BEYOND THE GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT

BY DEAN FORBES

It is now more than five years since a group of British sociologists published the provocatively titled book Beyond the Sociology of Development (Oxaal, Barnett & Booth, 1975). The book was not a critique; in the authors’ minds, there was sufficient literature available in the late 1960s and early 1970s to more than adequately demonstrate the errors contained within the hitherto prevailing concepts of the ‘socio- logy of development’ (notably, Frank, 1969, pp. 21- 95). Instead, they provided a forum for the discussion of new directions in the sociological study of deve- lopment and underdevelopment. The outcome of the book was to mark a shift of paradigm. The old was clearly finished; the new, however, remained shrouded in ambiguity.

In the same year, the geographer Brookfield published his important work on lnterdependenr Development (Brookfield, 1975). It was a more cautious work than its sociology contemporary, but its intended purpose was similar. Brookfield wrote a history of development thmking, running through the familiar topics of growth, dualism and modernization, and commenting on developments in the radical literature, particularly, that emanating from the Latin American structuralists. His con- clusion, like that of the sociology volume, was ambi- guous. Brookfield called it ‘A conclusion that is an introduction’; as such, it offered no path to firm ground, only some observations on the need to re- define ‘development’, to reahse the interdependence of the peoples of the world, and some optimistic comment on ecological models. For Brookfield, the ‘science of development’ was approachmg a ‘scientific revolution’ but the substance of the new paradigm was far from clear.

In the half decade since 1975, it has become apparent that a new approach, which can be labelled the underdevelopment approach, has become well established in the literature. However, the transition is proving far from smooth, to the extent that there are real doubts whether the changeover is a paradigm

change in the sense of the word used by Kuhn (1970). There are two points of interest. First, the ‘old’ approach has not disappeared by any means. Instead, modernization theories have been replaced by post-modernization theories which abandon some assumptions but retain the bulk intact (Higgot, 1980a). Second, theories of underdevelopment have proliferated and evolved to the extent which wit- nessed the passing of the first generation under the title of ‘dependency theory’. At this point of time, underdevelopment research is focussed around parallel schools of thought - the ‘circulationists’ and ‘productionists’ (Higgott, 1980b) - but there is also the growth of a handful of studies which focus critically on these changes, and seek to steer under- development work in the direction of class analysis. One can be sceptical about whether the concept of paradigm change is appropriate to these develop- ments. On the one hand, the dual schools of thought have persisted and will continue to persist. On the other hand, there is much internal inconsistency and criticism particularly among underdevelopment theorists, so much so that one seriously doubts whether there is much agreement about basic con- cepts at all. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a shift of focus among many scholars concerned with the social and economic problems of the people living in peripheral capitalist societies, from the ‘development’ approach to the ‘underdevelopment’ approach.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT

Geographers, on the whole, have been rather slow to take up the challenges offered by Brook- field’s book in particular and this changing emphasis in general. This applies equally to the geography of development and the geography of underdevelop- ment. The former, particularly, has received little explicit attention. There is no definitive statement as to where precisely post-modernization theory development geography is located at the present time,

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT 69

though a handful of scholars have contributed opinions of value. Brookfield (1978), writing a follow-up to his book, seemed to concentrate on issues rather than assumptions, practical problems rather than methodologies for research. In his view, the problems confronting the profession were arranged around three themes: the concept of the world economy and the moves for a new inter- national economic order; the stress on self-reliance within nations and the concomitant concerns with the distribution of income, the problems of urban bias in development planning and regional develop- ment; and the problems associated with man and his relationship with the biosphere. Clearly, Brook- field saw the key areas of concern emerging out of world conditions, almost the reverse of his earlier work which paid significantly greater attention to the evolution of theories of development somewhat isolated from the real world.

Browett (1 980d) has taken a different approach in his advocacy of a ‘reformist development geography’. He urges more work toward refurbishing develop- ment geography in the light of the criticisms directed at it by the dependency theorists and, presumably, by the critics of modernization theory (e.g. Browett, 1980a; Connell, 1971; Logan, 1972; Brookfield, 1973). He envisages rebuilding development geo- graphy by ‘the marriage of the most vibrant elements’ of preceding schools of thought, particularly through thz integration of ‘macro-level theorising with the more traditional geographic micro-level man- environment approaches’ (Browett, 1980d, pp. 5-9). Freeman (1979) is one of the foremost supporters of this ‘new’ development geography. He urges a return to more traditional geographic concerns with space and spatial models, and stresses the need to unite theoretical and empirical research, returning to the practical motivation of ‘geo-economic’ deve- lopment. In other words, geographers are exhorted to make use of the traditional skills and insights from their discipline and apply them in a positive fashion to the development problems of the Third World.

Advocacy of such a view is only to be expected. After all, development geography has had a small but substantial role in development planning in Third World countries since the Second World War, and in particular has contributed to spatial planning (e.g. Lea, 1974). This emphatically pragmatic role for

geography is heightened in the Third World by the immediate needs of the great mass of poor people. The admirably humanitarian view put forward favours attacking these immediate problems whilst sparing the sufferers any sort of major upheaval, To be fair though, the conceptual framework w i t h whch the ‘new’ development geography can be developed would appear to be in tatters. It will require a great deal of work before development geography can reconstitute itself following the attacks from within by critics of modernization theory and from outside by dependency theorists. Pragmatism might serve politicians well, but it cannot maintain geographers in a complex and demanding world.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

Whilst underdevelopment theory is being pushed forward at a rapid rate, geographers on the whole seem to be lagging belund. This cannot be simply explained away as a reluctance to take up what is sometimes referred to as ‘the latest trend’. The fear expressed by both Browett (1980d, p. 4) and Harriss and Harriss (1979, p. 579) is that geographers have not learned from their mistakes with modernization theory. The initial reticence of geographers with modernization theory was the product of inherent conservatism rather than a cautiously critical scepti- cism, resulting in modernization theory eventually being accepted with great gusto, unfortunately just as it was being abandoned by other disciplines. Geo- graphers found themselves in a worse position for their caution. The moral to be drawn from this is not that geographers need to rush headlong into each new set of ideas or methodologies, but that they need to review constantly and critically new deve- lopments and theories and relate them informally to changes within the discipline, and externally to the changmg nature of society in general, Research on Third World issues and development geography in particular has for a long time been regarded as less rigorous than, and peripheral to, mainstream geography. Recent advances in underdevelopment theory have the power to change that state of affairs, and place the geography of underdevelopment in the mainstream of economic geography.

