This section reviews relevant theories that have direct and indirect impact on the construct of SD in South Africa, which result from research commercialisation in the NSI. Theory plays an important role and adds meaningfulness in explaining the lens through which this research is examined and provides an important foundation for the development of a conceptual framework for this research. The use of theoretical framework also serves as a guide during research analysis and interpretation of results.
Schunk (2008:23) defines a theory as “an organised set of related principles explaining observed events/relationships”. Theories make predictions in the form of “if…, then…” statements that can be tested.” Moore and Kearsley (1996:197) further state that “theory gives us a common framework, a common perspective, and a common vocabulary that helps us ask questions in a sensible way and make sense of problems”. Pieterse (2010:9) views sustainable development theory as that which takes into consideration a country’s economic, sociological, anthropological, historical, political and even ideological factors. The theory of SD presently borrows from development, sociology and economic related fields (Decleris, 2000; Pieterse, 2010:9) as indicated in Table 2.5-1.
48
Table 2.5-1: Global hegemony and development theories
HISTORICAL CONTEXT HEGEMONY EXPLANATION DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
Nineteenth
century British Empire Colonial Anthropology, social
Darwinism Progress,
evolutionism 1890–1930s Latecomers, colonialism Classical political economy Catching up Post-war boom US hegemony Growth theory, structural
functionalism
Modernisation
Decolonisation Third World nationalism, G77 Neo-Marxism Dependency 1980s > Globalisation Finance and
corporate capital Neoliberalism, monetarism Structural adjustment 1990s > Rise of Asia, big emerging
economies, BRIC Capabilities, developmental
state Human development
Source: Pieterse (2010:9)
Table 2.5-1 further indicates that (sustainable) development is intrinsically a field of multi-level negotiation, which requires the adoption of a multidimensional and holistic approach in this research context. Therefore, due to the cross-disciplinary nature of the concept of development, the theories reviewed in this research have been adapted from constituent disciplines such as economics, sociology and agricultural science. Generally, (sustainable) development actions need all of the following theories in new combinations: classical political economy, modernisation, dependency, market-led (neoliberalism) and society-led (alternative development).
2.5.1 The Modernisation Theory
The modernisation theory and the associated stages of growth (evolutionary) theory are linked to Rostow (1960; 1990) who identifies five stages of economic growth that lead to development, namely: the (i) traditional society (an agrarian-dependent society with limited access to S&T); (ii) preconditions of take-off; (a transitional period to modernity, a period when developing society becomes aware of the need for advancement); (iii) take-off (the period of rapid industrial and technological growth); (iv) drive to maturity (a period of long sustained growth); and (v) age of high mass consumption (a period of economic growth when society moves towards demanding durable consumer goods and services).
The WEF (2013:9-10) adapted Porter’s (1990) theory in formulating three stages of development, which bear some similarities with Rostow’s (1960) five stages of economic growth theory summarised in Table 2.5.1-1.
49
Table 2.5.1-1: Three stages of development
DEVELOPMENT STAGES
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGES
1. Factor-driven The GCI assumes that economies in the first stage are mainly factor-driven and compete based on factor endowments—primarily low-skilled labour and natural resources. Stage of development hinges primarily on well-functioning public and private institutions (pillar 1), a well-developed infrastructure (pillar 2), a stable macroeconomic environment (pillar 3), and a healthy workforce that has received at least a basic education (pillar 4).
2. Efficiency-driven Institutions and countries develop more efficient production processes and increase product quality, due to increased wages and cannot increase prices.
Competitiveness is increasingly driven by higher education and training (pillar 5), efficient goods markets (pillar 6), well-functioning labour markets (pillar 7), developed financial markets (pillar 8), the ability to harness the benefits of existing technologies (pillar 9), and a large domestic or foreign market (pillar 10).
3. Innovation-
driven The stage entails companies competing by producing new and different goods through new technologies (pillar 12) and/or the most sophisticated production processes or business models (pillar 11) in order to sustain increasing higher wages and the associated standard of living.
Source: Collated from World Economic Forum (2013:9-10)
Table 2.5.1-1 implies that globally countries are at different stages of development, which have implications on the three pillars of SD, mainly the environmental pillar. The modernisation theory proposes that if ‘less-developed’ countries (LDCs) are to become ‘developed’, the path taken by the ‘developed’ countries, which is closely tied with industrialisation, should be followed. Scholars such as Inkeles and Smith (1974), Webster (1984), Harrison (1988) and Saha (1992) have assumed the existence of a direct causal link between five sets of variables, namely: modernising institutions, modern values, modern behaviour, modern society and economic development.
