Lesson: Rethinking Development

In high school, I was obsessed with Model United Nations. I loved the diplomacy, the formality, the heady feeling of solving the world’s problems from behind a little placard. Like many students, I was told this was what global citizenship looked like: policy memos, joint resolutions, and the language of international peace and cooperation. But somewhere between the jargon-filled position papers and last-minute lobbying for “coalitions,” something didn’t sit right.

I remember dreading being assigned countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, or Djibouti—places whose names seemed to come with a built-in apology. Everyone in the room knew you were going to lose. You were invisible in debates. Your country’s problems were framed as failures—poor governance, corruption, or lack of development. Meanwhile, classmates who were handed the United States, United Kingdom, or France practically hit the jackpot. They didn’t just set the agenda; they were the agenda.

Back then, I didn’t have the language to articulate what was bothering me. But looking back now, it’s painfully clear: I was being trained to internalize a very specific worldview—one where global inequality was just a matter of “mismanagement,” not exploitation; where the solutions were always IMF loans, NGO partnerships, or foreign direct investment; where freedom was synonymous with peace, markets, and Western-led “stability.”

No one talked about how “aid” could be a weapon. How so-called development projects often created more dependency than empowerment. No one mentioned revolutionary movements that radically reimagined what development could mean from below.

What passed for “solutions” in those Model UN conferences were often cruel, technocratic half-measures: debt restructuring that gutted social programs, or privatization schemes disguised as “reform.” There was never any room for working-class power in the equation—no acknowledgment of the fact that real change might come not from boardrooms or Security Councils, but from mass struggle, from organizing, from people seizing back power and control over their lives and resources.

And most importantly, we never asked the basic question:
Who gets to define what “development” means—and who benefits from that definition?

A Quick lesson:

This is a short, inquiry-based lesson designed for high school students. It serves as an entry point into larger units on global capitalism, free trade, and resistance.

---

Foundations: Power, Labels, and Global Inequality

Discussion Prompts for the Map:

• What do these maps tell us about how wealth is distributed between countries? Within countries?
  • Follow-up: Who benefits most from the current global system? Who benefits least?
• Why might wealth distribution look different when viewed by country vs. by individual person?
  • What does that say about inequality on a global scale?
• Which countries would “gain” the most from equal distribution of wealth? Why do you think that is?
  • What historical processes (colonialism, trade, industrialization, war, aid, etc.) might explain this?
• If your home country became more “equal” within itself, would that fix global inequality? Why or why not?
  • What responsibilities, if any, do people in richer countries have toward people in poorer ones?

Rethinking “Development”: Who Gets to Define Progress?

• Key terms:
  • Modernization theory: The idea that all countries follow a single path from traditiona to industrial modernity
  • World Systems Theory: A historical, structural view of global capitalism as a single unequal system
  • Core/Periphery : A dynamic where core nations exploit periphery nations
  • Underdevelopment: The deliberate outcome of imperialist and capitalist exploitation
  • Global North/South: An alternative framework for global power relations than “developed/developing”
• Critical Thinking Questions:
  • What do you think the word “development” means? Who defines it?
    • How might this definition be biased toward certain countries or ways of living?
  • Do you think “developed” vs. “developing” is a fair or useful label? Why or why not?
    • What alternative labels could we use? What would be more honest?

The Myth of the “Ladder”— Walt Rostow’s Theory of Modernization

• In the 1960s, American economist Walt Whitman Rostow proposed a now-famous (and widely critiqued) theory of economic development that imagined all nations would follow the same linear path toward prosperity.
• Rostow’s Five Stages of Economic Growth: (From his book The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto)

1. Traditional Society
   • Subsistence, agriculture, limited technology
   • Hierarchical societal formation, which allowed little mobility or social change
2. Preconditions for Take-off
   • Infrastructure investment, rising education (Western specifically)
   • A new elite must emerge to create an industrial society by overthrowing the old order. They have to be entrepreneurs and devote their energy and resources to modernization.
   • Investment above 10 percent of national income
3. Take-off
   • Shorter stage of development
   • Industrialization, improvement of communication and transportation, which is crucial to expand and facilitate exports
   • Growth in a few key sectors
4. Drive to Maturity
   • The economy has the ability to “produce not everything, but anything it chooses to produce” (Rostow, 10)
   • Sees the ability of domestic production as an economic choice or political priority, not due to technological or institutional matters
   • The labor force has now shifted from agriculture to industry and service
5. Age of High Mass Consumption
   • Believed that the age of high mass consumption begins with the introduction of cheap mass automobiles, such as the United States and Germany, despite each country’s unique experiences (Rostow, 11)
   • Services dominate, living standards rise

