to lose their colonies at the end of World War II. These had been considered territiories belonging to the wealthier industrialized countries who had conquered them. Now in the fifties and sixties they were to become countries. Not surprising that the perspective of the writers was pro- the US or Western European model in other words, they made the assumption that the goal of development was to become more like the United States. That is wealthy, industrialized, urbanized. Modernization (or development) was to take place in all dimensions of human life: social, cultural, economic, political
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Characteristics of Ideal Traditional & Modern Societies
Modern                                                                                            Traditional

    Physical and Demographic Environment
High urbanization                                                                   Minimal Urbanization
High Literacy                                                                        Minimal Literacy
Low disease Rates                                                               High disease rates
Low birth rates                                                                     High Birth rates
Low death rates                                                                   High death rates
Low vulnerability to Natural disaster                                     High Vulnerability to N D

    Social Structure and Social Stratification
Nuclear families                                                                  Extended Families
High differentiation                                                              Low differentiation
High Vertical Mobility                                                         Low Vertical Mobility
High Horizontal Mobility                                                     Low Horizontal Mobility

    Economic System
Limited function units                                                  Multi-functional Units
Industrial                                                                    Agrarian
High per capita income                                                 Low per capita income
High surplus capital production                                     Low surplus capital production
Well developed economic infrastructure                       Minimal infrastructure
 

    Culture and Media Systems
Socialization at primary and secondary levels               Socialization in primary family
         (schools, mass media, economic soc)
Belief systems stress values and behavior                  Belief systems stress values con-
  conducive to achievement and innovation                   ducive to ascription and fatalism
Participant political culture                                        Parochial political culture

            Political Systems
Limited Function units (clearly differentiated        Multi functional units( poorly
from other societal groups)                                    differentiated from other groups)
Individual participation                                        Communal participation
Numerous, complex functions performed              Few functions
by political system

    Attitude and Behavior Patterns
High ego development                                    Low ego development
Rational-scientific reasoning                            Superstition
Other-directed                                              Tradition-directed
High demand and expectation levels   Low demand and expectation
High empathy                                                  Low empathy
Long range time perspective                        Short range time perspective
High sense of civic responsibility                  Low sense of civic responsibility
High innovation                                             Low innovation
 
 
 
 

THUS: According to modernization theory, every aspect of human  life is linked: attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, economic performance and political structure and the process of modernization involves moving from one end to the other of a spectrum

Is there anything wrong with this? Do you accept? Problems:
1)Not all people in industrialized countries behave or think or are characteristically like this
2)Implies an inferiority of the traditional countries but they may have other  valuable characteristics which are less often found in so-called developed countries:
a.more religious and spiritual
b.fewer family breakups
c. less oriented to consumerism
d. less wasteful of environment
e. assumes we know an end point. There is an ideal society and it is like us but there may be something else. Also existence of inequality and injustice in our society

Nonetheless, this is commonly considered modernization or development in the broadest sense

C. Economic and Political Development
What makes people move on this spectrum, you may ask, what makes a country develop? The early scholars were Westerners as I said and many were economists or heavily influenced by economists. Development would occur because the system of linkages would be jolted by an injection of surplus capital with the aim to force the pace of industrialization. Industrializing will bring about changes in all of society . One of most popular books on this was by Walter Rostow, The Stages of Economic growth; A Non-Communist Manifesto (1959) which explained the process in very simple terms:
Five stage process:
a. traditional stage (no surplus)
b. pre-conditions for take-off (trade and commerce diffused, capital for investment, leading elite) c
c. take-off (investment at least  10% of national income, political and social instituions support) lasts for 20 yrs
d. drive to maturity (high investment continues, modern science, political reform)
e. age of mass consumption

 Key is existence of surplus capital invested into economy and bringing changes population migrates for jobs, cities grow, agriculture becomes more efficient, education spreads (to provide skilled workforce), attitudes and expectations change. Even though initially the elite and some specific areas of the country would benefit (because investments would be uneven) eventually everyone will gain as the country moves up on the modernization spectrum.

Political development, then, which would be the growth of a more specialized and capable political system based on a participant political culture would come about as the economy develops and peoples attitudes and expectations change buit this raises a couple of questions with which I want to end the lecture:

a) If economic growth brings about change in political attitudes and behaviors, then you can not have a democracy in a developing country. Is this true?

b) Is politics  determined by economic growth? A a political scientist, I would think we would question that.. we will continue next time
 
 

September 10:Lecture 2: Political Development and Dependency

A. Political Development Almond versus Huntington
(Most of the discussion in this lecture can be found with much more detail in the Randall book Chapters 1-4)
Started last time by discussing what the characteristics are of developing countries what makes them developing and when and how do they reach a state which can be called developed. I pointed out that there was a strong Western bias in most discussions of development and that people generally seem to think being developed means coming to be like the United States: industrialized, wealthy, educated, high technology and sophisticated infrastructure. The problem with this definition is that every country may not wish to have all American characteristics such as high rate of consumerism, inequalities in society, high stress, lack of moral fabric Nonetheless, most countries which are currently underdeveloped place  high value on developing economically and the countries which have been most economically successful DO tend to begin to resemble the US, UK in terms of most of the characteristics suggested in the Traditional to Modern dichotomy  I put on the screen last time

The last thing we discussed was how development takes place and I briefly presented Walter Rostows theory of take-off emphasizing the stages of economic development. The assumption is that the injection of surplus capital to motor the industrialization of a country will bring about economic growth and development which will result in the modernization of society as a whole because everything is linked together.

Start today by going back to this notion that political, social, economic characteristics are connected together in an interdependent system and that changes in one will affect all the others. If this is true , than jump starting the economy should lead to changes in social structure, attitudes, behavior and, of course politics. What is wrong with this notion or is anything wrong with it..?

One question I raised was , if this is true, does it mean that economics determines everything  if so why are we studying POLITICAL development?

1) Many political scientists view the political system as an interconnected network of  basic functions. Gabriel Almonds method of describing this is one of the best known. He wrote that ALL political systems  must have three functions including the simplest tribal system found in Wolof kingdoms in Senegal West Africa in the 1900s to the United Kingdom today. The three functions which all perform are :

      (1)capabilities: extraction (taxes), regulation (control of people and implementation of laws),distributive (getting goods and services to the population), symbolic (patriotic functions, creating feelings of citizenship and responsive ( listening to and adapting to demands made by groups in the society)

(2) a conversion function: the set of political structures which initiate or process demands and convert them into outputs such as laws, rules, regulations (the 1st four of the capabilities are the outputs). These may be (in the most undeveloped political system) simple and undifferentiated, that is in a nomadic tribe in Afghanistan, the chief will make all decisions and these will be simple  ie who gets the land, if they are to go to war, how to punish someone who disobeyed the community. As the political system develops , the government (which is what the chief is) becomes more complicated with more personnel filling more specialized jobs and the responsibilities become more extensive. Thus too in regard to being responsive, in  a simple tribal system, the citizen directly approaches the ruler  who is close by to ask for something but generally expects the ruler to make all decisions. As you look at more developed political systems the ways in which demands are expressed become more complex until you get interest groups, political parties etc.

(3) System maintenance and adaptation : recruiting and training elites to keep system going, socializing citizens  through education and propaganda which changes as circumstances change. Thus as a society industrializes and citizens become educated and middle class, the patterns of training about citizenship will change and the responsibilities of those citizens will change. In the simplest states, citizens obey a leader little different from them who has a few basic responsibilities. In an advanced country citizen have many responsibilities to elect and control their rulers and rulers in turn have vastly more responsibilities in governing.

Almond presumed that political systems change to become more complex (have more roles to fill) and more differentiated and specialized so that government is larger with officials who are specially trained for specific jobs, and centralized. Also ways of making demands become more complicated to (people now form interest groups (AMA), trade unions, political parties etc.

As you can see, this is consistent with the modernization theory . The idea is that there are basic political functions which are linked to each other and these functions, of course, linked to different aspects of society and culture moving from the simple to the complex. Complex systems are typically wealthy, industrialized, high degree of participation, sophisticated, complex and efficient government etc. This is the modern side of the dichotomy.

Like Rostow,  and the developmental economists advising industrialization as a way of bringing about development, Almond thinks that the different aspects and functions of political systems strive for an equilibrium. Thus if you  shock the system, it will adapt to handle the shock and strive to make changes to compensate. Thus when democratic institutions were introduced at independence to former colonies, these had to form large mass political parties to try to retrain the population to different expectations about how they should behave  that they should vote and control their rulers, that they had a right to express their needs..
 

c. A Political Institution Approach.
Not all agree. Do systems necessarily strive for equilibrium can not shocks and changes lead to chaos, anarchy and revolution rather than to development? How do you explain systems which are inconsistent: Nazi Germany  high economic development, widespread education relatively modern on all dimensions.

This is the perspective of Samuel Huntington . His is the Cynics view that strong political institutions are the most important determinant of development because can force policies and conditions Governments, he says, may develop but they may also decay and this may happen if they are unable to meet rising demands of  the population.  Thus, other changes like industrialization or the spread of education by themselves may produce negative political results. There is no necessary striving for an equilibrium within political systems. Look at governments in Africa after independence in the 1960s most underwent a coup and went from being democracies to being ruled by the military much of Latin America too experience repeated government coups in the 50s and 60s. Why?  For example, if you develop the economy through industrialization and all the benefits go to a particular elite, this may begin to cause resentment and unrest. If you spread education and develop a wider and wider class of people who expect to share wealth and political control and they are unable to do so, you are likely to get   dissatisfaction and unrestIndeed, unreast may become so widespread that economic growth is stopped or reversed. Therefore strong effective political institutions are crucial and key to success of development and it may be wise to slow down the mobilization of the population towards full democracy.  AND it is neither correct or safe to assume that investing in industrialization is the only thing needed to bring about development. IT is true that most developed countries have more of the characteristics which the modernization theories identify with being modern, and political systems do appear to be more complex, specialized, differentiated as Almond describes them, but it is not necessarily true that stimulating the growth of one characteristic will inevitably bring about all the others. Thus, according to Huntington, it is the power and efficiency of the political institutions such as parties and the government which may be key to guiding development and it certainly is not economic growth alone.

d) Dependency
So far we have looked at overall development as a move on a spectrum from traditional to modern and we have looked at political development as one piece out of that spectrum. We have decided (at least I have) that investing in industrialization may be a good strategy for bringing about economic growth (and we will talk about that later in the course) but it is not enough to bring about sustainable political development. We have considered that political systems probably do have a set of identifiable tasks which all perform and which you can find if you delve into any political system whether it be a democracy such as Mexico or a communist regime such as China.  We have also considered (and I think decided) that it may be overly optimistic to assume that shocks to the political system will necessarily be absorbed and peacefully and constructively adjusted to and that political development will necessarily continue. All of this goes someway towards laying a foundation for understanding the amount of political unrest which you can observe in developing countries today why have fundamentalists disrupted the process of modernization in Algeria? Why did Iran which had a developed middle class and a fairly high rate of growth under the Shah, revert to a support of the cleric Khomeini and a rigid, traditional regime? Why in contrast were Taiwan and South Korea able to develop into newly industrialized countries?  Huntingtons discussion of political decay helps us to understand this.

