book1

thought no earlier development theories cared for administra� ve capability
and found out the confi gura� on of implemen� ng forces prevailing in the
non-Western society. The author divides the world socie� es into ‘tradi� onal’,
‘modern’ and ‘prisma� c’ (Riggs, 1964; Levy, 1966: 38, 60). In the same line,
Kautsky (1972) views that moderniza� on takes place either from inside
(i.e., endogenous) or from outside (i.e., exogenous) infl uences having many
implica� ons on poli� cal and societal structure and their sustainability.
"Dependency" theorists see the world economic system as ‘centre’
and ‘periphery’ represen� ng ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ world,
respec� vely. The prosperity of the former is dependent on the des� tu� on of
the later. Therefore, ‘centre’ has perverse incen� ve to make the ‘periphery’
economically dependent on it. Dependency is defi ned as ‘exogenous’
infl uences (economic, poli� cal and cultural) on na� onal development policy
(Dos Santos, 1970; Sunkel, 1969; Ferraro, 1996; Akiyama et al., 2003). This
school views aid as alien concepts and perceives management of aid from
na� onalist perspec� ve.
There is another so� type of interna� onal dependency approach to
development, which believes that the underdevelopment is the result
of faulty and inappropriate advice imposed by interna� onal experts who
are fl own to developing countries as a component of aid. “These experts
off er sophis� cated concepts, elegant theore� cal structures, and complex
econometric models of development that o� en lead to inappropriate or
incorrect policies” (Todaro, 2003: 125).
‘Endogenous’ growth theorists tried to indigenize the rate of technological
progress giving importance to the produc� on of new technologies and human
capital. Advantages over other compe� tors and improving produc� vity are
taken as the incen� ves for investment. ‘Endogenous’ theorists believe in the
‘virtuous cycle’ where the knowledge associated with the innova� on spills
over to the other economic actors leading them innovate new knowledge
(Naff ziger, 2006; Todaro, 2006; Elkan, 1995). One of the cri� cisms of this
theory is that it could not explain the ‘context’ that greatly contributed to
non-convergence.
Theory of ‘self-reliance’ appears as an an� thesis to dependency theory.
The main idea behind this is that every society relies on its own strength
and resources determined by its members’ energy, its natural and cultural
environment. The natural stage of development is the way of life, which
the people escape when the dependency becomes unbearable. This is an
a� rac� ve and humane approach to development (He� ne 1984: 78.). From
donor perspec� ve, ‘self-reliance’ is defi ned as one’s own eff orts to achieve
diffi cult goal; change the status-quo; and promote development by and
for oneself without depending on outside help (Akira and Yasutami, 1998:
8-9). A poor country may not have cri� cal amount of fi nancial, human and
social resources to run its basic func� ons in compe� � ve world. Therefore,
absolute ‘self-reliance’ may not be possible in the globalized world. However,
it is impera� ve that developing countries u� lize aid to achieve ‘self-reliance’
(Dhakal & Ueta, 2007).
54
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal