Chapter 9. Development: Myths and Realities Learning Objectives · 1Explain the concept of development in the study of politics and economics. · 2Discuss the challenges involved in building a new nation-state. · 3Compare and evaluate India and Nigeria as models of economic development. · 4Identify and elaborate on five obstacles to development. · 5Choose one failed state, describe how it failed, and analyze the failure. · 6Explain why failed states pose problems for regional stability and world order. This chapter focuses on the problems arising in the context of too little development too late, rather than too much too soon. We use the term least developed countries (LDCs), a term adopted by the United Nations, instead of “developing countries” (see Table 9.1). LDCs encompass the poorest of the poor. Table 9.1.  The World’s Least Developed Countries* Africa (33) 1 Angola 2 Benin 3 Burkina Faso 4 Burundi 5 Central African Republic 6 Chad 7 Comoros 8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 9 Djibouti 10 Equatorial Guinea 11 Eritrea 12 Ethiopia 13 Gambia 14 Guinea 15 Guinea-Bissau 16 Lesotho 17 Liberia 18 Madagascar 19 Malawi 20 Mali 21 Mauritania 22 Mozambique 23 Niger 24 Rwanda 25 São Tomé and Príncipe 26 Senegal 27 Sierra Leone 28 Somalia 29 Sudan 30 Togo 31 Uganda 32 United Republic of Tanzania 33 Zambia Asia and Pacific (15) 1 Afghanistan 2 Bangladesh 3 Bhutan 4 Cambodia  5 Kiribati 6 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 7 Myanmar 8 Nepal 9 Samoa 10 Solomon Islands 11 Timor-Leste  12 Tuvalu 13 Vanuatu 14 Yemen 15 Maldives Latin America and the Caribbean (1) 1 Haiti SOURCE: United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries. http://www.unohrlls.org/en/home/. During the second half of the last century, the West lumped Africa, Asia, and Latin America together into what was commonly called the Third World. In this narrative, the First World was epitomized by the United States, Western Europe and Japan, plus Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—rich countries with stable societies and well-established democratic political institutions. The citizens of these fortunate states were free to criticize the government. The communist states—Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe—comprised the Second World. All the rest were known as the Third World, collectively referred to as “underdeveloped” or “less developed” countries. Today it is considered politically incorrect to use such pejorative terms. Indeed, the term “developing countries” is rarely used to describe the former colonies. Many of these countries now have diversified economies, meaning they are no longer simply agrarian or nomadic but have industries and service sectors as well. Indeed, major companies in the United States and Europe outsource manufacturing and services to China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia where labor costs (wages) are low. In fact, all countries are developing, no matter how rich or how poor. Indeed, if some countries are not developed enough to sustain them.

1. Chapter 9. Development: Myths and Realities
Learning Objectives
· 1Explain the concept of development in the study of politics
and economics.
· 2Discuss the challenges involved in building a new nation-
state.
· 3Compare and evaluate India and Nigeria as models of
economic development.
· 4Identify and elaborate on five obstacles to development.
· 5Choose one failed state, describe how it failed, and analyze
the failure.
· 6Explain why failed states pose problems for regional stability
and world order.
This chapter focuses on the problems arising in the context of
too little development too late, rather than too much too soon.
We use the term least developed countries (LDCs), a term
adopted by the United Nations, instead of “developing
countries” (see Table 9.1). LDCs encompass the poorest of the
poor.
Table 9.1.
The World’s Least Developed Countries*
Africa (33)
1
Angola
2
Benin
3
Burkina Faso
4
Burundi
5
Central African Republic
6
Chad

2. 7
Comoros
8
Democratic Republic of the Congo
9
Djibouti
10
Equatorial Guinea
11
Eritrea
12
Ethiopia
13
Gambia
14
Guinea
15
Guinea-Bissau
16
Lesotho
17
Liberia
18
Madagascar
19
Malawi
20
Mali
21
Mauritania
22
Mozambique
23
Niger
24
Rwanda

3. 25
São Tomé and Príncipe
26
Senegal
27
Sierra Leone
28
Somalia
29
Sudan
30
Togo
31
Uganda
32
United Republic of Tanzania
33
Zambia
Asia and Pacific (15)
1
Afghanistan
2
Bangladesh
3
Bhutan
4
Cambodia
5
Kiribati
6
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
7
Myanmar
8
Nepal
9

4. Samoa
10
Solomon Islands
11
Timor-Leste
12
Tuvalu
13
Vanuatu
14
Yemen
15
Maldives
Latin America and the Caribbean (1)
1
Haiti
SOURCE: United Nations Office of the High Representative for
the Least Developed
Countries. http://www.unohrlls.org/en/home/.
During the second half of the last century, the West lumped
Africa, Asia, and Latin America together into what was
commonly called the Third World. In this narrative, the First
World was epitomized by the United States, Western Europe
and Japan, plus Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—rich
countries with stable societies and well-established democratic
political institutions. The citizens of these fortunate states were
free to criticize the government. The communist states—Soviet
Russia and Eastern Europe—comprised the Second World. All
the rest were known as the Third World, collectively referred to
as “underdeveloped” or “less developed” countries.
Today it is considered politically incorrect to use such
pejorative terms. Indeed, the term “developing countries” is
rarely used to describe the former colonies. Many of these
countries now have diversified economies, meaning they are no
longer simply agrarian or nomadic but have industries and
service sectors as well. Indeed, major companies in the United