The leadmg edge of underdevelopment theory were the theories of dependency. Though these first emerged in the geography literature of the

70 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY

early 1970s (Blaut, 1970; Brookfield, 1975, pp. 133-65; Santos, 1974) it was not until later that they were put to use in substantive research. Notable works using this dependency framework included Regan and Walsh’s (1976) examination of Ireland’s dependence on mineral exploitation, Schuurman’s (1978) work on resource development in the Andean countries, and Titus’ (1978) piece on centre- periphery relations and patterns of migration in Indonesia, But already by the mid-l970s, the criti- cisms of dependency theories were mounting (e.g. Taylor, 1974; Lall, 1975; Regan & Eliot-Hurst, 1976), culminating in devastating critiques by Brenner (1 977) and Palma (1 978). The approach was undermined by a sustained attack on the sweeping statements associated with dependency theories and the failure to root explanations in the details of day-to-day life and conflicts within Third World nations. The following year, the geographer Ettema (1979) advocated that geographers should look to dependency theory for a theoretical framework for their work on development. Though Harriss and Harriss (1979) suggest the message may have been uncritically heeded, there is still relatively little research in geography on dependency theory as such. One can only join with Browett (1980d) and Harriss and Harriss (1979) and warn of the danger of geographers adopting dependency theories when this work is in its twilight.

According to Higgott (1980b), the two prime schools of research on underdevelopment can be labelled the ‘circulationists’ and the ‘productionists’. Both build their work on criticisms of dependency theory. The ‘circulationists’, Amin (1 974), Emmanuel (1972) and Wallerstein (1974; 1979; 1980), tend to concentrate on the growth and structure of the world economy and base their analyses, inter alia, on mechanisms of exchange. By contrast, the ‘pro- ductionists’, Meillassoux (1 972), Terray (1972), Rey (1975), Godelier (1974), and more recently, Seddon (1978), Taylor (1979) and Wolpe (1980), focus on the structure of production within Third World countries, stressing the way in which capitalism’s domination of the economic structure subordinates and underdevelops the productive structure of the non-capitalist economy. As mentioned earlier, these schools have also been criticised by another wave of writers who seek to redirect attention to the role played by key classes and groups in Third World societies. It is the intention of these writers (Leys,

1977; Banaji, 1977) to investigate the way in which these key people mediate between external and internal forces, and often consciously, sometimes unwittingly, play a major role in development and underdevelopment.

It is not at all clear where geographers fit into this schema; one can think of two main reasons for this. Firstly, the schema gives an impression of more order among underdevelopment theorists than there actually is, certainly among geographers who by and large fit no recognizable pattern, and also to a lesser extent among scholars from adjacent disciplines. It can be said that geographers are in a period of ‘vigorous controversy’ in which no set of ideas is dominant or unchallenged (Harris & Harris, 1979, p. 576).

Secondly, as stated earlier on, geographers have been cautious about the directions in whch under- development theory has been moving. This reflects a number of tendencies among geographers, One is that the group of key geographers who in large part led the disciplines towards underdevelopment theory have all, on occasions, been ambivalent about the path they have taken. Brookfield’s changing emphasis between 1975 and 1978 has already been mentioned. Likewise, McGee (1978) has recently pressed for a resurgence of a ‘new Third World geography’. Admir- able though this sentiment is, it most certainly does not correspond with the goals of underdevelopment theory. Following ths , there is the point that those geographers strongly influenced by underdevelop- ment theory may be inclined to abandon disciplinary structures altogether and devote their time to sub- stantive research from an inter- or multi-disciplinary viewpoint according to Harriss and Harriss (1979). Such is by and large the case with the work of Blaikie on Nepal (eg. Seddon, Blake & Cameron, 1979). Finally, few theorists have emerged from develop- ment geography. The only scholars with any con- sistency over the past decades to espouse a view from the direction of underdevelopment theory have been Buchanan (1967; 1972), Santos (1979) and, in some ways most important of all, Slater (1973; 1977).

The geography of underdevelopment, it is correct to say, is in a state of flux. The bulk of research is being directed towards uneven development and the problems of the regions (Soja, 1980; Walker, 1978), the man-nature theme (Sayer, 1979) and the problems of groups in non-capitalist production,

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT 71

notably petty producers (Bromley, 1978; Bromley & Gerry, 1979b; Rimmer, DrakakisSmith & McGee, 1978) and peasants (Townsend, 1980a; 1980b; Howlett, 1980). Aside from a very general set of notions, there is no clear common theoretical direc- tion evident among geographers, nor is there much consensus on what the geography of underdevelop- ment should be about. Some favour a reorientation to practical action (Browett, 1980c; Porter, 1980); others call for rejuvenation through a movement of emphasis from technique to theory, from the con- centrated critique of existing development geography to the construction of an alternative geography of underdevelopment, perhaps developed along similar lines to French geographers like Lacoste (Slater, 1977). Others again reiterate the need to ‘de-define’ geography and develop a new critical science (Eliot- Hurst, 1980). The geography of development might appear to have much in common with the geography of underdevelopment in that neither can point with confidence to a way out of the confusion. However, such is not the case as will be demonstrated in the following section.

DEVELOPMENT GEOGRAPHY AND THE ‘INFORMAL SECTOR

In the absence of any major prophetic works outlining concrete new directions for either a geo- graphy of development or a geography of under- development, one must turn to some substantive research work as a means of illustrating the differences between the two approaches. The example of what is, or what should, be done about small-scale urban enterprises is useful because it demonstrates the contrasting findings of the two approaches. In fact, the three most recent phases of development-underdevelopment theory have each produced a markedly different attitude to small- scale urban production. For instance, when the geography of development was dominated by modernization theory, Geertz (1963) saw the bazaar economy in Indonesia as ‘both the context out of which the innovating elements are emerging and the confine against which they are struggling’ (p. 74). He was not being merely ambivalent. Rather, he was taking his cue from the modernization theorists’ obsession with ‘modem’ western forms of production which they saw as the only possible avenue to economic development.

