LECTURE NOTE ON PHILOSOPHY OF DEVELOPMENT I COURSE CODE: PHI 212 LECTURER: M. M. UZOMAH ( publish by: Dabo Euclid)

PREAMBLE
This course examines the concept, meaning, nature and types of development. It tends to critically establish what genuine and authentic development consists of, in contra destitution from mere development. It pays particular attention to the four major theories of development, with the aim of examining their philosophical basis, respectively. The ultimate objective of this hinged consideration of development is to narrow it down to Africa, in other to a certain African’s present level of development and its place in the committee of nations. In doing this, we intend to dialectically establish and analyze those covert and overt compelling factors that has constituted a push back to African’s genuine and authentic quests for development.
PHILOSOPHY OF DEVELOPMENT
Philosophy of development is a fascinating area of research at the interception of philosophy, psychology and education. Development studies is interdisciplinary concentration whose main mission is to provide students with the knowledge, critical perspectives and skills they need to engage with the issues and problems of national and international development, especially as they relate to the global South. The concentration draws from a range of disciplines, but it is particularly guided in the social sciences: anthropology, sociology, political science, history and economics. Concentrators combines courses that offer local and historical knowledge of the specific areas of the developing world, with those that explore transnational dimensions of development.
This course is unique in that it attempts to elucidate a broad sketch of contemporary developmental theories with detail discussions on their central issues, in order to construct a general framework for understanding and analyzing theories of individual and collective development in various domains, ranging from cognitive and moral development to developments in art. Special attention is also given to the rich relation between conceptual development and education.
PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy has been etymologically defined, as the love of wisdom and the philosopher lover of wisdom or knowledge. It has been classically defined as ‘scientia rerum per ultimas causas’-the science or study of things through their ultimate causes. Outside this traditional definitions, philosophy has been variously defined by different philosophers according to their different philosophical systems.
Plato, defines philosophy as the ‘acquisition of knowledge’ in his ‘Magnum Opus’ (The Republic, BK V) Plato described true philosophers as lovers of wisdom and truth. For Rene Descartes, philosophy is a method of reflective thinking and reasoned inquiry and attempt to think through one’s problems of life and to face all the facts involved. Hence, philosophy presses its inquiry into the deeper problems of human existence beyond what the eyes can see, the eyes can hear. The analytic philosophers such as Bertrand Russell maintain that philosophy cannot but concern itself to the logical analysis of language and the claerification of the meaning of words and concepts. Critical philosophers like John Herman Randal Jr. described philosophy as: “The criticism of the fundamental beliefs in any man’s cultural enterprises, science, art, religion, the moral life, social and political activities when some new ideas or some altered experience has impeached upon them and generated intellectual tensions and mal adjustment”.
For Heidegger, philosophy always aims at the first and last grounds of essenz with particular emphasis on man itself and on the meaning and goals of human beings-there.
Hence, the mature philosophical attitude is the searching and critical analysis of situations and problems, it is the open minded tolerant attitude expressed to the willingness to look at all sides of an issue.
John Dewey, the famous pragmatic American thinker, on the other hand, assigns a critical function to philosophy and called it the ‘criticism of criticisms’. Elsewhere Dewey gives to philosophy a social function. Hence, philosophy for Dewey becomes a ‘vision’ whose function is to free man’s mind from bias and prejudice and to enlarge his perception of the world about him. In this regard therefore, philosophy functions as an organ for dealing with the social and moral strives of our day.
PHILOSOPHY AND DEVELOPMENT
From the foregoing, we can see that philosophy does not enjoy univocal definition. However, it is an essential tool for an authentic wellbeing and profound existence.  A philosopher also endevours to increase the standard and quality of life, not only for himself but for the society at large. Seen in this perspective, the philosopher reflects on man’s problems and finds ways to solve them. Simply put, the vowed aim of philosophy is development.
Although, there is a significant misconception the more important aspect of development in our Nigerian society. It should be stated that the most important and most fundamental of all development is that of the mind. It is the development of the whole man himself. “Fundamentum omnis cultus, animae cultus est” the most important of all development is the cultivation of the mind. For all other kinds of development like social, religious, political, technological are dependent on that of the mind. Consequently, the philosopher, ought to consider development from this integral or holistic perspective. Not just development, but development of the whole man, and development of the whole facets, institutions, segments, practices and values.
Another important observation that must be made is that since the philosopher investigates reality in its totality, he should not be wary to establish that in man’s quest for development, he ought to be necessarily constrained by ethical principles. First, every nation of the world in their aggressive quest for development should recognize the right of other nations, therefore, they must in charity not champion their development at the expense of the weaker countries. Second, the ecosystem is a habitat to bio diversities. Man must recognize that other life forms have right to exist in the planet earth, hence, man in his quest for development must not endanger their lives. He must not also jeopardize man’s future existence in the planet earth in the name of development.
The unlimited drive for development pursued via industrialization and advancement of technology has continually place the earth home to bio diversity in a delicate state. We are now at a critical state now at a critical moment in earth’s history, we must choose the future. The future hold great peril and promise, as the world increasingly becomes interdependent, we must realize that in the mist of the magnificent diversity of cultures and life’s forms, we are one human family, one earth’s community and one destiny.
There is no ethical calling is expedient than the call that to protect the wellbeing of life forms on the earth planet and to speak on behalf of the future generation of human and non-human species-bio-diversity. The ethical obligation that arises from devastation on nature owing to development related activities of man, is, how ought we to live with the earth? The philosopher ought remind man that nature has its life and as such man’s relationship with nature in his dire quest for development should be sensitive. Although, nature has instrumental value to man, however, its intrinsic worth is more essential and categorical. If the immediate goal of human life is to live happily on earth, development should not cause man swift happiness and perpetual misery. Man’s right to development should not be at the expense of the other billions of lives who also have right to exist on earth.

