Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:00:19.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling, Statistics and Political Circumstances

How the Concept of Economic Development Triumphed and what this Means for Development Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2015

Philipp Lepenies
Philipp Lepenies*
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin [philipp.lepenies@fu-berlin.de]
Get access

Abstract

The notion of “economic development” dominates aid policy. A nation’s per capita Gross Domestic Product (gdp) determines whether that country is considered developed or less developed, and the standard measure of any developmental progress is gdp growth. This article investigates the evolution of the concept of economic development, as it emerged from a specific combination of modeling, statistics and political circumstances. In this story, Arthur Lewis played a decisive role, but only by building upon Colin Clark’s first global national income statistics, an indispensible foundation for Lewis’s seminal model of economic development. This model was embraced by policy makers longing for a theoretical framework to clarify and operationalize the hitherto vague concept of development. More importantly, however, the statistical indicator on which Lewis based his theory had already been universally accepted. In other words: statistics came before theory. This holds important lessons for alternative development ideas. It explains why the idea of economic development remains so firmly entrenched and suggests the conditions that might be necessary for an alternative theory to take hold.

Résumé

La notion de « développement économique » domine les politiques d’aide internationale. Le Produit Intérieur Brut (pib) d’une nation détermine si celle-ci est développée ou non, et la croissance du pib est devenue la mesure standard de tout progrès en termes de développement. Cet article étudie l’évolution du concept de développement économique, tel qu’il a émergé à partir d’une combinaison spécifique de modélisation, de statistique et de circonstances politiques. Dans cette histoire, Arthus Lewis a joué un rôle décisif, mais en s’appuyant sur les travaux antérieurs de Colin Clark consacrés à la statistique sur le revenu national, le fondement indispensable pour le modèle de développement économique proposé par la suite par Lewis. Ce modèle a été adopté par les décideurs politiques en quête de cadre théorique pour éclairer et rendre opérationnel le concept, jusqu’alors vague, de développement. De façon plus décisive encore, l’indicateur statistique sur lequel Lewis appuie sa théorie était d’ores et déjà universellement accepté. En d’autres termes : la statistique est venue avant la théorie. Cela implique des enseignements importants pour les approches alternatives du développement : cela explique non seulement pourquoi l’idée de développement économique reste si solidement ancrée mais suggère certaines conditions nécessaires pour qu’une théorie alternative puisse s’établir.

Zusammenfassung

Das Konzept der ”„wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung„ dominiert die internationale Zusammenarbeit. Das Pro-Kopf-Einkommen (gemessen am Bruttoinlandsprodukt bip) zeigt, ob ein Land mehr oder weniger entwickelt ist. Der Standardindikator dafür, dass Entwicklung stattfindet, ist das bip-Wachstum. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Entstehung des Konzepts der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung als das Ergebnis eines besonderen Zusammenspiels von Modellierung, Statistik und politischen Rahmenbedingungen. In dieser Geschichte spielt Arthur Lewis eine besondere Rolle – aber nur weil er auf die ersten internationalen Einkommensstatistiken Colin Clarks zurückgreifen konnte, die eine grundlegende Basis für Lewis berühmtes Modell der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung darstellten. Lewis Modell der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung wurde von Politikern dankbar aufgegriffen, da es endlich das lange sehr vage verstandene Konzept der Entwicklung konkretisierte und operationalisierbar machte. Wichtiger jedoch war, dass die Statistiken, auf die Lewis seine Argumentation aufbaute, schon lange poltisch etabliert und akzeptiert waren, bevor sie theoretisch untermauert wurden. Mit anderen Worten: Statistik kam in dieser Geschichte vor der Theorie. Dies ist eine wichtige Lektion für den Versuch, Alternativen zur Idee der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung zu etablieren. Es kann gezeigt werden, warum das Konzept der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung so fest im Sattel sitzt und welche Bedingungen und Schritte notwendig wären, damit sich Alternativen durchsetzen.