• But whose development is this, really?
  • Rostow helped shape Cold War U.S. policy and was a staunch anti-communist. His vision was capitalist, industrial, and modeled after Western (especially American) growth.
  • He ignored colonialism, slavery, and structural inequality as root causes of poverty.
  • The model characterizes a deterministic and predictive approach.
• Critical Questions:
  • What assumptions does Rostow make about culture, history, and economics?
  • Does his model account for colonization or external interference?
  • Is there only one path to “modernity”?

World-Systems Theory: Wallerstein and the Historical Structure of Inequality

• In the 1970s, Immanuel Wallerstein, along with other Marxist intellectuals at the time, proposed a radical alternative:
• Instead of seeing nations as isolated units on different rungs of a development ladder, he argued they’re part of a single global capitalist system— divided into core, periphery, and semi-periphery.

• The system is historical, beginning around the 16th century with European imperial expansion. Core countries built their wealth by extracting labor, resources, and profits from the periphery, and continue to do so.
• This explains why development is uneven and patterned, not random or merit-based.

Dependency and Underdevelopment: Walter Rodney’s Perspective

• Rodney, a historian and revolutionary from Guyana, wrote one of the most influential critiques of development in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1972).
• Core Argument:
  • Underdevelopment is not a natural phenomenon or due to specific economic choices
  • “Underdeveloped” countries aren’t failing — they’re being drained
  • Colonizers didn’t just extract gold and rubber, but human potential
  • Slavery, forced labor, stolen land, and monopolized trade created long-term dependency
• Key insight: European “development” and African “underdevelopment” happened together, as part of the same process. It reflects the phenomenon of unequal development

Global North/Global South— Not Just Geography

• These terms aren’t simply about where countries are on the map— they reflect power.
• Global North: high-income, industrialized, politically dominant states
• Global South: previously colonized nations with structural disadvantages in global trade
• The Global South has often been treated as a place to extract from, not invest in.

Discussion Questions:

• Who gets to define what “Development” means?
• Why might a country in the Global South struggle to industrialize “like the West did”?
• How does world-systems theory change how we think about national success or failure?

First World, Second World, and Third World: Labels, Power and Liberation

What Do These Terms Mean?

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were originally used during the Cold War (1947–1991) to describe global political and economic alliances:

• First World: Wealthy capitalist countries aligned with the United States and Western Europe (e.g., U.S., U.K., France, Japan).
• Second World: Communist countries aligned with the Soviet Union (e.g., USSR, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe).
• Third World: Countries that were non-aligned — many were recently decolonized nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These nations did not side clearly with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union.

Over time, the term Third World became shorthand for “poor” or “underdeveloped” — especially in the Global North. But that’s not how the term began, and not how many people in the Global South understand or use it.

Why Some Say These Terms Are Outdated or Offensive…

In many schools, textbooks, and media — especially in the Global North — the term Third World is seen as outdated, offensive, or demeaning. That’s because it’s often used to stereotype countries as “poor,” “backward,” or “in need of saving.”

As global inequality became more visible, critics pointed out that:

• These terms are hierarchical, suggesting that one part of the world is more “advanced” than the rest.
• They are rooted in a Western view of development and ignore the history of colonialism, resource theft, and forced underdevelopment.
• The idea of “development” is often defined by the First World — who gets to decide what “developed” even means?

