Just how much the normative terminology of 'development' evolved over the years is a question that renders innumerable contentious responses, based on varying value judgments. An attempt to define a monolithic term of such magnitude compels us to encapsulate the history of development itself, from its early inception in the 1950's to the late 90's, an epoch marked by the burial of certain obsolete, incongruous elements entailing primitive concepts of growth and progress.
The aftermath of the Second World War witnessed the debacle of global colonial rule across the African and Asian subcontinents, and such massive decolonisation culminated in a temporary condition of chaos and uncertainty, with newly independent countries facing monumental challenges to attain material progress flaunted by the industrialised North. Harry Truman, ex-president of the United States, is widely acclaimed by development practitioners and academicians as the one who laid the foundation of 'development' with his 1949 speech that inaugurated a 'bold new programme' for the growth and improvement of the underdeveloped periphery, and heralded as a silent advocacy of Eurocentric ideologies. Instantly dazzled by the flamboyant 'development dogma', the world was drawn towards a fascinating dimension, like an infant piqued by a new toy.
Many countries that embraced the spirit of the Western ethos advocating rapid transition from primitive economic stage of 'rural-subsistence' to 'urban-industrialised', was innately based on a long-standing perception that duplication of the policies of the North to reach the pinnacle of progress, will automatically lead to a harmonious transformation of their stagnant economies. One of the most illusory beliefs channelled by early development practitioners was the idea that economic growth is to be held synonymous to or illustrated as a mirror image of growth in material living standards. Sustaining a high GNP (gross national product) per capita was assumed as a 'panacea' for high levels of poverty and inequality, and that an increased access to goods and services would have a 'trickle-down' effect on all, including those inhabiting the lower levels of social hierarchy.
If high-income earners are maximising their profits and earnings, their increased earning will filter to other echelons of society -- this is the very basic concept of trickle-down effect. But in reality, the concept is not that straightforward and is characterised for its highly polarised view. While one section of traditional development practitioners defines poverty as a lack of material progress, pro-Marxists implicate the unbalanced distribution of wealth and assets as the major inciter of dispossession and destitution. A by-product of 'Reaganomics' which refers to policies of the Ronald Reagan Administration of the USA, the trickle-down theory was the epicentre of conservative economics, a utopian concept fostering the dream of disseminated wealth from the top to the very bottom social stratum.
A dissection of global economic climate over the centuries will unequivocally bring us to the judgment that, the trickle-down effect has indeed failed to live up to its expectations and that policies which favour the affluent (like reduced tax rates which, hypothetically, should stimulate increased investment spending, and thus generate higher income for the lower middle class) have not been realised to a greater extent. A recent paper by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard has labelled the trickle-down concept as a decomposing dinosaur, which needs to be buried. It does not, however, label the centuries-old concept as completely apocryphal, opining that production possibilities have expanded, albeit in line with structured inequalities. The Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, who served as chief economist of the World Bank, criticised Reagan's brainchild for lacking validity and concreteness, both on academic and realistic grounds.
The multi-million dollar 'development' industry today stands on foundations laid by the World Bank and United Nations. However, the United Nations, thankfully, no longer endorses a narrow, centralised definition of development and rather focuses on 'enlargement of human choices' and 'providing opportunities to people so that they may realise their own potentials'. Recognising poverty alleviation and income redistribution as development goals has implicitly pointed accusing fingers at the impotency of the trickle-down policies to retain social harmony and resolve disparities.
A look at the development discourses of the 19th century gives us a lucid idea about ambiguities involving the origins of development, which Bjorn Hettne, an early theorist, tried to clarify by terming the ideologies and their subsidiary progenies inevitably Eurocentric. His revelations followed the pattern of that of Mills, a veteran theorist who strongly condemned the 'prejudices and sophisms' that misled our ancestors, and focused on the periphery's capacity to perceive its own interests, without the prosaic domination of the West. Hettne envisioned a model called 'another-development' which transcended orthodox transcripts, and were hypothesised as 'egalitarian' and self-reliant. However, the apathy of third world countries, even towards such reformist initiatives is a tell-tale evidence of the damage implicated to the top-down approach and its associated vices, especially the trickle-down.
Economist as well as development practitioners all over the world no longer hold faith in the absurdity of the trickle-down theory, and with the advent of MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), overall human welfare has finally been given the front seat, pushing goals of material progress towards the threshold.
As a mixed economy, Bangladesh has witnessed some major shifts in its economic structure, a journey spanning over decades of policy formulation and deconstruction. Escalating social indicators like life-sustenance, self-esteem and freedom was the sui generis response to poverty alleviation, a possibility completely isolated by the trickle-down theory. Social and economic disparities have been extenuated by fruitful investments in education and health, which saw a rise in the literacy rate to a whopping 70 per cent, as recorded by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.
For a country like Bangladesh, the problem of inequality is one that calls for resilient strategies. The challenge is how to generate quality jobs for the new entrants to the job market along with integrating the excluded workforce with the mainstream. Investment in human resource development, efficient and visionary regulations, robust financial institutions and stability in the political arena are keys to unlocking the gridlock of poverty in our country.
Over 40 per cent of the world's population lives on less than $2.0 a day. It is time we graduate from this abject category of 40 per cent.
The writer is a student of the Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