5. States and Europe outsource manufacturing and services to
China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia where labor costs (wages)
are low.
In fact, all countries are developing, no matter how rich or how
poor. Indeed, if some countries are not developed enough to
sustain themselves, other countries are, arguably, not
sustainable for the opposite reason: development driven by the
latest advances in science and technology has given rise to
major new problems and huge challenges (carbon pollution,
climate change, pandemics, water wars, nuclear accidents, etc.).
By definition, LDCs display all or most of the following
features: endemic poverty; ethnic, religious, or tribal conflict;
widespread illiteracy; political turmoil; and glaring inequalities.
Although the picture is changing in much of Asia and, to a
lesser extent, in Latin America, many sub-Saharan African
nations continue to face great obstacles on the path to full
political, economic, and social development.
In the worst cases, the economy goes into a tailspin, the
government collapses, societies erupt, and entire populations
are plunged into
Chapter 8. States and Economies in Transition: Between
Democracy and Yesterday
Learning Objectives
· 1Discuss the idea that the system of rule in Russia under Putin
has more in common with tsarist Russia than Western-style
democracies.
· 2Define the term “transitional state” and describe what
changes in the world have caused or incentivized states to
undertake major economic and political reforms.
· 3Compare and contrast the progress of various East European
countries in making the transition from a centrally planned to a
market-based economy.
· 4Identify key Asian transitional states and characterize the
political system in each country before and after the transition.

6. · 5Name several transitional states in Latin America and explain
the pressures for change as well as the historical and cultural
obstacles to liberalization in these countries.
On December 31, 1991, something incredible happened,
something only a few years earlier nobody believed ever could
or would happen. The Soviet Union, one of two superpowers
that had dominated world politics for nearly half a century,
ceased to exist.
The collapse of the mighty Soviet superpower stands as one of
the most momentous political events of the twentieth century. It
ushered in a new era in world politics. It pointed to fatal flaws
in centrally planned economies—structural rigidity, systemic
inefficiencies, and a lack of incentives common to competitive
markets.
In Russia today, the tradition of autocratic rule continues to cast
a long and dark shadow over a society that has never known the
civil liberties taken for granted in the West. Our main focus in
this chapter is on the politics of transition from central planning
and totalitarian rule to capitalism and parliamentary democracy
in Russia and Eastern Europe. We also look briefly at a few
transitional states in Asia and Latin America.
For all practical purposes, the Communist World ceased to exist
in 1989. In 1988, before the end of the Cold War, fifteen states
could be classified as communist. A decade later, the number
had shrunk to only five or six states—China, Cuba, Laos, North
Korea, Vietnam, and perhaps Cambodia—each pursuing
independent policies. Only North Korea remains an
unreconstructed Stalinist state. It no longer makes any sense to
talk about a “Communist threat.” What happened?
Eastern Europe abruptly abandoned Communist rule in 1989,
ahead of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Thereafter,
democracy and privatization (the process of turning formerly
state-run enterprises over to the private sector) advanced
rapidly in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia,
as well as in the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia).
Romania and Bulgaria have followed suit, but at a slower pace.

7. The former East Germany is a special case, having merged with
West Germany in 1990.
Russia: Old Habits Die Hard
As the 1990s began, the Soviet Union stood as one of the last of
the world’s great empires (see Figure 8.1). The Stalinist state
that remained in place until 1991 displayed all the classic
features of totalitarian rule, including centralized control over
the armed forces, the media, and the economy; a dominant
monopoly party; an official ideology; and a systematic program
of terror against suspected political opponents and the mass
murder of innocents deemed unworthy (or dangerous) by the
regime. The story of how the former Soviet Union emerged
from the long dark winter of totalitarianism provides the
essential background for understanding the nature of Russian
politics today.
Figure 8.1.
Sixty percent of Russia (including Siberia) is located east of the
Urals, in Asia. Russia is so vast that if you board a train in St.
Petersburg and go all the way Vladivostok, you pass
Chapter 7. Parliamentary Democracy: Pros and Cons of
Perishable Governments
Learning Objectives
· 1Describe Aristotle’s concept of a mixed regime, and identify
a modern political system that perhaps best embodies the
Aristotelian model.
· 2Compare the U.S. presidential model to British-style
parliamentary systems.
· 3Argue the case both for and against a powerful executive
branch.
· 4Compare and contrast the executives in the UK, Germany,
and France.
· 5Compare and contrast the British parliament and the U.S.
Congress.
· 6Explain the view that Japanese government and society is