But there is one more element in the discussion of development which has been left out and which is essential: the impact and power of external forces on developing countries including both national regimes,  and national and international business. In the 1950s when colonies were becoming independent, there was a great deal of optimism that the development approach of  Rostow (and Almond)  would bring about  the well being of poor Third World countries. Some indeed did develop but many, and especially those which had been the poorest and weakest, did not develop economically  and became relatively worse off. That is the rich countries got richer and the very poor remained stagnant countries like Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso (in West Africa) went no where at all. Furthermore, where development was taking place it was often uneven leaving most of the country untouched. There was no trickle down from the rich areas to the poor or the rich classes to the poorer residents. The center was being developed and the periphery was being left relatively worse off than before. Several  Marxist economists and social scientists such as Andre Gunter Frank (1971- lA) and Samir Amin (1987)  began to write about this pointing out that it was in the interest of the wealthy industrialized west to keep poor countries poor (and of rich bourgeoisie to keep poor people poor) because they could use their resources for themselves. Poor underdeveloped countries were in what they called a dependent position. Thus it was not because of altruism that wealthy companies like Nestle were investing in Latin America and spreading the use of Nestle baby food and products from factories they established there. To the contrary Nestle didnt care that the death rate among babies rose in Chile because of formula use (with un sterilized bottle) Nestle was making lots of money. And the makers of DDT did not care that people were dying from poisoned crops in India because they were making huge profits..
So Rostows notion that all that is needed in investment into industrialization is at best naïve and at worse an excuse for the wealthy to  continue to exploit. The dependency theorists did not come up with an alternative way of bringing about economic development but they did point to the control and influence of external factors on what happens within developing countries and, indirectly, they did underline one of Huntingtons themes. A strong government which can negotiate and control outside forces may be necessary as a protection for a developing country which will otherwise have policies made which may be purely in the interest of outsiders.

September 12: Terrorism and the Attacks on the United States

September 17:Film -The Global Assembly Line

Questions:

1) What is being portrayed in the film?

2) What is the justification or rational for employing children in US (or European)-owned factories in developing countries.. what do you think should be done?

3) Who benefits from the creation of new employment opportunities in poor countries who benefits the most and why?

4) Are the lives of those who work in the plants and factories owned by the multi national corporations better or worse from having taken that employment?

5) What does this film suggest about the notion that injecting surplus capital from outside investors into poor countries would lead to the development of those countries and to the eventual improvement in the lives of all their citizens?

POLS 143
September 19, 2001
Lecture 3: Colonialism

 (See the first two chapters in Ben Crowe's book)

Colonialism is a relationship where a group of people located in one country are subject to the authority of people in another country. In most cases, the so-called colonies are considered possessions or territories of the controlling country and are directly ruled by them through appointed governors. It is not a new phenomenon although the open conflict among powerful countries to divide up the rest of the world among them was particularly evident in the period of industrialization in the late eighteenth century.

 I have mentioned in passing in my first lecture that most of the countries which were colonies became independent right after the Second World War when the European nations had become too weak to hold on to them any more. That is as much as 50 years ago so a logical question for you to ask is why in a course dealing with current politics do we need to consider colonialism at all? My answer is that we can understand the way politics works and some of the problems which many former colonial territories have now much more clearly if we look at their colonial history. I hope to convince you of that with my lecture today.

History
A.First phase of Western colonialism was dominated by the Spanish and the Portuguese  (because they had made the original technological breakthrough in inventing and building sailing ships which could go farther and faster then other countries at the time). They were extremely powerful and touched areas all over the world and sometimes conflicted with each other. In 1494, there was a papal settlement, the Treaty of Tordesillas which divided the colonial world between the two giving Portugal Africa, Brazil and part of Asia and Spain the rest of the Americas and the Pacific. In the 16th and 17th centuries Britain, France and the Netherlands began to follow suit and establish their own colonies in Asia and Africa. This first phase of colonialism more or less died out  around the time the American colonies won their independence from Britain. Spain for example withdrew from Latin America in the beginning of the 1800s (allowing independence movements there to establish governments) .Controlling the colonies was deemed too costly and not worth the effort

Why had they taken these colonies:
Religious and cultural reasons: to spread Christianity (once had driven the Muslim Moors from Spain and Portugal)
To spread their own language and culture
Economic Reasons:  for gold, slaves, riches of the Orient

Strategic Reasons : to protect mother country or another possession)

Surplus Population convicts to Australia and the Americas Japan talking about sending surplus peoples to Manchuria

Prestige Crusading ideal, glory of the empire, greatness of mother country

B. The second wave of Western colonialism was even bigger and more powerful and was precipitated by the demands of industrialization. European nations were looking for raw materials, for markets for their products and for power and they ranged all over the world. By the end of the 19th century Britain had an empire which included Hong Kong (1841), India (1661) and about half of Africa. France had Algeria (1830), Tunisia (1881) and Indochina (1884) and the other half of Africa (although Germany controlled what is today Togo and the Cameroons and Tanzania while Belgium controlled what is now Zaire). France also  acquired Syria and Lebanon in 1920. Portugal, the Netherlands and Italy also had territories. The US, for example acquired the Phillippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico after it defeated Spain in the Spanish American war of 1898

They still had  or thought they had religious and cultural reasons for controlling the territories  but the economic competition among the European nations was very strong and the economic and strategic motives certainly dominated in the second phase of colonialism

SHOW MAP of colonies

End to colonialism comes with the weakening of Europe through the 2nd World War (Germany lost its territories with its defeat in 1st World War, Spain and Portugal could not compete in the second phase because they were not industrializing as rapidly). Spain had given up LA 150 years before what had been their impact?

Impact
A.Government
Conquering colonies often not peaceful. Spanish and Portugese killed whatever they could  they had guns, the Indians did not. The French and British in the 2nd phase of colonialism had even more sophisticated weapons Their coming usually meant the defeat and destruction of the governments which existed. In some cases, they left a government standing (certain chiefs in Africa in British territories, Egyptian government,  certain rajahs in india) but basis of authority was destroyed because power was in the hands of the outside ruler. So, in most cases, the governments which had existed previous to colonialism lost their power and legitimacy. In place was a colonial sturture of government where power was devolved from the mother country down through her officials. Local people were conquered subjects. By the end of the 2nd World War, the European nations knew they would have to withdraw and they scrambled to establish governments which could survive after they left. In particular they tried to replicate Eurpean democracy in all of the territories they were leaving. All of a sudden the powerless could vote but the government they were imposing was a foreign import which had not evolved out of the political processes of the colonies themselves. Their previous governments (since they had been agrarian traditional societies) had been kingships and hierarchical. All of a sudden people were supposed to understand a new participatory form but neither citizens nor rulers did understand.

 Difference here between Latin America and Asia , Africa and the Middle East.
i) earliest Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America involved almost total destriction of the existing civilization (and political systems). Not just because spanish and Portiguese soldiers tried to conquer but also because of disease smallpox and measles wipe out so that as many 1 1/2 million people killed, estimated at almost half of the population which existed. SO Spanish colonies were new cultures, a mixture of Spanish mmarried into the local population which was left,  government creations based on hierarchical power and modeled on the feudal authoritarian Catholic regimes (time of the Inquisition) in Spain and Portugal. At end of 1st phase of colonialism when Spanish left, the new class of landed aristocracy took control of the governments which gradually evolved into constituional democracy but controlled by landed elite. Impact of colonialism in these areas had been destriuction of pre existing government forms, establishment of authoritarian and conservative Catholic regimes, which gradually became constituional democracies controlled by a conservative elite

ii) Middle East  Britain controlled Egypt and France Syria and Lebanon  and each had spheres of influence in other territories of the Middle East but mostly after World War I when the Ottoman Empire made the mistake of siding with Germany. But did not control as directly as did in Africa and Asia. There existed the residuals of the Muslim empire which had spread after the death of Muhammad and conquered all of North Africa, Middle East up through Turkey and parts of Europe (Spain and Portugal). The Europeans in the 2nd phase of colonialism did not try to replace or destroy the governments which existed but they controlled who got office interference in what countries did and policies adopted. Governments less influenced by constituional democracy  protected because were Muslim and entrenched, Eurpeans less influence (although still control)

iii) South Asia In some countries Europeans influence heavily but not control such as China and Thailand. In India, British control and establish a constitutional democracy which they bullied everyone into participating in. but unable to keep Muslims and Hindus together which led to the break up of what was India and the separate establishment of India, Pakistan and now Bangladesh (which broke off from Pakistan)

iv) Africa  was colonized the shortest period of time. Berlin Conference in 1890 divide up all of Africa, some parts in interior not conquered until 1910. But old authority structure destroyed and new constitutional democracy which set up completely alien to people (and some areas completely annexxed like South Africa by the Afrikaaners and British)

What was net impact? Destroy old forms of government, introduce  and enforce constitutional democracy without creating the substructure of expectations and beliefs which would support this form of government

b. Governmental Stability
Not only form of government new but nations new. Much of developing world especially from 2nd wave of colonialism in Africa and Asia had been cut up into colonies to suite European interests (or because two European nations had argued and arrived at arbitrary settlement)  (Senegal and Gambia when I first visit Gambia 30 miles wide and 200 miles long in the middle of Senegal which is about the size of Maryland anyway. Peoples in two countries the same ethnic groups and had been rulled in one kingdom (several kingdoms before French and British came in). Senegalese officials in dark suits or white boubous and Gambians in burmuda shorts and pith helmets, road suddenly go from driving on the right to driving on the left, language of officials French to English.) Colonists left behind areas which did not correspond to old historical nations and combined diverse ethnic groups who had not identification with each other very difficult to keep a stable government in areas where people have no identification with each other as citizens of the same whole and maybe even had spent most of their history fighting each other. Enormous instability. Coup after coup in Africa..border wars (Mali and Mauritania, Mauritania and Senegal, Pakistan and India,  and uprisings and repressions (Sudan, Biafran war in Nigeria)

What was net impact? Create situations which developing countries today still face of political instability based on the fact that a srtong nation des not exist
 
 

c. Education and culture
Colonialists believed their cultures superior and did their best to destroy the culture and customs of the societies they conquered. Those which had strong and well established structures managed to survive and maintain influence Muslim empires and customs, Hindu. But European languages and customs were extremely influential and remain so some good to this European language allowed a common identification where previously many different languages spoken English one of Indias national official languages still, English in Nigeria etc. helps in unification
Also introduction of Western education helps the process of economic and social development. Colonialists did not educate many people but they introduced and legitimized the concept of schooling (reading, writing, arithmetic , history, english/french) which provided tools for new technocrats who would come to the front and form the new bourgeosie.
What was net impact?Create the beginnings of the class and belief structure which would support industrilization and democracy but at the cost of destroying old cultures and beliefs

d. Economics
colonialists introduce industrialization. In Africa introduce cash crops such as peanuts, coffee, sisal, tea, cotton, cocoa (sales of crops for exports) and begin the process of industrialization BUT major economic impact also to turn African economies away from interchanges among themselves and across the Sahara to  being markets for European products and providers of raw materials serious exploitation of resources for European needs  ie Algeria grow wine than French pull out no market for Algerian wine (French wines developed and control) which they cant drink anyway because Muslim
What was net impact? Begin the process of industrialization but tie the poor countries as dependent, distort economic growth to suit European needs

e) Health
Perhaps the only area in which one could say the results of colonialism were good is in the area of health. Europeans, especially in 2nd wave, did introduce health care and medicines which had not existed. Helped decrease the death rate, stopped major diseases such as small pox, introduced notions of sanitation and clean water (which you should remember Europeans did not know about themselves until the industrial era) but even here there is a down side European interference led to a decrease in death rate and a population explosion economies can not keep pace in the poorer countries some of worlds poverty and misery comes from the overpopulation problem which European colonialists inadvertently  encouraged.

NET IMPACT of colonialism negative for former colonies but there is a certain irony. Not all that was done was done with malicious or selfish motives. There was a class of colonial rulers who believed they were extending civilization and helping the poor and oppressed to understand what true culture and life was and could be. Missionaries, colonial bureaucrats, soldiers, They  went to areas and worked their hardest and sickened and died from diseases (such as diarrhea and malaria). Of course my view is that they were blind to what already existed and what they were destroying. And, it must still be remembered that they did jump start the process of industrialization and development although at a great human cost.

