The difficulty encountered in defining development as a process is not dissimilar to the achievement of its goal centred outcome. John Rapley
75
(1996) in his book Understanding Development Theory and Practice in the
Third World remarked that “development has come a long way in the past six
decades.” Irrespective of the change, Hague (1991:1), Martin (1998:41) Kingsbury (2004:1) and Kihika (2009:784) are of the belief that “the present development discourse is contentious, imperialistic, prejudiced, theoretically bankrupt, and is an unyielding basis for geo-political social inequity and injustice.”
Munck and O’Heary (1999), Sidibeh (2005) Gordon and Sylvester (2004) have challenged and interrogated the very concept of development, and have argued that conventional theories and models of development are not relevant to the development needs of Africa and other parts of the developing world to which they are exported for use, opining that the myth of development constitutes part of the imaginary social fabric of Western societies.
This researcher concurs with the argument posited above and further argue, that after more than four decades of development interventions by Western countries and their proxy organizations (NGOs, Donor Agencies,) through development aid, institutional capacity building and Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), analysis of empirical results in many developing countries would reveal generally that in many cases significant percentages of populations are a lot poorer than prior to Western development interventions. On that premise Jones (1997:111) notes that “….despite the development and implementation of modern development efforts since the end of the Second World War, poverty and deprivation remain the norm for much of the world's population. In some regions, conditions have even worsened for populations. Development efforts have not achieved the positive results expected.” Schuftan (1998:1) sums this up in his inimitable way:
76
“On a facetious note, western development is merely the post-colonial form of economic exploitation now carried out at the request and with the support of the exploited.”
The monolithic imitative approach to development, accompanied by structural theoretical gaps that characterize development paradigms, coupled with the failure of the present raft of models, have given birth to post-development activists. “...Recent post-development critiques of modernization and development are the latest variant in a long history of critiques of development, ranging from, for example, populist ideas of self- reliance in the writings of Julius Nyerere, Michael Lipton, Ernst, Friedrich Schumacher to the structuralist perspectives” (Curry 2003: 407). Renowned scholar Sachs (1992:1) also articulated that “the idea of development stands like a ruin, in the intellectual landscape and it is time dismantle this mental structure.” It is important to note that “...Sachs and Estava are two of the leading members of the post-development school who declared development to be dead” Thomas (2000:5 in Allen and Thomas 2000). This list of the disillusioned development practitioner and sympathizers will become longer in the post Millennium Development Goals era.
David Lewis’s article “Anthropology and development: the uneasy relationship”, reiterated sentiments of the frosty relationship between anthropology and development that began when Bronislaw Malinowski advocated a role for anthropologists as policy advisers to African colonial administrators (Grillo 2002 cited in Lewis 2005:1). Anthropology as a discipline generally has displayed great ambivalence regarding development. In recent years, it has become almost axiomatic among anthropologists that development is a problematic and often invasive concept. However, in the late 1990s, two broad schools of thought emerged: those who favour an active engagement with development institutions on behalf of the poor, with the aim of transforming development practice from within; and those who prescribe a radical critique of, and a distancing from, the development establishment (Escobar 1997: 498).
77
The monumental shift of anthropology into the development domain speaks of a crisis of confidence that can be construed to mean what Martin (1998) and Pieterse (2010) called the “deconstruction of development”, meaning mainstream development and its counter paradigms. Pieterse (1998) in his article “My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development” articulates, the emergence of a new paradigm that is more people centred and represents a break from conventional development paradigms. Philosophically it is my opinion that the anthropology of development could represent the shifting theoretical framework in development discourse.
Drawing on a body of literature that critiques the process of development, I would like to suggest that the fundamental theoretical deficit which besets development at a pragmatic level is the myopic Eurocentricism that undergirds development thinking and which leads into the assumption that development is “automatic, unilinear, and is immune from intervening factors such as cultural revivalism” (Moghadam, 1992:1). In defence of the existing development paradigms So (1990:12) moots the view that:
“...Theories are not static entities. They attack other theories and they defend their own arguments. After engaging in heated theoretical debates they transform themselves into better research tools than they were before. The field of development is a perfect example of the dynamics of change in theoretical perspectives.”