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
We often here the concepts, ‘Growth’ and ‘Development’ used together. They are used to describe the success, or lack of success, progress or lack of progress in reaching personal goals as well as corporate goals. These two concepts which deal with progress and success are also employed in the discourses pertaining to local, national and international progress in terms of socio-economic, political and other related issues that borders on relative successes. Moreover, they are also used across many disciplines such as biology, economics, etc. for instance, in biology, we learn that living things grow and develop; in economics, we are equally thought that economies and business can exhibit growth and development. Consequently, because of the similarities that exists between these two concepts, they are often used interchangeably. In other words, they go hand in hand and seems to happen at the same time. Notwithstanding the obvious similarities of growth and development, they are not all-together one and the same.
GROWTH
It is germane to state that growth is the first stage of progress or success of an entity, organization or phenomenal. When something grows, it shows an appreciable increase in something you can count; for instance, a tree can grow, that means that it adds to its height, we can count the inches it has grown. An organization can grow, adding people or other groups to itself. These are counted very easily. Profit can grow, adding money in different ways. Non of these take into account how it grows. Growth doesn’t look into what it took to add to its height or its numbers or its bank statement. Growth is only shown through the evidence of it happening. The tree may have been fertilized, accelerating its natural process. The organization have added to is numbers through some kind of cohesion, making people join or merging with another organization. Profit may have been increased due to some kind of accounting gimmick or even illegal claims. Economic growth is typically just a number, often GDP (Gross Domestic Product), but it is often the only thing that is touted as a measure of success. Growth by itself, however, cannot measure development.
DEVELOPMENT
The concept ‘development’ has a very complex nature because it relates to virtually every aspect of man and the physical universe. As a result, of this, attempting a universal definition of it continually becomes illusive. Moreover, because development could be viewed from multifarious perspectives, currents and interests, makes the concept very complex and a problematic project. Hence, efforts to arrive at a comprehensive and generally acceptable configuration of development continual becomes onerous and herculean and an almost impossible possibility. However, the meanings of development are traceable to its individualistic and or theoretical conception of its application  at a particular time or/and situation. Its meaning can be said to be contextual or situational. It remains to add that definitions of the concept are nevertheless contextual.
Etymology of Development
For etymologists, development comes from the French word: ‘developer’. This means to bring out from the envelop, from something that was enveloped. It is to “de”, “un”, and “veloper”, to wrap from this, “to develop” literarily means to un-wrap. Thus, development entails the unwrapping, unfolding, un-veloping, unveiling, out growth or growing out of envelopment, hidden or latent. Development is the unwrapping of potentials (Enehor, 2010).
Development as a concept is derived from the word ‘develop’ which means ‘growth’ or ‘progress’. It refers to a process of advancement which is associated with activities of nature. In the words of Thomas, the fundamental contrasting term for development is ‘envelopment’ (2010). Hence, it is mostly interchangeably used with the term growth or progress that indicate the situation of change of vents, things or phenomena.
In this light, development implies: advancement, evolution, expansion, improvement, increase, progress, addition, boost, buildup, enlargement, flowering, maturation, maturity, progression, reinforcement, ripening, spreading, unfolding, elaborating etc.
An expansion of the theoretical or practical aspects of a concept, design, discovery or invention.
The process of economic and social transformation that is based on complex cultural and environmental factors and their interactions.
The process of adding improvements to a parcel of land, such as grading, subdivision, drainage, access, roads, utilities.
Development means a progression from a simpler or lower to a more advanced, mature, or complex from or stage. It is also defined as the gradual advancement or growth through a series of progressive changes. Development is a process, not a level. It is a part to achieve certain goals, a striving towards perfection.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English development implies to unroll, to lay open by degrees to free from integuments or that which envelops, to work out the potentialities, the exploit the natural resources, to evolve, to advance through successive stages to  higher, more complex, more fully grown state. Hence, a country in so far it is not yet freed from integuments, has not brought ought its latent potentialities and it is not highly organized. It has not exploited its natural resources, nor has it advanced into  a more complex and fully grown state and therefore remains under-developed.
The term ‘development’ is generally understood etymologically to mean expansion by a process of growth or ‘growth and differentiation of some entity along lines natural to its kind. The process of transformation and growth described by the term typically applies to biological processes where the stages of growth are usually described as development. But the development of the modern social sciences in western Europe some 200 to 150 years and the recognition by its practioners that societies have undergone and do under go transformations in history established parallel between the processes of biological change and those of the society.
The theories of prominent European scientists such as Comte, G. S. Mill and Marx with the important north African precursor Ibn Khaldun (1868) also in mind where founded on the ideal that human societies where not static but underwent periodic transformations. What is interesting too is that the progress and movement observed in social transformation where normatively viewed in moving from stages of been less developed to ones of been more developed.
Integral or Holistic Conception of Development
The concept ‘development’ could be understood in various ways because the ambiguous nature of the word which could be predicated of many areas and facets, which include human, social, economic, political, cultural, education, etc dimensions. Often people emphasis only the economic dimension of development (Obiwulu, 2009). From the above indication, development symbolizes and in more concrete ways, substantiates the manifestation of the implementation of policies and principles that necessarily generate advancements and changes towards the appealing of humanity.
Development encompasses many things but it shown by the qualitative improvement of circumstances. This means that as something develops the quality of the whole improves, as a tree develops, it will not only grow but also be able to reproduce, bear fruit, be healthy and continue growing. If an organization develop it might improve how it interacts with its members, what kind of influence it hold in its community, or it can streamline certain process, to meet the overall needs of people that are involved. If an economic situation develop, not only can profit increase, but for corporation’s the workers’ conditions are improved, difficulties in operations gets resolved, individual employees can be trained beyond their current statues which in turn helps the company. Economic development in a community or country leads to better over all living standards and opportunities to improve.
