In the social sciences, we study many issues that don’t have true answers. Unlike math or chemistry which have rules and predictable results, studying society and humans is a science which forces us to think critically. There will always be exceptions to the rule, and a study may not have the result you expected, and what we do know about society can change over space and time. It is for these reasons that each society is as unique as a snowflake.
Each country has many factors which affect its development. Poverty, inequality, geography, political climate, economic policy, history, culture, aid, natural resources, and international relations are some of the ways in which each country is distinct from another, and they all affect the level of development. When assessing how developed a nation is, whether they need aid, how strong their economy is, how just their government is, what led to their current condition, and how they can improve their condition, we must consider all these factors. To generalize causes of failure and necessary improvements is to disregard the fact that each country is different, and needs a unique approach for healthy and sustainable development. What works for some countries doesn’t work for others, and implementing the same program in two countries will not necessarily yield the same result. There are many controversial theories about the best way to develop a nation, and what makes a nation strong and sustainable, but in reading the works of Alexander Gerschenkron, Jeffrey Sachs, and Walt Rostow, I find hope in their differential approach to development.
Gerschenkron argues that countries are different fundamentally, especially when comparing developed and developing states. He looks at the history of attempts at industrialization in developing, or “backward,” states, and says that their adaption of and reaction to these ideas were quite different, which led each to experience a different speed, scale, and structure of development (Gerschenkron, 7). For developing nations, “in every instance of industrialization, imitation of the evolution in advanced countries appears in combination with different, indigenously determined elements” (Gershenkron, 26). For example, England experienced slow and steady growth because of their stable market and ample workforce. Backwards nations, on the other hand, have no capital to invest, industrial labor is scarce, they don’t have a skilled workforce, and there is no trust in the market (Gershenkron, 14). He also notes a difference in the relationship between a state’s banks and its industry. Banks in strong industrialized England had no reason to worry about long-term capital, but because of the instability in industries in developing nations, their banks began to play a role in industrialization, favoring the profitable industries and disregarding all others, so that the industry became narrowed (Gershenkron, 15). Where a broad industrial market worked for England, a more specified approach is needed in countries without the same type of capital. In developing nations, they must focus on what they have in abundance or what their strongest industry is.
Sachs envisions development as compared to the human body in what he calls “clinical economics” (Sachs, The End, 74). He believes that the problems that countries face are as unique and complex as a medical problem. For example, if my friend and I both have trouble sleeping, it would be wrong to assume that we both suffer from the same problem. Likewise, it would be wrong to treat them identically, when not only the cause is likely different, but also our bodies will respond differently. The solution for one may be to eat healthier and get more exercise, while the other may be caused by depression and the best solution is to take a sleeping aid and see a therapist. In the same way that our bodies are complex and need to see a specialist about our unique situation, so too do states need to be examined for their unique situation, its causes, and the most appropriate solution. This, Sachs calls “differential diagnosis” (Sachs, The End, 76). Like a doctor diagnoses his patient, countries need to be given a diagnosis which can help them solve the problems that are most immediately in need of attention, and those that are most likely to help get the country on track for sustainable development. Elements of a country that should be taken into consideration include current poverty, economic and fiscal framework, physical geography, governance, culture, and geopolitics. These can all be contributors of weak or unstable development, as well as affect attempts at growth and development. Because these factors vary from country to country, each requires a unique approach for development.
Responding to Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson, Sachs considers their assertions too simplistic. Acemoglu and Robinson blame poverty and inequality on absolutist and extractive institutions, while only inclusive (democratic) institutions will create a balanced economy with checks and balances on power (Acemoglu and Robinson, 44). Sachs argues that their theory leaves out many factors that have greatly affected developing nations, such as geopolitics, technology, and natural resource (Sachs, Government, 143). He argues that the institutional model of a state cannot explain many failures or successes, as there are too many exceptions to make a generalization. “Many developing countries with undemocratic and highly corruptive governments grew faster than many poor countries with democratic and less corrupt governments” (Sachs, Government, 150). Here again, he is arguing that we cannot explain or predict why nations are plagued with poverty and inequality, because each is too complex.
Rostow is another believer of the snowflake theory. While other theorists continue to make broad sweeping assertions about what a country should and should not do to develop, Rostow maintains that each country is different and should make decisions about development which are best for that country. “Broad, collective decisions, determined by many factors – deep in history, culture, and the active political process – outside the market place, have interplayed with the dynamics of market demand, risk-taking, technology, and entrepreneurship, to determine the specific content of the stages of growth for each society” (Rostow, 3). His focus is on production and consumption as a symbol of economic development. Output, he says, is a combination of supply, demand, investment, and consumption, which depends on population, income, tastes, technology, and entrepreneurship (Rostow, 2). Societies should choose where to invest their money, whether it be on welfare, consumption or power, but each is different from the next, and what works for Russia may not work for the United States.
These celebrated economic historians all believe that because the conditions in a country create a unique situation, each needs a specific and unique approach. We cannot say for sure what has caused a problem or what will lead to a solution without looking at each situation independently, resisting the urge to compare it to another place or time.
Works Cited
Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A. “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty.” (Crown: 2013) 1-69.
Gerschenkron, Alexander. “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective,” Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (Cambridge: Harvard, 1962), pp. 5–30.
Rostow, W. W. “The Stages of Economic Growth.” The Economic History Review, New Series, 12, no. 1 (1959): 1-16. doi:10.2307/2591077.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. “Government, Geography, and Growth: The True Drivers of Economic Development.” Foreign Affairs 91, no. 5 (2012): 142-50. http:// http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/41720868.
Sachs, Jeffrey D. “The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Out Time.” (Penguin: 2005) 1-25, 74-89.
Jennifer Kim 