One of the most influential classic economic development theories is Rostow’s development phases. It came out in 1960, and its author was the American economist W.W. Rostow. Before Rostow, development strategies were founded on the idea that “modernization” was something only the Western world (the richer, more dominant nations at the time) could achieve (Rostow, 1959). As a result, the rest of the world has to catch up to the West and become “modernized,” or capitalist and liberal democratic. Based on these concepts, in 1960, Rostow published the highly influential “Stages of Economic Progress,” in which he outlined the five stages that all nations must go through on their way to becoming developed, i.e., traditional society, preconditions to take off, take-off, drive to maturity and age of high mass consumption. According to the paradigm, all nations may be found along this scale and go steadily higher as they complete successive waves of industrialization. This paper will show the extent to which Rostow’s economic development stages help understand the development process by using various relevant countries for better understanding.
Many individuals continue to refer to Rostow’s economic growth model, which emphasizes industrialization, urbanization, and commerce as the way forward for developing nations. Singapore is a prime example of a country that adopted this strategy for economic development and is now a major participant on the international stage (Menzel, 2006). Singapore, a nation in Southeast Asia with a population of over Five million, did not have extraordinary development potential when it gained independence in 1965. It industrialized quickly, creating successful factories and hi-tech sectors (Hunt, 1989). With a greater GDP per person than many European nations, Singapore has become one of the world’s most sought-after trading partners.1 Its entire population now lives in metropolitan areas.
Rostow’s idea of economic growth may be seen in action in Brazil and Mexico. After WWII, Brazil began its late industrialization, which ushered in the Take-Off phase (characterized by urbanization and the development of the secondary sector) and the Drive to the Mature stage. Rostow’s paradigm is bolstered by the fact that Mexican modernization has been propelled by Mexican enterprises’ integration into American industrial companies’ Global Value Chains (GVC) (Piętak, 2014). With Brazil’s relatively low disposable income level, neither country has fully entered the Age of Mass Consumption. Like Mexico, the United States has significant economic inequality inside the nation. Brazil and Mexico simultaneously illustrate developing nations with attributes in more than one stage, despite the model presenting five stages with limits between them (Ortolano, 2015).
Chile and Uruguay are intriguing examples because they embody features of the Period of Mass Consumption, the fifth era. However, they need a more diversified industrial capacity that characterizes the fourth phase (Costa et al., 2016). Furthermore, both nations have a small Gross domestic product and population, which may help to account for the skip over the stage of “Drive for Maturity.”
Argentina is a unique example of a country that went backward in the stages of development. The “Argentine Paradox” occurred. A state that had reached significant growth at the start of the modern era faced a catastrophic economic fall, despite being a highly prosperous country in the first thirty years of the previous century (Khan & Slavador, 2017). For example, in 1914 Argentina ranked as highly as Australia does now in terms of per capita wealth. However, the state has since seen a lengthy, sluggish, and severe economic recession owing to political instability. Argentina is unusual in that it fell into poverty without experiencing a civil war at home. As a result, Argentina progressed beyond the Take-Off phase and into the Age of Mass Consumption stage with relative ease. This formerly prosperous southern nation now illustrates that economic growth is not guaranteed. The economy will inevitably decline when things go wrong or poor choices are made (Dang et al., 2015). Consequently, another South American nation, Venezuela, offers an even more severe example of poverty, this time brought on by political prejudice and an ongoing ideological conflict.
Seventy years after launch (or forty years after launch ends), most people have reached a point that may be considered maturity. The economy has diversified from its initial focus on a small set of industries and technologies used for getting off the ground, such as coal, steel, and heavy engineering, to more sophisticated and highly advanced often more complicated systems, such as machine tools, chemical products, and electronic devices (Hunter, 2012). This, for instance, was the change that had occurred by the end of the nineteenth century or soon afterward in Germany, Britain, France, and the United States. Later in the book, however, we will examine other sectoral patterns followed in the development timeline. Technically, we may define economic maturity as the point at which a country is able to absorb and effectively use throughout a very broad range of its capabilities (if not the full range) the most sophisticated fruits of (then) contemporary technology, moving further than the initial sectors which drove its take-off. When an economy reaches this level, it has shown that it has the technical and commercial prowess to manufacture not everything, but whatever it so chooses (Willis, 2023). It may need to improve (like modern-day Sweden and Switzerland, for instance) the commodities or other supply constraints needed to manufacture a particular type of output commercially. However, its reliance on external sources results from economic preference or political priority instead of innovation or institutional constraints. In the past, around seventy years were needed for a civilization to go from its early stages of development to full maturity (Rostow, 2014). Some such duration may have an analytical elaboration in the potent mathematics of compound interest applicable to the capital stock, in addition to the more far-reaching effects of three generations of a society living underneath a ruling where development is the normal condition on its capacity to absorb advanced technology. Of course, it is not reasonable to be rigid about how long it takes from launch to full adulthood.