Sept 24: Neocolonialism and Structural Adjustment

1) What is neocolonialism and how does it differ from colonialism?
        direct versus indirect control

2) What are forms of neocolonial dominiation?
    a. military
           weapons, training even troops "on loan"
    b.cultural
          radio, television, films, publications
    c.economic
          banks, business established within developing countries
          domination by global donor agencies and organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
 IMF and World Bank: founded in 1944
              IMF  currently has 182 members
               voting on the IMF board is based on the level of contribution to the fund's resources which gives the First World 61%
               has four major functions: surveillance of members exchange rate policies
                                                        financial assistance: credits and loans to member countries with balance of payment problems to support policies of adjustment and reforms
                                                      technical assistance: expertise and support on designing monetary policy & development of banks & treasuries

                through offering aid only with conditions attached (you do X and you can have the money)

i. example of control of IMF affecting direction and speed of economic growth:
 STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT(SA)
                           IMF would make no further loans without SA=
         privatize
                                     downsize government/decrease number of government programs
                                      devalue currency
                  purpose (according to IMF): to reduce overwhelming debt and to make products of country more competitive in world market
                                      also to stimulate  growth of business and commerce by withdrawing government
                  Impact (in poor countries): short run create problems for the poorest sector... lack of government services, unemployment for those  formerly in government, high cost of imported items like spare parts, gasoline/oil, electricity, prescriptions

    in long run... some countries show growth of business and commerce but middle and upper classes the
                                                                       one principally benefitting
         d. political
                         i. Cold War and Post Cold War pressures on governments and on choice of leaders
 

3) Is there any effective way governments of developing countries can fight neocolonialism in all or any of its four aspects (what do dependency
theorists suggest)?
        a. refuse aid... which poor country can afford this?
         b. try to play rich countries and multi nationals off against each other
         c. most poor countries went along with SA because felt there was no realistic choice.
          d. world movement to forgive the debts of poor countries

1970s movement for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) start. call for:
1)more aid to Third World from wealthy states
2)dispersal of funds through multilateral agencies such as the World Bank instead of country by country aid
3)increased voice for Third World in the World Bank/IMF
4)re-structuring or cancellation of debts owed to insurtialized states
5) some domestic control over multinational corporations
6) special trade privileges for  the Third World with the industrialized states

Rationale: that the plight of the third world owing to colonialism and exploitation.
But not accepted by everyone. Larry Summers US Secretary of the Treasury in favor of forgiving debts (said so at UCONN fall before last), President Clinton
executed before he left office but George W Bush is not in favor of covering the debt

September 26: Film: Africans in Search of Identity
narrated by Ali Mazrui (currently professor ar Syracuse University)
1) Why did Europeans introduce democratic governments in their colonies and why were they optimistic that these would succeed?

2) How did the  new "democratic" forms of government fit with the forms of government which existed previous to colonialism?

3) Why were governments so unstable in newly independent African countries?

4) How much are the Europeans to blame for the continuing government crises in African countries today?

________________________________________________________
Oct 1:: Political Culture and Democracy
 
 

 1.What is culture and what is political culture?
       Culture: the  attitudes, values, and knowledge  which characterize a people or society
       Political Culture:"a people's predominant beliefs ,attitudes, values, ideals, sentiments and evaluations about the political system of its country
and the role of self in that system."

       a. three major  components of political culture : 1: cognitive orientation (knowledge and beliefs about the political system)
                                                                                      2: affective orientation (feelings about the political system)
                                                                                      3. evaluational orientation (commitments to political values and judgements
                                                                                                  about the performance of the political system).
 

2. How does culture relate to the concept of a political system or to the state
        State = " a compulsory association claiming control over territories and the people within them. Administrative, legal, extractive, and coercive
organizations are the core of any state. " Max Weber
The state has a principal internal function: to maintain order and a principal external function : to deal with other states and other international actors

   Political culture and the state:the state's capacity to govern is dependent on the extent to which its authority and the legitimacy of those who run the
state are perceived by the various social groups and classes that make up the society
 
 
 

3. To what extent does the culture in a political system control the way that system operates.... is the instabilty in politics in Africa primarily owing to
the fact that the political culture is not yet consistent with democracy?
       a. not one but many cultures in a society
       b. culture is not fixed  although it does not change easily
       c. not all states containing uneducated people without experience in modern government  unstable
      d. absence of trained people, lack of resources, struggles over borders,

4. How does political culture change to become more modern?
                a. Ronald Inglehart: Modernization and Postmodernization:
                political values are related to level of development and modernization (although not in a linear fashion).    Three stages: Traditional,
Modernizing and Postmodern. In the first, survival is a serious concern for most people and life is hedged by religious and traditional norms that spell

out what people do. In the second the traditions are breaking down as the achievement motivation begins to take precedence over the values of
conformity and obedience. Economic growth is seen as the major important goal because survival is seen as secure. Peoples' individual activities are
geared towards accumulation and economic success. It is only in the third stage that economic gain fades from holding top priority and people begin
to value individual freedom and quality of life in a broader sense. In this stage too people reject authority and also demand individual rights including
the need for equality in treatment for women. This last stage is the one with prevalent values  most consistent with democracy.   Developing countries

have not yet reached the economic stage of security so that the prevailing attitudes should be those of an insecure society: in Politics - a need for
strong leaders, order, xenophobia/fundamentalism, in Economics  priority to economic growth, achievement motivation and individual vs. state
ownership,  in Religion  emphasis on higher power, absolute rules, emphasis on predictability.  Democracy is possible but it is fragile because
political values have not changed

This is similar to what I told you  in one of my first lectures to what the Political Scientist, Seymour Martin Lipset, believed..

        b. education widespread mass education through secondary school is major influence on thinking of population. But this alone may not be
enough. Consider Second World countries such as Soviet Union widespread education but took a combination of economic demands and failures
AND educated population to finally break down the Communist State  AND are they ready to support democracy popularity of Communist Party
on the rise?
 

Oct 3 : The Clash of Civilizations... an Alternative View to the relations between culture, modernization and politics
See sheet handed out presenting Samuel Huntington's views on the clash of civilizations

Oct 10; Midterm Exam

Oct 15
Pols 143 The Changing Faces of Political Power during Economic Development
 

I. Changing Economic Structure in Developing Countries
 Economic power does not translate automatically into political power but these things are related... So, to know which are the groups which have the most influence, useful to look at the economy and how its grows...

a) Which are the most important sectors in an economy as it develops and who controls them?
 

 1)Progression goes: from subsistence agriculture
   subsistence agriculture + trade
   subsistence agriculture and production (medieaval guilds to produce everything....) and services which includes trade and commerce and the things you normally think of as  services such as restaurants, tailors, domestic workers
   development of industrialization (improved and increased production)... More sophisticated methods of trade, cash crop production, more extensive and sophisticated methods of delivering services of greater variety (computers) etc.

Currently, the poor or developing countries of the world have an industrial sector, an agricultural sector and a service sector in theWorld Development Report. Each sector has multiple components:
 a Agriculture:
Cash or export crops: sophisticated plantation type high technology agriculture employees wage paid workers, owned by company (tea plantations, coffee and banana plantations etc)
      larger scale, high tech farms - cocoa with employees

      medium to very small scale farms with few or no employees producing cash crops sold through middle men (or the government before structural adjustment)

      subsistence farms where there is little surplus

Informal sector in agriculture may be the susbistence farmers (pay no taxes, keep no records, do not register)
 

 b. Manufacturing and industry (and mining):
Large scale processing and production plants... High technmology, large numbers of employees : steel, peanut oil,

     Smaller or less technologically sophictated plants with mulptiple employyes

     Small, traditional production... Furniture,

     Crafts or household production

Informal Sector here may be the last two ... Few or no regular employees, no registration, taxes, obervance of labor laws

 c. Trade:
   Trade can be sophisticated computer based transactions at the highest international level

   Trade can be large scale businessmen trading incommodities (but nt so sophisticated)
   Trade can be smaller business people trading in agricultural and animal husbandry products

   Trade can be large to small scale shops in all manner of slaes

   Trade can be vendors on the market  at stalls, or with trays or at the road side,

The informal sector at the lower levels where typically irregular, impermanent, low paid, no taxes paid, no registration etc.
 d. Services:
  ii Domestic employment
 

  iii Tailors, hair dressers etc..
 

  iv. Restaurants and food services....

  v. Repair (vehicles)

  vi. Deliverys/transportation
The informal sector at the lower levels where typically irregular, impermanent, low paid, no taxes paid, no registration etc.
b) There is no major statistical source that tells us what the informal or formal sector is... Closest you can come is to distinguish between the wage and Nonwage workers. The latter are largely family workers... Typical of very poor countries and in the early stages of development to have production based on family units (and agriculture and servcies as much as they exist)... In these situations wages are not paid (although there is some remunration in that family members are supported). (In this table Trade is included under Services
 
 

Country   Year    Agriculture          Industry                 Services                                                   Income
___________________________________________________________________________ Group
                Wage  Non Wage   Wage     Non Wage  Wage    Non Wage
_____________________________________________________________________________________
USA       1991   1.6      1.3        24.2       1.6             65.5       5.8                                                 High
Spain       1991  4.5       6.2       28.3       4.4             41.9       14.7                                               High
Israel       1990  1.5       3.8       6.1         2.2             67.1       19.3                                               High
Bolivia     1991   0.5      0.7      15.2         9.6             34.1       39.9                                          Middle
Chile       1991  10.5     8.6       20.5        5.8             38.0       16.6                                           Middle
Honduras  1991 11.9    25.0     13.5        7.4             21.0        21.3                                            Low
India       1991    1.5      61.7      3.7      10.5               9.4        13.2                                             Low
Pakistan  1992    4.5      42.9     13.8      6.1              16.2        16.5                                            Low
CAR       1990  0.7        79.5     1.2        2.1                6.8          9.7                                            Low
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 

  The poorest category have 90% or more non wage workers ... The wealthiest have more than 90% in wage category .. Development is a progression towards larger proportion of wage employment ALSO towards small percentage in agriculture less than a 3rd in industry (manufacturing production) and most (US 66% in 1995) in services

II. What does the changing distribution of employment have to do with political leadership?
a) Inglehart has suggested that as these changes occur, political culture may change (because needs are different and along with modernization of the economy normally goes increased education)

b)Changing distribution of economic production means changing basis of wealth....
 I. In informal agricultural system, the basic resource was land, the largest amount of which  was usually controlled by the hereditary elite/ high caste (nobles & warriors), who also were the political leaders
Most people were small farmers (small plots of land or work on some elses land.. Share croppers, tenant farmers, agricultural laborers.... Ruled by their hereditary leaders assisted by the religious leaders (often also of the hereditary social elite)... Muslim, Christian, Buddhist
political culture was defferential, submissive and non participant (as you remember from the modernization chart)
 Women often did have political roles.. Queen mother in Ghana select the king, wives of rulers often have their own court of followers and specific tasks of leading women

 ii As trade develops, manufacturing starts new classes develop whose wealth is not based on land... The more technologically sophisticated trade and manufacturing are, the more an educated workforce is necessary and society spends more on mass Western-style education

 iii Colonialism introduce industrialization and the class structure which goes along with industrialized countries. Now wealth is based on ownership of means of mass production & services... Factories, businesses and control of workforce. BUT society has become much more complex. There is a new elite which is partially based on the new sources of wealth and partially on other achievement/skills oriented status criteria:
 Hereditary Agricultural Society
  nobles/warriors (rulers - noble women political roles)
  priests/monks holymen (adjunct authority)
  farmers (certain rights by custom but basically not politically active)
  low caste (black smiths, troubadours/griots) (political outcaste)

 Transitional Society
  nobles/warriors (rulers - noble women political roles)
  priests/monks holymen (adjunct authority)
  farmers (certain rights by custom but basically not politically active)
  low caste (black smiths, troubadours/griots) (political outcaste)
  NEW class of traders (beginnings of independence because wealth not controlled  by rulers)