8. Western in form but Japanese in substance.
· 7Identify the obstacles to parliamentary democracy in India
and Israel compared to countries in Western Europe.
We have not only to study the ideally best constitution. We
have also to study the type of constitution which is practicable
[that is, the best for a state under actual conditions]…. The sort
of constitutional system which ought to be proposed is one
which men can be easily induced, and will be readily able, to
graft onto the system they already have.
Aristotle, The Politics*
Long ago, the great Greek philosopher Aristotle made a
compelling case for the systematic comparison of political
systems. Today, the value of comparative political analysis is
widely recognized in the discipline. We have seen that
strikingly different forms of government are possible—
democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian—and that there are
many permutations of each form. Authoritarian regimes, for
example, can be monarchies, military juntas, theocracies, and so
on. Democracies also vary widely, as we noted in Chapter 4.
The form of democracy found in the United States is the one
Americans know best, of course, but most Europeans are far
more familiar with a very different model of democracy, one
that originated in England—a country that is separated from the
Continent by a narrow expanse of water and a wide expanse of
history and culture.
In this chapter, we compare parliamentary democracies with a
view to identifying how they differ between and among each
other. We also ask what variations appear to result in
dysfunctional systems and whether or not remedies are
available. Finally, we ask how parliamentary systems compare
to our own and revisit the question asked in Chapter 4: Which
model of democracy works better?
Great Britain: Mother of All Parliaments
The British system has its origins in horticulture, not
architecture. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, it is not based on a
blueprint devised by rational minds. Instead, it grew out of

9. England’s unique history and geography and its evolving
political culture. The organic nature of the British parliamentary
system raises an obvious question about whether it can be
transplanted, but first we take a closer look at this unique
representative democracy.
The political system that formed after the American Revolution
represented a sharp break with the European autocratic
tradition, and it required a fresh political theory. Although there
is no British counterpart to The Federalist Papers, we find a sort
of homegrown theory of British-style democracy in the writings
and speeches of Edmund Burke. Burke detailed Britain’s long
unbroken chain of political development, during which,
significantly, economic equality and political liberty expanded
together. As the monarchy declined in power, British
government became increasingly democratic, evolving into
a parliamentary system. It was gradually established that the
British monarch would automatically accept Parliament’s choice
of prime minister (PM). In time, the PM eclipsed the monarch
as the head of government. Today, the monarch Queen Elizabeth
II is the head of state but with no executive power—a beloved
figurehead.
iStockphoto.com/Chris Jackson
The United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II is a beloved monarch
who reigns but does
Week 3 Assignment: Essay - Developing a Democracy
Submit Assignment
Due Jan 27, 2019 by 11:59pm Points 80 Submitting a file
upload
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 7, 8, 9
Lesson

10. Minimum of 2 scholarly sources
Instructions
Many countries have gone through various ways of governing-
by one, by a group, or by the people. Pick one developing
country. Examine this country's political history and current
barriers in developing their democracy. Create a concise
argument on the type of democracy they should institute and
why.
Use the following list to select your developing country:
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1876/310m
ab.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 1.5-2 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)
Grading
This activity will be graded based on the essay rubric.
Course Outcomes (CO): 2, 5
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Rubric
Week 3 Assignment: Essay - Developing a Democracy
Week 3 Assignment: Essay - Developing a Democracy
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Country and
history examined
20.0 pts
In-depth analysis of the country and the country’s political

11. history.
16.0 pts
Analysis of the country and the country’s political history
lacked depth.
12.0 pts
Analysis of the country or a presentation of the country's
political history not present.
0.0 pts
Country and political history are not discussed.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Barriers: nation-
building, state building, participation, and distribution.
20.0 pts
Addresses each concept related to barriers. Examples are from
the country chosen for examination.
16.0 pts
Addresses at least two out of the three concepts. Doesn’t relate
these concepts back country.
12.0 pts
Addresses only one of the concepts. Does not relate these
concepts to the country.
0.0 pts
Does not address any concepts.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis
20.0 pts
Constructed a concise argument using a key democratic
ideology for their country.
16.0 pts
The democratic ideology is clear but it does not relate back to
their country.
12.0 pts
It is unclear what democratic ideology is being used and it does
not relate back to their country.
0.0 pts
Does not address democratic ideology.

12. 20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Scholarly
resources
10.0 pts
Uses both the book and, at least, one outside scholarly source.
8.0 pts
Uses only the book or a scholarly source.
6.0 pts
Uses only a scholarly source and the source is not scholarly.
0.0 pts
Does not use the book or scholarly source.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome APA
5.0 pts
All sources are properly cited and referenced according to APA
standards.
4.0 pts
Sources are either properly cited or referenced, missing one of
those elements.
3.0 pts
The citation and/or reference are incorrect.
0.0 pts
No APA format was used.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing
5.0 pts
Presents information using clear and concise language in an
organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling,
syntax, and punctuation).
4.0 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is
somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar,
spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
3.0 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is very
disorganized (many errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax,

13. and punctuation).
0.0 pts
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or
organized to the point that the reader has difficulty
understanding the message (numerous errors in English
grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
5.0 pts