We are entering the age of rising mass consumption, in which the dominant economic sectors will eventually shift towards long-lasting consumer goods and services. This is a period from which the United States is now emerging, into which Western nations such as Japan and Europe are diving headfirst, and with which Soviet civilization is flirting unsteadily (Pupavac, 2010). Two significant changes occurred in the framework of the working force as communities developed in the 20th century: (1) total earnings per head rose to a moment where many individuals gained control over consumption that transcended basic food, shelter, and clothing; and (2) the number of individuals who worked in the office or skilled manufacturing jobs expanded, both as a percentage of the total population and as a percentage of the population working in urban areas. Henry Ford’s moving production line in 1913–14 may have been a turning point for the U. S., but it was the 1920s and the postwar decade (1946–56) that pushed this era of expansion to its limits (Kindleberger et al., 2016) It seems that Western Europe and Japan joined this stage in full force in the mid-1960s, which is mainly responsible for an unexpected economic boost in both countries in the years immediately after World War II. Technically, the Soviet Union is prepared for this stage, and all indications are that its populace is eager for it (Kesgi̇ngö & Dilek, 2016). However, if this phase is started, Communist leaders will confront tremendous political and social challenges of adjustment.
It was only reasonable for the conquerors of World War II to want to make sure that the peace they had just won would last forever, given the terrible cost of that war on human lives (Klinger, 2017). Facilitating international economic growth was a potential means to this end. American economic historian Walt W. Rostow, in his landmark 1960 book The Phases of Economic Evolution, made a significant contribution to systematizing these ideas (Hunter, 2012). These “enclaves of modern activity” that became economically incorporated into the country’s “regular condition ingrained, as it were, into its behaviors and organisational framework,” as Rostow viewed it, were crucial to encouraging this shift. Like other modernizing ideas, the Steps of Economic Development argued that less developed areas might benefit from the same logic and development experienced by more advanced areas. This makes it a diffusionist and technocratic concept (Muda et al., 2020). The theory underpinning this mode of growth postulated that a decentralized team of professionals might use the means of industrialization and urbanization to remake social relations.
Despite the model’s emphasis on similarities between capitalist and communist economies across sectors, it seems to accept, at least tacitly, that the two systems take distinct routes to modernization. The three conditions for a successful launch cannot be accomplished concurrently using any straightforward formula (Gilman, 2018). The country’s economy grew steadily when these three Bostonian conditions were met throughout Bangladesh’s Sixth Five-Year Plan (2011-2015). If the economy keeps expanding at its dizzying rate, it will become self-sufficient. Bangladesh has reached the fourth and final phase of Rostow’s development model, “The Drive to Maturation.” It is striving for even greater things due to its remarkable track record of economic success (Carree & Thurik, 2010). The country has shifted its focus from politics and economic administration to development and policymaking to achieve economic and political independence.
Other proponents disagree with Rostow’s Phases of development theory, yet it is undeniably one of the most influential development theories of the 20th century. Friedman (2010) argues that the inception of the paradigm was based on the experiences of highly industrialized, urbanized, capitalist Western countries. As a consequence, emerging western economies such as China need to be reflected in the model. Furthermore, Marx (2015) also argues that certain countries seem to be stuck in the same growth phases for an indefinite amount of time, which needs to be accounted for by Rostow’s model. Despite receiving massive sums of foreign help, most emerging countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been hesitant to encourage economic advancement. Another important critique is that it does not include the possibility of a reversal of economic success in certain countries (Patnaik, 2011). This century has seen a general economic collapse in nations like Venezuela, Argentina, and Argentina. As a fourth criticism, the model was developed in the 1960s but does not take into account the economic factors of the mid-1990s (information technology, communications, internet), the 2000s (digitalization, creative industries), or the 2010s (the digitized economy) (Industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence). Finally, the paradigm has no potential for creativity or leapfrogging since Rostow contends that economic advancement must follow a preset route. In Rostow’s view, all countries are equal regarding their growth potential, notwithstanding factors like population size, resources, and location. Finally, the economic structure does not consider the length of the stages or time frames that differs between nations and even from one region to another (Hirschman, 2021).