Thought growth and development may affect each, they are not dependent on each other. Growth may happen despite any development. Development can happen but they may actually be little growth. Ideally, both would be evident. Sometimes if something is not growing, it needs to develop to get to that growth. If something cannot develop they may need to be growth in a certain area before anything could be done to improve the over all situation. And if either one is absent, growth without development or development without growth, then what ever it is in danger. The organism may sick or die, a company can go out of business, an organization may dissolved or get taken over by a different organization.
For this class, we shall be adopting the following as our working definition:
The term development is understood as a social condition within a nation, in which the authentic needs of its population are satisfied by the rational and sustainable systems. This utilization of natural resources is based on a technology which respects the cultural features of the population of a given country. This general definition of development includes the specification that social groups have access to organizations basic services such as education, housing, health services and nutrition, and above all else that their cultures and traditions are respected within a social framework of a country.
According to Echekwube et al, the concept development entails improvement, a change from a lower status to a higher one, viewed by some in terms of material and economic growth (2014).
From an economic view point, a foremost economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, views development as ‘a transformation of society, a movement from traditional relations, traditional ways of thinking, and traditional methods of production, to a more modern way (see Oviasuyi, 2010). According to him, development is the change modes of transformations of ideas and labours from a local, crude or traditional ways of production which can be regarded as obsolete, to a more effective and efficient ways of production that is regarded as modern and scientific which is associated with the trend of industrialization and civilization.
Taking development as a complex and people-centered phenomenon Asante quoted a Adedeji as saying that “development is the collective responsibility in which all have to share in the labour as well as in the fruits”, for when “people become the end and the means of development, their interest values and aspirations necessarily determine the content, strategies and modalities of development”. And in the process, serve to ensure that development remains anchored to its socio-cultural, political, and historical bearings (2006). The concept of development is actually a complex one and all depends on the point of view you choose to address the issues. From the logical conceptual analysis of Oruka,
“if N is a nation, the concept ‘N is developed means that in N the people have their economic and social cultural needs fully satisfied, that in N, one has all the social freedoms, such as economic, cultural, political, intellectual, religious and sexual freedoms.
Although in another light, analyzing the importance of human capital development through education as a factor of human growth, Innocent Joogi (2011) asserts that development is much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potentials and lead productive and creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. Development is the opposite meaning of under development and/or non development.
Underdevelopment implies a stagnant economy unable to enter the typical growth pattern of the developed economies. Even if growth is present it concerns a small part of the economy with weak leakages to the rest economy. Analyzing the nature of economic situation as regards to per capital income and the modes of production in the third world countries, especially in Africa, Stathukis and Vaggi (2006) asserts that in the under developed countries, the missing elements are capital and technology. Land, no matter whether it produces crops for the internal or external market is incapable of raising productivity due to abundance of labour. Industrialization is crucial for any break with under development.
According to Anselm Jimoh “development is installed when the satisfaction of our socio-cultural needs are guaranteed by providing the opportunities by which we can attain and satisfy these needs in an atmosphere for growth resulting from the individual contributions of citizens is created and development begins to take place”.
According to Chuba Okadigbo, development is “movement from bad or good to better, from better to best, from primitivity to civilization, from stone to machine age, from slavery to freedom, feudalism to capitalism, from illiteracy to literacy, from ignorance to wisdom, from abject poverty to relative richness, from colonialism to political independence, from political independence to economic development, from tribalism to nationalism, from nationalism to Pan Africanism, etc.”
According to Truman (1950, 183) defined the concept as he expanded on the solution:
More than half of the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery... their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history, humanity possess the knowledge and skill to relieve the sufferings of these people… such new economic developments must be devised and controlled to the benefit of the peoples of the areas in which they are established. The old imperialism exploitation for foreign profit has no place in our plans… All countries, including our own, will greatly benefit from a constructive program for the better use of the world’s human and natural resources… Greater production is to key to prosperity and peace. And the key to greater is wider and more vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge.
Nations of the world are classified into: developed, developing and underdeveloped. Each according to its National Growth Index which centers on the provision of housing, food and clothing for the masses. The classification is to according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the monitoring of the economic growth, progressive index and recourse management of the member-states. The progressive development of people in an object of deep interest and concern particularly true in the case of those peoples who are trying to escape the ravage of hunger, poverty, endemic diseases, disasters and ignorance; of those seeking a larger share in the benefits of civilization and more active improvement of their human qualities; of those who are consciously striving for fuller growth (Roche 2006, 67). This condition is supposedly founded on the culture of respect of human dignity and rights.
Mental Education as a Key Index of Development
According L. Asiegbu  “There is the overriding importance of mental development, of which development is nothing but a crusade against ignorance, disease, poverty and allied evils. This mental development is a change in thinking-a change in one’s perception of reality. It is a vision. It increases the dimensions of our worlds and the quality of our lives.
For Kusumalayam (2008, 166), asserts that “development should mean not simply the progress we make in attaining material resources and well-being, but the holistic development of an individual as a human person, which addresses also the way in which such development is brought about. Man defines development. Man is the measure of all things. Development begins and ends with man. Innovation is the mother of development, innovation is the quality and power of the mind.
