PDF Poverty in the Third World After WWII

After World War II, the issue of poverty in the "Third World" became a central focus of global politics and economics. Poverty was framed as a global problem that needed to be solved to ensure international stability. This shift in focus was marked by the creation of policies promoting economic grow...

After World War II, the issue of poverty in the "Third World" became a central focus of global politics and economics. Poverty was framed as a global problem that needed to be solved to ensure international stability. This shift in focus was marked by the creation of policies promoting economic growth as the solution to poverty, with the poor defined as lacking what wealthier nations had. Before the 1940s, poverty was seen differently, often as something unchangeable, especially in colonized regions. Traditional societies had their own ways of managing poverty, but these systems were undermined by the spread of capitalism. As modern capitalism took hold, poverty became a societal issue managed through state intervention, welfare programs, and social policies. In the mid-20th century, poverty was increasingly viewed as a problem requiring technical solutions, with a focus on development projects aimed at raising economic productivity and improving social conditions. The World Bank's 1949 mission to Colombia, for example, advocated for a comprehensive development program that included education, health, and infrastructure improvements. This new development approach, grounded in Western ideals of progress, positioned economic growth as the key to solving poverty. It suggested that underdeveloped countries could follow the path of the West, using modern planning and international aid to overcome poverty. Thus, poverty became a global issue, with development framed as the necessary solution to inequality between rich and poor nations. The development discourse, exemplified by the 1949 World Bank mission to Colombia, arose from complex historical conditions, marking a shift in global relations between Europe, the U.S., and the "Third World" regions—Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This shift created a new representation of these regions in Western thought. While development as a formal discourse emerged after World War II, there were earlier precursors, especially in Africa, where the decline of colonialism coincided with the rise of development policies aimed at restructuring colonial societies and re-establishing relations between colonies and metropoles. In the interwar period, the British Development Act of the 1940s, for instance, sought to revitalize the British Empire by modernizing sectors of the African population, though often at the cost of indigenous African systems. These efforts culminated in post-war community development schemes. Decolonization, and the international push for development through new global institutions, further accelerated this process. In Latin America, which had gained political independence much earlier, the early 20th century saw increasing U.S. influence. Initially, U.S. foreign policy toward the region was interventionist, but it later shifted towards promoting economic ties under the "good neighbor" policy. However, by the mid-1940s, Latin American nations began to emphasize industrialization and economic independence, creating a tension with the U.S., which focused on security and free-market policies. This divergence grew as the Cold War developed, and the U.S. continued to push for economic models that ignored the region’s growing demands for more autonomy in industrial and social development. Despite this, Latin American demands for industrialization and economic reform reflected broader trends, including the rise of professional classes, urbanization, and increased social movements pushing for modernization. These processes, which began to gain momentum in the 1920s and 1930s, coalesced after World War II into a more defined strategy for national economic models, including in Colombia, where state interventionism began to be seen as essential for social progress. Ultimately, the invention of development as a discourse in the postwar era was part of a broader shift in global relations. Within a decade, a new strategy for dealing with poverty and inequality between rich and poor countries emerged, influencing all aspects of the cultural, social, and economic life of the Global South. This marked the beginning of the modern development agenda, rooted in power, knowledge, and domination, which we will explore further in the subsequent section. **Historical Conditions, 1945-1955:** The period from 1945 to 1955 marked a crucial phase in shaping the development discourse, particularly regarding the non-industrialized world (later known as the Third World). Several factors contributed to this development, including the aftermath of World War II, rising nationalism, the Cold War, the need for new markets, fears of communism, and growing faith in science and technology. 1. **Emergence of the Third World Concept:** - The concepts of "underdevelopment" and the "Third World" did not exist before 1945. These ideas emerged as part of the post-war reorganization of global power. By the early 1950s, the world was divided into three distinct blocs: the industrialized nations (First World), the Communist nations (Second World), and the non-industrialized nations (Third World). 2. **U.S. Strategic Priorities Post-WWII:** - **Europe's Reconstruction**: The U.S. was primarily focused on rebuilding Europe, particularly through initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which provided massive economic aid to Western Europe ($19 billion). This helped revive European economies and maintain their colonial holdings. - **Colonial Interests**: The U.S. initially supported European powers' control over colonies, partly because access to raw materials from these colonies was vital for Europe's recovery. However, with rising anti-colonial struggles, particularly in Asia and Africa, and the growing influence of socialist movements, the U.S. shifted its stance by the mid-1950s. 3. **Latin American Nationalism:** - By the late 1940s, many Latin American countries were moving towards more autonomous national economies, with state-sponsored industrialization and rising middle-class and labor movements. This shift, often seen as a move towards social justice and democratic consolidation, was misinterpreted by the U.S., which failed to understand the growing nationalist sentiment in the region. 4. **Cold War and Development:** - **Cold War Rivalry**: The Cold War played a central role in shaping development policies. The U.S. viewed the spread of communism as a serious threat and promoted economic development as a way to prevent the spread of communism, especially in the Third World. This period saw the U.S. attempt to "rescue" poor countries from poverty to prevent them from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence. - **Military and Development Synergy**: The U.S. linked its military and development strategies. The creation of military pacts, such as the Rio Conference of 1947, and later doctrines of national security, intertwined development and military concerns. The Third World became central to superpower rivalry, with many Cold War conflicts taking place in developing countries. 