A Brief Note on the Sociology of Development

Within the vast literature on the sociology of development, it has been theorized that recent reorganizations of capitalist development, specifically concerning a ‘new international division of labor,’ have reconstituted the global social cartography. What are the contours? & how should the be measured? These questions are difficult, especially given that ever-increasing cross-border linkages and exchanges-a time-space compression, so to speak-, seemingly represent a juggernaut for countries to achieve socially equitable economic path-dependencies.

Given the dynamic connective relationships of complex interdependency, specifically concerning the proliferation of financial capital mobility and the aggrandizement of transnational corporations (TNC’s), the capability for the developing world to achieve, to some degree, relative mobility that transcends the center-periphery divide is perceived to be implausible. As such, global capitalism proliferates ‘third worldization’ through the constant oppressive force of ‘primitive-accumulation', what Myrdal (1957) defined as international ‘backwash’ effects. Hence, the capitalist world economy is reproduced as a world-system (Wallerstein, 1979) of ‘unequal exchange’ (Emmanuel, 1972), in which ‘underdevelopment’ (Frank, 1969), namely, the inability to generate complex domestic patterns of effective demand, ensues peripheral long-run stagnation and monopoly rents, or competitive advantages, for the center; in the final instance, the terms of trade for the periphery fall precipitously - the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis.

Per Cardoso and Faletto ([1967] 1970), however, development in the periphery is possible if foreign capital creates spillover effects. Partial economic growth is viable through what Evans (1995) describes as ’dependent development’, in which there is a relatively strong tripartite relationship between the state, the local bourgeoisie, and foreing capital - an ‘embedded autonomy’ (Evans, 2002). Whether or not this is manifested is the extent to which, as Vernengo (2006) argues, a country does not suffer the inability to borrow in its own currency, especially in which the world economy is structured by the globalization of financial liberalization.

 For more on the topic see here.

Path Dependency and Hysteresis

I promised to discuss the difference between these two concepts a while ago. The idea of path dependency is related to Joan Robinson’s famous objection according to which equilibrium is not an actual outcome of real economic processes, and it is for that reason an inadequate tool for analyzing accumulation.  Her view would suggest that path dependency should be seen as a property of models that break with conventional methodological stances, and, in particular, with the dominant neoclassical school.

It is important to note that mainstream defenders of the idea that ‘history matters’, like Paul David (of QWERTY fame), tend to disagree with the view that path dependency implies a rupture with neoclassical economics. David (2001, p. 22) says, in this regard: “imagine … my utter surprise to find this approach being attacked as a rival paradigm of economic analysis, whose only relevance consisted in the degree to which it could be held to represent a direct rejection of the normative, laissez-faire message of neoclassical economics!”  For David, path dependency is a property of dynamic and stochastic processes and cannot be used to assert anything about models and propositions derived in static and deterministic setting [which is, apparently, what he thinks neoclassical economics is all about].

Mark Setterfield's research might hold the key to this issue, by differentiating hysteresis [a concept from physics, that shows that mainstream economists do have physics envy!] and path dependency, and suggesting that the former, more typical of mainstream models, is a special case of the latter, more general and the concept often linked to heterodox models. He suggests that hysteresis is a variation of traditional equilibrium analysis, which implies that some displacements from equilibrium would be self-correcting while others would not. Hysteresis results from the non-uniqueness of equilibrium and under certain conditions the economic system would adjust to a new equilibrium. On the other hand, Setterfield argues that the typical path dependent model is based on cumulative causation, a concept that harks back to Gunnar Myrdal and Nicholas Kaldor’s contributions to economics. In this case, transitory shocks always have permanent effects.

A simple example might illustrate the difference between the more restricted notion of hysteresis and cumulative causation. In the conventional mainstream description of labor markets, an increase in unemployment insurance that allows workers to hold out longer for better paid jobs increases the natural rate of unemployment. After a fall in demand (an external shock), if structural changes to the labor market like higher benefits take place, the level of unemployment will increase and eventually fall, as real wages fall, but to the new and higher natural rate [think of Gordon's Time Varying NAIRU]. Hysteresis implies that history matters, but the system is still self-adjusting.

The quintessential example of cumulative causation is associated to the Kaldor-Verdoorn Law, which says that output growth leads to rising labor productivity. Thus, higher demand leads to higher output growth, which implies higher productivity, lower costs, and higher income in a virtuous circle of expansion. There are several possible expansion paths, depending on the strength of the multiplier-accelerator forces and the Kaldor-Verdoorn coefficient, rather than a single equilibrium to which the system adjusts. There is no adjustment to an optimal equilibrium level, no natural rate fixed or varying. The heterodox notion demands the rejection of the natural rate.