Introduction

Assumptions and Dogmatic Viewpoints

The dominance of other disciplines in developing studies has created a shift from heuristic methods of analysis to more hermeneutic methods of analysis. To put in less complicated phrasing: Scholars were primarily immersed in the idea of “uniqueness” and “exotic-ness” in fact juxtaposing phenomena of the developing world in Weberian antimonies while ignoring the empirical. Also problematic was the denial by western and non-western scholars of what I qualify the principle of universality of theory; in other words, theories can be used to underpin the empirical, explain a wide array of phenomena, without avail. Indeed it was easy to deny the universal character of political science theory, by focusing on the contemporary, instead of looking at historical parallels. For example, socialism emerged in a time when the world begged for answers outside the realms of blatant capitalism, a historical period of social movement and political activism, a period of struggle and war. How did these periods affect the developing world, did it kindled parallel patterns or did foster divergent patterns? And if so, what was the reason?

Another characteristic of “development studies” was the imbibing of Marxism..more specific Marxism and its derivatives, Leninism, Maoism and communism became fixed fixture in the works of seminal Latin American, African and Caribbean scholars. Raul Prebish work is an exemplification of how determining leftist ideas were on analysis for underdevelopment and economic stagnation; The work of Andre Gunder Frank (1969), sits at the other end of the spectrum, dogmatic and historical inaccurate. One of the pinnacles of Franks work is his depiction of third world elites, Lumpen Bourgeoisie, people with limited access to international (western networks). The sheer racist character of this depiction, belied by the way western societies embraced non-western literature, music and art during that specific time period. Interesting is that Frank only became challenged by proponents of capitalism, whose rickety position was in fact equally dogmatic and presumptuous. Proponents of capitalism, led by Walt Rostow argued that the restructuring of the Third World could only occur in stages, to let said societies ripen and mature into total industrialization. We all know that such did not happen, in fact, the failure of said theory that development could occur in three stages form the strongest argumentation against capitalism or development aid and assistance for that matter.

But there is another confounding and very important factor that frustrated the emergence of credible and good quality political science research and that is MONEY. The number of grants and fellowships given to scholars to stimulate well-rounded and credible research is below par; papers written by scholars who try to introduce new methods of research are typically rejected, because the intentions are good but there are no examples, no “Eminence Grise” to help guide them carefully but surely onto the slippery-sloped path of the academia. Many non western scholars do not make it, they oftentimes lack metier to make it through and those who make it pay a steep price.

The other side of the coin is that many scholars from Latin America and Africa have a stake in the fostering of old dogmas, ideas of exotic far-away places that are intrinsically unique, far away places that can only be analyzed by traipsing through the doldrums of a complex anthropology. Said scholarship derives their raison d’etre from being unique and one-of-kind, oftentimes combining activism with scholarship.Being unique and one of a kind offers possibilities to receive stipends and scholarship. In the Netherlands, the NWO is specifically keen on spending money on ‘allochtonen’, to stimulate so called minorities to enter the inner sanctum of the academia. The issue is that academia is not an NGO, they expect scholars to perform, they cannot allow mediocrity in their confines, nor can they deal with social and political activism and normativity.

Specifically worrisome is the negative stance by academic disciplines grounded in philosophy and the literature, to study developing societies from a different perspective stems from old-school ideas of colonialism and imperialism. The consistent challenging of Europe and Eurocentrism has not advanced scholarship or scholarly writing, on the contrary. We don’t know how said scholarship views China, the emerging power with a ferocious appetite for minerals and raw materials? Do they think that South-South solidarity will keep Africa, the Caribbean out of harms way? Do they believe that China has the best intentions, that for them the Flying Gees rule will apply, all in the name of South-South solidarity? Will Chinese ideas on human rights and civil liberties become dominant, determining the course of democracy in the developing world these forthcoming decades?

Recent Developments

Since 2007, collaborative efforts initiated by the University Metropolitana Ixtapalpa in Mexico City, have resulted in the revaluation and the rethinking of political science and its place in the developing world. Party Systems theory developed by (Sartori Mair et al, 1990) were used to analyze political systems in Latin America and the Caribbean (Adama 2010). From an earlier date stems the Latino Barometro, a democratic barometer, that foretells how democracies in the region will develop. Africa, the Arab world and Europe developed barometers inspired by the Latino Barometro. Other collaborative efforts by Ixtapalpa are underway, and involve a large study on transnational suffrage, a research specifically valuable for societies such as Suriname, Turkey, Morocco, the Dutch, French and Anglo Antilles, funded by the Mexican government.

These developments are promising, but we are still a long way from home. For instance, being labelled Bourgeois and part of the system, when one tries to introduce new viewpoints and conceptions is not only inaccurate, it also shifts away from that what is important. What do we need to know, and how will we advance scholarship and knowledge of developing and transitional societies, specifically during this era of global transition, a decade of the decline of capitalism and a resurgence of political conservatism and dogmatism in Europe, events that call for the viewpoints of political scientists all over the globe. Where will money for research come from? And how can we change and transform curricula and teaching methods to train and coach new scholars apt to use methods of social science research.