Keywords

Economic DevelopmentStatisticsGross Domestic ProductDevelopment AlternativesEconomic ModelsDéveloppement économiqueStatistiquesProduit Intérieur BrutAlternatives de développementModèles économiquesWirtschaftliche EntwicklungStatistikBruttoinlandsproduktEntwicklungs-alternativenÖkonomische Modelle
Type
Key Concept
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , December 2015 , pp. 375 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anghie, Antony, 2002. “Colonialism and the Birth of International Institutions: Sovereignty, Economy and the Mandate System of the League of Nations”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 34 (3): 513-633.Google Scholar
Arndt, Heinz W. 1978. The Rise and Fall of Economic Growth. A Study in Contemporary Thought (Melbourne, Longman).Google Scholar
Arndt, Heinz W, 1981. “Economic Development: A Semantic History”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 29 (3): 457-466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Ian, 1998. “The Mismeasure of Nations: A Review Essay”, Population and Development Review, 24 (4): 831-845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Robert, 1996. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last (London, Intermediate Technology Publications).Google Scholar
Clark, Colin, 1932. National Income 1924-1931 (London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Clark, Colin, 1937. National Income and Outlay (London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Clark, Colin, 1940. The Conditions of Economic Progress (London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Collier, Paul, 2008. The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What can be done about it (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Commission on Growth and Development, 2008. The Growth Report. Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development (Washington, The World Bank).Google Scholar
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, 2009. Report Paris: mimeo. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf.Google Scholar
Eckert, Andreas, 2008. “‘We are all Planners Now.’ Planung und Dekolonisation in Afrika”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 38: 375-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, Ronald, 1989. “Arthur Lewis”in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P., eds., The New Palgrave Economic Development (New York, Norton: 207-209).Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”, International Organisation 52 (4): 887-917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fioramonti, Lorenzo, 2013. Gross Domestic Problem. The Politics Behind the World’s Most Powerful Number (London, Zed Books).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, Díez and Lepenies, Philipp, 2015. “Fortschritt, Statistik und Partizipation – Wege zu einem neuen Entwicklungsparadigma”in Lepenies, P., Sondermann, E. und Ziai, A., eds., Von den MDG zu den SDG. Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick des Post-2015 Prozesses (Baden-Baden, Nomos In print).Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1981. “The Rise and Fall of Development Economics”, in Essays in Trespassing: Economics to Politics and Beyond (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-24).Google Scholar
Hull, Charles H. 1899. The Economic Writings of William Petty, Volume I (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hunt, Diana, 1989. Economic Theories of Development. An Analysis of Competing Paradigms. (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf).Google Scholar
Keynes, John M., 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Kremakova, Milena I., 2013. “Too Soft for Economics, Too Rigid for Sociology, or Just Right? The Productive Ambiguities of Sen’s Capability Approach”, European Journal of Sociology, 54 (3): 393-419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Christian, 2011. Measuring Progress and Well-Being. Achievements and Challenges of a New Global Movement (Berlin, Friedrich Ebert Foundation).Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul, 1997. “The Fall and Rise of Development Economics” in Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Cambridge, MIT Press: 1-29).Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1933. “National Income”, in Seligman, Edwin and Johnson, Alvin, eds., Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 11 (New York: Macmillan: 205-224).Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1934. National Income, 1929-1932 (New York, National Bureau of Economic Research).Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, 45 (1): 1-28.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1968. Toward a Theory of Economic Growth (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
League of Nations, 1924. The Covenant of the League of Nations. Available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leaguecov.asp.Google Scholar
Lepenies, Philipp, 2008. “An Inquiry into the Roots of the Modern Concept of Development”, Contributions to the History of Concepts, 4: 202-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepenies, Philipp, 2013. Die Macht der einen Zahl. Eine politische Geschichte des Bruttoinlandsprodukts (Berlin, Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
Lepenies, Philipp, 2014a. “Die Politik der messbaren Ziele. Die Millennium Development Goals aus gouvernementalitätstheoretischer Sicht – Lehren aus der Fixierung globaler Entwicklungsindikatoren“, Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift PVS, Sonderheft 48: 200-224.Google Scholar