 Transitional Society-  Industrialization
  nobles/warriors    White collar - professionals (doctors,
  priests/monks/ holymen                               lawyers, business & military leaders)
  farmers          (these become political leaders)
        white collar - 2nd tier (teachers, health
      care, clerical & clergy etc. (Politically
        active and not deferential)
       blue collar: plumbers, laborers, construction etc (Politically
        active and not deferential)
 Note that low caste becomes absorbed into other groups AND that former hereditary land-based classes continue especially while a large proportion of the population is in traditional agriculture. BUT political office is held by the new elites (although they may be very respectful of, and even dependent on, former hereditary elites especially until wage employment in manufacturing and services occupies more of the population the non wage agricluture & education is widespread)

 Post Industial Society
  White collar - professionals (doctors,
   lawyers, business leaders, military leaders)
  (these are political leaders)
                        white collar - 2nd tier (teachers, health
  care, clerical & clergy etc. (Politically
  active and not deferential)
  blue collar: plumbers, laborers, construction etc (Politically
   active and not deferential)
Note that other hereditary classes vestigal and politically INsignificant (although still sometimes receive deference) however, because of inherited wealth & privileges, many families in this category educated their children who moved into upper parts of new class structure

III: Changing economic and social classes and democratization
a. Have already discussed changing political culture but there is another angle... Structure of classes and interest groups in society as a basis for, or block to, democracy (leaving culture aside for a minute).
According to many democratic theorists, if there are multiple, splintered/fragmented classes which include many interest groups which cut across classes...unions, voluntary groups, community associations, political interest groups, environmental groups, society is said to be pluralistic and there is a basis for collaboration which makes compromise possible....  Industrialized democratic societies are typically pluralistic

BUT if there is a rigid, cleavage between classes which is NOT bridged by cross cutting groups,  or there are societal subgroups, like minority and majority ethnic groups, which can not work with each other and see each other as enemies, than compromise is very difficult and, as I said n my lecture about ethnicity, there is a winner takes all mentality... Politics is a zero sum game. Easiest situation is when the middle class dominates because it is in the positition of compromise.... Very powerful workers makes top uneasy, very powerful rich elite fosters worker reaction

Some societies, of course, are primarily  corporatist rather than pluralist (some European democratic countries are more corporatist than the US like Austria). There is a HIERARCHYof groups which tend to be controlled from the top (ie local unions controlled by national ones)... Sometimes in repressive corporatist societies (such as Spain after the civil war and Brazil after 1964 ( with a military regime), the government will control the major interest groups and allow only one of a type through which all is done (manipulated by government, no input from members) ... Ie the government union, government-approved businessmans group. In many primarily corporatist countries , decisions about matters of importance are made by pacts among the leaders of the different groups sometimes in secret
 
 

In sum, for a developing country which is in transition to becoming industrialized, looking at the economic pattern will help predict who holds power but in addition to this, economic development will be accompanied by the formation of various different economic, political and social interest groups...which the government may try to control (with varying degrees of success depending on its power and stability). This group formation is very important for the success, the rooting, of democracy and needs to be studied as much as economic and class changes do

October 17: Darlene Waller, University Librarian
     Research Tips for Writing your Papers

Political Science 143
Economic Development, Political Culture and Democracy-India
Oct 22, 2001

So what are the characteristics of a political culture that will support a democracy:
i: widespread belief that rulers are the servants of the people chosen by them and replaced if not satisfy
ii: belief that all citizens are equal (no class, ethnic or racial group superior) and that the majority rules
iii: belief that if your party loses the winners will not take everything you have but will respect your rights and freedoms
iv: belief in the rule of law
v. belief in the freedom of speech and press

Anything else?

vi. probably a sense of identification with the nation. as a citizen hard to do when borders imposed and different formerly alien ethnic groups included.
other characteristics possible. but if these exists the situation is favorable

What are the economic characteristics of a country which can support democracy?
If you believe Ronald Inglehart and modernization theory, countries most likely to support democracy are: Industrialized (post industrialized)
                           Urban
                           Educated population
                            Secular

And, in terms of my last lecture countries which have the heaviest overlay of modern economic cum social structure where skill, training, achievement are rewarded  and recognized as important rather than hereditary, traditional leaders. business leaders, professionals etc.

INDIA:
Is this the accurate description of the political culture within India?
We have discussed India earlier and it is a chapter in your book so you can review it but let me remind you:
1. Demographics
India 961 million people of whom 80% are Hindu, 11% are Muslim and there are Christians and others in the residual.

India only about 1/3 the size of the USA
The population speaks five major languages of which only 38% speak Hindu (others are Teluhu, Bengali, Marathi, Tamil  and others)
The Hindu majority over centuries developed a rigid caste system which had nobles and warriors at the top, a majority of free landowners in the middle and a minority (but large, of lower castes down to the untouchables at the bottom (each with specific jobs). People could not marry across caste lines, could not eat with each other or socialize

Strong ethnic and religious conflicts in India your book starts with a description of the Hindu mob incited by the dominant political party of the present the Indian Peoples Party (the BJP) which is Hindu nationalist burning down a Muslim mosque. BJP now in power..

How well does this correspond with a democratic political culture?
 

It does not correspond old cultural values have not disappeared.  caste system outlawed for hiring and salary,  for schools but still underlies particularly the rural part of society besides population still uneducated 62% of women are illiterate44% of population of right age in primary or secondary schools but women much less likely to and much less likely for either girls or boys to ever go to school in rural areas only about 30% of the population lives in urban areas
 

Why then has India maintained a democracy and in what sense is it a real democracy  it certainly has lasted a long time (since 1947????
 

2. Political Institutions?
Remember in the beginning of the course we talked about colonial rulers gratuitously leaving behind democratic political governments in an effort to keep their former colonies allied with the Western democratic block and not the Soviet Union or Communist block India is of course a case in point (which we discussed) Government in India is like the British parliamentary system. Because of that much of the legislative power is in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cabinet whose policies and programs are backed by the majority in the lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha, which is also what put him into office  Until about the end of the 80s one party, the Congress Party, dominated Indian politics but since then there is a proliferation of parties

Yet in India the political institutions appear to have had an imprint the military has not interfered in politics (unlike Pakistan), there have been regular elections despite slow and sometimes stagnant growth rates, slow spread of education and widespread poverty
 

This actually should remind you of one author we discussed , Samuel Huntington he said developmentalists (like Seymour Martin Lipset) were naïve if they thought that just introducing Western democratic regimes would bring about democracy he said they would be overthrown if they could not meet the demands of new citizens chaos and anarchy result said governments needed to be strong and even dictatorial to keep control while people became socialized into democracy, economy grew and education spread

Despite remaining a democracy India in fact did this
 

Unity of India:  based on resistance to British anti British sentiment created Indian nationalism (Mahatma Gandhi)

Government of India.. run through a widespread and well developed bureaucracy established throughout India by the British.. This was established to maintain British control but it was  a structural underpinning which the Indian government used

Small but highly educated and politically experienced group of (primarily) Hindu upper caste had struggled against British since 1880s this elite took control of the Congress Party  somewhat dictatorial democratic leaders Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi (especially her), her son Rajiv Gandhi..

Joseph book points out that Indira kept in office by rousing nationalism and also religious nationalism (when poverty alleviation did not work)
 

Are these democratic political institutions if run by an authoritative elite leader. yes Disraeli, Gladstone era in British parliament but elections held (except for one brief emergency rule period) gradual growth of the middle classes as economy grow
 

3. Economic Development
India is not industrialized. 64% of the population is employed in agriculture which still produces almost one third of the GDP.. the population is poor with an annual per capita income of about 300 per year more in cities, less in rural areas. the major relevance of this goes back to our discussion  about Ronald Inglehart and his book Modernization and Post Modernization where he contends that only after industrialization and economic security is achieved do you have a widespread culture supporting democratic values :
 His theory that countries  develop and become more economically prosperous and industrialized and as this goes on people move from being  first traditional(and oriented to tribes, localities and survival) through developing when people are still struggling for survival and economic sufficiency to the stage of post materialism where survival is no longer in question. it is in this last stage that people according to Inglehart  are confident and less inclined to accept authority, more individualistic and tolerant of each other the political culture most suited to maintaining a real democracy. India is far from this stage
 

 Yet enough time has passed that democratic institutions, elections etc are now ingrained people turn out for elections (high turn out), national pride in them a democratic tradition established.

4&5 Final two points : Class Structure and International Intervention
 

I already talked about caste structure must add to this that India is changing still many families who wont intermarry or socialize but growth of middle class based on manufacturing and commerce and services education caste lines being blurred.. new urban power classes  behind power in political parties not just traditional elite (although they are mixed in together)

International Intervention: colonial intervention strong little modern intervention except for investments of large companies (DDT, the Dalcon Shield widespread) and pressure from large donor organizations such as the IMF. India has remained fiercely independent.  oriented to West now  but not listen  always to what is requested atomic bomb testing
 
 

Conclusion:

Not that our understanding of the interrelationship between economic development and political cultural change wrong nor the relationship with democracy India is a democracy despite all this because of historical circumstances and the nature of the elite (its education and orientation) may conclude that dont have to have all the ideal characteristics for democracy to survive 
 

And what are Indias prospect for democracy continuing. book raises lots of problems Indira Gandhi incited religious nationalism and that has led to the rise to power of a Hindu nationalist group exacerbates religious and ethnic tensions yet in office Atal Bihara Vajpayee (BJP head) tries to calm down explosive tensions condemns attacks on Christians and Muslims there is a secular tradition originally established by British and then Congress Party growing educated class opposing religious nationalism.. chances still pretty good for continuing democracy in India

POLS 143
Lecture 8
Womens Political Status
 

 Oct 22, 2001
1) What are womens political issues (as opposed to mens) ? When do they become mens issues as well? How does society deal with womens Issues?

a.Matters over which women have prime responsibility.Women universally responsible for domestic work (children, house care, elder person & injured sick person care) Clean water, sanitation, fuel, family health care, education,
b.Also issues such as sex discrimination, violence against women
c.In the past moral and family values (women more likely in past to vote for conservatives in LA elections because they represent church)

How does society deal with women modernization & industrialization  plans put in second place, money not forthcoming
 

2) What was the traditional political role of women in subsistence societies? What happens to that role as society begins to modernize?
Not in all but in many, in West Africa  women had political power as women women had specific positions, especially those related to royal family queen mother, kings sister wife with courts of followers and land, sometimes even warriors to fight for them
Women drum up support for candidates when council of elders chose kings
Women priestesses of animist religions which gave them power as counselors to the kings and council of nobles

Modernization end this. Islam destroy religious positions  explicit public political roles for women as women disappear. Christianity same effect

Colonialism introduce modern democratic forms of government supposedly based on choice because of skill and qualifications where sex is not supposed to matter. But political power given to men (because colonialists thought it was natural)

3) What is the actual political role defined for women in modern democratic societies?

No role defined because supposed to be equal. But not equal because lesser education, training, socially restricted, subordinate to males, bound by double work burden..

Study of why women not elected to national assemblies:
Senegal: patronage hierarchy dominate politics and it is male, women have no separate power hierarchy and no basis for getting support surveys of electorate show that even women recognize male candidates but have no idea who the women candidates are

Communists regimes had more women in office than any democratic regimes because specified that certain percentage of delegates and functionaries had to be women but all power came from the tope and there was no real organization so women disappear from office once communism disappears (Russia and former Soviet republics)

4) How does the structure of government affect womens political power?

Electoral institutions and women proportional electoral system (where parties name lists of candidates and get a percentage of their list depending on their percentage of the votes) versus a single member district system (where winner takes all) women more likely to be elected under proportional system

Also more likely to be elected if a quota system is established where a certain % of women have to be elected

5) When and how do women begin to compete equally with men for political positions (elected and appointed)?
Education and training larger classes of women
International Pressure Beijing 1995, Nairobi 1985, Mexico City 1975.. communication & media
Integration into world economy  pressure of donors, need for women workers

Note that in certain developing countries, top leaders are women Indira Gandhi in India, Prime Minister of Pakistan was a woman, contender for Prime Minister in India but she was wife of assassinated prime minister Indira Gandhis son, and woman Prime Minister in Pakistan (Benazir Bhutto) was daughter of prime minister who died  does not mean that women are organized to vote for them but rather than there is a strong caste class structure and the woman elected to office is representing the family like governor Wallaces wife running for and winning governor ship in (Alabama)

6) Why do women in developing countries not start their own political parties (or rarely start their own parties)?

