The poverty of development studies without the politics

Adrian Leftwich believes that the neglect of politics in development studies has been a major failing. He makes a case both for the disciplinary primacy of politics as the "fundamental and decisive process" underlying development and for the importance of development as a topic within politics. He directs particular criticism at the excessive dominance in development studies of economists, whose solutions to developmental problems reflect "technicist illusions" rooted in depoliticised rational-choice models that ignore the "intensity and immensity of the dramas of politics".

Even where recognition is given to political issues, as with the emphasis in official discussion - particularly as prescribed by the World Bank - on the "good governance" agenda, Leftwich believes that the analysis is misdirected, concentrating on bureaucratic and technical innovations that leave untouched the underlying social and economic structures that really drive politics. What is crucial is to understand how to reconcile fundamentally conflicting interests, ideas and preferences:

"It is not possible really to evacuate politics from politics."

Leftwich demonstrates the power of political analysis through his own analysis of core issues in development. His central concept is that of the "developmental state".

This is defined as a state characterised by politics that have concentrated sufficient power, autonomy, capacity and legitimacy at the centre to facilitate the explicit pursuit of development as an objective. States of this sort, he believes, have been most successful in achieving developmental transformation. This has happened primarily where uncorrupt, autonomous, bureaucratically powerful elites have been able to manage rapid and sustained economic growth unhindered by a strong civil society or strong economic interests.

Leftwich admits that this points to "unpalatable" conclusions contrary to his own "preferences and hopes". However, the developmental state is, he argues, a transitional form, in that its economic success is likely to promote the interests and organisations whose absence initially underpinned it. Pointing to the success of such states should not, in any case, be read as a recipe for developmental success in other circumstances. Developmental states arise from underlying political forces and cannot be imposed where the politics are inappropriate.

The book gives particular emphasis to the role of democracy. Leftwich argues that the developmental state can be democratic or not - democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for developmental success. Among democracies, for example, India has a poor developmental record while Malaysia and Singapore have achieved rapid growth. Among non-democratic states, Haiti and Zaire have remained backward while Taiwan and Thailand have achieved successful transformations. In fact, Leftwich draws attention to the potential for conflict between the essential conservatism of democratic politics and the radical, turbulent processes of development. Democratic states cannot, for example, address gross inequalities that often hold back development without endangering consensus. Where states are democratic, developmental momentum is likely to be greater in dominant party states than under coalitions or the alternation of parties in power. Democracy is more likely to emerge as an outcome than as a driving force behind development.

This book is a thought-provoking contribution to debates within development studies on issues relating to good governance, civil society, poverty eradication, effective public management and so on. The question of whether the capacity of the state precedes or follows development is a familiar one, to which it adds interesting observations.

Vandana Desai is lecturer in development geography, Royal Holloway, University of London.