The crucial or vital force of the mind to human development vis-à-vis development of the society was what J. F. Kennedy vehemently emphasized when he said “Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The maxim, “the human mind is our fundamental resource” could be seen as having been influenced by Socrates’ configuration of education. It is germane to indicate that all forms of development in the society begins and ends in the human mind. In other words, this is tantamount to saying that no development can occur if the human mind remains undeveloped. We once told our students that the change mantra which the Buhari’s  administration sings is delusive and utopic is the individual citizens are not convinced and resolute in their minds to change.
John Dewey on his part designates education to be “a preparation for life, rather than living, education is the process of living through a continuous restructuring of experience. It is the development of all those capacities in the individual which will enable him to control his environment and fulfill his potentialities”.  Ruminating from a pragmatic point of view, Dewey sees the essence of education in empowering the child to influence his environment, education develops the child to be useful to his society. From the tone of this configuration one can logically deduce that Dewey implies that education without its practicality is futile. In a word, education from Dewey’s perspective is the empowerment of the child to subdue his environment and create his fortune. It is only education when it is realistic and pragmatic, there must be an inescapable connection between education and the needs of the society. He, in nutshell emphasizes that knowledge without its practical application is useless.
Education equips individuals with the skills and sustainable knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, also allows them to participate in the live of their community as bonafide citizens. The skills education enables engenders societal transformation, growth and development. This is so because education equips scholars with the right sentiments and disposition to idealize pragmatic principles by which the policies of government are formulated. Education is invariably associated to wisdom because it enables individual to develop skills for critical thinking, sound reasoning and judgment. It aids individual to break through the yoke of myopic thinking and gullibility because of its enlightening propensity. Little wonder then, the mission and goal of virtually every catholic or religious secular educational institution is to prepare young people for productive life and effective leadership in both church and society through sound formation in the art of critical and systematic enquiry on fundamental life issues.
Having explicated the etymological and holistic perspectives of development, what follows is a critical study of the four major theories of development.
THE FOUR MAJOR THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT
A development theory is a conglomeration or a collective version of theories about how desirable change in the society is best achieved. Such theories draw on variety of social science disciplines and approaches. In this course, our attention shall be focused on only four major theories; they include: Modernization, Dependency, World-Systems and Globalization theories. These are the principal theoretical explanations espoused to interpret developmental strides especially in the developed and developing countries. These theoretical perspectives, allow us not only to clarify concepts, to set them in economic and social perspectives, but also to identify  recommendations in terms of social policies.
THE MODERNIZATION THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
The modernization the movement of the 1950s and 1960s is an economic theory that is rooted in capitalism. The concept of modernization incorporates the full spectrum of the transition and drastic transformation that a traditional society has to undergo in order to become modern (Hussain et al., 1981; Lenin, 1964).
The theory of modernization is used to analyze how modernization processes in societies take place. The theory looks at which aspects of countries are beneficial and which constituted obstacles for economic development. Idea is that development assistance targeted at those particular aspects can lead to modernization  of traditional or backward societies. Scientists from various research disciplines have contributed to modernization theory. According to Alvin, there are three main historical elements which were favorable to the inception of modernization theory of development after the Second World War, they include:
There was the rise of the United States as a world power. While other Western nations such as Great Britain, France, and Germany were weakened by World War II, the United Nations emerged from the war strengthened, and became a world leader with the implementation of the Marshall Plan to reconstruct war-torn Western Europe.
There was the spread of a united communist movement. The former Soviet Union extended its influence not only to eastern Europe, but also to China and Korea.
There was the disintegration of European colonial empires in Asia, Africa and Latin America, giving birth to many new nation-states in the Third Worlds. These nascent nation-states were in search of a model of development to promote their economy and to enhance their political independence.
According to the modernization theory, modern societies are more productive, children are better educated, and the needy receive more welfare. According to Smelser’s analysis, modern societies have the peculiar feature of social structural differentiation. That is to say a clear definition of functions and political roles from national institutions. Smelser argues although structural differentiation has increased the functional capacity of modern organizations, it has also created the power of integration, and of coordinating activities of the various new institutions.
In a political sense, Coleman stresses three main features of modern societies to include:
(a). Differentiation of political structures;
(b). Secularization of political culture-with the ethos of equality-which;
(c). Enhances the capacity of a society’s political system.

The Major Assumption of The Modernization Theory of Development
Modernization is a phased process; for instance, Rostow has five phases according to  his theory of economic development for a particular society, these five stages are: traditional society, precondition for take-off, the take-off process, the drive to maturity, and high mass consumption society.
Modernization is a homogenizing process, in this sense, we can say that modernization produces tendencies towards convergence among societies. For example, Levy maintained that ‘as time goes on, ‘they’ and ‘we’ will increasingly resemble one another because the patterns of modernization are such that the more highly modernize societies become, the more they resemble one another (1967: 207).
Modernization is an Europeanization or Americanization process. In the modernizing literature, there is an attitude of complacency towards Western Europe and the United States. These nations are viewed as having unmatched economic prosperity and democratic stability.
Modernization is an irreversible process, once started, modernization cannot be stopped. In other words, once Third World countries come into contact with the West, they will not be bale to resist the impetus toward modernization. Modernization is a progressive process in which, in the long run, is not only inevitable, but desirable. According to Coleman, modernized political systems have a higher capacity to deal with the functions of national identity, legitimacy, penetration, participation, and distribution than traditional political systems.
Modernization is a lengthy process. It an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. It will take generations and even centuries to complete, and its profound impact will be felt only through time.
All these assumption are derived from Europe and there is also another set of classical assumptions based more strictly on functionalism-structuralism theory which emphasizes the inter-dependence of social institutions, the importance of structural variables at the cultural level, and the built-in process of change through homeostasis equilibrium. These area ideas derived especially from Parsons’ sociological theories, these assumptions are as follows:
Modernization is a systemic process. The attribute of modernity forms a consistent whole, thus, appearing in a cluster rather than in isolation.