Women tend to identify themselves with their own economic class and the issues which concern it if a woman is a middle class manager and the government down sizes its programs and eliminates middle class managers in her field, she will identify with the men who like her got displaced. She will identify with ethnic group

Also big gap between needs and interests of women at the top of the class structure and those at the bottom take India for example: upper caste women: secluded, not allowed out in public, married early, little control over own affairs, want to be able to be educated and work equally
       Lower caste: work in fields, in public places in markets want to be able to work less, have access to clean water, sanitation, health for their children and them selves

BUT fact is that there is a certain identification which crosses classes and can call on womens general participation
Womens vote used for issues which concern women more than men can be conservative issues (family values) or what are called  liberal: environment, health, welfare
 

7) Womens movements: may be broad political grouping cutting across classes with numerous and varied goals (aiming to equalize womens position) but other womens political groups are smaller and are connected to a particular economic group or geographic location or class. What are the advantages and disadvantages which these different types of political groupings have in politics of developing societies?
Broad groups can get good media coverage and, if large enough, can put direct pressure on the government but Women National Movement (WNM) in India criticized because it is too Western, others have said that it is run by elite educated women who have no real political connection to the majority of poor Indian women who dont really support what it does more successful are smaller specific groups such as Self Employed Womens Association (SEWA) . But WNM did have influence on Congress party which did pass many reforms assisting the position of women

Influence of the feminist movements from the  West ie Germany and Denmark & USA? will the same result in developing countries yes and no Nigerian Muslim Womens movement: totally alienated from western feminist but pushing for reforms and influential
 

October 29: Their Half the Sky (Film)

POLS 143

Injustice and Human Rights

October 31, 2001

I: Intro.
Last time, talked about the inequitable position of women. I skipped some of what is on the notes on the computer because I talked about charts showing womens lesser access to education, jobs  and to legal and political  rights. I did not mention the fact that political institutions, in and of themselves, can have an impact on womens access to political power. This would be obvious if a political system did not grant women the right to vote or run for office but even in democracies where these rights are granted there is a difference. The issue is the circumstances or factors which would increase the likelihood of more women taking public office: I mentioned increased education, international pressure, improved and expanding economy  all help to improve the likelihood of women gaining equal rights. So too does the type of electoral system.
a. electoral systems are not completely neutral in terms of the likelihood of women and minorities being elected
b. a single member district system like ours means that for each position (in the Senate, the House of Representatives, president), the candidate with the higher
number of votes wins (winner takes all)
c. This means the political parties choose the candidate who is most likely to win  the majority of votes third  and fourth party candidates are discouraged because
they dont appeal to the majority
d. It is still the case that traditional party leaders and many people in society in developing countries as a whole do not think women are as likely to be good leaders
as men because they have domestic responsibilities. Because there is this continuing attitude, parties do not want to put up women candidates in fear they will not pull
a majority in support (minorities might not get a majority if they are only a fraction of the voting population)
e. In contrast, in an electoral system which has proportional representation, each party puts up a list of candidates (for the parliament or national assembly for
example). When the votes are counted each party gets seats in the proportion of votes they received
f. this system encourages multiple parties AND it encourages the selection of women and minorities because they can be on a  list and are thus less a risk to the party

g. in developing countries with proportional list systems women are more likely to be elected all other things being equal than in plurality single member district
systems like ours

I: Topic today is a continuation of the discussion begun on the political power and access to benefits in society of women  in developing countries but I am defining it
more broadly as human rights:.
Basic questions:

1)What are basic human rights?
A. Who defines what are the basic rights of all human being? Is there a standard accepted by everyone?

B. What factors   have created incentives/conditions in the 1990s encouraging people in devloping countries to demand their rights
        a)Western governments more sensitive about defending authoritarian regimes which restrict rights
        b)collapse of many authoritarian governments and spread of more democratic regimes
        c)dominance of world market forces (makes poor poorer)
        d) integration of global economy
         e) transformation of production systems and labor markets (weakens the power of labor)
         f)consumerism   rights of individual

Thus: more need and more demand for human rights observance

1992, United Nations held a human rights  conference in Vienna
 
 

C. Not new concern: 1948 United Nations General Assembly adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (UDHR)
But UN then dominated by Western industrialized countries of liberal bent (right after WWII)
Included:
 Marriages rooted in free and full consent of both partners
Freedom of expression
Rights of private property

Also
Respect for human life and dignity
Equality before the law
Equal protection before the law
Protection of minorities

Reformed this declaration because of protest from  Soviet block countries and many developing countries that this was a Western definition of priorities . certain rights removed from the list (right to property one of them)

Particularly after its modification in 1966,  not everyone agrees that the UDHR protects all the rights that should be covered but it does cover most  at least  it is  a paper  statement of international agreement (which does not mean it is enforced):

What might be included (among others):
Freedom of religion (worship and religious expression)
Freedom of speech
Equal protection of the law
Right to choose and replace government
Freedom from torture
Freedom from imprisonment without due process of law
 

 Many of these freedoms are political . One measure of human rightsand one measure of rights within developing and developed countries is called are included in what is called the Political Freedom index  PFI

The other side to human rights are socio economic rights:

Basic human needs:
food
Water
Shelter
clothes
education
basic health (freedom from disease)
Right to private property
(among others)
Overall the fair distribution of economic assets? (what is fair?)

 2)Does economic development necessarily lead to greater  concern for human rights?
Consider Human Development Index (HDI) (put out by UN) and the PFI... some wealthier countries do much worse on these indices.....
______________________________________________________________________

Country                 Life Exp.         Literacy %             GDP per capita             HDI rank              PFI
                                                                                   ($ 1993)                                          of 173 ctries     scale to100
                                                                                                                            1 is best            100 is best
_______________________________________________________________________
Chile                       71.9                      93.8                  5208                               39                      73
Mexico                   69.9                      88.6                  7170                               52                      57
Brazil                      65.8                      82.1                  5240                               63                      52
Jamaica                  73.3                      98.5                  3670                               65                      64
Cuba                       75.6                      94.5                  2000                               89                       3
Haiti                       56                          55                      925                               137                      5
Thailand                 68.7                      93.8                  5270                               54                      61
Malaysia                70.4                      80                     7400                               57                      61
China                      70.5                      80                     2440                               94                        8
Saudi Arabia          68.7                      64.1                 10850                               67                       8
Turkey                   66.7                      81.9                    4840                              68                      54
Iran                            66.6                      56                      4670                               86                      16
Egypt                      60.9                      50                      3600                               110                    45
Morocco                62.5                      52.5                    3340                               111                    25
________________________________________________________________________
Interesting that Randall assumes that human rights will become generally accepted and observed given the fall of the Soviet Union just as she thinks there is a move towards universal acceptance of democratization would you think if she wrote the same book this year that she would say the same thing?

3)What is the relationship of religion and/or culture in a country to its observance of basic human rights
Huntington: Islamic and Hindu religions less conducive to supporting Human Rights... where Christianity IS supportive
BUT consider the Spanish Inquisition... is religion really a major factor?

4)What are the HDI and the PFI (to measure what)? Who (type of institution) made them up and what were their political orientations  how does this affect the objectivity of the measure?
Question of whether or not countries improve in terms of the position on the Political Freedoms Index (voting, political participation, freedom and rights panel of
academics and journalists.. Western) as they improve in terms of overall  socioeconomic indicators which are combined in the United Nations Human Development
Index (HDI)  which includes life expectancy, level of literacy and peoples purchasing power
 

CONCLUSION:
Define what are human injustices and why they should be so considered.
Look at the education level of population, level of strict conservative religious power, growth of the GNP and type of government (military/authoritarian to
democratic) and you can predict whether there will be high or low incidence of human rights violations. But never disappears
 

CHINA
The case of China brings up many of the questions being raised here. according to American standards, China is a prime example of human rights violations:

1) Political violations: Tiananmen Square   1989
                                       Tibet
                                        Lack of freedom of speech, press, education..
2) Personal Rights: One Child Policy
3) Deng Xiaoping: basic needs, equality  see Joseph pp.s 33, 37
transformation of the economy see Joseph p. 25

POLS 143

November  5, 2001
Human Rights -2
This lecture continues the theme of the last lecture and movie human injustice and human rights violations as they may be found in developing countries.. why and
what they signify.
Idea for this lecture came from a PBS special last spring about serious human rights violations in Mexico.It was underlined this fall because the woman lawyer who had been featured in that PBS special as seeking to help victims of such violations was murdered in October of this year. More worrisome that the people who are carrying these acts out are
part of the official administration the police are federal agents.. how could this be permitted? What is there about the political culture in Mexico that has permitted
it and how widespread is it anyway?

Second Case is Cuba. Part of US community believes human rights violations make life untenable in Cuba... is this so? What does it mean?
 

I.Mexico  conquered by Spain. pre existing highly advanced early civilizations. autocratic and ruled by priests Hernando Cortes conquered Mexico in
1519-1521 and founded a Spanish colony which lasted for nearly 300 years (early civilizations were wiped out)..
Spanish colony ruled by an alliance of church and local elites conservative, land owners. church very powerful

Revolution erupt in 1910 and last until 1920 new constitution adopted in 1917 Mexico became a republic in 1924 and has had consistently surviving electorally
chosen leaders thereafter..
Church LOSES its power  stripped of much of its property and lose the right to have control over civil matters like marriages and divorces but elite remains in
power

What had was strong central government controlled by  an elite land owners and eventually large business owners They control PRI which remain in control until
the last elections in 1997 when for the first time opposition parties  prevented it from gaining a majority in the parliament and began to win important governorships
and mayor ships in the countryside. The president however is still from the PRI.

Important to note that the four major parties agreed to electoral reform in 1996 and also that the PRI acknowledged its losses.

In the meantime various social changes have taken place including the spread of education and health care throughout the country and the linking through
communications of Mexican people everywhere to what happens elsewhere and of course the North American Free Trade Alliance which opens the borders to
trade (Mexico also under went structural adjustment)

But there have been reports of increasing repression and human rights violations
Why?
PRI reacting against loss of power?
Traditional elites afraid of beginning of peoples demand for more equality?
Seizure of lands held by indigenous communities?

