International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

Economic Development as a Paradigm of Power in the Eras of Geopolitical Thoughts

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors
Ehsan Yari 1
Mohammad Reza Faraji 2
1 Associate prof. of dept. of political sciences/ school of law and political sciences/ Shiraz University.
2 Ph.D. of Political Geography at Tehran, University of Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/isj.2025.444407.2148
Abstract
Development is the process of reaching a desired state through specific policies. Conversely, these concepts primarily stem from external and prescriptive initiatives and policies proposed by major powers and developed countries to fortify the foundations of weaker countries. This study examined the evolution of the concepts of development and economic development through a geopolitical lens, using John A. Agnew’s eras of geopolitical thoughts, i.e., “civilizational geopolitics,” “naturalistic geopolitics,” and “ideological geopolitics.” Specifically, this study aimed to address the following question: What is the nature of the concepts of development and economic development in the era of geopolitical thoughts? This descriptive-analytical study employed a library research methodology as the data collection method. The analysis of the concept and nature of development and economic development during the three major eras of geopolitical thought revealed that the central powers have prescribed development to economically and politically weak countries as a discourse or paradigm of power with varying interpretations. In an effort to substantiate the advancement of power policies, weaker countries are referred to as “barbarian,” “backward,” “underdeveloped,” “Third World,” “developing,” “South,” “uncivilized,” etc. Moreover, in a center-periphery geopolitical relationship, the power-seeking policies of the center, which are referred to as “development” and its derivatives, have been implemented in vulnerable countries, resulting in their subordination, dependence, and exploitation.

Highlights

Introduction

A rational investigation into the evolution of the concepts of “development” and “economic development” from a geopolitical perspective will elucidate their philosophical underpinnings. The occurrence of two world wars and the engagement of great powers in the pursuit of global geopolitical dominance necessitated a reevaluation of mankind’s future and its destiny on the planet. The winners of the two world wars developed and recorded laws, policies, and orders (as processes of global political management), whereby new structures (forms) were established for the spatial order of the political world. Since the world wars were primarily a Western phenomenon and their victors were also Western powers, the post-war political world was managed based on Western principles and procedures. Concepts that reflected the perspective of the West, particularly the US, on the world emerged within the context of the new geopolitical order. Meanwhile, “development” and “economic development,” along with associated interpretations, unveiled a novel political-economic dimension of the geopolitical system.

This study aims to address the evolution of development and economic development concepts through a geopolitical lens, using John A. Agnew’s eras of geopolitical thoughts (civilizational geopolitics, naturalistic geopolitics, and ideological geopolitics). The primary research question is as follows: what are the nature and origin of “development” and “economic development”? Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that these concepts are geopolitical in nature and have been proposed as a paradigm of power for supremacy in the economic and political spheres.

 

Methodology

A theoretical, basic study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach. A library research methodology (review of books, articles, websites, and databases) was adopted considering the studied problem. The data were qualitatively analyzed based on logical reasoning.

 

Findings

The evolution of development and economic development concepts in the eras of geopolitical thought reveals that global economic developments are directly correlated with the era of domination of thoughts and ideology of geopolitical powers. The superpower(s) rule a new economic system, along with its special interpretations, after the end of each geopolitical era. The geopolitical attitudes and interests of the superpowers determine the economic policies of the world. In other words, geopolitical powers introduce novel interpretations of domination in terms of vocabulary and terminology. These new geopolitical systems establish processes that lead to the formation of distinct geographic, political, and economic structures. This study reviewed various interpretations of the concepts of development and economic development across three geopolitical eras: civilizational geopolitics (1815-1875), naturalistic geopolitics (1815-1945), and ideological geopolitics (1945-1991), as outlined in the table below.

Evolution of the concept of (economic) development in the eras of geopolitical thoughts

Interpretations of development (economic development) Economic-geopolitical characteristics Eras of geopolitical thoughts

Development, a quantitative concept that denotes economic expansion

An interpretation of development as a key concept of trade based on the two principles of absolute advantage and relative advantage 

Britain’s economic dominance

Eurocentrism and the superiority of European civilization

European colonial rule

Political division of the world into Europe and other societies

Classical economics: the dominant economic literature

Formation of a new economy following the Industrial Revolution		 Civilizational geopolitics (1815-1875)
  • A modern interpretation of development
  • Colonialism in the guise of development
  • Development under the guise of the guardianship system in the Treaty of Versailles to gain control over weaker countries
  • Formation of the concept of “development stage” in the literature
of international organizations of dominant countries to manage and dominate weaker countries 

Imperialistic competitions

Overseas colonial expansion; domestic industrial modernization

The colonizer-colonized model

Economic nationalism growth

Geographic determinism

Germany and the US; emerging economic powers

Neoclassical economics: the dominant economic literature		 Naturalistic geopolitics (1815-1945)

Economic-political organization at the center of ideological-systematic conflictsFormation of three levels of development (developed, developing, underdeveloped/backward) in the political and economic literatureFormation of the concept of economic development based on Truman’s Point Four ProgramThe transition of development from a purely quantitative concept to qualitative concepts, including human development, ecology, and the environment

(Economic) development under the guise of structural adjustment policies

Formation of an ideological bipolar world

Establishment of the United Nations (UN)

Development of laws for the reconstruction of post-war ruins under the supervision of the US, such as the Marshall Plan and forced aid

Recognition of the US dollar as the global currency

Establishment of NATO

Formation of economic center-periphery

Formation of an economic neoliberalism system

Institutionalization of ideological conflicts based on key concepts such as penetration barriers, domino effects, and hegemonic stability		 Ideological geopolitics (1945-1991)

 

