Events like the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the subsequent enlargement of the EU and the rise of the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have stimulated renewed discussion on the economic, political, social and cultural factors of catch-up development.
In ideal-typical terms, two catch-up strategies could be distinguished: On the one hand, there is the liberal option, based upon free movements of goods, capital and persons; production for the world market; unlimited property rights; labour laws fostering full proletarization; low taxes; anti-monopoly legislation; and absence of discrimination between indigenous and foreign corporations. On the other hand, there is the neo-mercantilist option, geared towards protectionism; import-substitution and production for the domestic market; highly qualified or absent property rights; labour laws restricting proletarization; redistributive taxation favouring certain business sectors; toleration of monopolies; and state support for indigenous corporations, both domestically and abroad. It remains to be seen which specific mix of these two ideal types was concretely adapted in the cases discussed here (Eastern and South-eastern Europe and the Indian Ocean rim).
The participants will discuss how did specific catch-up strategies relate to the interaction of internal factors (like the presence of absence of reforms, of capital, of innovation and of functioning markets) and of external factors resulting from World-System dynamics? Further, a number of other questions will be addressed: What ways of development were characteristic in which historical phases? Why did socialist modernization fail? Were colonial empires unable to pursue catch-up development? Does the core-periphery model still capture social reality in view of globalization and EU enlargement? When can we really say that a country’s development has been “successful” or has “failed”?
Presentation of papers:
Dariusz Adamczyk (Warschau): Polen und die Weltmarktintegration 1918-39, 1983-80, 1989-2011: Drei Versuchsmodelle / Polen and world market integration 1918-39, 1983-80, 1989-2011: Three models of attempts
Manuela Boatca (Berlin): Von nachholender Entwicklung zu nachhaltiger Unterentwicklung am Beispiel Rumäniens 1860-1940 /
From Catch-Up Development to Sustained Underdevelopment - the Case of Romania 1860-1940.
Andrea Komlosy (Wien): Nachholende Entwicklung: Konzepte und Kriterien für Erfolg oder Scheitern / Catching-up development: Concepts and Criteria for Success or Failure
Victor Krasilshchikov (Moskau): Brazil and Russia: obstacles to development: A comparative analysis
Hans-Heinrich Nolte (Hannover): Soziale Kosten nachholender Entwicklung (UdSSR bis 1941) / Social costs of catching up development (USSR until 1941)
Fawwaz Traboulsi (Beirut): Communal revolts and sectarian clashes, 1840-1860,
heralding the transition of Lebanon to peripheral capitalism
Discussants:
Joachim Becker (Wien)
Hannes Hofbauer (Wien)
Imre Levai (Budapest)
Arno Tausch (Innsbruck-Wien) angefragt/ to be invited
Susan Zimmermann (Budapest-Wien)
Philipp Ther (Wien)
Proceedings
The aim of the workshop is to provide a framework for discussion of the papers, which will be published in the „Journal for World History“, together with the statements of the discussants. It will be open for other participants, in particular for students from the Erasmus Mundus Master Global Studies.
The discussants are invited to comment on the papers/presentations, but also to present their own perspectives on the general question of catching up development. In order to focus the discussion, both presentators and discussants will be provided with a catalogue of questions, which will serve as a guide-line (see appendix).
Appendix:
Catalogue of questions with regard to catching up development (in various historical contexts):
Under which conditions decisions to catch up are taken?
Who are the actors (the historical subject) of catching up development?
Which models and concepts are followed?
Did alternative concepts exist at a given moment and who supported them?
Were alternative concepts realized and were they successful?
What were the measurements and means to implement catching up?
What were the consequences of spending means for catching up development (where were they taken from, where did they lack?)
To which aims, with which arguments was catching-up politically argued?
Did liberal reforms of the world economy, carried through by leading states and international institutions (GATT, IMF, neoliberal ideologies putting pressure on political actors), change the general conditions for catching up policies in recent times?
a) Is catching up as a political project still politically viable under these conditions?
b) Can catching up under these conditions be regarded as a realistic path of development?
c) Which options are there apart from an open market policy without conditions?
d) In which regard can the European Union’s enlargement to Eastern Europe be interpreted as a catching up success?
To which extent did the conditions for catching up development change along with the (self-)destructive effects of economic growth?
a) Does the questioning of economic growth bring discredit upon the aim of catching up?
b) Will catching up become easier, if the shining examples of economic growth loose their glance?
a) Are elites of developing countries at all aware of the critics of growth, developed in the western world?