Modernization is a transformative process. In order for a society to move into modernity, its traditional structures and values must be totally replaced by a set of modern values.
Modernization is an immanent process due to its systematic and transformative nature, which builds change into the social system.
One of the principal application of modernization theory has been the economic field related to public policy decisions. From this perspective, it is very well known that the economic theory of modernization is based on the five stages of development from Rostow’s model.  In summary, these five stages are:
1. Primitive society: The stage is characterized by subsistence farming and barter trade.
2. Preparation for take-off: The characteristics of the stage are; specialization, production of surplus goods and trade. Transport infrastructure is developed to support trade. The stage encourages savings and investment.
3. Take-off: At this stage industrialization increases and the economy switches from agriculture to manufacturing.
4. Drive to maturity: At this stage the economy diversifies into new areas and there is less reliance on imports.
5. Period of mass consumption: At this stage, the economy gears on mass production and service sector becomes increasingly dominating..
According to this exposition, Rosecow has found a possible solution for the promotion of Third World modernization.  If the problem facing Third World countries resides in their lack of productive investments, then the solution lies in the provision of capital, technology, and expertise. The Marshall Plan and the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, are examples of programs which were influenced by Rostow’s political theories.
The similarities between classical modernization studies and new modernization studies can be observed in the constancy of research focus on Third Word development; the analysis at a national level; the use of three main variables: internal factors, cultural values and social institution; the key concepts of tradition and modernity; and the policy implementations of modernization in the sense that it is considered to be generally beneficial to society as a whole.
However, there are also instant distinctions between the classical studies and the new studies of modernization school. For example, in the classical approach, tradition is obstacle to development; in the new approach, tradition is additive factor of development. With regard to methodology, the classical approach applies theoretical construction with a high-level of abstraction; the new approach applies concrete case studies in an historical context. Regarding the direction of development, the classical perspective uses an unidirectional path which tends towards the United States and European model. The new perspective prefers a multinational path of development. Finally, concerning external factors and conflicts, the classical demonstrate a relative neglect of external factors and conflicts practiced by the new approach.
Economic modernization theories such as Rostow’s stages model have being heavily inspired by the Harrod-Domar model which explains in a mathematical, the growth rate of a country in terms of the savings rate and the productivity of capital.  Heavy state investment has being considered necessary for successful development in economic modernization theory. Paul Rosenstain-Ragnar and Kurt Mandelbum argued that a big push model in infrastructure investment and planning was necessary for the stimulation of industrialization, and that the private sector would not be able to provide the resources for this on its own. Another influential theory of modernization is the dual-sector-model, by Arthur Lewis. In this model, Lewis explain how the traditional stagnant sector is gradually replaced by a growing modern and dynamic manufacturing and service economy. Because of this focus on the need for investments in capital, the Linear Stages of Growth Models are sometimes referred to as suffering from capital fundamentalism.

The Strength of Advantages of Modernization Theory
The strength of modernization theory can be defined in several aspects.
First, we can identify the basis of the research focus. Despite the fact that the main studies of modernization were carried by a psychologist, a social psychologist, sociologist of religion and political sociologist. Other authors have extended modernization theory into other spheres. For example, Bellah examines the Tokugawas religion on pajanes economic development in South East Asia with effect on villages in Cambodia, laos and Burma; Lipset addresses the possible role of economic development in democratization of Third Worlds countries, Inkeless discusses the consequences of the modernization process for individual attitudes and behaviour.
Second feature of modernization perspective is the analytical framework. Authors assume that Third World countries are traditional that western countries are modern. In other to develop, those poor nations need to adopt western values.
Third, the methodology is based on general studies; for example, the exposition regarding the value factor in Third Word, and the differentiation between unstable democracies, dictatorships and stable dictatorships.

CRITICISMS OF MODERNIZATION THEORY
Modernization theory was popular in the 1950s, but was under heavy attack at the end of the 60s. criticisms of the theory include the following:
First, Development is not necessarily unidirectional: This is an example of ethnocentricity of Rostow’s perspective. Second, the modernization perspective only shows one possible model of development: the favored example is the development pattern in the United States. Nevertheless, in contrasts with this circumstance, we can see that there have being development advances in other nations, such as Taiwan and South Korea; and we must admit that their current development levels have been achieved by strong authoritarian regimes.
Modernization theory regards the need to eliminate traditional values. Third Word countries do not have homogenous set of traditional values; their value system are highly heterogeneous. For example, Redfield (1965), distinguishes between the great traditional values (values of the elites) and the little traditions (values of the masses). A second aspect of this criticism is the fact that traditional and modern values are not necessarily always mutually exclusive. China for example, despite advances in economic development continues to operate on traditional values and appears to be the same situation in Japan. Moreover, it is not possible to say that traditional values are always dichotomous from modern status, for example, loyalty to emperor can be transferred to loyalty to the firm.
Modernization theory observes traditions and pre-existing institutions of the so-called primitive societies as obstacles to modern economic growth. Modernization which is forced from outside upon a society might induce violent and radical change. However, according to modernization theories, it is generally worth this side effect. Critics points to traditional societies as being destroyed and slipping away to a modern form of poverty without ever gaining the promised advantages of modernization.

DEPENDENCY THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
The foundations of the theory of dependency emerged in the 1950s from the research of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbeans (ECLAC). One of the most representative author was Raul Prebisch. The principal point of the Prebisch model is that in other to create conditions of development within a country it is necessary to:
To control the monetary exchange rate, placing more governmental emphasis on fiscal rather than monetary policies.
To promote more effective governmental role in terms of national development;
To create a platform of investments, giving a preferential role to national capitals;
To allow the entrance of external capital following priorities already in national plans for development;
To promote a more effective internal demand in terms of domestic market as a base to reinforce the industrialization process in Latin America;
To generate a larger internal demand by increasing the wages and salaries of workers, which will in turn positively affect aggregate demand in internal markets;
To develop a more effective coverage of social services from government, especially to impoverished sectors in other to create conditions for those sectors to become more competitive; and;
To develop national strategies according to the model of import substitution, and protecting national production by establishing quotas and tariffs on external markets.

The Prebisch and ECLAC’S proposal were the  basis for dependency theory at the beginning  of the 1950s. However, there are also several authors, such as Falleto and Dos Santos who argued that ECLAC’s development proposals failed, which only then lead the establishment of the dependency model. This more elaborated model was published at the end of the 1950s and the mid 1960s. Among the main authors of dependency theory we have: Andre Gunder Frank, Raul Prebisch, Theotonio, Entrique Cardozo, Edelberto Terres-Rivas and Samir Amin. The theory of dependency combines elements from a neo-Marxist perspective with Keynes’ economic theory-the liberal economic ideas which emerged in the United States and Europe as a response to the depression years of the late 1920s-from the economic approach, the theory of dependency embodies four main points:
To develop an important internal effective demand in terms of domestic market.
To recognize that the industrial sector is central to achieving better levels of national development, especially due to that fact that this sector, in comaprism with the agricultural sector, can contribute more value-added to product.
To increase workers income as a means of generating more aggregate demand in national market conditions
To promote a more effective governmental role in order to reinforce national development conditions, and to increase national standards of living.
Dependency theory is essentially a follow up to structuralist thinking, and shares many of its core ideas. Whereas structuralists did not consider that development would be possible at all, unless a strategy of delinking and rigorous ISI was pursued, dependency thinking could allow development with external links with the developed parts of the globe. However, this kind of development is considered to be ‘dependent development’. For instance, it does not have an internal domestic dynamics in the developing countries and thus remains highly vulnerable to the economic vagaries of the world market. Dependency thinking starts from the ‘periphery’ of poor and underdeveloped states of core of wealthy states, which leads to accumulation of wealth in the rich states at the expense of the poor states. Contrary to modernization theory, dependency theory states that not all societies progress through similar stages of development. Primitive states have unique features, structures and institutions of their own and are the weaker with regard to the world market economy, while the developed nations have never been in this follower position in the past. Dependency theories argue that underdeveloped countries remain economically vulnerable unless they reduce their connectedness to the world market.
Dependency theory states that poor nations provide natural resources and cheap labor for developed nations, without which the developed nations could not have the standard of living which they enjoy. Also, developed nations will try to maintain this situation and try to counter attempts by developing nations to reduce the influence of developed nations. This means that the poverty of developing nations is not the result of the disintegration of these countries in the world system, but also of the way in which they are integrated into this system.
In addition to its structuralist roots, dependency theory have much overlap with Neo Marxism and World System Theory, which is also reflected in the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, a famous dependency theorist. Wallerstein rejects the notion of a Third World, claiming that there is only one world which is connected by economic relations (World System Theory). He argues that this system inherently leads to a division of the world into core, semi-periphery, and periphery. One of the results of expansion of the world system is the commodification of things, like natural resources, labour and human relationships.
The major hypotheses with regard to development in the Third World countries according to the dependency theory are the following
In contrast to the development of the core nations which is self-contained, the development of nations in the Third World necessitates subordination to the core. Examples of this situation can be seen in Latin America, especially in those countries with a high degree of industrialization, as Sao Paulo, Brazil which Andre G. Frank uses as a case study.
The periphery nations experience their greater economic development when their tie to the core are weakest. An example of this circumstance is the industrialization process  that took root in Latin America during the 1930s, when the core nations were focusing on solving the problems that resulted from the great depression and the western powers were involved in the second world war.
The third hypothesis indicates that when the core recovered from its crisis and re-establishes trade and investments ties it fully incorporates the peripheral nations once again into the system, and the growth of industrialization in these regions is stifled. Frank in particular indicates that when core countries recuperate from war or other crises which have directed their attention away from the periphery, this negatively affects the balance of payments, inflation and political stability in Third World countries.
Lastly, the fourth aspect refers that the fact that regions that are highly underdeveloped and still operates on the traditional, feudal system are those that in the past hard the closest ties to core.
Although, the modernization school and the dependency school conflict in many areas, they also have certain similarities, the most important being:
a research focused on third world development circumstance;
a method which has a high level of abstraction and it is focused on the development process, using nations-states as a unit of analysis;
the use of polar theoretical structural vision; in one case the structure is tradition versus modernity- modernization-, in the order it is core versus periphery-dependence-
CRITICISMS OF DEPENDENCY THEORY
The principal criticisms of the dependency theory have focused on the fact that this school does not provide exhaustive empirical evidence to support its conclusions. Furthermore, this theoretical positions uses highly abstract levels of analysis.
Another point of critique is that the dependency movement considers ties with transnational corporation as being only detrimental to countries, when actually these links can be used as a means of transference of technology. In this sense, it is important to remember that the united states was also a colony, and this country had the capacity to beak the vicious circle of under development
One of the main current critiques of the theory of dependency and the theory of modernization is that they both continue to base their assumptions and results on the nation-states. This is an important point that allows us to separate this afore mentioned schools from the theoretical perspectives of world system or globalization theory. These last movement have focused theory attention mostly on the internal connections amongst countries, especially those related to trade, the internal financial system, world technology and military corporation.

WORLD-SYSTEMS
A central element from which the theory of world systems emerged was the different forms that capitalism was taking around the world. Especially since the decade of the 1960s. starting in this decade, Third World countries have hard new conditions in which to attempt to elevate their standard of living and improve social conditions. These new conditions were related to the fact that the international financial and trade systems began to have a More flexible character in which national government actions were having less and less influence. Basically, this new international economic circumstances made it possible for a  group of radical researchers lead by Immanuel Wallerstein to conclude that there were new activities in the capitalists world-economy which could not be explained within the confines of the dependency perspective. These new features were characterized mainly by the following aspects:
East Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore) continued to experience a remarkable rate of economic growth. It became more and more to portray this East Asia economic miracles as “manufacturing imperialism”.
There was a widespread crisis among the socialist states which included the Sino-Soviet split, the failure of the Cultural Revolution, economic stagnation in the socialist states, and the gradual opening of the socialist states to capital investment. This crisis signaled the decline of revolutionary Marxism.
There was a crisis in the North American capitalism which included the Vietnam War, the Watergate crisis, the oil embargo of 1975, the combination of stagnation and inflation in the late 1970s, as well as the rising sentiment of protectionism, the unprecedented governmental deficit, and the widening of the trade gap in the 1980s, all signaling the demise of American hegemony in the capitalist world economy.
These elements created the conditions for the emergence of the world system theory. This school hard its genesis at the Fernand Braudel center for the study of economics, historical systems and civilization at the state university of New York at Bingahamton. Having originated in sociology, the World Systems’ school has now extended its impact to anthropology, history, political science and urban planning.  Wallerstein is considered one of the most important thinkers in this theoretical field. At the beginning of his career he studied the development problems that the recently independent African nations needed to face, taking into account the new capitalist economic and political conditions of the world in the 1960s.
Wallerstain and his followers recognized that there are worldwide conditions that operates as determinate forces especially for small and underdeveloped nations, and that the nation-states level of analysis is no longer the only useful category for studying development conditions, particularly in the Third World countries. Those factors which has the greater impact on the internal development of small countries were the new global systems of communication, the new world trade mechanisms, the international financial systems and the transference of knowledge and military links. These factors have created their own dynamics at the international level and at the same time, these elements are interacting with the internal aspect of each a country. The main assumptions of the world system theory establish that:
There is a strong link between social sciences- especially among sociology, economics and political disciplines. This school recognizes that more attention is usually given to the individual development of each on of these disciplines rather than the interaction amongst them and how these interactions affect in real terms the national conditions of a given society;
Instead of addressing the analysis of each of the variables, it is necessary to study the reality of social systems;
It is necessary to recognize the new character of the capitalist system. Eg. The approach followed by the classical political economy perspective is based on te conditions of the capitalist system during the industrial revolution in the united kingdom. There was concrete evidence to support open competition, more productive patterns in the industrial sector, and wide groups of population which provided labour for the new established factories.
Today this is not the situation especially when you consider the important economic role of transnational corporation, the international political climate, the interdependence that affects the  governments of poor nations, and the role of speculative investments. For the world-systems school, present economic conditions are not fully explainable within traditional development theories. This criticism of the capitalist system has been present since its birth. Under current international conditions, there are specific features of monopoly capital, its means of transaction, and its concrete operations worldwide which have affected international relations amongst nations to a considerable degree.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEPENDENCY AND THE WORLD-SYSTEMS THEORIES
The principal differences between the world system’s approach and the dependency studies are:
The unit of analysis in the dependency theory is the nation-state level, for the world-system it is the world itself;
Concerning methodology, the dependency school posits that the structural-historical model is that of the boom and boost of nation-states, the world-systems approach maintains the historical dynamics of world systems in its cyclical and secular trends;
The theoretical structure for the dependency theory is bimodal, consisting of the core and the periphery; according to the world systems theory the structure is tri modal and is comprised of the core, the semi periphery and the periphery;
In terms of the direction of development, the dependency school believes that the process is generally harmful; however, in a world systems scenario, there is the possibility for upward and downward mobility in the world economy;
The research focus of dependency theorists concentrates on the periphery; while world systems theorists focus on the periphery as well as on the core, the semi periphery and the periphery.
Given the aforementioned characteristics, the world-systems theory indicates that the main unit of analysis is the social system, which can be studied at the internal level of a country, and also from the external environment of a particular nation. In this last case the social system affects several nations and usually also an entire region.
The world systems most frequently studied in this theoretical perspective are systems concerning the research, application and transference of productive and basic technology; the financial mechanisms, and world trade operations. In terms of financial mechanisms, and the research, application and transference of productive and basic technology; the financial mechanisms, and world trade operations. In term of financial resources, this development position distinguishes between productive and speculative investments. Productive investments are financial which reinforces the manufacturing production in a particular nation, while speculative investments normally entails  fast profit in the stuck market, they do not provide a country with sustainable basis for long term economic group, are therefore more volatile.
When the World-Systems theory considers trade mechanisms, it distinguishes between the direct transactions, which are those who have a greater, more significant and immediate effect on country, and those operations which are indirect transactions, such as future trade stipulations, and the speculations on transportation costs, combustibles prices, and forecasts on agricultural crops, when they depend on weather conditions to obtain their productivity and yield.

