Growth
Pole Policy has failed to promote rural industrialisation in developing
countries because of a number of underlying factors such as failure of
strategic positioning of growth points, lack of massive financial support and
infrastructural development, siphoning of funds by the elites in the government
meant for industrialisation into personal coffers, lack of consultation of rural
people to participate in the process as well as lack of incentives to encourage
the private sector to expand and open up branches in rural areas. This has
resulted in designated growth points becoming white elephants with no meaning
full industrial sector to talk about serve for beer halls, little grocery
stores and grinding mills.
Growth
points (GPs) are centres of economic activity which are artificially created for
stimulated growth, through industries that will trigger a chain of reaction of
production and promotion of associated services with the ultimate goal of
improving quality life of the periphery surrounding that particular growth point
(Conyers, 2001 pg 11). Growth Point (GPs) also denotes settlements which are
earmarked or designed for economic and physical development (Wekwete, 1987). The concept of growth pole was developed by
(Perroux, 1955) and indicated that that development has to be brought about a
certain concentration and agglomeration of economics in an abstract space and with
variable intensities; the growth spreads by different channels and eventually
affects the economy as a whole.
It
is widely argued that Perroux’s initial concept of growth pole denoted an individual
plant; one that occupied an abstract economic space, rather than a specific
geographical space such as a city or region (Vanneste, 1971; Monsted, 1974;
Mitchell-Weaver, 1991). In his latter writings, as Vanneste (1971) points out,
Perroux refined his concept of growth pole as a dynamic unity in a defined
environment. The unit is simple or complex: (a) a firm, or (b) group of firms
not institutionalized, or (c) group of firms institutionalized, such as private
and semi-public undertakings. Based on these features of the growth pole
concept, other authors (Davin, et al, 1959) associated a functional attribute
to the concept. They postulated that a growth pole is formed when an industry,
through the flow of goods and incomes which it is able to generate, stimulates
the development and growth of other industries related to it (technical
polarization); or determines the prosperity of the tertiary sector by means of
the incomes it generates (income polarization); or stimulates an increase of
the regional economy by causing a progressive concentration of new activities
‘‘psychological and geographical polarization’’. Industrialization is defined
as modernization process; where by social change and economic development are
closely related with technological innovation resulting in largely transforming
a human group from agrarian society to industrial one.
The
conception of growth poles in the urbanization process sparked a momentum to
jumpstart economic growth in developing and industrializing countries in the
1960s and 1970s, mostly countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia, by
pursing a growth pole strategy. Planners and development economists set about
identifying locations, which they believed, could act as growth poles or growth
centers in the national urban system. In Africa the ‘growth point’ strategy
remnants were first adopted in the of colonial era, with the strategy part of a
broader initiative to reduce rural urban disparities, for instance in Zimbabwe
it was adopted in the late 1970s (Manyanhaire et al, 2011 pg 3).
It
brought much enthusiasm among governments at independence in most African
countries as they viewed growth pole policy as the highway to industrialise
rural areas and transform them through encouraging decentralization of
investment in industry, so as to correct imbalances between rural and urban
areas instigated by colonial governments through marginalising and under
developing rural areas, in favour of development of cities, mining and
commercial farms that proved to be a sphere financial benefits (Kambudzi, 1992
pg 268-74). This would help in decongestion cities and towns curb rural to
urban migration due to creation of employment opportunities and availability of
basic services to people in rural areas leading to a nationally balanced
development pattern. However this policy has been practiced in several developing
countries but most of the growth poles have never been successful because of
different factors overlooked by the responsible governments (Dixon, 1990 pg 34).
Political
gimmicks in many African governments have contributed to the failure of growth
pole policy to industrialise rural areas from the onset, as despite the
critique used to select a place and evaluate its potential as a growth point
being set up in terms of economic considerations, the practical process of
identifying GPs, departed from the set character and was heavily influenced by
political considerations, for example in Zimbabwe (Zwizwai at.el, 2004
pg 21) notes that political influence, prestige, support and party
structures were considered more important than the location of a growth point
and in some areas proximity of a place to a rural home of a political
heavyweight sufficed to locate growth points.