Lepenies, Philipp, 2014b. Art, Politics and Development. How Linear Perspectives shaped Policies in the Western World (Philadelphia, Temple University Press).Google Scholar
Lewis, Arthur, 1944. “An Economic Plan for Jamaica”, Agenda: A Quarterly Journal of Reconstruction, 3 (4): 154-163.Google Scholar
Lewis, Arthur, 1949. The Principle of Economic Planning (London, Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
Lewis, Arthur, 1954. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour”, Manchester School, 22:139-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Arthur, 1955. The Theory of Economic Growth (London, Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus, 2004. Macromeasurement Before and After Colin Clark, Colin Clark Lecture, Queensland, http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/articles/colin_clark.pdf.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. Gregory and Taylor, Mark P., 2011. Economics (Andover, Cengage).Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, 1977 [1867]. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Volume 1, Marx-Engels Werke mew, Vol 23 (Berlin, Dietz).Google Scholar
Maslow, Abraham, 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370-396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Deirdre, 1983. The Rhetoric of Economics (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
McCloskey, Deirdre 1990. If You’re so Smart. The Narrative of Economic Expertise (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Meier, Gerald M., 2001. “The Old Generation of Development Economists and the New”in Meier, G. M. and Stiglitz, J., eds., Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective (Oxford, Oxford University Press: 13-50).Google Scholar
Meier, Gerald M. and Seers, Dudley, 1984. Pioneers in Development (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary, 2012. The World in the Model. How Economists Work and Think (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha, 2003. “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice”, Feminist Economics, 9 (2-3): 33-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD, 2008. Statistics, Knowledge and Society. Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies, (Paris, oecd).Google Scholar
Preston, Peter Wallace, 1996. Development Theory. An Introduction (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar
Ranis, Gustav, 2004. “Arthur Lewis’ Contribution to Development Thinking and Policy”, Economic Growth Center Yale University Center Discussion Paper n° 891.Google Scholar
Rosenstein-Rodan, Paul N., 1943. “Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe”, The Economic Journal, 53 (210/211): 202-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstein-Rodan, Paul N., 1944. “The International Development of Economically Backward Areas”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), 20 (2): 157-165.Google Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W., 1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1991 [1911]. Die Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Berlin, Duncker und Humblot).Google Scholar
Seers, Dudley, 1969. “The Meaning of Development”, IDR Bulletin, December: 2-6.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1999. Development as Freedom (New York, Knopf).Google Scholar
Srinivasan, T.N. 1994. “Human Development: A New Paradigm or Reinvention of the Wheel?”, American Economic Review, 84 (2): 238-243.Google Scholar
Stanton, Elizabeth A., 2007. The “Human Development Index: A History”, Working Paper Number 127, peri (Amhurst, University of Massachusetts).Google Scholar
Streeten, Paul, 1979. “Basic Needs: Premises and Promises”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 1: 136-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teitz, Michael B. and Chappel, Karen, 2013. “Planning and Poverty: an Uneasy Relationship”in Carmon, N. and Fainstein, S., eds., Policy, Planning, and People. Promoting Justice in Urban Development (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press: 205-223).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tignor, Robert L., 2006. W. Arthur Lewis and the Birth of Development Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todaro, Michael P. and Smith, Stephan C., 2011. Economic Development, Eleventh Edition (Harlow, Pearson).Google Scholar
Truman, Harry S. 1949. Inaugural Address. Available at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/calendar/viewpapers.php?pid=1030.Google Scholar
Ul-Haq, Mahbub, 1995. Reflections on Human Development (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations, 1947. Economic Development in Selected Countries: Plans, Programmes and Agencies. Department of Economic Affairs (New York, United Nations).Google Scholar
United Nations, 1951. Measures for the Economic Development of Under-Developed Countries. Report by a Group of Experts appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Department of Economic Affairs (New York, United Nations).Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (undp). 1990. The Human Development Report (New York, United Nations).Google Scholar
Weigley, Russell, 1973. The American Way of War. A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (Bloomington, Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
World Bank, 1993. The East-Asian Miracle. Economic Growth and Public Policy (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar