TY - JOUR

T1 - The persistence of subsistence and the limits to development studies

T2 - The challenge of Tanzania

AU - Waters, Tony

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - There are two general approaches to assessing what is known as 'development'. First, there are classical accounts focusing on Europe's development during the industrial revolution. They describe how urban areas expanded at the expense of the social and economic resources of the rural areas, disrupting an independent subsistence peasantry. A major consequence is that today all Europeans are dependent socially, politically, and economically on the modern capitalist system. The second (more common) approach to development focuses on the modern Third World. This approach assumes that, as with Europe, the entire Third World is dependent on the modern capitalist system. Development studies focus on the assessment of how Third World countries can most effectively engage world capitalism. Discussion is typically reduced to comparisons between world systems theory and neoclassical economics. The Tanzanian government has used standard policies grounded in neoclassical and world-system assumptions since independence. But both policies failed to produce the predicted economic growth. This article argues that both policies failed because the Tanzanian peasantry, like the early modern European peasantry, is not dependent on the operation of world capitalism for basic subsistence. In fact, as studies have shown, rural Tanzania is only weakly incorporated into the capitalist world system, and in consequence has not been an easy target for what world-system theorists call 'peripheral integration'. What makes Tanzania different is the fact that the rural peasantry do not use market mechanisms in the distribution of the 'means of production', especially arable land for swidden agriculture, or, for that matter, labour or cattle.

AB - There are two general approaches to assessing what is known as 'development'. First, there are classical accounts focusing on Europe's development during the industrial revolution. They describe how urban areas expanded at the expense of the social and economic resources of the rural areas, disrupting an independent subsistence peasantry. A major consequence is that today all Europeans are dependent socially, politically, and economically on the modern capitalist system. The second (more common) approach to development focuses on the modern Third World. This approach assumes that, as with Europe, the entire Third World is dependent on the modern capitalist system. Development studies focus on the assessment of how Third World countries can most effectively engage world capitalism. Discussion is typically reduced to comparisons between world systems theory and neoclassical economics. The Tanzanian government has used standard policies grounded in neoclassical and world-system assumptions since independence. But both policies failed to produce the predicted economic growth. This article argues that both policies failed because the Tanzanian peasantry, like the early modern European peasantry, is not dependent on the operation of world capitalism for basic subsistence. In fact, as studies have shown, rural Tanzania is only weakly incorporated into the capitalist world system, and in consequence has not been an easy target for what world-system theorists call 'peripheral integration'. What makes Tanzania different is the fact that the rural peasantry do not use market mechanisms in the distribution of the 'means of production', especially arable land for swidden agriculture, or, for that matter, labour or cattle.

KW - Sociology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038998963&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3366/afr.2000.70.4.614

DO - 10.3366/afr.2000.70.4.614

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:0038998963

VL - 70

SP - 613

EP - 651

JO - Africa

JF - Africa

SN - 0001-9720

IS - 4

ER -