The economic crisis in Europe and its the unprecedented parallels with the peso-crisis of the 1980s and the Baker Plan developed by the Americans have yet to become analyzed and debated. What can Europe learn from Latin America and the Asian Crisis? Will they learn or wallow in a self-imposed isolation brought on by ideas of superiority? Susan Strange and Robert Gilpin (1989) were the first to warn that capitalism was walking on its last legs, the Americans felt that their hegemony would last and last…….

How did Latin America fare and what is the role of the OAS, CARICOM? Why is Chaves not ostracized by his Latin American peers? What is the role of ASEAN in silent revolution in Myanmar, a detente that came as a surprise.

Internet has brought the world closer, and has fostered more parallels than we care to know.

AUTHOR: Natascha Adama
URL: http://natascha23.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: nataliapestova23 [@] yahoo.com

While it sounded like a quiz to some, I intended to impress my readers about the scary aspect of exponential growth in any finite system. Such growth is certainly runaway and anything designed to grow in that manner is easily unsustainable. I cannot take Kenneth Boulding lightly. Meanwhile I found a more impressive audio visual way to carry the message home.

But then I still come across people who believe earth’s resources are infinite. Some, who may feel that within the limits of economics infinity is a rather silly idea, take it out to a point where it is claimed that human ingenuity is limitless and capable of devising technologies that can extract utility out of finite resources, practically infinitely. Such infinite progression of growth is popularly attached to energy appropriation and some convenient refuge for many infinity optimists are Nikoloai Kardashev Civilization models, where human civilization is still within Type I. We see appeals from scientists as famous as Stephen Hawking for extraterrestrial proliferation, as is seen in Youtube’s spacelab channel’s introductory video. Reaching out to space in pursuit of knowledge is alright but I do not feel we humans are yet ready to evolve into homo spatium, not with such limited idea of growth in terrestrial scale.

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
Kenneth Boulding, economist

In 1972, when Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III authored the book ‘The Limits to Growth’ commissioned by the Club of Rome, a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues, the infinity optimism of the business-as-usual economic models of Capitalism was made to stand before a critical question. We cannot grow exponentially and how long before we face a collapse of our viral growth. The book used the World3 model to simulate the consequence of interactions between the Earth’s and human systems by considering five variables, namely, world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. The book offered predictions about explosion and collapse of human civilization in terms of economic and technological growth studied under the five variables and echoed many Malthusian concerns in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). While there still remained the question of accuracy of the prediction of collapse, the debate took a turn about how long we have before our infinite growth balloon bursts.

Despite being a pioneering work of science employing computer simulations and introducing systems dynamics approach, feedback loop and exponential reserve index for the first time ever, the book met with immediate criticism and open hostility. Soon after publication prominent economists, scientists and political figures criticized the Limits to Growth. They attacked the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention. Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the Meadows were concerned about, but only if growth continued apace. By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be “consigning billions to permanent poverty”. Robert M. Solow from MIT, argued that prediction in The Limit to Growth was based on a weak foundation of the data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, page 103). Dr. Allen Kneese and Dr. Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated: “The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.”

In retrospect, it now appears that much of the criticism of the pioneering work of Meadows et al was out of the inertia of a contemporary paradigm of progress or development instead of observation and critical analysis. In 2008 researcher Peter A. Victor wrote, that even though D.H. Meadows et al. probably underestimated price-mechanism’s role in adjusting, their critics have overestimated it. He states that Limits to Growth has had a significant impact on the conception of environmental issues and notes that the models in the book were meant to be taken as predictions “only in the most limited sense of the word” as they wrote. In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called “A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality“. It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book’s predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century. In 2010, Peet, Nørgård, and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a “pioneering report”, but said that, “unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny.” In 2011 Ugo Bardi analyzed the ‘The Limits to Growth’, its methods and historical reception and concluded that “The warnings that we received in 1972 … are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the … scenario had generated.”

For all who are interested, The Limits to Growth, contrary to popular belief, did not predict world collapse by the end of 20^th Century. It gave three scenarios, namely, (a) standard run – the business as usual growth that simply ignores the negative effects on the five variables, (b) comprehensive technology – response by world systems in terms new and low-waste technology evenly penetrating into the whole world and (c) steady state – response by world systems in terms of new economic price-mechanisms that takes into account the environmental costs and thereby limits the growth rate within an equilibrium. Common experience shows that world is moving along scenario (a) that is standard run – and I shall contend that the world has so far shown neither the political wisdom nor the economic ingenuity to do any better – the analysis of last 30 years of historical data compares favorably with the Standard Run Scenario prediction, which results in the collapse of global systems midway through 21^st Century or 2050 AD. See picture below:

If this is the future in anticipation, and for a minute we agree to wake up from denailist dream of infinity optimism, what is the adaptive/mitigative response of the world? I shall attempt to present that in my next post.

Reference:
* A Comparison of the Limits To Growth With Thirty Years of Reality by Graham Turner
* Feature Image Credit: Dribble

READ MORE:
* Limits To Growth And Beyond – Part II

AUTHOR: Pabitra Mukhopadhyay
URL: http://pabitraspeaks.com
E-MAIL: mukhopadhyay.pabitra [at] gmail.com