5. **Economic Factors:** - **Need for New Markets**: The U.S. was looking to expand markets for its goods, especially as its economy grew and produced surplus goods. The need for new markets and access to raw materials became more pressing during the postwar period. - **Marshall Plan vs. Development Aid**: While Europe received large amounts of aid through the Marshall Plan, the Third World did not receive similar treatment. Only a small fraction of U.S. aid went to the Third World, and it was largely aimed at creating favorable conditions for capitalist development, controlling nationalism, and suppressing leftist movements. The creation of institutions like the World Bank and IMF reinforced this focus on market-based development, limiting the scope of aid to developing countries. 6. **Fear of Communism:** - The fear of communism was a dominant theme in the development discourse. U.S. officials believed that if poverty and underdevelopment were not addressed, these regions would be susceptible to communist influence. Thus, development was framed not only as a way to alleviate poverty but as a strategic tool in the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism. In summary, the years 1945-1955 saw the consolidation of U.S. hegemony, with development discourse emerging as a key tool in both economic and geopolitical strategies. The focus on economic aid, military alliances, and the fight against communism reshaped the relationship between the industrialized and non-industrialized worlds. The Third World became an important arena for Cold War rivalry, with development strategies often intertwined with military and political goals. Post-WWII, the "war on poverty" was closely tied to concerns about overpopulation, especially in developing countries. Influenced by Malthusian ideas, experts believed that unchecked population growth would hinder economic development. Efforts were made to accelerate fertility reduction through policies and programs, drawing on scientific fields like demography and public health. While population control had long been discussed, it intensified after the war, with a focus on managing growth as a key to development. Poor populations were often seen as "ignorant" and in need of external intervention to reduce fertility. These discussions, framed as scientific, were also intertwined with racial and colonial attitudes, portraying the global poor as obstacles to progress. After World War II, science and technology were seen as key to development. The belief was that scientific knowledge and technological advancements could drive economic progress in poor countries. The U.S. introduced programs like the Point Four Program in 1949, focusing on providing technical assistance to developing nations, particularly in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. This was based on the idea that technology would foster material progress and guide these countries toward modernization. Technology was viewed not only as a tool for progress but also as a moral force that would shape societies, promoting innovation and efficiency. The transfer of technology to poorer countries became central to development strategies, though it was assumed that technology was neutral and universally beneficial, without considering cultural or social differences. The post-war period also saw a surge in interest in understanding the economies of the Third World, with more academic attention focused on countries like Latin America. New fields of social science, such as sociology, economics, and demography, were used to study and solve these countries' problems. The idea of economic development became closely tied to the belief in inevitable progress, where poor countries would follow a linear path toward prosperity, similar to industrialized nations. Development strategies focused on increasing industrialization, urbanization, and social services, with the ultimate goal of achieving growth similar to the West. As development gained momentum, it also led to increased state intervention and planning in economic affairs. In Latin America, regional development corporations were set up to emulate successful U.S. models like the Tennessee Valley Authority. While these efforts were framed as humanitarian, they often undermined the autonomy of poor nations, creating new forms of control. The rich countries and international organizations, with their technological and financial resources, played a dominant role in shaping development, making it a tool for expanding their influence and control globally. The poor were increasingly seen as subjects in need of management through sophisticated development programs. ### The Discourse of Development: Short Summary Development emerged as a dominant discourse after World War II, focused on modernization, industrialization, and capital investment as the keys to overcoming poverty in the Third World. It was shaped by a system of relationships between international institutions (like the World Bank), experts, and governments, which defined what could be considered development issues and how they should be addressed. Key elements of development theory included capital formation, technological progress, cultural modernization (through education), and the creation of institutions to guide development. Development was defined not by individual elements but by the system that connected them, shaping strategies and policies for economic growth. However, this discourse was top-down and technocratic, often ignoring local cultures and treating people as passive subjects or statistical figures. Experts identified problems like poverty or illiteracy, but the people affected had little say in the process. Over time, while new strategies and issues have been introduced (e.g., sustainable development), the core principles of development—focused on capital, industrialization, and expert-driven solutions—have remained largely unchanged, often at the expense of local voices and cultures. ### The Professionalization and Institutionalization of Development: Summary Development emerged after World War II as a structured response to poverty, driven by a combination of expert knowledge, institutionalization, and professionalization. It was not a natural or gradual process but a constructed field, shaped by the politics of knowledge and power. **Professionalization** refers to the way development became a specialized area of expertise, with techniques, methods, and academic disciplines created to study and manage the Third World. This shift helped reframe issues like poverty as scientific problems, removed from political or cultural contexts. Development studies programs were established in Western universities, and similar structures were set up in the Third World to align with development needs. This