The typology of development theories that is discussed in chapter five of the thesis is representative of the dynamics within the development field. With this in mind, Pieterse (2010:11) remarked that “shifts in the nineteenth to late twentieth centuries’ have altered development thinking and policy epistemologies.” This observation has led me to paraphrase Karl Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, “...philosophers have tended to only interpret the world in various ways.”(www.columbia.edu/cu/tat/core/marx.htm) Implicitly this comment by Marx could be interpreted as foreshadowing
78
development theorists, who seem to interpret the perceived reality of underdevelopment through the lens of an idealist and neo-imperialist.
Furthermore, owing to their theoretical failure, and contrary to what is believed, that after rigorous academic debate development theories would be morphed into better theories as opined by So (1990). Empirical evidence reveals for example that, the dependency and modernization schools have failed to predict or foresee the following:
The dependency theory never foresaw the socio-economic transformation of the oil rich countries of the Arab World, similarly it failed to detect that the countries on the periphery of the global economic system would become late developers, such as Ireland, UAE Asian Tigers, Brazil, and India. Secondly, loathe it or love it ‘economic globalization’ has brought with it incremental benefits to the developing world and drawing on the insatiable desire to
develop, policy makers in southern countries have used the tenets of the flying geese paradigm for national development. According to (Kasahara 2004:2) “the paradigm postulates that, under appropriate conditions, North- South economic linkages, i.e., the relations between the developed and the developing economies, could be beneficial to all, and that the East Asian development integration is a case in point”.
Gordon and Sylvester (2004:3) aptly and most perceptively summarize the point above by commenting that “development has evolved into an essentially incontestable
paradigm
with such a powerful hold on our collective imaginations that it is almost impossible to think around it”.The proponents of the dependency schools never envisaged such a re- shaping of the socio-economic global landscape. In addition to the above, Tucker (1999:12) cited in Munck & O’Hearn (1999) notes that the dependency theory failed to recognize the cultural dimension of domination. This was a crucial omission as cultural analysis is central to any understanding of the relations of power and to any strategy of resistance or dependency reversal.
79
Modernization theory predicts that countries with a rapid economic development will experience a move towards democratic institutions, such as political representation (Lipset 1959 cited in Aartun 2002:1). On the contrary the unprecedented socio-economic transformation has not led to a crescendo of calls and pushes for democratic reforms and or the wholesale introduction of democratic institutions or the formation of political parties or civic movements with political agendas in Oman, Dubai and the UAE by extension. This consequently demonstrates the subjective nature of development theories. The critics may argue that these are isolated cases; nonetheless the fact remains that there is no universal applicability of Western style development theory: as Hanlon & Marcelo (2010:1) remind us, “every country has a specific history which shapes its development path.” In spite of the criticism it is imperative that the point be made that “development is important because it produces an economy, and more broadly a society and culture, that determines how people live in terms of income, services, life chances, education and so on” (Peet, 2009: 6).
3.7. Conclusion
Successful and progressive societies are defined by their ability to improve the quality of life for every successive generation. However, “development strategy is a complex set of interrelated policies rather than a simple matter of trade policy, as often implied by mainstream literature” (Chang, 2006:4). Dubai’s socio-economic model has been discussed and written about in many fora locally, regionally and internationally. However, many of the analyses are conducted within specific macro-economic variables without contextualizing the city-state’s socio-economic progress within development paradigms.