Government has reacted but slowly.. insisting on human rights training for the armed forces, permitting some investigation of alleged violations but it is current
problem

II: Cuba
1492 Columbus claims Cuba for Spain
1511 son of Columbus settles most of early inhabitants wiped out
1821-31 more than 60,000 slaves brought to Cuba
1848 and 1854 American presidents try to buy Cuba from Spain
1895 Cubas war of independence
1898 battleship Maine blown up in Havana harbor, US declares war on Sapin (whom t blames) treaty signed between Spain and US (Not Cuba)
US flag raised over Cuba
1901 Platt Amendment gives Cuba limited self governing rights
1902 Cuba elects president (US supported)
1933 Batista leads uprising and takes control of Cuba
1940 Batista becomes Cubas 14th president
1952 Batista overthrowa elections which he is losing US recognizes him
1953 Castro leads a revolt on an army barracks but loses and is imprisoned
By late 1950s US control:
 90% of Cubas sugar
80% of its public utilities
50% of its railways
40% of its sugar production
25% of its bank deposits

1958 revolution begin
1959 Revolutionary forces take control of Havana and Batista flees
Fidel Castro takes control:
nationals telephone,
expropriates farmlands and for bids foreign ownership
makes contacts with Soviet Union
1960 Prime Minister Mikoyan visits Cuba and sign trade agreement.. Cuba nationalizes all US businesses in Cuba
1961 Relations between Cuba and US broken off and Castro declares himself a Marxist-Leninist
1976 Cuba gets a new constitution as a socialist state president of State Council consolidates positions of President and prime minister and commander in chief of
armed forces.
1991 Soviet troops leave Cuba
1996 Clinton signs Helmes-Burton Act imposing penalities on companies which do business with Cuba
1998 Pope John Paul II visits Cuba
2000 various groups within the US calling for end of embargo to Cuba, normalizing of relations but strong opposition by Cuban exile community

To what extent terrorism and lack of rights make life untenable in Cuba?
OAS commission report:
no freedom of press
no due process of law
harassment of opposition groups
no freedom of movement (outside of Cuba)
terrible prison conditions

Climate of restriction and repression but strong Cuban pride among those who stay and strong resentment against US for severe economic shortages. Also
situation changing.. economic pressures forcing Castro to open up to outside businesses and tourism

II  Comparisons between Cuba and Mexico

                                      CUBA                                                                                    MEXICO
Population:                           11, 091, 000                                                                          98.5 million
Land Area:                          109,800 sq  kilom                                                               756,066 sq mi
Population Density:                101 per sq kilometer                                                        47 per sq kilom
Life Expectancy at Birth :        76 yrs                                                                               72.1 yrs
Adult Illiteracy :                         4%                                                                                10.4%
Real GDP Per Capita:           $3,100                                                                              $6,046
Gender Development
  Index Rating (Gender Equality): 69                                                                                 49
Share of Earned Income:          F:31.5% M: 68.5                                                            F: 25.7   M: 74.3
Seats in Parliament
   Held by Women:                            22%                                                                    14.2%
Women enrolled in college
(University) per
 100,000 women:                              1,336                                                                    1,444
Average Annual Rate
   Of change (in GDP)                            ___                                                                   1.7%
Population without access to
Health services:                                        0                                                                        7%
Doctors per 100,000                           518                                                                    107
Population without access to
   Sanitation:                                       34%                                                                       28%
Population without access to
   Safe Water:                                       7%                                                                       17%
Daily per capita supply
of calories:                                    1970: 2,619                                                           1970: 2,698
                                                     1995: 2,277                                                           1995: 3,116

Conclusion:
Serious problems in Mexico but society is open. There is generally ability to speak out and to publish opposing points of view. Elections are free and open and
people are free to come and go as they choose. Now that real competition exists, it is unlikely that this observed trend of violence and human rights violations will
continue to intensify  and most people do not experience it in any case (which does not justify taking away the rights of the few but still suggests the scope of the
problem is not threatening the whole fabric of society)

Cuba. On the one hand Cuba made a lot of social and economic advances with the help of the Soviet Union even compared to Mexico. On the other hand there is
no political freedom and severe economic problems. Unless the US loosens its trade embargo substantially AND Castro goes through a serious liberalization phase
there is little opportunity of making changes in the human rights record in Cuba. But many Cubans would still prefer to live there and  some even see their gains as
greater than and more important than their lack of freedoms.

End by pointing out that the US has human rights violations as well. No country is free of this but relative scale of rights violations important as are the power of
forces which try to end those injustices.
_____________
Pols 143: November 7
Film:Inside Castro's Cuba
 

Questions:
1) To what extent is this film purely propaganda for Castro as opposed to a viable viewpoint (of an Australian filmmaker)?
2) What are the bases of loyalty to Castro shown in this film?
3) What things have improved since Castro took office?
4) To what extent (in your opinion) is the current economic crsis in Cuba the fault of the American blockade or the result of a repressive socialist economic system?
POLS 143
November 12 ,2001

Environmental and Ecological Issues in Third World Politics
 

I. Introduction to environmental issues

Questions:
 1)How important are environmental and ecological factors in Third World politics and why?
 2)Where are the greatest depredations against environmental preservation and why?

 3)How much has the international community been able to do to force countries to begin to control environmental degradation?

 4)What internal factors in Third World countries are currently causing governments in these areas to be concerned about environmental issues and how does this
play off against their developmental needs?

 5)Are there groups who are likely to organize politically to either fight for or against environmental protection in the country on which you are writing your paper and
who are they?

II. Causes of environmental problems
 Start by pointing out that the two greatest causes of environmental degradation are wealth and poverty the two ends of the scale.

Industrialized countries:
They greatest producers of chloroflourocarbon (CFC) gases which cause global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, greatest producers of acid rain, greatest
consumers of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline have been industrialized countries, greatest producers (per person) of garbage
 

In contrast people in developing countries per person use up less natural resources, produce less garbage, use less energy (and deplete less of the fossil fuels in the
world).
It used to be fashionable to point out from the environmentalist perspective that poor people in poor countries were much more caring of the environment because
they were closer to it and more dependent on it for their survival. They needed to have clean water in their streams, rivers and lakes because they took their drinking
water directly from them, they needed to keep forest because they still burn wood and charcoal, they needed to keep the soil fertile because agriculture was still the
basis for the survival of the majorityTrouble is that this view is naïve and untrue. In a desperate struggle for survival the very poor will disregard the future cost they
may face and destroy the environment around them..
 
 

IN SUM:  Environment is under severe attack in developed and developing countries and cost will be very high is already higher than most of you know

Carribean: fragile soil so eroded that crops cant be grown.. major contributor to rural poverty.

Mexico City  fog/smog from air pollution, diesel fuel times when inversion is so bad that have to stay indoors or wear masks old and those with lung disease
may die.

London: last fog /smog attack was in 1990 thousands died

Africa: desertification dust bowls from cash crops on fragile soil contribute to famine in Sub Sahara Mali, Chad, Senegal. Also Ethiopia and Sudan

Ghana: structural adjustment and the destruction of the rain forest eventual desertification

Brazil: : destruction of rain forests (167 million cubic meters destroy in 1987 alone) for lumber , for poor farmers seeking land affect rainfall around the globe

III: How do environmental issues play out in politics?
a. industrialized countries
Rise of Green Parties in Europe in 1980s. Environmental issues such as clean air and water have become part of mainstream political concerns even in the United
States).
. Al Gore had the environment as a central plank in his campaign and used it to attack Bush on the grounds of environmental degradation in Texas. Ralph Nader
has the environment centrally in his Green Party platform  Bush however, once elected,  has called for drilling in Alaska and has refused categorically to sign the Kyoto Treaty

How to deal with environmental issues remains difficult even in a wealthy country. Usual political result is COMPROMISE..

Still certain basic issues are accepted: water and air must be clean, fleurocarbons (green house gases) must be limited (even though there are issues seen as fringe
interests such as keeping the virgin forests of Alaska and preserving the spotted owl and saving the whales and baby seals, which do not seem to be of significance
to everyone)

b. developing countries
In developing countries the issue of environmental protection is given lip service by most governments under pressure from the West but not enforced there is a
green movement in Mexico.. some political movements of women supporting clean air and water (as in Venezuela in the 1990s) but , particularly in the poorest
countries environmental protection is not a matter of great interest instead the issue for the poorest people is survival and for those a little better off how to bring
about economic development even at a cost of the environment (although ironically ultimately survival and economic development require preservation of the
environment)

In poorest countries there is a lack of three things:
1) will/awareness of the real significance in the long run
 2)resources to pay for clean up and enforcement
 3)technical expertise to figure out the solutions for each case

It is notable that type of regime does not make a major difference in this (although it does in some other matters of human rights such as the status of women):

IV International Influence
a.Earth Summit held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro  first conference on environmental themes of this scale and with this much world attention.. end result was
Agenda 21 which was a compromise   2 concrete elements in it:  1)The major producers of CFC gases (developed countries) signed a Climate convention to limit
the production of these gases (leading to changing/eliminating pressurized sprays, freon in air conditioning etc.). Notable that underdeveloped countries did not sign
this convention (but then they are not major producers of CFC gases)
2) All nations agreed to develop their own specific plans for protecting theirs animals and plant life to preserve bio diversity
Problem here was that major proponents of environmental protection were leaders from industrialized countries and the main detractors were people from
developing countries. Leaders from LDCs pointed out that the West was developed based on the exploitation of the natural environment without concern for the
long run costs, not only within their own borders but within the poor countries which they held as colonies as well. Which of course is true

They also pointed out that the insistence of the IMF and the World Bank on structural adjustment meant their borders were open to trade and investment and
international investors are seeking the highest profit and care nothing for the environment which is also true.
In other words, they were insisting they should not be held to the same standard as the industrialized West.

b.1997 in Kyoto, again met on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Called for a 5.2% emission cut by 2008-2014 but required ratification by 55 states to become
international law. since then only  thirty states have ratified this protocol.

Some states like the US trying to find a way around this cut. US proposes trading emissions credit ie US give aid and country which as low emissions (spare
capacity) would take on some of US emissions as part of its own production senior members of US Senate have vowed to kill any plan which would directly cut
emissions as they see this as endangering economic growth in the US

c. November 12, 2000 Meeting in the Hague  to discuss the matter.. meanwhile the problems produced by greenhouse gases appear lethal. Clear
that global warming occurring which is related also to humans burning fossil fuels. Average temperature forecast to rise by 1.3 to 4 degrees Celsius one result of
this is increased flooding which we are already seeing:
- worst flooding in 50 years in Great Britain in the month of October-November 2000
- Po river flooding in Italy Sept 2000
- Small island nations and low lying coastal countries face major threats

d. 2001... Bush refused to sign Kyoto Treaty

VI. What will ultimately cause governments in developing nations to give high priority to the environment?

a. Wont happen any time soon
b. Sheer need/direct threat to their own economic progress will force them to pay attention: dust bowls, deforestation, garbage, air pollution
c. Some progress made: recycling in Senegal
                                           Severe penalties for deforestation in Pakistan, Mali
                                            Brazil TALKING about preserving rain forest
                                            Participation in international forums and conventions
d. But crisis of poverty takes precedence. Meanwhile their envronmental destruction affects everyone just as ours does

POLS 143
November 14,  2001

BRAZIL

I This time I want to talk about the environment and politics  in one country: Brazil . I want to present how Brazils history determines its present the political
framework and the environmental issue . The issues in regard to Brazil are:

Democracy
Race relations
Poverty and Equity
Culture

In Brazil it is both poverty and increasing wealth which  destroys , or has been destroying, the rain forest, simultaneously

Notes here are very brief because the history and facts about Brazil may be found in your book:  Joseph et al pp.  178-230

Background
 

History:
To understand the structure of inequity have to go back in History for Brazil:
Europeans arrive in 1500  expedition led by Pedro Alvarez Cabral (Portugal)
95% of the Tupis (dominant indigenous ethnic group) were killed in the first decades of takeover
Conquerors were military, autocratic, and conservative Catholic Christians for 300 years Portuguese settled and ruled Brazil. Major exports were agricultural.

Economy was based on plantation agriculture (coffee, sugar, cattle) and the foundation for this was slavery. Slaves were brought from Africa (as in America) but
more of them went to Brazil.
In 1819 there were 1.1 million slaves in Brazil or 30% of the population

Brazilian politics unique:
a. had elements of liberal government because had an elected legislature, a separate judiciary and separate executive branches. Elections were always held regularly
BUT power was in the hands of a landed rural oligarchy which was centralized and managed by the emperors.

b. No slave uprising occurred in Brazil and there have never been as many conflicts between racial groups as there were in the US

Why were there no uprisings? Control was much tighter than in US plus there was a continuity the same group was in power and there was no organized group to
oppose it. the weak had no one to ally with to express their point of view. Still today in Brazil there is a pyramid with Portuguese descendents and European
immigrants at the top
c. Modern politics
1888 slavery abolished 
1889 peaceful establishment of a republic with a president BUT landed oligarchy still controlled politics

Brazil state sector very large mining steel, utilities all state owned or largely state owned import substitution industrialization
1984, first civilian president Jose Sarney
Brazil begin to DE socialize , cut back on welfare state (really cut back on it, dismantle it) this does not help poor

1994 Fernando Henrique Cardoso become president still president ( re elected 1998) recent trends have been towards privatization sell off the public
companies and open to free trade Brazil suffered badly from world economic crisis  year before last 

Racial and power structure
Brazil has remained an oligarchy where wealth and privilege is passed on take rural areas power no longer concentrated in hands of rural landowners but they
(as agribusiness owners) still are powerful government adopted land reform but 1 percent of landowners (58,000) hold an area equal to Venezuela and Columbia
. over 3,000,000 farmers survive on 2% of the land.