This
resulted in the government not seriously considering the differences and
diversity of rural areas, in terms of resources and potential business efforts
that would in turn encourage industrialisation, such as certain resource based
industries or agro based industries for a particular growth point. In
Tsholotsho in Matabeleland North and Nyika in Eastern Highlands, the government
did not support saw milling and furniture industries despite availability of timber
(Conyers, 2001 pg 270).Therefore government incompetence in terms of
implementation of the growth pole policy
in terms of resource availability has contributed to lack of industrialisation
of rural areas in Zimbabwe since independence. Parr(1999) state that the strategy is inappropriate when the pursuit
of the growth pole strategy and the related concentration of infrastructure are
not in keeping with the character of the location or the region in which it is
being pursued.
Furthermore
governments in developing nations have failed to channel development grants and
action towards enhancing massive infrastructural development of growth points
such as construction of roads to open up linkages and markets, provision of
electricity in abundance and tap water which in turn act, would entice various
industries to open new branches and spread their investment opportunities. This has resulted in many industries being
ignorant to invest in growth points, for example in South Africa growth points
were established in national states after 1969 such as Isithebe in Kwazulu
Natal but until this present day,
investor attitudes continue to favour established towns and cities, the chief
reason being the investor goes where or she expect positive cost benefit
analysis and minimal risk to business (Manyanhaire et al, 2011 pg 6).
The
growth pole strategy is not feasible when various enabling factors are absent
of sufficient capital outlay for successful implementation of the strategy
effective policy instrument by which the strategy can be implemented and an
administrative capacity equal to the task of implementing and coordinating the
strategy. Therefore South African government failure to support infrastructural
development has contributed to lack of industrialisation of rural areas as they
are still caught in the downward spiral depopulation and decline.
Another
mistake made by developing nations such as Tanzania and Kenya in as far as
industrialisation of rural areas is concerned in terms of growth pole policy,
was being overambitious immediately after independence in trying to redress
rural urban inequalities as soon as possible through extensively establishing
many growth points based on inappropriate western concepts and experiences and
not the beneficiaries’ experiences (Henderson, 2000 pg 13). Thus one can
articulate that wrong assumptions and no careful planning analysis to guide its
application and implementation growth poles resulted in failure to capture
different scenarios or situations of rural areas so as to come up with
appropriate growth pole centre which would then spear head industrialisation.
Another
reason for failure of growth pole policy to industrialise rural areas is that
most developing countries seem to ignore essential ingredient for growth, as
most centres designated for growth poles do not have the requisite potential or
strong human resource base from where to ignite the processes of cumulative
causation and subsequent growth. Thus, the decisions concerning these growth
centres continue to be controlled from central government whom do not have
information at finger tips of what is actually happening on the ground. In
Zimbabwe an apparent continued lack of capacity among most district councils reflects
the nature of disarray within the planning system making it difficult to
achieve the elusive industrialisation of rural areas through growth points (Manyanhaire
et al, 2011 pg 8).
Furthermore
growth points have failed to achieve their mandates because of plethora of
corruption that exists in most developing states due to lack of effective
checks and balances to maintain transparency and accountability of funds
designated for propelling growth points. This has resulted in the financing
resources meant for industrialisation of rural areas being siphoned and
diverted into personal use by elites at the expense of majority that live in
rural areas and constitute almost 70% of developing nation’s population.
According
to (Gantsho, 2008 pg 20-23) a growth point to become viable and sustainable
there should be the right mix of policy and planning. A successful growth point
planning strategy captures the wide base of the social and economic dynamics,
as well as a clear plan to maximize the utilization of the resource base
available to propel growth. Also other factors must be at play, like innovation
or identification of new resources, in conjunction with favourable government
policy support.