In addition to the points mentioned above, there has been a school of thought, which espouses the view that the modern development process is driven by selfish motives and the interests of Western societies. Similarly, development theories have come under strong criticisms by policy-makers,
80
scholars and development practitioners from both sides of the political North and South divide. These critics have deemed the development models promulgated and propagated as Euro-centric and a form of neo-imperialism masked as development paradigms imposed by donor agencies, the United Nations organs and governments of developed countries. The empirical results of the dominant neo-liberal development paradigm have demonstrated how theoretically flawed the model is in achieving the desired results across the developing world. In spite of the theoretical deficits of Western development models, So (1990:11) tempers the criticism as noted in section 3.6 above. Notwithstanding what has been said, Hanlon & Marcelo (2010:1) appropriately noted that “every country has a specific history which shapes its development path” and policy makers can draw on the wide array of development paradigms and development research methodologies to shape the national development strategies of each nation state, including Dubai.
81
Chapter Four: Research Methodology
All of the greatest scientists in the history of mankind, such as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin, were master theoreticians, and they are remembered for
the theories they postulated that transformed the course of science. by
Anol Bhattacherjee (2012)
_____________________________________________________________ 4.1. Introduction
This chapter outlines the research methodology which has been applied by the researcher to answer the research questions that formed the basis of this study. It further demonstrates the systematic process that was followed to reach the conclusion as well as indicating that acceptable research methodologies were observed and applied.
The primary aim of this study was to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of the city-state of Dubai’s socio-economic development strategies over the ten year period 1998 to 2008. To achieve this aim, this study employed a theoretical framework based on a hybrid construct of Rentier, Developmental and Competition State models. The study, and by extension, the research methodology and process were shaped by the set of research questions that are listed below.
The chapter also elaborated on the importance of research design, the methods of data collection and analysis, highlighting the need for triangulation of qualitative research instruments and in a limited way utilising quantitative tools as and when these became appropriate. This was done in such a manner as to allow the limited quantitative data to be used to suррort qualitative data. The chapter emрloys a combination of the constructivist and рragmatist research paradigms.
82 4.2. Research Questions
In particular, this chapter intends to answer the following questions:
What have been Dubai’s socio-economic development strategies and performance over the period 1998 to 2008? In order to provide answers, the following sub-questions need to be addressed:
RQ1. What socio-economic development approaches did Dubai pursue to achieve its present level of growth and development?
RQ2. Is there a strong correlation between the state’s involvement and development in Dubai?
RQ3 Can Dubai be considered a rentier, developmental state or a competition state?
RQ4. How has Dubai harnessed expatriate labour for national development?
RQ5. How did Dubai protect and empower its minority population in the process of national development?
4.2.1. Preliminary study
This thesis had its origins in Dubai, a year or two after my arrival there on the 30th of September 2004. The preliminary investigation was prompted by
a number of socio-economic factors, including that which came to be regarded as the most unprecedented economic transformation, urbanisation development and wealth creation in the Arab world; all of which was made possible not only by transnational capitalists and oil money used to buy countless numbers of voiceless workers who were skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled.
83
This preliminary research into the social and economic development of the Emirate of Dubai involved numerous informal interviews with security guards, academics, CEOs, engineers/project managers, taxi drivers and workers in the retail sectors and construction workers. The researcher also monitored the business magazines, newspapers, and government announcements as well as local and international electronic media. The overall aim was to proceed to a deeper understanding of the development process that was unfolding in front of me and also to determine the development dogma/s or paradigm/s that could be used to understand Dubai’s development agenda.
The findings from the preliminary study suggested that there is a need for further and more holistic study; with an emphasis on locating Dubai’s development trajectory within a development paradigm, given that most of what was written on Dubai tended to focus narrowly on individual sector performance such as trade, tourism, transport, real estate and IT services. Development as a discourse and process was loosely used and inappropriately contextualized into macro-economic variables. Examples of such work would be found in the writings of the flowing authors: Sampler and Eigner (2006) and (2008), “Sand to Silicon Going Global: Rapid Growth Lessons from Dubai”, Saunders (2003), “Dubai The Arabian Dream” and the “Oxford Business Group Report” (2005), to name three.
