 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Apr 2007 : 11:08:29
|
Culled from: The Daily Observer
Gambia: Politics And Development
The Daily Observer (Banjul)
OPINION
April 26, 2007
Posted to the web April 26, 2007
Amulai Touray
Before or during the 1950s, development was measured in the form of measurable indices like Gross National Product (GNP), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), labour cost, balance of payment and trade, etc.
It was the period described as capitalism without human face, otherwise raw capitalism. It was during this era that many writers like WW Rostow, Adam Smith, along side others were calling for a more investment in the market so that the GDP and GNP will rise. After the post-war, many countries have witnessed a sharp rise in economic growth, but the problem of poverty and other humanitarian needs were still pending. Therefore, this led to the rethinking of development in the 1960s.
The experiences of the 1950s and 60s, when many world countries did realise economic growth targets, but the level of living of the masses of the people remained for the most part "unchanged", signaled that something was very wrong with the narrow definition of development. An increasing number of economists and policy-makers now clamoured for the development of GNP and the elevation of direct attacks on widespread absolute poverty, increasingly inequitable income distributions, and rising unemployment.
In short, during the 1970s, economic development came to be redefined in terms of the reduction or elimination of poverty, inequality, and unemployment within the context of a growing economic. Redistribution of growth became a common slogan. Dudley Seers, a development expert posed the basic question the meaning of development briefly when he asserted: the questions to ask about a country's development are therefore; what has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development of the country concerned.
In 1987, a book published by Edgar Owens, he argues that:
Development has been treated by economists as if were nothing more than an exercise in applied economics, unrelated to potential ideas, form of government, and the role of society to consider not just ways in which are supposed to become more productive - the development of people rather than the development of things.
John Kennet Gilbrate among others attacks the hardcore economic indices of development. They argued that economic development may widen the gap between the rich and the poor and this will marginalise the poor. They stated that the economic pool should be widened by improving the purchasing power of the more vulnerable, improve their educational standard, health and so on.
Perhaps, the simplest way of thinking about development is that it means an increased in prosperity. At the national level, the most used measure of economic well-being, is GNP. GNP per capita is a measure of average income based on market valuations, and thus there are several ways in which the measure fails to give a full indication of incidence of poverty.
To duel in the topic: how social capital can contribute to economic development and also how it can retard economic development ? I would like to discuss it in the following paragraphs.
At first, investing in social capital should be the operational ground for every development aim. A country desires for economic growth primarily for that growth to tricke-down to the masses. Therefore, investing in social capital without a doubt can earnestly bring about economic development in so many ways as discuss underneath:
To begin with, take agriculture as an example, which is the basis of the economy of many Third World nations. Agricultural productivity has declined in many countries and I believed it is because of the lack of or negligible investment on social capital. For instance, 75% of the Gambian agriculturists only attended primary level of education. This means that the bulk is uneducated and it will be very thorny for them to use mechanised farm tools.
Selecting the right seeds will also be a re-occurring problem for them. Fertiliser handling and usage, storage and processing, along side other vital issues will also be a predicament for them. This will in turn mitigate development since agriculture has the largest share of employment and also to a larger extend contributes to great share of the GDP.
Secondly investing in social capital can and may enhance development by widen the economic pool. This is so, because if the purchasing power of the poor is improved, it means they can now pay for more goods and services. This will in turn leads to higher demand of goods and services, which also lead to higher volume of sales. This also leads to higher savings and investment and maybe eventually industrialisation.
Thirdly, considering that the poor has a better purchasing and bargaining power, they will be able to meet their basic needs. Human life is sustainable only if one can solve the problems of self-sufficiency in food, shelter, security, health and so on. Therefore, everyone will be struggling to meet these basic needs with different ways. Being unable to meet these basic needs may increase the crime rate of a nation. It is therefore by no doubt that investing in social capital will reduce the crime rate of a society or a nation in general. This is so because the poor are enabled to pay for their basic requirements because they have a strong purchasing power. As we know that high crime rate may hinder development, then a nation with a low crime rate may stand a better chance of developing if all other things remain unchanged.
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2007 : 11:30:37
|
This article by Amulai Touray is very interesting. It is interesting because it is about two subjects that have preoccupied human thought for centuries. It is about power (politics ) and wealth (economic development).
While I agree with the basic thrust of Touray's discussion , I have serious reservations about his theory of crime. He seems to have suggested the notion that the problem of crime is the problem of poverty. Crime, in my view is a very broad term which have medical , psychological , as well as socio-economic dimensions. Besides , a large amount of crime in the developed world have nothing to do with poverty.
I , however like his reference to J.K. Galbraith (not Gilbrate) a liberal economic thinker and Harvard professor whose ideas of "big government" sounds very convincing to me. |
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2007 : 11:30:37
|
This article by Amulai Touray is very interesting. It is interesting because it is about two subjects that have preoccupied human thought for centuries. It is about power (politics ) and wealth (economic development).
While I agree with the basic thrust of Touray's discussion , I have serious reservations about his theory of crime. He seems to have suggested the notion that the problem of crime is the problem of poverty. Crime, in my view is a very broad term which have medical , psychological , as well as socio-economic dimensions. Besides , a large amount of crime in the developed world have nothing to do with poverty.
I , however like his reference to J.K. Galbraith (not Gilbrate) a liberal economic thinker and Harvard professor whose ideas of "big government" sounds very convincing to me. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