professionalized knowledge allowed experts to classify and address problems, creating policies that normalized the conditions of poor countries. It also led to the translation of local issues into research data within Western paradigms, often reinterpreting and reframing them in ways that could be controlled by the global development network. The **institutionalization** of development created a vast network of organizations and agencies at international, national, and local levels, from the UN to NGOs, all contributing to the spread of development practices. This network, supported by professional knowledge, managed and intervened in the economic and cultural lives of populations, creating systems of control and promoting certain behaviors. As development became institutionalized, it also grew into a lucrative industry, with poverty, illiteracy, and hunger becoming key areas of focus for experts and organizations. While development programs sometimes benefited people, they were also a way to manage and control populations rather than resolve the root causes of poverty. Development succeeded in creating a form of "underdevelopment" that was technically and politically manageable, but it failed to address the fundamental needs of poor communities. ### The Invention of "The Village": Development at the Local Level - Summary James Ferguson and other scholars have shown that the concept of "underdeveloped" countries, like Lesotho or Egypt, is a key part of the development discourse. These countries are often portrayed as isolated, traditional, and in need of modern intervention. This view simplifies complex social realities, presenting local populations as "ignorant" or "backward," thus reinforcing the need for external expertise and intervention. **The Construction of "The Village"**: Stacy Leigh Pigg's study in Nepal highlights how the idea of "the village" is shaped by development discourse. The term "village" becomes a symbol of ignorance and tradition, and villagers are seen as lacking modern knowledge. Development efforts, through the discourse of *bikas* (development), aim to transform villagers into modern, "knowledgeable" people. However, this process is not simple; villagers integrate development ideas into their own cultural contexts, blending them with local identity markers like caste, religion, and ethnicity. In Nepal, for example, people’s understanding of development (bikas) is linked to improvements like roads, electricity, and better health care. Villagers aspire to these modern symbols of progress, but they also maintain local practices and identities. Development, while often externally imposed, becomes a tool for reshaping local identities and aspirations, with people striving to be "bikasi" (developed) in their own way. **Local Adaptations of Development**: Development's impact is not just about adopting foreign models. It intersects with local beliefs and practices, creating hybrid systems. For example, in Papua New Guinea’s Gapun village, development is seen as a miraculous transformation—signified by things like white rice, corrugated iron houses, and the idea of "coming up" to modernity. This development vision is heavily influenced by local beliefs and history, including cargo cults and colonial experiences. Similarly, in Lamu, Kenya, women's ideas of development combine Western models with local Islamic and cultural influences. Women seek modernity through things like education, mobility, and the use of modern commodities, but they also navigate these desires within the constraints of their cultural and religious identity. **Technical Knowledge and Development**: In Colombia, Afro-Colombian farmers introduced to modern farming techniques view acquiring "technical knowledge" as a key sign of development. However, they continue to practice traditional farming alongside new methods, creating a hybrid approach to agriculture. **Conclusion**: Development’s impact at the local level is complex. It’s not simply about modernizing or imposing foreign ideas; it involves a mix of resistance, adaptation, and transformation. Development language and images interact with local cultures in diverse ways, leading to new forms of social identity and cultural practices. To fully understand these processes, more research is needed on how development operates locally, particularly through ethnographic studies that explore how communities reshape and negotiate these external ideas. ### Conclusion: The Power and Persistence of Development Discourse The transformation of the Third World after World War II wasn't the result of a radical breakthrough, but rather a shift in how the Third World was viewed and represented in global politics. Development discourse emerged as a way to define and address poverty, often by framing it as a technical problem to be solved by development professionals. This approach removed local histories and cultures from the equation, focusing instead on fitting societies into a pre-established model of modernity. Development became a dominant force in Third World countries, justifying widespread interventions, control systems, and even exploitation. Political elites in both the First and Third Worlds accepted the high costs of development—such as resource extraction, environmental degradation, and the destruction of indigenous cultures—in exchange for the promises of modernity and progress. Over time, many in the Third World internalized this narrative, viewing themselves as inferior, underdeveloped, and culturally deficient. Despite decades of development efforts, the basic framework for understanding the Third World remains unchanged. Development has solidified its hold through normalization rather than repression, controlling knowledge rather than spreading ignorance. It has become entrenched as a form of governance that is increasingly bureaucratic and far-reaching, shaping how Third World societies are represented and governed. The success of development as a hegemonic discourse is based on its ability to universalize the concept of "underdevelopment." It treats the diverse peoples of the Third World as a homogenous category of "poor" and "backward," erasing their complexity and differences. This homogenization facilitates control over their economies, ecologies, and cultures. Development discourse also perpetuates a teleological view—believing that, over time, "natives" will be reformed and modernized. However, this belief is inherently contradictory, as it maintains a separation between those who are "developed" and those who are "underdeveloped," reinforcing the idea that the Third World is fundamentally inferior. The language of "poverty" and "underdevelopment" has become so fixed that it's difficult to imagine a different narrative. The economic frameworks that dominate development discourse—especially those created by economists—have further cemented the connection between poverty and underdevelopment. The chapter ends by calling for a new approach to understanding the Third World, one that challenges the assumptions of development and its deeply ingrained narratives.