More important, as far as small-scale urban pro- duction is concerned, are the attitudes that have emerged from the post-modernization theories of development. These, as Brookfield has pointed out, promote the concept of self-reliance as a key issue. Small-scale urban production, being a long neglected yet clearly important centre for indigenous economic enterprise, soon became a key theme in these new theories of development. The urban ‘informal sector’, as it was frequently referred to, became the focus of a great deal of intensive research throughout the world. The tenor of these studies, whether by major institutions like the International Labour Organiza- tion (I.L.O., 1972) and later the World Bank, or by geographers (McGee, 1974; 1976) and others (Cohen, 1974; Papanek, 1975) made two major contributions. First, it revealed to planners and scholars the diversity of economic units in peripheral capitalist countries and in a sense helped to bury the modernization theorists’ simplistic division between modern and traditional. Second, it led to a major change in the development planning priorities of international institutions like the I.L.O. and the World Bank.

The World Bank was the slower of the two to respond, yet its impact may well prove to be the more important because of the enormous financial resources it is able to disperse.

In 1975, the Bank announced that it would also attempt to deal with the problems of the urban poor. By ensuring that lending for pur- poses other than rural development provides a large part of its project benefits to the urban poor, the Bank hopes to reach the urban un- employed, who make up a large proportion of the urban poor, and absorb some of their numbers in small-scale manufacturing and service industries . . . . the Bank believes that policies to foster (its traditional) objectives, together with domestic policies which support the integration of the lowest income groups into the process of development, can do much to speed economic growth and enhance social and economic welfare and political stability (Adler, 1977, p. 34).

The goals of World Bank planning changed from growth to some form of redistribution with growth, which in essence meant a decrease in World Bank finance of infrastmctural projects and a corres- ponding increase in investment in economic and social sectors (Table 1).

72 M N ~ A Y U K E JUUKNAL ur

FY 1967 Per cent

TABLE 1 . SECTORIAL COMPOSITION OF WORLD BANK LENDING

FY 1977 Per cent

Infrastructure 54.5 30.3 Economic sectors 19.6 55.2 Social sectors 4.7 11.2 Others 21.2 3.3

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: U1 Haw, 1978, p. 14.

The Urban Poverty Programme, as it became

(1) to create productive nonfarm employment opportunities at much lower capital costs per job and in much greater numbers than would take place otherwise; and (2) to develop pro- grammes to deliver basic services to the masses of urban poor on a very large scale, at standards which they and the economy can afford (Jaycox, 1978, p. 12).

The urban programme was allocated 2.2 per cent of World Bank funds in 1977, as against none in 1967 (Ul Haw, 1978, p. 14). The majority of the funds spent so far have been on integrated service provision projects (Jaycox, 1978, p. 13) like the Kampung Improvement Programme in Indonesia. In the financial year ending in 1979, Indonesia received two new loans from the World Bank, one of US$54 million explicitly for basic services and infrastructure in five major urban areas and another US$36. d o n for water supply and sewerage in seven cities (Far Eastern Economic Review, 1980, pp. 70-71; Rovani, 1979).

On the other hand, no money has as yet been allocated either directIy or through intermediate financial institutions to finance small-scale enterprise as part of the Urban Poverty Programme. There has, however, been money directed towards small and medium-scale enterprise through a loan in the category of Industrial Development and Finance. In the financial year ending in 1979, the Bank Pem- bangunan Indonesia was loaned US$50 million for this purpose, though the notes to the loan suggest it will be going more to medium-scale than small- scale enterprise (Far Eastern Economic Review,

known, had two thrusts :

1980, p. 69). Nevertheless, it seems clear that the World Bank intend8 to increase this component of its activities. Prior to 1977, small enterprises received around 8 per cent of annual World Bank loans; by 1978 this was up to 24 per cent, and by 1981 it is planned to reach 33 per cent (Gordon, 1979, p. 21). It is only fair to conclude that Indonesia will soon feel the impact of this policy. However, this is not the place to examine the practical implications of this type of programme; it is beginning to be dealt with elsewhere (Newman, 1977; World Bank 1976; 1978).

Instead, it is more relevant to the theme of this paper to focus on the critical theoretical considera- tions which underlie this approach to small enter- prises. In the theoretical background papers to this policy by Linn (1979a; 1979b), five key notions about the employment patterns of the urban poor are presented:

First, urban open employment is in general not at the heart of the urban poverty problem . . . Second, the principal income earners of poor urban households are found in virtually all types of employment . . . Third, entry to the activities carried out by the poor and to the jobs held by them is not always unrestricted, nor are these activities or jobs necessarily unregulated or untaxed by govern- ment . . . Fourth, the activities carried out by the poor, or the jobs held by them, are often quite closely linked to the activities of the ‘modern’ sector . . . Finally, it is not correct to view all, or even most, of the activities carried out by the urban poor as representing ‘residual’, or ‘unproduc- tive,, or ‘superfluous’ employment . . . (Linn, 1979a, pp. 58-64. All underlined in the original) The author’s intention is to convince urban

authorities not to treat ‘informal’ sector activities, such as street trading, shoeshining, scavenging, artisanry and streetcomer repair work, etc. as nega- tive phenomena (Linn, 1979a, p. 66; underlined in the original). Point four, in the quotation above, is the most contentious one. Unn (1979a, pp. 63- 64) draws attention to the important input-output hkages between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ sector

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT 13

activities. These take the form of, among others, subcontracting and the supply of inputs from raw materials to working capital by ‘formal’ firms to ‘informal’ firms. The two sectors are also linked by the sharing of labour between them. Linn notes that workers often start out in the ‘informal’ sector, as they pick up experience and expertise move into ‘formal’ sector employment, and then return to the ‘informal’ sector because of age or failing health. He concludes his discussion by noting:

. . . there are considerable linkages between the activities usually identified respectively with these two sectors. While the exact extent of job creation may be subject to argument, there is reason to be fairly optimistic on this score, especially if the transactions costs and market imperfections affecting the creation of informal sector jobs are reduced to a minimum (Linn, 1979a, p. 69; underlined in the original).

Though not a geographer, it seems Linn’s argu- ments correspond closely with the general thrust of post-modernization theory development geography. It is part of the movement pointed out by Brookfield (1978) towards the gearing down of capital intensive projects which has accompanied the move towards self-reliant development, and in particular, the matter of the distribution of income. Moreover, as Freeman (1979) wanted, it has immediate practical impli- cations and leads directly to policy suggestions. However, there are reasons why t h s type of argument cannot be accepted. By implication, these criticisms also question the theoretical underpinnings of deve- lopment geography. This can be demonstrated by looking critically at the emergence of a literature which challenges the ‘informal sector’ work and its application to small-scale enterprises in Ujung Pandang.