Cardoso state responded by taking away land from unproductive estates and settles 196,000 families on them but this drop in the bucket to problem of rural poverty
and inequaity

rural poverty related to urban poverty landless poor have moved to cities settled in slums , the favellas rapid urbanizing of 1960s and 1970s because of
this

Democracy  Government Structure

Brazil is a presidential system unlike many countries in Europe. In other words, as in US, president is elected separately every four years people in Brazil voted for
this option  in a plebiscite in 1993 because this is what they were used to. strong central ruler president, vice president and cabinet 2 round run off election,
Legislature Senate and House Senate 3 from each state (26) and federal district on 8year term, plurality vote, Chamber of Deputies 4 yr term (513
deputies), proportional vote  open list, little party cohesion largest party is Party of the Liberal Front in the Chamber of Deputies, second  largest party in
Chamber is Brazilian Social Democratic Party
more power in legislature than before but president retain significant power (more than US) through his appointment to bureaucracy. much done through
personal ties. Brazilian politics still thoroughly clientalist

 Legislators dont even turn up to sessions much corruption many scandals

Environment
. Between 1990 and 1995 25,544 sq kilometers of land were deforested each year. In 1996 only 4.2% of land areas was protected from development.

Deforestation nearly doubled from 5,958 square miles in 1994 to 11,621 square miles in 1995 a 95% increase. 1996 it dropped but was still 21% larger than in
1995, in 1997 loss was less but still almost as high (and appeared to be largely due to rainfall rather than government policy). Between 1978 and 1996 12.5% of the
Amazons rain forest were destroyed
Who is guilty?
a. Loggers: foreign loggers from Asia invested $100 million dollars in 1997 alone in logging
wealthy loggers in Brazil pressure government in any case

Government set up areas it would lease to loggers and guaranteed to protect 10% of Amazon rainforest against logging

b.1 percent of the population owns most of arable land (equal to size of Venezuela and Columbia). Over 3 million farmers survive on 2% of the countries land. 4.5
million Brazilians are farm laborers or squatters who own no land. Many illegal land invasions
They have no regard to stopping deforestation. If they can get land, they will deforest it because they need to survive.
 

Conclusion:
Structure of power developed over a long history in Brazil is responsible for the lack of public responsibility for the environmental destruction which is occurring.
Until there is less poverty (especially rural poverty); it is unlikely that the issue will disappear and this wont happen anytime soon.

November19: Film: Killing for Land
questions: What is the bias of film makers.... what are they trying to get across?
                 Why are the landless poor unable to get the government to seriously help them in acquiring farms
                 What is the impact of the landless on the Amazon Rain Forest
Pols 143
November  26, 2001
Globalisation and the Prospects for Development
 
 

II. This lecture asks a broader question. What is the foreseeable future
for the poorest developing countries in general especially in the context of globalisation? Does whether they are military or communist - controlled or democracies matter in regard to the
likelihood of there being  tiny rich elites and widespread poverty?  What
are the root causes of this poverty and slow rate of growth or stagnation?
Are there solutions ? what has to change to improve the well being of the
mass of people in the poorest countries? Is there some thing that a really
altruistic donor agency or non governmental organization (NGO) could do to
change matters given available resources? Certain answers can be found among
the facts and detail which you have considered.

a. In the beginning of this course I presented the developmentalist
perspective (which you all remember). Walter Rostow was one of the chief
proponents of this whom we considered. This is actually an optimistic point
of view because it states that we know how to bring about economic growth
AND  that economic growth will bring about modernization in all spheres of
life. Mass education, urbanization, high per capita income, modern forms of
communication and transportation, increasing longevity and improved health
all supposedly result from economic development. Indeed a middle class will
result who will support the development of democratic forms of government as
Seymour Martin Lipset argued. Thus even the form and nature of politics will
be changed by economic growth according to this perspective.
b.  Furthermore we know the key to causing economic growth this is to
invest surplus capital into industrialization even if that capital comes
from multi national corporations whose own goal is to make a maximum profit
because  even if that company is drawing money out of the poorer country the
side benefit will be the establishment of a market and businesses which
indigenous capitalists can profit from to spread business throughout their
country until that country can stand on its own as a competitive member of
the international economic community

c. The countervailing perspective is the dependency school which argues on
the strength of the failure of many poor countries to grow economically and
the widening gap between the richest and poorest countries , that seeking
investment from wealthy multi national companies and from rich investors
from other countries is the recipe for disaster in the form of creating a
total dependency of the poor economy on the rich. It is in the interest of
the rich to keep the poor weak and dependent  -- so say the dependency
theorists like Andre Gunter Frank and Samir Amin. Moreover the investors
take more out then they ever give the development of local business and the
gaining of self reliant status is neither as obvious nor as easy  as the
developmentalists said.

But the dependency theorists had little to suggest as a alternative except
to say that governments of poor countries should play investors off against
each other and should do their best to control the investors and otherwise
develop trade amongst their own peer poor countries. This is not a practical
alternative as the manufacturers of the parts and technology needed in the
poorer countries are the large industrialized nations who also are the
buyers of the raw materials and food products which the poorer countries are
likely to produce.

d. Where does that leave us? Direct contradiction between these two
perspectives, and yet both are partially true. most poor countries
struggling to modernize  their agriculture and industrialize and this
requires investment from whatever source. Indeed most of the poorest
countries in the world are so at least in part because they do NOT attract
outside investment.  Mali, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso: landlocked countries
south of the Sahara desert in Africa with no major minerals yet found .
These do not attract investment and growth is very slow and they are
particularly vulnerable to natural disasters famine following drought,
increasing population using up the fragile soil, desertification, poverty
and hunger
But investors can and do exploit and clearly see only their own profit. In
this the dependency theorists are right, yet there is no point in closing
the borders -- efforts of most poor countries at preventing foreign business
from coming in and thus protecting their own domestic infant industries
usually fail because what is produced is of inferior quality and far more
expensive and can not compete on the world market.

e. There are countries which have succeeded with the formula advanced by the developmentalists South Korea, Taiwan to name two why have they succeeded
and others have remained? What is the source of the poverty of those who fail?
The answer to the first question is not clear In the case of both Taiwan and North Korea, development towards industrialization began on the base of having a disciplined population with a fairly large educated class.They were ruled by strong autocratic governments who could hold down the wages, insisted upon land
reforms and provided a stable environment. They were also supported by considerable aid from the US is the key the strong government? Samuel Huntington among others has pointed out that economic development in the absence of strong government can lead to chaos and anarchy but it does not necessarily follow that the converse is true. Strong government does not necessarily lead to economic development Julius Nyerere was President of Tanzania for many years and a relatively strong and forceful president with little opposition. Nonetheless Tanzania is limping along with slow economic growth and Nyereres strong governmen burdened the country with huge debt and it set up government control over every aspect of banking, business and agrobusiness that it could. Nor does democratic government necessarily lead to rapid economic growth as the example of many poor African countries (such as Senegal) which are constitutionally democracies.

Failure of development programs is far more common than successful some have been successful. Under the right circumstances the developmentalists were probably right but it had to be the right circumstances. available resources to attract multiple investors, relatively trained manpower, growing middle class to
capitalize on growth, strong government to keep growth and resultant pressures in check

Meanwhile the others the large group of very poor countries which seems to have become relatively poorer why? what are the prospects?

f. We spent some time exploring the extent to which the present poverty of the very poor countries can in fact be blamed on colonialism. To some of you it was a surprise to learn that a phase of direct foreign control which ended by about 1960 in most countries could still have impacts, either positive or negative. I am sure you remember the arguments as to why it is still important to consider. in Africa tribes split up and people still trying to find national identity within borders which make no sense, economies organized to provide markets for Europe thus in India the indigenous beginnings of production and trade were destroyed to create market for English products and to require cash crops for exports which the British needed

But it is all very well to blame to European (and Americans in Cuba and the Philippines) for exploiting the territories they seized but it is not true they caused the poverty and low standard of living. This existed before they came. if you have a real historical perspective you can see that development has occurred unevenly
since the beginnings of civilization. There has been a time when Egypt had a much more advanced culture than Europe and, in the middle ages, when Arabs scientists rivaled any that Europe could produce. There were kingdoms and empires (such as Timbuktu) in Africa and in Latin America (the Mayan civilization) that rivaled in terms of technology and culture what existed elsewhere in the world at the time.  What did happen in Europe first was the harnessing of inanimate power such as steam  and with this the liberalization of politics and society. In this phase Europeans leapt ahead in terms of their production and military technology and began the process of rapid economic growth. This is when the second wave of colonialism occurred and when the Europeans began to introduce industrialization and western education and democratic political institutions  to people who were very poor and had a very poor quality of life just as the Europeans had done before the beginnings of industrialization. The colonialists did not create poverty and misery in the developing world it was there. Perhaps some of their actions prolonged it (this indeed is what the dependency school would say) but they also began the process of industrialization which is still the only way to economic growth we know.

g. One of the things we blame the colonialists for in South Asia and Africa is introducing and insisting upon the acceptance of democratic political institutions when they were finally releasing their colonies because this seems to have lead to prolonged political instability which only exacerbated the economic growth problems..
This they did in hopes of keeping these territories democracies which would side with them and still provide the markets they needed and raw material they wanted.But since the political culture of these nations did not support democracy, in most cases these governments failed after a few years and were replaced in military
coups. India was the exception because the elite which firmly controlled politics DID believe in democracy but in most African countries people did not understand the concept. They were used to being ruled by their ethnic rulersused to obeying and not believing they could replace a leader who did not do what they wanted.Furthermore there were many splits between warring ethnic groups and even among regions which had never been joined as one before so that there was little trust.Democracy in Western Europe grew far more slowly developed through phases of kings granting rights to councils of notables and eventually to councils including major traders and eventually to councils which contained a broader sector of the middle class and then, only then, the principle of popular sovereignty becomingaccepted. The developing countries were forced to go through this whole process of changing their political culture in a very short period of time without having thischange come from within as it had in Europe.

What is interesting is that democracy now does seem to be gradually taking hold that is political culture has gradually changed even in the brief 40 years since independence. This is not true in every case. Sudan is ruled by a fundamentalist dictatorship, Somalia is practically an anarchy, Sierra Leone and Liberia have
suffered major internal struggles and despite their constitutions can scarcely be said to be working democracies. But Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya are beginning to move in that direction. This seems to be the result of two currents or broad sets of factors. One of these is economic growth and industrialization which is beginning and is producing a middle class which is western educated and thinks in terms of democratic government. The other broad influence is time and exposure.Virtually no area has no contact with radios, newspapers and even television. And there are always travelers who have been outside the area. People, even uneducated people in rural areas, are beginning to think of democratic political institutions as normal too. It would be wrong to say that economic growth produces democracy naturally because there are countries which have developed quite a lot more than the African countries I just named (such as Saudi Arabia) which definitely do not have a democratic political culture. But the introduction of democratic institutions, the spread of western education AND the growth of the economy
together may work to produce a political culture which will support democracy in a much shorter time than occurred in the industrialized countries of Europe. So perhaps the European colonialists powers should not be condemned to strongly for introducing these political institutions just for not understanding how hard they
would be to establish.
 

