There is an other approach regarding the study of international
underdevelopment which came into being as a result of dissatisfaction against
the 'Stages approach'. Such approach is given the name of "International Structuralist
Model". According to this approach:
"The international poverty of UDCs is due to
a variety of institutional and structural economic rigidities. As a result, the
UDCs are caught up in a dependence and dominance relationship to rich countries".
The structuralist model is
divided into two streams of thoughts which are discussed below:
(Neo-Marxist) Dependence Model:
This model is the result of Marxian thinking. This approach is of the view
that underdevelopment of UDCs is due to the historical evolution of a highly
unequal international capitalist system of rich and poor countries relationship.
According to this model, the capitalistic system is furnished with exploitation.
As a result, some people get rich while majority of the people suffer from
backwardness due to dependencies.
In the same way, the international capitalistic system operates in such a way that the benefits
are accrued by the rich nations of the world. Moreover, the development efforts
on the part of UDCs do not become fruitful because of exploitive international
economic system. Paul Baran explains this theory as:
The certain groups in UDCs
like landlords, entrepreneurs, merchants, public officials and trade union
leaders who enjoy high incomes, social status and political power constitute a
small elite ruling class are desirous to perpetuate the international
capitalistic system of inequality, perhaps for their self-interest.
These people of UDCs serve, as well as are rewarded by the special interest
power groups in the rich nations which comprise of MNCs, multi-lateral aid
agencies, IMF and IBRD etc. Their activities and view points often check the
reform efforts which can be beneficial for the majority of the population. Thus,
"The poverty of UDCs is attributed to the
policies pursued by industrial countries and their extensions in the form of
small, but powerful 'comprador' groups in UDCs".
In this respect Dos Santos
"Under-development is a consequence and particular form of capitalist
development known as dependent capitalism. The dependence causes the poor
countries to be both backward and exploited. Dominant countries are endowed with
technological, commercial capital and socio-political pre-dominance over
dependent countries. Dependence is based upon an international division of labor
which allows industrial development to take place in some countries while
restricting it in others, whose growth is conditioned by and subjected to the
power centers of the world".
False Paradigm Model:
This approach attributes the underdevelopment of 3rd world countries to
inappropriate advice which is so often given by uniformed international
'experts' and advisors from both DCs assistance agencies and multi-lateral donor
organizations such as; World Bank, IMF, UNDP, ILO, UNCIEF and FAO etc. These
experts offer sophisticated concepts, elegant models and complex technical
methods of Economics and other social sciences which can lead to inappropriate
policies. Because of institutional and structural factors such as the highly
unequal ownership of land, disproportionate control over domestic and
international financial assets and very unequal access to credit etc., these policies
often serve the vested interests of existing power structures, both domestic and global.
Moreover, according to this argument, leading university intellectuals, trade
unionists, future high level govt., economists and other civil servants all get
their training in developed-country institutions where they arc injected with
the foreign ideas, concepts and models which have least relevance for their own
countries. As in Pakistan like countries at university level the Western
econometric models are taught which are of least use to solve the problems of
the people living in 'Interior Sindh'. Again at govt., level in Pakistan Planning
Commission most of the discussion is made on the concept of
COR, saving and
investment ratios, H-D Model and growth rates of GNP etc. In such state of
affairs, the prestigious planning is made which could safeguard the interests of
the elites, whereas the desirable institutional and structural reforms are
neglected, or they are given the least and traditional attention.
Both the streams of 'International Structuralist Model' are of the view that
it is the capitalism, its policies and its followers which have promoted the
international poverty. Therefore, the supporters of this model reject the
philosophy of accelerating the growth of GNP as an index of development. On the
contrary, they emphasize upon the structural and institutional reforms both at domestic and at international level. Such
reforms will be helpful in eradicating absolute poverty, increasing job
opportunities, removing the income inequalities, and raising the general life
standard of the masses by providing them necessary food, health care and clean
water. Thus, the structuralists are of the view that the growth does not matter,
it is the character of the growth process itself which counts much so that the
wider segments of 3rd world countries could benefit from growth.