Figure 2.5.1-1 shows that South Africa, including other 31 economies out of the total 148 ranked economies, falls under stage 2: efficiency-driven stage of development. According to Fagerlind and Saha (1989:21-24), underlying assumptions of the modernisation theory such as modern values and behaviour by individuals eventually leads to socio-economic development are unrealistic. Therefore, because society is not the sum total of individuals who live in the society, Fagerlind and Saha (1989:21-24) have refuted the modernisation theory. Offiong (2001:40-46) also criticises the modernisation theory as one that ignores the global forces, treats third-world societies as self-contained units, whereby political, social, or economic systems can be analysed;
and ignores world-historical development of transitional structures. Matunhu (2011:65-66) disapproves the modernisation theory as based on deterministic reason of a linear model of socio-
50
economic development and externally-initiated changes. In the 1980s, Matunhu (2011:66) notes that Africa was victim of the failed ‘Eurocentric’ IMF-imposed economic structural adjustment programme (ESAP). The failure of the ESAP project to pull the continent out of poverty and underdevelopment maybe attributed to disregard of the cultural, social, political and traditional values of the recipient countries.
Figure 2.5.1-1: South Africa's Global Competitiveness Index 2013–2014 Source: WEF (2013:345)
2.5.2 The Dependency Theory
Critics of the evolutionary theory such as Baran (1957), Frank (1972b), Frank (1967) and Brett (1974) propose the dependence theory as an alternative theoretical framework for interpreting and explaining development and underdevelopment. The alternative scholars such as Offiong (1980:7) and Frank (1972a:14) propose that persistent poverty of the third world (the Global South) is an image of dependency on ‘the Global North’. Dependency, according to Dos Santos (1973:76), is a conditioning situation of causal relationship, which Rodney (I973:21-22) views as a product of capitalist, imperialist and colonialist exploitation. The chief feature of the dependency school places the development process firmly within a globally defined historical context (Smith, 1979:248), a ‘centre’ of wealthy states and a ‘periphery’ of poor, underdeveloped states determined by the manner of integration (Ikejiaku, 2008:2). “Dependency means… that the development alternatives open to the dependent nations are defined, constrained or limited by its integration into and function within the world market system” (Offiong 1980:76). Kenya, for example, continues to express its displeasure at the IMF and the World Bank for forcing policy changes on it (Ikejiaku, 2008:3), the conditionality of the so-called free market rules to the economies structural adjustment programme ‘SAP’ (Biersteker, 1993: Ikejiaku, 2008:3).
51
According to Frank (1972b:4), underdevelopment is one of the results of dependency, whereby resources are being actively used, with the benefits going to the dominant states and not for the poorer (resource owners) countries. Frank (1967:25) further states that “underdevelopment is not an original state, but a result of economic capture and control of backward regions by advanced metropolitan capitalism”. Dos Santos (1971:226) states that:
[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favours some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.
In defining the concept, Dos Santos (1971:226) emphasises the historical dimension of the dependency relationships, with the assumption that economic and political power are heavily concentrated and centralised in the industrialised countries. Scholars who refute the dependency theory such as Webster (1984), Fagerlind and Saha (1989), Harrison (1988) and Nnaemeka (2009) present a different political alternative for development. The first alternative is the self-reliance model, which proposes that although development can be facilitated by the help of others, citizens should take responsibility for their country’s development (Nnaemeka, 2009:44). Development cannot be received and should be experienced as a participation process (Nnaemeka, 2009:44).
Nevertheless, a policy of self-reliance according Davids, Theron and Maphunye (2009:9-17), should be interpreted as endorsing a policy of controlled interactions with the world economy for the welfare of the larger citizenry. A second alternative is the people-driven development model, whereby the urgent primary principle is the citizens being agents, the means and the end of development of bottom-up nation-building strategy.