A
number of innovative and flexible regional planning tools and development strategies
that are been employed in other areas that could be considered in the African
context. The approaches may differ due to variations in local and historical circumstances
but nevertheless, the underlying principle is basically the same. Countries
like India (Mukherjee, 2007; Bhandari, 2006) and Estonia (FAO,1997) have
resorted to the growth poles strategy as the planning tool to accomplish rural
developments that are functionally linked to the urban system, for instance The
Indian Growth Pole Strategy for Rural Development in order to attract
private sector initiative to accelerate employment-generating activities in the
rural areas, the Indian government adopted a rural development strategy titled:
Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas(PURA) with the sole objective of
stimulating high growth in rural economies.
PURA
envisages a combination of physical, electronic and knowledge resources at the
local level in selected rural settlements by selecting a ring of 10 to 15
villages, connecting them with high quality transportation and telecom system,
setting up key education and health facilities around the ring, attracting
industry and commerce to the ring, and enabling internet connectivity for
linking up with “far-flung areas”.
After
regaining political independence Estonia adopted in 1995, a National Agricultural
Strategy for the development of the rural economy. An important objective
was to promote the development of competitive enterprises, efficient markets
structures and international trade relations. The strategy viewed the development
of competitive enterprises, efficient markets structures and international
trade relations as necessary prerequisites to achieving the broader goal of
improving the rural standards of living (FAO, 1997).In order to accomplish this
vision of rural development, the strategy conceives a concrete program of developing
regional growth centers aimed at strengthening local governments’ financial
and administrative capabilities, and improved
channels for effective citizen participation in solving problems of common
concern. For this to occur, the Estonian government is seeking to promote the
emergence of regional growth poles through additional investments in
infrastructure and the provision of transitory incentives for industries and
services to locate in those poles.
In
a nutshell one can say that as long various loopholes exists in the planning
and implementation of growth pole policy in developing countries, industrialisation
of rural communities will continue being a dream. Therefore the government
needs to wake up and tighten their screws so as to gradually improve the living
conditions for the poor in rural areas, which in turn would limit rural-urban
migration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhandari,
Laveesh (2006), Clusters Initiatives and Growth Poles: Correcting
Coordination Failures, Indicus Analytics, November 2006.
Conroy
M.E (1973), On the rejection of ‘growth center’ policy in Latin American
regional development planning, Land Economics, vol 49: 317-380.
Conyers
D (2001), Regional development, Harare: ZOU Module Darwent D(1969), Growth
poles and growth center in regional planning: areview. Environment and Planning,
vol. 1: 5-32.
Davin
L and Paelinck J(1959), Dynamique economique de la region
Liegeoise,
Liege (Translated by Mette Monsted, 1974).
Dixon
C (1990), Rural Development in the World , London: Rutledge Publishing
House
FAO
(1997), Estonia: National Strategy for Sustainable Agricultural Development,
Henderson.
VJ (2000), The Effects of Urban Concentration on Economic Growth,
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. W7503, January.
Cambridge, MA.
Kessides
C (2005), The Urban Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for
Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction, World Bank African Region
WorkingPaper Series No. 97.
Manyanhaire
et at (2011), A Theoretical Overview of Growth Centre Strategy :
Perspectives for Reengineering Zimbabwe, Journal of Sustainable Development
of Africa, Vol 13, No 4 ISSSN:1520-5509
Monsted
M(1974) François Perroux’s Theory of “Growth Pole” and “Development Pole”: A
Critique. Antipode, vol. 6, Issue 2: 106-113, July 1974.
Parr
JB(1999), Growth Pole Strategies in Regional Economic Planning: A Perroux,
François (1950): Economic space: theory and applications, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 64: 90-97.
Wekwete
KH(1987), Growth Centre Policy in Zimbabwe: A focus on District Centres, Occasional
Paper, “Rural and Urban Planning”, Harare: University of Zimbabwe
Zwizwai
et al(2004), Zimbabwe: Economic Policy-Planning Making Implementation: A
study of Strategic Trade and Selective Industrial Policies, Paper published The International Development
Research Centre
.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.