Pols 143
November 28, 2001 Globalisation and the Prospects for Development: II

Question:I am continuing here the lecture I started last time  on Prospects for Development. The major question I asked had multiple parts: Overall it asked what the foreseeable future is for the poorest developing countries? Within that it asked whether the existence of a small rich elite situated in a country typified by widespread poverty was less likely in a democracy than in an autocracy whether the latter be a military, communist or hereditary royal rule? I asked where the widespread poverty came from and what are the realistic solutions?

Development versus dependency: As I began to answer this from your readings and lecture notes (and films) this semester, I discussed the optimistic view of the developmentalists which goes along with a vision of development being becoming just like the US and other Western industrialized countries . industrialized,
urbanized, modern communication, widespread education and democratic government.
But in that discussion I pointed again to the facts which became so clear by the 1970s. Not all poor countries were able to attract investment into industrialization and then capitalize on this and develop their own free standing economy. Many, as the dependency theorists pointed out, became increasingly dependent and their economies stagnated. Investors are intent on their own profits and where countries have weak governments and few resources they are not likely to have the luxury of playing one investor off against the other.. to do so might mean no investor and then growth would slow even further. Only a few countries with the right combination of resources, trained personnel, strong government and good outside aid have succeeded.

What then is to be done about those for whom the developmentalist formula does not seem to be working?
I asked first what was the source of the poverty and pointed out the colonialists are not the creators of the situation although they may have prolonged it. Poverty was universal and human society has had uneven growth with various areas of the world jumping ahead at different points. The rapid rise to widespread material wealth however seems to have gone along with industrialization which was a European phenomenon in its first stages. This takes us back to the developmentalist emphasis on industrialization and the frustrating helplessness we feel in regard to those countries which can not seem to gather the resources to make this work.

Change out of Sequence: There is however another perspective which moves away from the emphasis on economic growth. In talking about political culture, wepointed out that democracies did not last very long in countries which did not have a political culture which supported that form of government. Where people are
used to obeying authoritarian rulers and those same rulers are used to being obeyed, it is hard if not impossible to set up an elected government and expect people tobelieve and participate regularly in the process. However we are observing another phenomenon now a move towards democracy in countries which are not yet industrialized and in which a large proportion of the population is still rural and largely uneducated. The developmentalist perspective, which is supported by many
more recent political scientists like Ronald Inglehart, tends to emphasize a sequence more or less like that experienced by the West that is, first, industrialization and increasing education and material well being and then and only then widespread beliefs in the rights of individuals and rejection of authoritarian rule. If this were true than democracy could not exist in developing countries and yet we are beginning to see it being established or, that is, replacing the military rulers who overthrew the first democracies with new democratic elections apparently supported by most people.

Consider the major cases we considered here:
Nigeria
India
Iran
Mexico
Brazil
China

a. Nigeria which has had one of the most corrupt governments in Africa with repeated takeovers by military rulers, who have impoverished the country through the
embezzlement of aid and oil profits, has moved towards democracy through the election of  Olusegan Obasanjo as president. President Clinton visited there last  fall
to give a stamp of American approval to the new direction Why should we even think this would last given the history? But still Nigerians discuss openly what goes on in their country. Even under the military , it was an open society, newspapers, plays open scoffing at the corruption now
widespread understanding of the election process because people listen to the radio.. Power of traditional chiefs fading even in Muslim north. Another coup may occur but Nigerians have moved a long way from that film we saw at the beginning of the course (Africans in Search of Identity)

b. India. We spent a lecture on this and I dont need to repeat. India is a good example of how democracy can take root without the supposed conditions for it existing. India was ruled by an educated elite, powerful through the caste system which made strong differences between social gradations. That elite was western
educated and believed in democracy so it imposed this form of government. by now in the 2000s, most Indians believe in democracy, are proud of their election process and participate in it. Even the present government which is a Hindu religious nationalist group, once in office, have behaved rather moderately because they do not want to divide the country and make worse racial and religious tensions they are been quite moderate in their policies as part of the democratic tradition of
the country

c. Iran. One can hardly call it a democracy ,although it is called one in its constitution, because it has a non elected group of clerical rulers who can over ride the elected parliament on the basis of Muslim law. But there are clearly pressures within Iran from the business and commercial people and the educated urban classes to moderate the government. The election of the last prime minister Khatami is an indication. He was elected although he was not the choice of the supreme cleric (head of clerical council). Signs of inner democratic feelings and pressure among  the educated
 

d. Mexico last elections for the first time the party which has dominated since 1920s has lost its majority signs that Mexico opening up in politics

e. Brazil still a democracy despite the widespread poverty and the millions of landless poor, gradual widening of the elite group controlling politics. Pressure for a more open and liberal society from Catholic church and other groups
 

IN SUM: there is evidence everywhere that change is occurring in the political dimension perhaps out of step with the growth of the economy. Samuel Huntington warned us that without a strong government this wave of change may lead to political instability and certainly there is evidence of that. But it is also the case that
political pressures can lead to changing policies by people in office, to widening political openness and to lessening inequality. There is, for example, wider knowledge and understanding of the concept of human rights than ever before. Yes, there is a disagreement over what has priority. The Chinese government (and the Cuban government) can argue that equality in access to education, health and work are more important than access to political freedoms. But this is a defensive argument because there is broad international pressure to provide political freedoms as well. On matters such as the equal rights of women, international pressure has been strong and is bringing about wider consciousness of the problems which gender discrimination creates. Even in regard to matters of the environment, although the government of very poor countries can do little to stop the destruction, they are beginning to try which is a major step forward.

Nature of government: Change in political culture is occurring within all types of government whether these be military, communist or democratic. No borderssuccessfully seal off all people from knowing what is going on to some degree elsewhere and change from within puts pressure on the government to change itself.
But one question I asked at the outset was whether the nature of the government mattered in terms of the existence of widespread suffering and poverty. The answer is both no and yes. Many of the poorest countries are technically democracies.. such as Brazil as you know. But the government is dominated by an elite which slows down or prevents any drastic measures to alleviate the situation of the poor. In Cuba, however, the government controls the economy (as it does NOT in Brazil) and by strait jacketing development within a short sighted government program with little private entrepreneurship, Cuba, absent aid from Russia, is in dire economic situation. Equality in access is greater in Cuba but poverty is also greater than in many countries. Widespread suffering exists under both types of regimes.
Lack of political freedom is most common under the autocratic type which may slow down or prevent economic growth and the ultimate decrease in suffering.

Conclusion: How does that leave us? I can not leave on a fully optimistic note. The pace of  economic development is very slow for the poorest countries. With fewresources, an uneducated population and weak governments, there is widespread suffering. Ultimately  well meaning NGOs and donor agencies can only help in small ways. For example there is an emphasis on small businesses of the very poor and NGOs are training people in business techniques and providing small loans especially since the emphasis on privatization which has gone along with structural adjustment. This has helped many people get established but it still does not touch the majority of the very poor. They will only be helped by an overall expansion of the economy creating new jobs and this, of course, is what is so hard to do in the poorest countries. The rich, as the dependency school points out, are only interested in getting richer. They do not want to share their wealth with the rest of the world  because this means they would have less. Only a handful of us is willing to give up their possessions for the good of mankind and I suppose for all my lecturing I am not one of those who would do this either voluntarily. What then?  Some of the poorest countries will find a role in the international economy look at what has happened in island nations such as Mauritius  multinationals have moved factories in to capitalize on cheaper labor. We know there is exploitation but certain
economic changes are occurring in those countries which were not before and also political changes as well some of which are positive. Some of these countries will gradually continue to grow and develop  and some will fall apart in continued anarchy for the foreseeable future.. not much one can say optimistically about Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Somalia. But 30 years ago, when I began teaching, there was almost nothing one could say about India in positive terms about its development either, or Indonesia, or Thailand and these have shown remarkable bursts of growth and development despite the set back of the last two years. So
there is hope and there are things that can be done internationally as well as nationally. . There are continuing efforts to improve the conditions in even the poorest and most vulnerable of cases.
As for us, I think we need to understand what the issues are in developing countries and what the situation is and why and that is what I hope you have begun to think about through this course. Perhaps in the future you will be part of developing a broader and more effective solution to end or lessen the widening gap between the rich and the poor nations.
POLS 143
List of Questions for Final Examination - Fall 2001
(only some of these questions will appear on the exam)

1. What are the main characteristics of Rostow's stages of development?
What changes are involved in moving from a traditional to the modern
society? How realistic are these in explaining what has happened to most of
the poorer developing countries?
 
2. After taking this course, you have been exposed to some of the political,
economic and social factors that Third World countries will continue to face
in the coming century. With this understanding in mind, answer the
following: What is "development" and is the process of development more or
less similar for all countries? In brief what are some general conditions
favoring development as you have just defined it?

2. Does the existence of the rich 'first world' countries facilitate or
hinder poor countries' development?  What do development (or modernization)
and dependency theories say about this?

3. What are the dangers of rapid modernization and political mobilization,
according to Huntington? Do real world developments justify his concerns?

4. List main challenges of new countries freed from the colonial rule.
Discuss positive and negative sides of the colonial legacy. Use at least one
country to illustrate your major points.

5. Why is it important to study women s status and political power separate from that of men in developing countries?
 
6. Who are the political elites in most developing countries, what is their
economic and political background?  How does this change  and why as a
country industrializes?  Use a specific third world country as an example in your answer.
 
7. What factors contribute to the growth of third world debt ?  What
approaches to debt reduction do the IMF and World Bank advocate?  What is
the US position? What has been the result of following the IMF
recommendations for the poorest countries (use specific examples)? Use at
least one specific country example to illustrate your answer.

8. Why has religious fundamentalism become more significant in politics in developing countries in the last several years? What causes its rise and what is its impact on politics? Is there any particular set of factors or conditions which lead to its lessening power once fundamentalism has a foothold in politics? Use one country as an example in your answer.

9. What makes direct foreign investment by multinational corporations so
controversial?  What are the arguments of its supporters and opponents? Use
specific country examples in your answer.

10. Take one of the following films: Inside Castros Cuba, or Killing for Land or Half the Sky. Explain the major point of the film you chose. What does the dominant political culture expect of government and how does the government respond in regard to the major issue in the film. Is there widespread dissatisfaction with the governments performance? Why or why not?
 
11. Why and how does the political culture change in developing countries?
What political norms and values change as a consequence of modernization?
What conflicts can be associated with cultural change? Use at least one
country to illustrate your major points.

12.  What are the major reasons why women do not have equal access to
economic and political power in most Third World countries? What are
different paths to active political involvement for women in the third world
(ie what strategies may be adopted by Third World women)?  Why is their
involvement important? Why do many Third World women reject American
feminist efforts to help them gain equality?
 
13. What are human rights? Is the concept of human rights culture specific
or does it reflect some universal values? Discuss the role of the United
Nations in bringing about the end to injustices and human rights violations
and the influence of the end of the Cold War. What are the major barriers to
insuring human rights will be guaranteed for all people in the Third World?

14. What do we call basic human needs .. is this definition universally
shared?  In your opinion, who has the responsibility for satisfying people's
basic human needs?
 
15. Degradation of the environment is a political as well as a social and
economic problem. Explain how and why environmental issues are important in
the Third World (with example of what these may be). Discuss what the
international and domestic political barriers are to solving environmental
problems for Third World countries. Use at least one specific  country
example to illustrate the importance and difficulty of environmental issues.
 

16. The way in which the citizens of a democratic state interact with the
government is determined in part by what kind of representational system
that the state provides.  Discuss how proportional representation and
single member district representation differ in how they represent the
different groups within a society, particularly minorities.  Which system
most favors the representation of minority groups, and why?

17. What  are the major causes of violence against women in developing countries? discuss one or two countries and explain the origins of violence against women, the reasons for its continuation and the possibilities for its diminishing in the near future.

18: Take one of the following films: The Global Assembly Line or Africans in Search of Identity  and discuss the following:
a) the bias or purpose of the film, b) the way it illustrates the impact of the  West on politics and society in developing countries, c) reasons why this film explains anger against the US and its culture and society