|
|
 |
 |
 |
Group
Leader, Dr. John Rapley speaks at the J.E.P. Interim
Conference |
|
The
Political Economy of Development
|
|
GROUP
LEADER |
|
Dr. John Rapley,
Senior Lecturer, International Relations and Politics, Department
of Government, UWI, Mona Campus
|
|
RAPPORTEUR |
|
Ms.
Farrah Brown, Graduate in Political Science, (Political
Theory, International Relations), New York University, USA
|
The
focus of our group is the task of accounting for the nature and extent
of Jamaica’s underperformance in the realm of development.
Our work
to date has entailed a survey of some of the major approaches to development
which has provided the context for our assessment of the pros and
cons of our having adopted particular policies aimed at prompting
development, since independence. Particular attention is paid to those
aspects of the approaches that were adopted by Jamaica, for instance
the import substitution industrialization approach that was adopted
during the 1970s, that militated against them making substantive and
sustainable contributions our economic and social development.
One of the recurring themes in the literature on development is the
attempt by economists and political scientists like Anne Krueger,
Robert Bates and others to grapple with, on the one hand, the widespread
move in the 1970s towards the adoption of policies which appeared
to depart from widely accepted core economic principles and which
when taken to their logical conclusion/s would have a negligible impact
on the development prospects of the economies that adopted them. On
the other hand, there is the attempt to come to terms with the fact
that, since the late 1970s and 1980s and even into the present period,
there has been a tendency amongst the leaders of developing states
to reject what is thought to be sound economic advice from international
financial institutions, and to turn instead to polices whose outcomes
are anathema to the human and social development that are ostensibly
being sought by these developing states.
Apart from the inherent criticism of the assumption on the part of
some of the aforementioned authors that the advice proffered by economists
associated with international financial and development institutions
is ‘sound’, there exists the need to interrogate the reasons
for the leaders’ pursuit of policies whose outcomes are known
to be sub-optimal. This is our main task as we attempt to account
for policy choices that have led to Jamaica’s continued underperformance
in the realm of development.
The research undertaken by the political economy group has so far
focused on two main themes – ‘inequality and development’
and ‘resources and development’. On the question of inequality
and development, we have explored the notion that the existence of
socio-economic inequality, embodied by income inequality, militates
against growth and in turn against development. Our task has therefore
been to ascertain whether socio-economic inequality in the Jamaican
context, has had a negative effect on the growth and development of
the economy.
The group’s examination of ‘resources and development’
begins with the acknowledgement of the fact that Jamaica is not, by
most measures, a resource poor state. It is rather, a state that has
been blessed with natural resources in the form of bauxite and alumina
deposits as well as a climate which has facilitated the production
of a range of crops for export. All things being equal, possessing
natural resources in competitive quantities should serve as a mechanism
to prompt development. However, as we all know, things are seldom
equal. As such, Jamaica has continued to underperform in the realm
of development, notwithstanding the nature of its natural resource
endowment.
The political economy group attempts to account for Jamaica’s
persistent underperformance in spite of our natural resource endowment.
The context for our discussion is provided by the traditional views
that are evident in the literature regarding resource endowment as
a boon to development. Examining the Jamaican case in this regard
might warrant some amount of counterfactual analysis - had we taken
advantage of our natural resource endowment in the manner prescribed
by the proponents of the view that natural resources are the engine
to development, how much further along the path of development would
we be at present?
Besides our examination of our handing of our natural resource endowment
in light of the traditional views regarding their importance, we will
also examine the phenomenon of our underperformance from the perspective
of the burgeoning literature on what is termed the ‘resource
curse’. A somewhat counterintuitive perspective, the notion
of ‘resource curse’ entails the assertion that rather
than serving as a boon to a state’s development prospects, possessing
significant natural resource endowments actually undermines such a
state’s development prospects. We will attempt to test the explanatory
power of this notion in relation to the policies that have been formulated
to capitalise on Jamaica’s natural resource endowment in the
post – independence period. So, among the key questions that
we will ask are: have we taken full advantage of our natural resource
endowment in the formulation of our development strategies since independence?
And, if we have not, what are the factors that have prevented us from
doing so?
The methodological approach that the group has adopted involves the
interplay of traditional approaches drawn from development economics
as well as elements of the new political economy, an aspect of political
economy which seeks to account for the symbiotic interaction between
political and economic factors in the formulation of policies aimed
at prompting development. |
|