In conclusion despite criticisms against Rostow’s economic development model, it has continued to be used alongside other, more conventional theories. Since they mirror the process of economic growth observed by the globe’s most wealthy societies, Rostow’s stages of economic development are a very beneficial model for understanding state growth. Although this framework must account for critical present growth drivers, such as the diffusion of new technologies, several model aspects are still effective. One is that it introduces the idea that economic development may be categorized and ranked. The paradigm states that all countries may be found somewhere along a spectrum and that the degrees of development increase continuously throughout this spectrum. In addition, the model properly portrays the importance of industrialization, urbanization, and commercialization as stepping stones to development. Strategists and politicians are still interested in the paradigm because of its potential as a guide for national development. Despite widespread criticism of Rostow’s method, strategists often use it when developing public policies.
References
Rostow, W.W. (1959). “The Stages of Economic Growth,” The Economic History Review, 12(1): 1–16.
Menzel, U. (2006). “Walt Whitman Rostow,” pp.211–217, in Fifty Key Thinkers on Development, edited by D. Simon (London: Routledge)
Hunt, D. (1989). Economic Theories of Development, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, chapter 4
Piętak, Ł. (2014). Review of theories and models of economic growth. Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe, 17(1), 45–60.
Ortolano, G. (2015). the typicalities of English? Walt Rostow, the stages of economic growth, and modern British history. Modern Intellectual History, 12(3), 657–684.
Costa, D., Kehoe, T. J., & Ravindranathan, G. (2016). The stages of economic growth revisited. Economic Policy.
Khan, Z., & Slavador, M. (2017). Summarizing the Miscellaneous Criticism on Rostow’s Model of Economic Growth: An Overview. International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research, 2(2), 2301-12.
Dang, G., Sui Pheng, L., Dang, G., & Sui Pheng, L. (2015). Theories of economic development. Infrastructure Investments in Developing Economies: The Case of Vietnam, 11-26.
Hunter, M. (2012). The stages of economic development from an opportunity perspective: Rostow extended. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 4(2), 52–80.
Willis, K. (2023). Development as modernization: Rostow’s The Stages of Economic Growth. Geography, 108(1), 33–37.
Willis, K. (2023). Development as modernization: Rostow’s The Stages of Economic Growth. Geography, 108(1), 33–37.
Rostow, W. W. (2014). How it all Began (Routledge Revivals): Origins of the Modern Economy. Routledge.
Pupavac, V. (2010). From materialism to non-materialism in international development: Revisiting Rostow’s stages of growth and Schumacher’s small is beautiful. Challenging the aid paradigm: Western currents and Asian alternatives, pp. 47–77.
Kindleberger, C. P., Di Tella, G., & Di Tella, G. (2016). Economics in the Long View: essays in honor of WW Rostow. Springer.
Kesgi̇ngö, H., & Dilek, S. (2016). Investigation of TR82 region according to the growth stages of Rostow. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 4(4), 180-189.
Hunter, M. (2012). The stages of economic development from an opportunity perspective: Rostow extended. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 4(2), 52–80.
Muda, I., Nurlina, E., & Nuradi, T. E. (2020). Stage of take-off based on Rostow’s theory for the role of manufacture of non-metals, except petroleum and coal manufacture to the economic increase, Res. World Econ, 11, 177-185.
Klinger, J. (2017). A sympathetic appraisal of cold war modernization theory. The International History Review, 39(4), 691–712.
Gilman, N. (2018). Modernization theory never dies. History of Political Economy, 50(S1), pp. 133–151.
Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth (pp. 557-594). Springer, New York.
Kesgi̇ngö, H., & Dilek, S. (2016). Investigation of TR82 region according to the growth stages of Rostow. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 4(4), 180-189.
Hunter, M. (2012). The stages of economic development from an opportunity perspective: Rostow extended. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 4(2), 52–80.
Green, A., & Russo, J. (2017). Institutions and the Stages of Growth. Available at SSRN 2905055.
Akanda, M. A. I. (2022). Policy Gaps with Bangladesh Compared to a Few Asian Economies along the Linear Stages Growth Path. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 12(5), 117-128.
Arora, R. (2022). Rostow’s Stages of Growth.
Khan, K. S., Khan, M. S. A., & Tariq, M. (2022). Attempting take-off: An Analysis of Pakistan’s Economic Performance through Rostow’s Stages of Growth. Multicultural Education, 8(1).
Friedman, B. M. (2010). The moral consequences of economic growth. Vintage.
Patnaik, P. (2011). The left is in decline. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 12–16.
Hirschman, A. O. (2021). Crossing boundaries: selected writings. Princeton University Press.
Marx, K. (2015). Capital; A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1.
write