Conclusion

An analysis of the concept and nature of development and economic development across three eras of geopolitical thought revealed that development, interpreted variably as a discourse or paradigm of power, was imposed by central powers on economically and politically vulnerable countries. Following the formalization of the concept of “development” in the early 20th century, this notion was introduced to underdeveloped countries through the initiatives of international organizations. That is why weaker countries were referred to as “barbarian,” “backward,” “underdeveloped,” “Third World,” “developing,” “South,” “uncivilized,” etc., in an effort to substantiate the advancement of power policies. Although the development programs implemented during the Cold War and the ideological geopolitics era were intended to prevent the spread of communism worldwide, they ultimately led to economic domination and the dependence of peripheral countries on the center. Additionally, the Western-based development programs that were implemented for over fifty years following the conclusion of the Second World War did not result in development in economically vulnerable countries; rather, they exacerbated the disparity between strong and weak countries. These development models were subjected to significant criticism as a consequence of the capitalist patterns of the center, which resulted in the exploitation of peripheral countries. Consequently, the concept of development evolved from a purely quantitative and one-dimensional concept (economic growth) to a qualitative and multi-variable concept (sustainable development, human development, infrastructure development, etc.). In such a situation, the development programs during the geopolitical transition period (after the Cold War until now) have been implemented and pursued within the framework of sustainable development programs, such as the Millennium Development Plans (2000-2015) and the 2030 Agenda (2015-2030). However, further research is needed to identify and explain the geopolitical goals of these programs.

Keywords
Development
Economic development
Power paradigm
Eras of geopolitical thoughts

Subjects

  1. Agnew, J. (2004). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics. Routledge.
  2. Ashrafuzzaman, M., & Rahman, M. S. (2022). A critical analysis of the development paradigm. Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1),26-36.
  3. Azami, H. (2006). Geopolitical weight and regional power system (case study: Southwest Asia). Geopolitics Quarterly, 2(5),119-154. (In Persian)
  4. Azkia, M. (1398). Sociology of development. Tehran: Qalam Publication Institute. (In Persian)
  5. Brink, T. T. (2014). Global political economy and the modern state system. Boston: Brill.
  6. Dalby, S., Routledge, P., & Tuathail, G. Ó. (2003). The geopolitics reader. Routledge.
  7. Dehshiri, M. (2015). Globalization and sustainable development. Environmental and Sustainable Education Quarterly,4(2), 64-75. (In Persian)
  8. Dower, N. (2009). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Second. Edited by Wolfang Sachs. London and Newyork: Zed Books.
  9. Engel, S. N. (2010). Development economics: from classical to critical analysis. In R. A. Denemark (Eds.), The International Studies Encyclopedia Volume II (pp. 874-892). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
  10. Frankel, J. (1997). International relations in changing worlds. (A. Alam, translator) Tehran: Office of Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (In Persian)
  11. Hafeznia, M. (2006). Principles and concepts of geopolitics. Mashhad: Papli Publications. (In Persian)
  12. Https://Cambridge.Org/Dictionary/English/Development. Accessed 05 09, 2023.
  13. Https://Cambridge.Org/Dictionary/English/Economic-Development. Accessed 05 18, 2023.
  14. Https://Britannica.Com/Topic/Economic-Development. Accessed 05 18, 2019.
  15. Https://Investopedia.Com/Terms/D/Development-Economics.Asp. Accessed 05 18, 2023.
  16. Https://Merriam-Webster.Com/Dictionary/Development. Accessed 05 09, 2023.
  17. https://trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/19/inaugural-address. Accessed 05 09, 2023.
  18. Islam, M. S., Vandergeest, P., Schoenfeld, S., & Singh, H. (2009). Paradigms of development and their power dynamics: a review. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2), 24-37.
  19. Mirahasni, Z. (2012). An analysis on the conceptual model of combining the use of nationalism in development. Strategy Quarterly,12(64), 73-106. (In Persian)
  20. Misra, A. P., and Mabuganj, A. A. (1989). Regional development: new methods. (A. Mokhbar, translation) Tehran: Program and Budget Organization. (In Persian)
  21. Mojtahedzadeh, P. (2011). The philosophy and function of geopolitics (concepts and theories in the age of virtual space). Tehran: Samit Publications. (In Persian)
  22. Motavaseli, M. (2010). Economic development: concepts, theoretical foundations, institutionalism and methodology. Tehran: Samit Publications. (In Persian)
  23. Movasaghi, A. (2008). Political economy and underdevelopment. Tehran: Tehran University Press. (In Persian)
  24. Myrdal, G. (1975). Against The Stream, Critical Essays On Economics. London: The Macmillan Press LTD.
  25. Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2015). Theories of development: Contentions, arguments, alternatives. Guilford Publications.
  26. Power, M. (2019). Geopolitics and Development (1st ed.). Routledge.
  27. Rafipour, F. (2000). Development and conflict. Tehran: Publishing Company. (In Persian)
  28. Rist, G. (2014). The history of development: From western origins to global faith. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  29. Roberts, A., Choer Moraes, H., & Ferguson, V. (2019). Toward a geoeconomic order in international trade and investment. Journal of International Economic Law, 22(4), 655-676.
  30. Schumacher, A. A. (1986). that's beautiful. (A. Amini, translator) Tehran: Soroush. (In Persian)
  31. Sen, A. (1988). The concept of development. Handbook of development economics, 1, 9-26.
  32. Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
  33. Soubbotina, T. P. (2004). Beyond economic growth: An introduction to sustainable development. World Bank Publications.
  34. Treaty of Versilles. (1919). Senate Document 51,66th Congress,1st Session, Versailes, Paris: United Nation.
  35. (1998). Culture and development of the anthropological approach to development. Tehran: Taba and Eshar. (In Persian)
  36. Winterhalt, K. R. (2018). Truman’s new deal: Point four and the genesis of modern global development. University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal, 4(2), 1-8.