PETTY COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

The parallel rise at the beginning of the last decade of ‘informal sector’ research and post- modernization theories of development was soon answered by a critical literature. Notable among the early pieces searching for an alternative to the ‘informal sector’ were the papers by Lebrun and Gerry (1975), Breman (1976) and Santos (1976). The second half of the decade saw a number of better articulated and more substantial pieces

published, including the collections of essays edited by Rimmer, Drakakis-Smith and McGee (1978), Bromley (1978), which included very important essays by Gerry (1978) and Moser (1978), and Bromley and Gerry (1979a). In addition, the sub- stantial monographs by Santos (1979, previously published in French in 1975) and Roberts (1978) contributed greatly to the debate. The emergmg consensus of these works was that the ‘informal sector’ concept was a somewhat static and unneces- sary abstraction with little analytical potential. The main reason was that it tended to be seen as some form of idealized and independent small-scale pro- duction, primarily because most of the research work done on it was structured by the need to highlight the indigenous economy and its potential contribu- tion to self-reliant development. As a result, it was argued, researchers had tended to overlook the hstorical exploitative relationships that persist between small scale enterprises and other parts of the economy. In other words, the key issue was the input-output linkages between small enterprises and the modern economy that Linn used to help demonstrate the value of small scale enterprises and their potential contribution to employment and development.

Certain points of disagreement wd1 be illustrated by some of the empirical findings of a study of petty production in the middle-ranking Indonesian city of Ujung Pandang in the period 1975-76 (Forbes, 1979; 1981). Following this, the external relationships of petty producers will be reformulated so as to show the precise disagreement with the ‘informal’ sector research.

The data from Ujung Pandang are drawn mainly from a comparative analysis of trishaw riders, pedlars of fresh fruit and vegetables and fish, and ice-cream makers and sellers. The first point worth noting is that, at first sight, there appear to be very few links between petty production and the remainder of the economy. Petty producers such as fish pedlars appear remarkably self-sufficient; they raise the bulk of their capital requirements from fellow traders or from friends and relations; the fish which they peddle is purchased from local fishermen, the equipment they use (baskets, trays, ice, etc.) is hand-made locally, and their sales are made direct to consumers. However, if this apparently self-sufficient form of production is put in context, the linkages become

74

NUMBER

SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY

~~ ~

PER CENT

clear and of much importance.

First, petty production bears an important rela- tionship to the labour market as a whole. Petty producers are responsible for the production and distribution of cheap consumer goods. Making up over a thrd of the workforce (Table 2, Own Account plus Unpaid Family Labour), they provide the bulk of the work-force (Employees) with the bulk of their consumer goods and durables. This means that, in fact, the petty producers subsidise the cost of wages to the main city employers, which acts as a dampener on forces leading to demands for wage increases (Mkandawire, 1977; Portes, 1978). The process is reinforced by the fact that some employees invest in petty enterprises such as trishaws as a means of topping-up their main incomes. School teachers, and lower-ranking army and police per- sonnel are the main participants in this form of wage-subsidization. Finally, as Linn (1979a, p. 64) pointed out, there is evidence of some sharing of the labour force. Linn noted this occurring when people who worked in petty production in their youth, moved into wage employment during their prime working years, only to return to petty pro- duction in old age. There was little evidence of this occurring in Ujung Pandang. On the other hand, it is clear that petty production provided a large surplus labour force of some quality, capable of being tapped for wage employment should the demand arise (cf. Lister, 1980).

TABLE 2. WORK STATUS OF UJUNG PANDANG’S LABOUR FORCE

Total 100.1 (due to 420’2 lo rounding)

Source: Jones & Supraptilah, 1975, Table 7.

Petty production, it can therefore be argued, is a means of transferring some of the costs of the wage labour-force from employers to petty production.

Petty production, which itself subsidizes peasant production by things like urban-rural remittances, has joined with peasant production to become one of the main methods by which the urban labour force is subsidized and thus is persuaded from seeking higher wages. Thus, far from petty produc- tion occurring in isolation, it actually has quite a crucial part in the overall structure and operation of the labour market. Moreover, whereas Linn is content to note the point mentioned above as an example of a link between ‘modern’ and ‘informal’ sector, his theoretical structure precludes developing the analysis of this ‘link’, and questioning its value and purpose. By contrast, the petty production approach leads to one linking up these structures and raises the question of the extent of the limita- tions researchers have proposed to the development of petty production.

The second form integration can take is through the direct integration of production and distribution. There is none of this in the trading sphere in Ujung Pandang, but there is quite a bit of it in transport, where trishaw riders take on certain distribution roles (they can frequently be seen transporting lugh stacks of locally manufactured bamboo furniture), and of course in the manufacturing sector where out-worker schemes are quite common (for Latin America, see Roberts, 1978). Although not specifi- cally mentioned as policy by Linn, the need to en- courage a closer integration of petty production with the remainder of the economy is implicit in his analysis, and is common to other advocates and former advocates of this type of view (cf. McGee, 1976, p. 32). The problem with t h s view, of course, is that it assumes that a greater degree of integration can occur, and that if and when it does, it will be of more or less equal benefit to both small and large fnms. In other words, it assumes that greater linkage in the economy will promote economic accumulation and expansion in all productive sectors. The corollary is that the expansion of petty enterprises has in the past been constrained by the lack of linkages,

In recent years, however, there has been an abundance of literature which suggests that these linkages are not beneficial to small enterprises but in fact provide a means of transferring significant innovation, development, production and distribution costs from the large firms to the small fums and petty enterprises. This is as applicable to the advanced

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT 75

capitalist societies as it is to peripheral capitalist societies. For instance, Friedman (1977, Chapters 8 & 15) has examined the unequal relationship between small and large frms in terms of ‘relative monopoly power’. Basing his work on the empirical analysis of the U.K. motor industry he has demonstrated that the problems of ‘peripheral’ firms, which range from consistently lower wages for employees to the chronic uncertainty which surrounds their existence and their quick elimination during a slump, are a product, first and foremost of the linkages between these small firms and large firms (both suppliers and customers) and banks. On the other hand, the main- tenance of these relations is of considerable value to the large firms, not least because of the cheaper labour costs associated with the less organized labour employed by small firms. Likewise, Taylor and Thrift (1980) have adopted a ‘dualistic’ framework with which to analyse the relationships between small and large firms. They argue that small firms in advanced capitalist societies are unlikely to expand for three reasons: capital is difficult to secure and propor- tionately more expensive for small firms; the capacity of small firms to innovate makes them highly suscep- tible to takeover; and the fluctuations in demand for their products bring about temporary expansions and contractions, which the inflexibility of their output is unable to counter. Thus small fvms are trapped in an impasse. If successful, they are liable to takeover; the high casualty rate of small firms is testimony to the fate of the unsuccessful.