Social scientists such as Webster (1984), Fagerlind and Saha (1989) and Harrison (1988) argue that the dependency theory’s implication that third world economies are static is erroneous and has also failed to account of the fact that some dependent nations have become wealthy. Many Asian economies, and newly industrialising countries (NICs), such as South Korea, Taiwan and Hong-Kong, have developed along capitalistic, open lines, serving as an empirical contradiction to dependency theory (Kay & Gwynne, 2000:52). Bad government, according to Fagerlind and Saha (1989:22) is the single most important cause of failure in LDC. Furthermore, Kay and Gwynne (2000:52) assert that the “associated-dependent development” by Cardoso and Faletto (1979) is more relevant, than the construct of “development of underdevelopment” version of Frank’s (1967;
1972a) dependency, which is at odds with the development achieved by the Asian economies.
Underdevelopment, in part, may be due to past policy choices by LDC imitating industrialisation (Srininvas & Sutz, 2008:10). Consequently, this research posits that policy-makers should design
52
specific policies within the LDC capabilities. However, Ikejiaku (2008:7) puts forward the view that domestically-inspired policy choices in LDCs and some LDC are sometimes limited by massive debt obligations. Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the IP Organisation, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the IMF continue to exert a strong influence over LDCs and developing economies domestic policies (Onimode, 1989:12; Ikejiaku, 2008:3). Development, according to Hirschman (1958:41), depends not so much on finding optimal combinations of productive factors and resources as on using—for development tasks—resources and capabilities that are badly utilised, hidden, or scattered. Consequently, the research views underdevelopment essentially as a state where important potential has not yet been exploited sufficiently within the NSI.
The key to getting SD right appears as if it is for the government to do well in the narrow range of tasks that Adam Smith, cited by Mankiw (2006:6) and Wade (2010:150), prescribed: ‘‘little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest and not much more barbarism but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice’’. Indeed “a consensus seems to have emerged that corruption and other aspects of poor governance and weak institutions have substantial, adverse effects on economic growth” (Mauro, 2004; Wade, 2010:154). The World Bank and IMF have built governance reforms into lending conditionality. Seligson (2002;410) states that “so widespread is confidence in these findings [conditionality] that international lending agencies have embarked upon major efforts to reduce corruption, conditioning many of their loans on formal, widespread efforts to clean it up”. This research supports the need for long-term development finance and technical assistance for SST in Africa without conditions attached to achievement of externally required sustainability targets.
2.5.3 The Human Capital Theory
Critics of the evolutionary and dependency theories such as Blaug (1985) and Schultz (1961:1981) support the human capital theory (HCT) as being the most productive course to national development of any society. The HCT rests on the nation’s human capital for the advancement of the population (Schultz, 1961). Education contributes directly to the growth of the national income of societies and is not merely a form of consumption (Schultz, 1961:640-641). The HCT assume that improved technology leads to greater production and that employees acquire skills for the use of technology through formal education. Blaug (1985:18-15) criticises the HCT and contends that boosting the level of education in a society may increase inequalities in the distribution of income.
Fagerlind and Saha (1989) also view the HCT as appealing but fraught with methodological problems such as difficulty in measuring how education contributes to labour quality.
53 2.5.4 The African Renaissance Theory
Other developmental theorists such as Korten (1990) and Matunhu (2011) argue that the African renaissance theory encourages Africa to act in a world, dominated by the metropolitan countries, suggesting that micro-level development and poverty reduction should be the primary focus. The African renaissance theory, unlike its predecessors, advocates for local solutions, pluralism, community-based solutions and reliance on local resources. The future depends on achieving the transformation of institutions, technology, values and behaviour consistent with ecological and social realities in Africa (Korten, 1990:4; Matunhu, 2011:71).
2.5.5 The Systems Theory
Systems theorists, for example Easton (1965), Freeman (1987:2004), Decleris (2000) and Johnson, Edquist and Lundvall (2003) denounce one-sided economic growth and propounded an integrated developmental approach. Easton (1965) is renowned for his application of systems theory to political science. Easton (1965) proposed that a political system could be seen as a delimited (that is all political systems have precise boundaries) and fluid (changing) system of steps in decision making. System approaches take a broader view of policy as an institutionalised multi-actor and a multi-dimensional process (Lafferty et al., 2005:255). The Stockholm International Conference on the environment (1972) can be regarded as the starting point of the new, systemic approach in SD and is composed of the sum of its principles and corresponding action plans (Stockholm Declaration, 1972; WCED, 1987; Decleris, 2000). The system theory focuses on the contribution to policy making of interrelated forces (Hanekom, 1987:46; OECD, 2005a). This research views the systems theorist approach as being relevant to the construct of SD within the NSI. To this end, this research provides the Chapter summary.