4.3. Research Design
Kothai (2006:31) explains that the research design is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted. It involves decisions regarding, what, where, when, how much and by what means an enquiry or a research study constitute a research design. Based on this description, my thesis “….is the end result of a series of decisions made by the researcher concerning how the study will be conducted” (Burns and Grove 1997: 222). Polit and Hungler (1995:160) argue that “….research designs vary with regard to how much structure the researcher imposes on the research
84
situation and on how much flexibility is allowed once the study is under way.” Essentially, a research design is “a plan, structure and strategy of investigation so conceived so as to obtain answers to research questions or problems” (Kerlinger 1986: 279, cited in Ali 2008:108), in other words “It is a complete scheme or programme of the research” (Ibid:108).
The qualitative research employed a two phase research design. In the first phase a set of research questions was crafted, leading to a preliminary study of, an extensive review of secondary sources of literature on Arab development performance and Dubai in particular. The material for the preliminary literature review on Dubai’s rapid socio-economic transformation was drawn from local newspapers, Middle Eastern Studies journals, internet searches and other local printed material.
4.3.1. Descriptive study
Singh and Nath (2007:229), “….a descriptive study describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist, opinions that are held, processes that are going on, effects that are evident, or trends that are developing.” Kothari (2006:33) elucidates that this approach “is used when the purpose of research is the accurate description of a situation or an association between variables.” This contextualization of the definition appropriately places itself within the theoretical framework and research questions and objectives of the thesis. In essence, this study is primarily of a descriptive nature and forms part of the research design.
4.4. Research Paradigms
One of the critical decisions to make in designing a study is the paradigm (or paradigms) within which to situate one’s work. The use of the term “paradigm”, derived from the work of the historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, refers to a set of very general philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world (ontology) and how we can understand it (epistemology),
85
assumptions that tend to be shared by researchers working in a specific field or tradition (Maxwell 2005:36).
Johnson and Christensen (2012:31) narrow the definition of research paradigm to mean “a perspective about research held by a community of researchers’ assumptions, concepts, values, and practices.” Examples of paradigms are philosophical positions such as positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, realism and pragmatism (Ibid: 36; Creswell & Clark 2011:42). These definitions encapsulate what thinkers on the issue have regarded as “a way of reviewing reality, especially in an intellectual discipline,” such as development studies discourse.
Table 4.1: Elements of World View and Implications for Practice World View
Element Positivism Research Paradigms and Assumptions Post-
positivism Constructivism Pragmatism Ontology: What is the reality? There is real reality Singular reality (e.g.) researchers reject or fail to reject hypotheses Multiple realities (e.g.) researchers provide quotes to illustrate different perspectives Singular and multiple realities (e.g.) researchers test hypotheses and provide multiple perspectives Epistemology: What is the relationship between the researchers & that being researched? Knowledge can be obtained by objective methods Distance & impartiality (e.g.) researchers objectively collect data Closeness (e.g.) researchers visit participants at their sites to collect data Practicality (e.g.) researchers collect data by “what works” to address question Methodology: What is the process of research? -Surveys - Experiments - Quantitative approach Deductive (e.g.) researchers test an a priori theory Inductive (e.g.) researchers start with participants’ views and develop theories and generalizations Combining (e.g.) researchers collect both qualitative and quantitative data, mixing them
Compiled Source/s: Adapted from Cohen and Crabtree (2006); Guba (1989) (cited in Tha 2010) and Creswell and Clark (2011) pg.42
In order to develop an ontological and epistemological position from the spectrum of research paradigms summarized above, this study compares
86
the philosophical underpinnings and their practical implications for data collection and knowledge generation, which is the primary objective of any piece of research of this nature.
Given the nature of this study, no single paradigm could satisfactorily deal with all the required methodological requirements. Therefore, the author found it prudent to blend the constructivist and pragmatist paradigms. The comparison of the theoretical underpinnings of the paradigms listed in Table 4 above led to the conclusion that constructivism and pragmatism support my research agenda, which is to generate new knowledge encapsulated within the rentier, developmental and competition state paradigms.