Clearly, the situations described by Friedman (1977) and Taylor and Thrift (1980) cannot simply be transposed to peripheral capitalist societies. The discussion is included because the emphasis of their analyses of linkage is on the limited and short-term benefits whxh are brought to the small-scale enter- prises. A parallel literature has developed for peri- pheral capitalist societies. Bettelheim (1972), followed by Lebrun and Gerry (1975) and McGee (1979), have used the concept of conservation- dissolution to analyse the impact of the capitalist mode of production upon pre-capitalist modes, More specifically, a number of writers (Moser, 1978; Tokman, 1978; Gerry, 1978) have tackled petty production by looking critically at the linkages between it and large fnms, a relationship which Santos (1979) has termed ‘a dialectic of domination- subordination’. Relations between the ’upper’ and ‘lower’ circuits of the economy

. . . may be either continuous or irregular, simple or hierarchical relations of both comple- mentarity and competition. Complementarity means that the activities of one circuit require inputs from the other circuit or that certain activities of one circuit constitute external eco- nomies for the other. However, the functional relations betwen the two circuits may be corn- pletely different: there may be hierarchical relations of dependence and domination, exerted downward in the case of decision- making, but also upward in as much as the dominated and dependent elements unwittingly help maintain and strengthen the position of those higher up the hierarchy (Santos, 1979, p. 139).

The petty production sector is a mixed bag which has led Tokman (1978) to term this relationship ‘heterogeneous subordination’ because while the sector as a whole may be subordinate, there are elements within it which appear to have a somewhat separate existence (cf. Davies, 1979).

On the whole, however, petty production is un- likely to have an independent base:

. . . it survives as a complement to the large- scale one, taking on those tasks which represent too risky or too limited a market for the large- scale sector. Under these conditions, the possibilities for capital accumulation are negligible (Roberts, 1978, p. 133).

. . . when the markets they serve grow beyond a certain size this will not be a gradual but accelerating stimulus to further development of the forces of production, Instead it will trigger a discontinuous shift to ‘international’ technology which will incorporate this market by virtue of its efficiency and/or its market power, the latter based on effectively unlimited capital and on the establishment of brand name products through advertising (Bienefeld, 1975,

To take one example from Ujung Pandang, a decision by two Chinese-Indonesian fnms to start manufac- turing and marketing a form of ice-cream in Ujung Pandang brought them into direct competition with the various ice-cream products made and manu- factured by petty commodity producers. It is too early to determine the end r e d t of the competition,

pp. 55-56).

76 SUWAFUKE JUUKNAL ur

but the indications are not encouraging for petty commodity producers. The new ice-cream made no attempt to compete in terms of price, being well over double that of the first-marketed good, yet the city’s traditional ice-cream sellers found demand quickly declined. The new ice-cream effectively skimmed off the hghly profitable top-end of the market to people attracted by its different qualities, not least of whch are its colourful packaging and different marketing technique. Not being able to market their goods competitively, and finding price makes little difference, the small-scale ice-cream makers face declining incomes and little hope of arresting the process.

The emphasis by Linn and others before him on the role of petty production in labour absorption and production,distribution and exchange was based on the assumption that the primary barrier to the growth of petty and small-scale production was the State. Clearly the State in Indonesia, through its urban authorities, has treated the sector harshly, especially in Jakarta (Cohen, 1974; Jellinek, 1975; 1978) but also in Ujung Pandang (Forbes, 1978). Given the importance of petty production to the economy as a whole, and despite its somewhat untidy ‘less than modern’ appearance, one might reasonably expect this attitude to change with a minimum of cajoling by the World Bank. A recent press report in fact suggests t h s is the case, at least for Jakarta’s scavengers, who, the city authorities:

. . . have come to realise play an important economic role in not only supplying waste material to factories . . . and provide jobs but also in keeping down the level of garbage in Jakarta . . . (O’Sullivan, 1980).

However, the evidence cited above shows that the real constraint on petty production is not the State per se, but the relationship in which the greater benefits flow to the large firms and away from the small. Simply easing repressive State restrictions and allowing petty producers to operate unhindered will of course help them, but not sufficiently to allow capital accumulation, rising productivity and increased employment. As long as petty production is an appendage to the core economy, no matter how skilled and hardworking its participants, their success will almost always be curbed by these structures. Where growth occurs it will be spasmodic and restricted to a tiny fraction of the petty pro-

ducers; there is no prospect of upward economic mobility for the bulk of the petty producers.

The failure of development geography to realm these limitations was due to a failure to look critically at petty production in context, and especially to hghhght equally the internal and external relations of the petty producers. It was compounded by the underlying urgency of the problems of the urban poor and the need felt by development geography to be relevant and practical, which in many ways was a logical follow-on from the ‘relevance’ debates in geography in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Peet, 1977 j. But despite development geography’s humanist concerns with improving the welfare of the poor, despite its sympathy for the skills and tenacity of the petty producers, and despite its wish to build indigenous solutions to indigenous problems, it will inevitably prove incapable of bringing about the changes expected of it. The great hope of develop- ment geography in the 1970s was epitomized by the optimism and proliferation of research focussed on the ‘informal’ sector. Earlier on, the state of confusion in development geography was compared with the similar lack of direction in the geography of underdevelopment. The distinction whch the case study has made is a simple but important one. Development geography appears to have nowhere to go. The geography of underdevelopment, on the other hand is bristling with new insights that can be harnessed and put to considerable use.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR A GEOGRAPHY OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT

In rejecting the ‘sociology of development’, Oxaal, Barnett and Booth (1975, p. 1) drew attention to the economic and historical illiteracy that characterized the approach of their predecessors. Oddly enough, despite the fact that recent work on underdevelop- ment has done much to overcome these deficiencies, there remain highly applicable criticisms of geography of underdevelopment. Arguing for the reincorpora- tion of history and economics into the geography of underdevelopment, however, begs the question of disciplines and their status. There are already moves afoot to ‘de-define’ geography, and although this seems a little extreme, geographers are all aware of the rhetoric of their colleagues urging them to- wards inter- and multi-disciplinary work. This ques- tion requires a much more elaborate discussion out- side this paper.