THEORY OF GLOBALIZATION
The theory of globalization emerged from the global mechanisms of greater integration with particular  emphasis on the sphere of economic transactions. In this case, this perspective is similar to the World-Systems approach. However, one of the most important characteristics of the globalization position is its focus and emphasis on cultural aspects and their communication worldwide.  Rather than the economic, financial and political ties, globalization scholars argue the main modern elements for development interpretation are cultural links among nations. In this cultural communication, one of the most important factors is the increasing flexibility of technology the connect people around the world. The main aspects of the theory of globalization can be delineated as follows:
To recognize communications systems are gaining an increasing importance every day, and through this process all nations are interacting much more frequently and easily, not only at the governmental level, within the citizenry;
Even though the communications systems are operating among the more developed nations, these mechanisms are also spreading in their use to less developed nations. This fact will increase the possibility that marginal groups in poor nations can communicate and interact within a global context using the new technology;
The modern communications system implies structural and important modifications in the social, economic and cultural patterns of nations. In terms of the economic activities the new technological advances in communications are becoming more accessible to local and small business. This situation is creating a completely new environment for caring out economic transactions, utilizing productive recourses, equipment, trading products, and taking advantage of the “virtual monetary mechanism”. From a cultural perspective, the new communication products are unifying patterns of communications around the world, at least in terms of economic transactions under the current conditions;
The concept of minorities within particular nations is being affected by these new patterns of communications. Even though these minorities are not completely integrated into the new world systems of communications, the powerful business and political elites in each county are a part of this integration around the world. Ultimately, the business and political elites continues to be the decision markers in developing nations;
Cultural elements will dictate the form of economic and socials structure in each country. These social conditions are a result of the dominant cultural factors within the conditions of each nation.
The main assumption that can be abstracted from the theory of globalization can be summarized in three principal points:
Cultural factors are the determinant aspect in every society.
It is not important under current world conditions to help the nation-states as the unit of the analysis, since global communications and international ties are making the categories less useful.
With more standardization in technological advances, more and more social sectors will be able to connect themselves with groups around the world. This situation will involve the dominant and non-dominant groups from each nation.

THE CONVERGENCE OF MODERNIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION THEORIES
The theory of globalization coincides with several elements from the theory of modernization. One aspect is that both theories consider that the main direction of development should be that which was undertaken by the United States and Europe. These schools maintain that the main patterns of communication and the tools to achieve better standards of living originated in those more developed areas. On this point it is important to underline the difference between the modernization perspective and the globalization approach. The former follows a more normative position-stating how the development issue should be solved –the latter reinforces in character as a ‘positive’ perspective, rather than a normative chain.
Another point in which the modernization and the globalization theories coincide is in terms of  their enthnocentric point of view. Both positions stress the fact that the path towards development is generated and must be followed in terms of the US and European models. Globalization scholars argue that this circumstance is a fact in terms of the influence derived from communication web and the cultural spread  of values from more developed countries.
Globalization theories emphasize cultural factors as the main determinants that affect the economic, social and political conditions of nations, which is similar to the ‘comprehensive social school’ of Max Weber’s theories. From this perspective, the systems of values, beliefs and the patterns of identity of dominant-or hegemony-and the alternative-or subordinate-groups within a society are the most important elements to explain national characteristics in economic and social terms. It is obvious that for the globalization position this statement from 1920s Weberian theory must apply to current world conditions especially in terms of the diffusion and transference of cultural values through communication systems, and they are increasingly affecting many social groups in all nations.
Based on the aforementioned elements, it is clear that the globalization and world-systems theories take a global perspective in determining the unit of analysis, rather than  focusing strictly on the nation-states as was the case in the modernization and dependency schools. The contrasting point between world-system and globalization, is that the first contains certain neo-Marxist elements, elite the second basis its theoretical foundations on  the structralist and the functionist sociological movement. Therefore, the globalization approach, tends more towards a gradual transition rather than a violent or revolutionary transformation. For the globalists’ authors, the gradual changes in societies become a reality when different social groups adapt themselves to current innovations.

AFRICA AND DEVELOPMENT
Having the key indicators and indices whose combine effects leads to genuine and sustainable development; there is no gainsaying in establishing the fact that Africa is still in the state of underdevelopment. African’s developmental woes ranges from economic and technological  stagnation, political instability, lack of continuity in government (abandoned projects: look round your vicinity oe community, there should be at least one abandoned government project or the other, if it not a broken-down water project, it is likely to be an uncompleted road or rail transportation project), corruption, western imperialism and hegemony; etc.
Be that as it may, if African situation irredeemable? No! if Africa is resolute, she can still make a drastic turn-around because she has all it takes both in human capital and material resources expedient to achieving economic, socio-political, cultural etc advancement and development. In other words she got all it takes to be among the G8 countries, even the most developed continent of the world. However, in order to get it right, Africans must go back to the drawing board, things must be done or put in the right perspectives. As the Nigeria president, Buhari plausibly asserted few days in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, “the challenges faced by African countries has a common thread, and must be collectively appraised and jointly tackled by all the African countries”.  The following are some problems that has continually constituted a push-back to development; and the prospects a turn-around of the Nigerian fortunes in particular and Africa in general.

EDUCATION: A PANACEA OF NIGERIAN (AFRICAN) DEVELOPMENT
No degree of technological advancement or material acquisition would make us realize ourselves except effective reflection on ourselves on our problems, which the philosopher alone can do. under this subheading, we shall be treating mainly the ideological re-orientation in our society. By this we mean decolonizing our minds from the shackles of ignorance, colonialism and permittivity. It must be stated categorically that only authentic education have the impetus to foster this dire need. No doubt, our educational system lack ‘Nigerianism’ we are carbon copies of the western systems of education. With up to date philosophical involvement in the formulations of our educational policies, we shall be  more prepared to address ourselves to the Nigerian problems in particular and the African in general.
Nigeria expediently needs a philosophy of education that profoundly reflects the history of the nation, expressing the basic interest of social and political thought as well as other national awareness. Such a philosophy in other words shall be aware of the realities of our present predicament. Hence, it shall be based on the principle of ‘Self-Reliance’. This principle, according to E. Ogundowole is very necessary towards our development (the UJAMAA example).
Another clear example is the Harambe