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT I1

It is sufficient to say that there are no great gains to be made by abandoning the quasi-independent status of geography. Geographers, however, should be directing their efforts to the transdisciplinary wisdom of underdevelopment theory as well as developing their unique emphasis on space and environment. In urging greater attention to economy and hlstory one is not suggesting that the disciplines of history and economics need be searched and relieved of their gems of insight. Rather, it is more important that geographers develop, independently where necessary, their own approach to economy and history as part of geographic method. The aim, of course, is to at once relieve geography of its long-standing dependence on other disciplines for theoretical innovation and to remain closely aware of what is going on in the social sciences as a whole. Thls cannot be achieved either by passive dependence or by arrogant isolation, but by a carefully plotted path between the two.

At the same time, the current state of underdeve- lopment research seems to suggest a certain intellect- ual confusion, perhaps a healthy confusion, and one with lessons for geographers. Rapid successive deve- lopments in underdevelopment theory have not always been accompanied by adequate concrete research; it is hoped that substantive, original projects in future might catch-up with the theoretical turmoil and provide some clear and well substantiated directions for research. Geographers, on the other hand, appear to be increasingly reducing their sub- stantive research in a general drift towards much- needed theoretical discussion. It is difficult enough for the geography of underdevelopment to ‘catch-up’, doubly so if other social scientists are returning to substantive empirical research just as geographers are drifting away from it. One should not get this out of perspective, but it does illustrate the problems of defining directions amid the turmoil of underdeve- lopment research.

Arising from the study on petty producers some suggestions can be put forward, First, the bulk of research on petty production has been remarkably ahistorical, in direct contrast to trends in other work done on underdevelopment (Brornley & Gerry, 1979a). One very good reason for this, of course, has been the paucity of data available on the urban poor in particular and small-scale production in general. However, ways around this impasse must be found.

and around the turn of the century in places like Britain are gradually being drawn out (Bienefeld, 1979) but this sort of comparative material, though useful, is a poor substitute for original historical research in peripheral capitalist societies. It is not only researchers on petty production who feel the need for more historical research in Indonesia. As Elson wrote recently ‘one of the major problems with the scholarly literature on Indonesian history is that, quite simply, there is not enough of it’ (Fernando, 1980, p. 1). Much the same could be said for scores of other societies. Finally, there are in- dications that strenuous efforts are being made to overcome this deficiency. For instance, it is common for the Developing Areas Study Group of the Insti- tute of British Geographers to meet jointly with the Historical Geography Study Group at annual con- ferences, in recognition of their mutual needs.

Second, the bulk of the literature on petty pro- duction has been directed towards description and classification, whilst the relatively small proportion of analytical work has tended to concentrate on social processes. Unfortunately, the work on econo- mic organization among petty producers has often been superficial and lackmg in rigour. To a certain extent, this reflects the background of researchers who have been inclined towards the social of the socioeconomic dialectic and, to a larger extent, it reflects the inadequacies of economic theory when it comes to analysing unusual small-scale processes. The discipline of economics has little to contribute here, and economic anthropology, so long bogged down by the debate between the ‘formalists’ and the ‘substantivists’ (Le Clair & Schneider, 1968) is only just beginning to make a significant con- tribution again (see the references above to the ‘productionists’). The main directions that need to be developed are, on the one hand, an analysis of the theoretical concept of simple commodity pro- duction and, on the other hand, a more compre- hensive and critical set of linkage analyses based on the methodology used by industrial geographers (e.g. Taylor, 1978) to examine relations between firms at the upper end of the scale. Underlying both these directions is a need to tackle and clarify funda- mental economic questions in order to provide a more balanced interpretation of the socio-economic structure and consequences of petty production.

Some of the parallels between petty producers now As far as the geography of underdevelopment

18 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY

as a whole is concerned, it would be presumptuous to say more than that the future of this specialization lies in the hands of geographers who will determine new directions by their contributions to theoretical and empirical research. One can only hope that theory, in the way in which Horkheimer (1937) defined it as ‘stored-up knowledge’, will be pre- eminent,thus allowing geographers to avoid past errors and forsake the backwaters of research for a more prominent and fruitful position.

REFERENCES Adler, J.H. (1977), ‘Development theory and the Bank’s

development strategy - review’, Finance and Develop ment, Vol. 14, No.4, pp. 26-33.

Amin, S . (1974), Accumulation on a World Scale (sussex). Banaji, J. (1977), ‘Modes of production in a materialist con-

ception of history’, Capital and Class, Vol. 7, No. 3,

Bettelheim, C. (1972), ‘Appendix 1. Theoretical comments’, in Emmanuel, A., Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (London), pp. 271-322.

Bienefeld, M. (1975), ‘The informal sector and peripheral capitalism: the case of Tanzania’, Institute of Deve- lopment Studies Bulletin, Vol. 6, NO. 3, pp. 53-73.

(1979), ‘Urban employment: a historical perspective’, in Bromley, R. & Gerry, C. (eds.), Casual Work and Poverty in Third World Cities (Chichester),

Blaut, J.M. (1970), ‘Geographic models of imperialism’, Antipode, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 65-85.

Breman, 3. (1976), ‘A dualistic labour system? A critique of the “informal sector” concept’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, pp. 1870-76, 1905-8, 1939-44.

Brenner, R. (1977), ‘The origins of capitalist development. A critique of neo-Smithian Marxism’, New Lef t Revie ..,

Bromley, R. (ed.) (1978), The urban informal sector: critical perspectives’, World Development, Vol. 6, No. 9/10.

& Gerry, C. (eds.) (1979a), Casual Work and Poverty in Third World Cities (Chichester).

(1979b), Who are the casual poor?’, in Bromley, R. and Gerry, C. (eds.), Casual Work and Poverty in Third World Cities (Chicester), pp. 3-23.

Brookfield, H.C. (19731, ‘On one geography and a third world’, Transactions of the Institute of British G e e graphers, NO. 58, pp. 1-19.

(1975), Interdependent Development (London).

(1978), Third world development’, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 2, pp. 121-32.

Browett, J.C. (1980a), ‘Development, the diffusionist para- digm and geography’, Progress in Human Geography,

pp. 1-44.

pp. 27 - 44.

NO. 104, pp. 25-93.

Vol. 4, pp. 57-79.

(1980b), ‘Into the cul-de-sac of the dependency paradigm with A.G. Frank‘, in Peet, R. (ed.), A n Introduction to Marxist Theories of Underdevelop ment (Canberra), pp. 95-112.

(1980c), Out of the Dependency Perspectives (unpublished paper, Flinders University of South Australia).

(1980d), On the Role of Geography in Developmen r Geography (unpublished paper, Flinders University of South Australia).

Buchanan, K. (1967), The Southeast Asian World (London).

(1972), Geography of Empire (Nottingham).

Cohen, J. (1974), ‘The people who get in the way: poverty and development in Jakarta’, Politics, Vol. 9, pp. 1-9.

Connell, J. (1971), ‘The geography of development,’ Area,

Davies, R. (1979), ‘Informal sector or subordinate mode of production? A model’, in Bromley, R. & Gerry, C. (eds.) Casual Work and Poverty in Third World Cities (Chiches- ter), pp. 87-104.

Eliot-Hurst, M.E. (1980), ‘Geography, social science and society; towards a de-definition’, Australian Geographical Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 3-21.

Emmanuel, A. (1972), Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (London).

Ettema, W.A. (1979), ‘Geographers and development’, Tijds- chrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografle. Vol. 70,

Far Eastern Economic Review (1980), Yearbook 1980 (Hong Kong).

Fernando, R. (1980), Famine in Cirebon Residency in Java 1844-18.50: A New Perspective on the Cultivation System, Working Paper No. 21 (Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University).

Forbes, D.K. (1978), ‘Urban-rural interdependence: the tri- shaw riders of Ujung Pandang’, in Rimmer, P.J., Drakakis- Smith, D. & McCee, T.G. (eds.), Food, Shelter and Transport in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: Challenging the Unconventional Wisdom of Development Studies in the Third World (Canberra), pp. 219-36.

(1979), Development and the ‘Informal’ Sector: A Study of Pedlars and Trishaw Riders in Ujung Pandang, Indonesia (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Monash University).

(1981), ‘Production, reproduction and underdevelopment: petty commodity producers in Ujung Pandang, Indonesia’, Environment and Planning, Vol. 13,

Frank, A.G. (1969), Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolurion (New York).

Freeman, D.B. (1979), The Geography of Development and Modernization: A Survey of Present Trends and Future Prospects, Disscussion Paper No. 22 (Department of Geography, York University, Toronto).

Vol. 3, pp. 259-65.

pp. 66-74.

pp. 841-56.

GEOGRAPHY OF DEVELOPMENT 79

Friedman, A. (1977), Industry and Labour: Class Struggle a t Work and Monopoly Capitalism (London).

Geertz, C. (1963), Peddlers and Princes: Social Change and Economic Modernization in Two Indonesian Towns (Chicago).

Gerry, C. (1974), Petty Producers and the Urban Economy: A Case Study of Dakar, I.L.0. World Employment Programme, Working Paper No. 8 (Geneva).

(1978), ‘Petty production and capitalist production in Dakar: the crisis of the self-employed’, World Development, VoL 6, pp. 1,147-60.

Godelier, M. (1974), ‘On the definition of a social formation: the example of the Incas’, Critique o f Anthropology,

Gordon, D.L. (1979), ‘The bank and the development of small enterprise’, Finance and Development, Vol. 16,

Harriss, J. & Harriss, B. (1979), ‘Development studies‘, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 576-84.

Higgott, R.A. (1980a), ‘From modernization theory to public policy; continuity and change in the political science of political development’, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 15, NO. 4, pp. 1-55.

(1980b), ‘Radical’ Development Theory: A n Historiographical Essay (unpublished paper, The Australasian Political Studies Association, 22nd Annual Conference).

Horkheimer, M. (1937), Traditional and critical theory’, in Connerton, P. (ed. 1978), Critical Sociology (Harmonds- worth), pp. 206-24.

Howlett, D. (1980), ‘When is a peasant not a peasant?: rural proletarianism in Papua New Guinea’, in Jennings, J. & Linge, G. (eds.), Of Time and Place (Canberra), pp. 193- 210.

International Labour Office (1.L.O.) (1972), Employment, Incomes and Equality: A Strategy fo r Increasing Produc- tive Employment in Kenya (Geneva).

Jaycox, E. (1978), ‘The bank and urban poverty’, Finance and Development, Vol. 15, NO. 3, pp. 10-13.

Jellinek, L. (1975), The Life of a Jakarta Street Trade, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Working Paper No. 9 (Monash University).

(1978), ‘Circular migration and the Pondok dwelling system: a case study of ice-cream traders in Jakarta’, in Rimmer, P., Drakakis-Smith, D. & McGee, T., Food, Shelter and Transport in Southeast Asia and the Pacific (Canberra), pp. 135-54.

Jones, G.W. & Supraptilah, B. (1975), Some Information on Urban Employment in Palembang and Ujung Pandang (Jakarta).

Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition (Chicago).

Lall, S. (1975), ‘Is “dependence” a useful concept in analysing underdevelopment?’, World Development, Vol.

Lea, D.A.M. (1974), ‘Spatial planning in Papua New Guinea’,

NO. 1 , pp. 63-73.

NO. 1 , pp. L9-22.

3, pp. 799-810.

South Pacific Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 21-28.

Lebrun, D. & Gerry, C. (1975), ‘Petty producers and capita- lism’, Review of African Political Economy, No. 3,

Le Clair, E.E. & Schneider, H.H. (eds.) (1968), Economic Anthropology. Readings in Theory and Analysis (New York).

Leys, C. (1 977), ‘Underdevelopment and dependency: criti- cal notes’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 7, pp. 92- 107.

Linn, J.F. (1979a), Policies for Efficient and Equitable Growth in Cities in Developing Countries, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 342 (Washington).

(1979b), ‘Of jobs and the urban poor’, Reports. News and Views from the World Bank, Nov- Dec., pp. 1-2.

Lister, P. (1980), ‘Alternative perspectives on the informal sector’, Union o f Socialist Geographers Newsletter, Vol.

Logan, M.I. (1972), ’The development process in the less developed countries’, The Australian Geographer, vol. 12,

McGee, T.G. (1974), ‘In praise of tradition: towards a geography of anti-development’, Antipode, VoI. 6, No. 3,

(1976), T h e persistence of the proto-proletariat’, Progress in Geography, Vol. 9, pp.

(1978), ‘Western geography and the third world’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 22,

pp. 20-32.

5, No.4, pp.48-53.

pp. 146-53.

pp. 30-50.

1-38.

NO. 1 , pp. 93-1 14.

(1979), ‘Conservation and dissolution in the third world city: the “shanty town” as an element of conservation’, Development and Change, vol. 10,

MeiIlassoux, C. (1972), ‘From reproduction to production’, Economy and Society, Vol. 1 , pp. 93-105.

Mkandawire, P.T. (1977), ‘Employment strategies in the third world: a critique’, Journal of Contemporary Asia,

Moser, C.O.N. (1978), ‘Informal sector or petty commodity production: dualism or dependence in urban develop ment’, World Development, VoI. 6 , pp. 1,041-64.

Newman, B. (1977), ‘In Indonesia, attempts by World Bank to aid poor often go astray’, The Wall Street Journal, 10 November, 1977.

O’Sullivan, P. (1980), ‘Scavenging in Jakarta. Recycling a success’, The Canberra Times, 16 January, 1980.

Oxaal, I., Barnett, T. & Booth, D. (1975), Beyond the Sociology of Development. Economy and Society in Latin America and Africa (London).

Palma, G. (1978), ‘Dependency: a formal theory of under- development or methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?’, World Deve- lopment, Vol. 6 , pp. 881-924.

Papanek, G.F. (1975), ‘The poor of Jakarta’, Economic Development and Culhual Change, vol. 24, pp. 1-28.

pp. 1-22.

Vol. 7, pp. 27-43.

80 SLNGAPUKL JOUKNAL ur

Peet, R. (1977), ‘The development of radical geography in the United States’, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 1,

Porter, D.J. (1980), ‘Towards praxis in development’, in Peet, R. (ed.), A n Introduction to Marxist Theories of Underdevelopment (Department of Human Geography, Canberra), pp. 123-44.

Portes, A. (1978), T h e informal sector and the world eco- nomy: notes on the structure of the subsidised’, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 35- 40.

Rey, P.P. (1 9 7 3 , ‘The lineage mode of production’, Critique of Anthropology, NO. 3, Spring, pp. 27-79.

Regan, C.A. & Eliot-Hurst, M.E. (1976), ‘A geography of the development of underdevelopment’, in Lea, D.A.M. (ed.), Geographical Research: Application and Relevance (University o f New England, Armidale), pp. 9-24.

Regan, C. & Walsh, F. (1976), ‘Dependence and underde- velopment: the case of mineral resources and the Irish Republic’, Antipode, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 46-58.

Rimmer, P.J., Drakakis-Smith, D. & McGee, T.G. (eds.) (1978), Food, Shelter and Transport in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: Challenging the Unconventional Wisdom of Development Studies in the Third World (Canberra).

Roberts, B. (1978), Cities of Peasants: The Political Eco- nomy of Urbanization in the Third World (London).

Rovani, Y. (1979), ‘The problem of water supply and waste disposal’, Finance and Development, vol. 16, No. 1,

Santos, M. (1974), ‘Geography, Marxism and underdevelop ment’, Antipode, Vol.6, No. 3, pp. 1-9.

(1976), ‘Articulation of modes of production and the two circuits of urban economy’, Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 17, pp. 23-36.

(1979), The Shared Space. The Two Circuits o f the Urban Economy in Underdeveloped Countries (London).

Sayer, A. (1979), ‘Epistemology and conception of people and nature in geography’, Geofoncm, Vol. 10, pp. 19-43.

Schuurman, F.J. (1978), ‘From resource frontier to periphery: agricultural colonization east of the Andes’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, vol.

Seddon, D. (ed.) (1978), Relations o f Production: Marxist Approaches to Economic Anthropology (London).

, Blaikie, P. ,& Cameron, J. (1979), Peasants and Workers in Nepal (Wiltshire).

Slater, D. (1973), ‘Geography and. underdevelopment -

part I’, Antipode, vol. 5 , No. 3, pp. 21-32.

(1 977), ‘Geography and underdevelop ment - part 11’, Antipode, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1-34.

Soja, E.W. (1980), The socio-spatial dialectic’, Annals, Association o f American Geographers, vol. 70, pp. 207- 25.

Taylor, J.G. (1 974), ‘NeeMarxism and underdevelopment: a sociological phantasy’, Journal of Contemporary Asia,

pp. 240-63.

pp. 14-18.

69, pp. 95- 104.

Vol. 4, pp. 5-23. (1979), From Modernization to

Modes of Production (London). Taylor, M.T. (1978), ‘Linkage change and organisational

growth: the case of the West Midlands ironfoundry industry’, Economic Geography, v01. 54, pp. 314-36.

Taylor, M. & Thrift, N. (1980), Organisation, Location and Political Economy: TowDrds a Geography of Business Organbations (unpublished paper, IGU Commission on Industrial Systems).

Terray, E. (1972), Marxism and ‘Primitive’ Societies (New York).

Titus, M.J. (1978), ‘Interregional migration in Indonesia as a reflection of social and regional inequalities’, Tijdschrifr voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, VOl.

Tokman, V.E. (1978), ‘An exploration into the nature of informal-formal sector relationships’, World Development,

Townsend, D. (1980a), ‘Disengagement and incorporation - the post-colonial reaction in the rural villages of Papua New Guinea’, Pacific Viewpofnt, Vol. 21, pp. 1-25.

(1980b), ‘Articulation, dissolution and migration: the partial integration of Hube area, Papua New Guinea’, Tijdschrlft voor Economische en Sociale Geografle, Vol. 71, pp. 285-94.

U1 Haq, M. (1978), ‘Changing emphasis of the Bank’s lending policies’, Finance and Development, vol. 15, No. 2,

Walker, R.A. (1978), ‘Two sources of uneven development under advanced capitalism: spatial differentiation and capital mobility’, Review of Radical Political Economy,

Wallerstein, I. (1974), ‘The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis’, Comparative Studies in Society and History,

(1 979), The Capitalist World-Economy (London).

(1980), The Modem World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1 750 (New York).

Wolpe, H. (ed.) (19801, The Articulation of Modes of Pro- duction (London).

World Bank (1976), Indonesia: Appraisal of the Second Urban Development ho jec t (unpublished Mission Report, mimeographed).

(1978), Urban Development and Poverty in Indonesia: Special Study (unpublished Mission Report, mimeographed).

(1979), World Development Report, 1979 (New York).

(1980), ‘World Development Report, 1980 - principal themes’, Finance and Development, vol. 17,

69, pp. 194-204.

Vol. 6, pp. 1,065-76.

pp. 12-74.

Vol. 10, NO. 3, pp. 28-37.

Vol. 16, pp. 387-415.

NO. 3, pp. 15-20.