Source: Memo To People Of Earth: ‘Third World’ Is An Offensive Term!- NPR

“The Third World was not a place. It was a project.”
— Vijay Prashad, author of The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World

• This quote reminds us that the Third World was never just a label for “poor countries.” For many formerly colonized and colonized peoples, it represented a global movement for:
  • Liberation from colonialism and imperial domination
  • Economic sovereignty and independence from Global North powers
  • Solidarity among countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean
• Think of the Bandung Conference (1955), where leaders from 29 African and Asian nations gathered to support anti-colonial struggles and chart an independent path, without the influence of either the U.S. or USSR. Think of leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Frantz Fanon, who spoke of Third Worldism as a political and cultural rebellion against empire.
• The Third World was a dream of unity, of building a different future, not dominated by Western capitalism or Soviet-style communism, but by the people who had been oppressed.

Hyperlink to more on the Third World Project

Journal Reflection Idea:

• Is your vision of a “better life” rooted in community? sustainability? Creativity?

• Prompt: If development didn’t mean ‘catching up’ with the West, what could it mean instead

---

Measuring Development & the Myth of Underdevelopment

Whose progress are we measuring? Whose values are embedded in these indicators? And what stories are these metrics leaving out?

What Counts as ‘Development’? Conventional Measures

• Definition: The total dollar value of all goods and services produced in a country over a specific time period. Often used to measure a country’s economic “health.”
• Critical Inquiry:
  • If GDP is growing, does that mean people are better off?
  • Who benefits from GDP growth—and who might be left out?
  • Can a country have high GDP growth but also extreme poverty or inequality?
• Prompt: Think of a country with high GDP but high inequality (e.g., India, the U.S.). What does GDP hide?

Foreign Direct Investment

• Definition: Investment by a company or individual from one country into business interests in another country (e.g., building a factory, buying land, opening a mine). Seen as a sign of economic “attractiveness”
• Critical Inquiry:
  • Why is foreign investment seen as a good thing?
  • What happens when foreign companies extract resources or dominate local economies?
  • Can FDI actually make a country more dependent or less sovereign?
• Prompt: Would it be a success story if Starbucks opened 1,000 cafes in Ethiopia? Why or why not?

Industrial Output

• Definition: The total value of goods produced by factories (manufacturing, mining, energy). Often seen as a sign of modernization or development.
• Critical Inquiry:
  • Does more industrial production mean better lives for workers?
  • What kind of industries are being measured—extractive ones (like mining)?
  • What environmental or labor costs are left out of this metric?
• Example Prompt: “Should we see sweatshops in Bangladesh as a sign of ‘development’—or of global labor exploitation?”

Human Development Index (HDI)

• HDI was created to offer a more holistic measure of development than GDP alone by including life expectancy, education, and income. (Does not measure inequality, ecologoical damage, or whether people have power over their lives. A country can score high on HDI and still have deep poverty, racism, or political repression.)
• Critical Inquiry:
  • Does a longer life and more schooling always mean people are thriving?
  • Can a country be “highly developed” if most people don’t have a say in how society works?
  • Why aren’t measures like happiness, justice, or environmental health part of HDI?
  • Who decides what counts as a “better life”—and who gets left out?

The Myth of “Underdevelopment”

• The dominant story goes like this: the Global North developed first and now the Global South must “catch up.” But what if this story is backwards?
• Consider:
  • Many countries that are poor today were rich in resources and culture before colonization.
  • “Underdevelopment” was created by colonial extraction, not caused by internal failure.
  • Development policies often ignore local knowledge, community needs, and cultural contexts.

• Recommended Reading: “Myths of Underdevelopment” by Michael Parenti
  • Accompanying video for students (4 min):

---

The Debt Trap: The IMF, World Bank, and Structural Adjustment

Learning Objectives: By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

• Describe the origins and structure of the IMF and World Bank
• Critically analyze the causes and consequences of the global debt crisis
• Interrogate how development is defined, and by whom
• Explore the language used by international institutions and its real-world effects

What’s the IMF and the World Bank?

Origins: Bretton Woods Conference (1944)

After WWII, world leaders met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to build a new global economy. They created two major financial institutions:

• IMF (International Monetary Fund): gives short-term loans to countries in financial crisis
• World Bank (WB): funds infrastructure projects (like roads, dams, and ports)

The goal? Stabilize currencies, rebuild Europe, and promote international trade.

But Here’s the Catch:

• Most of the Global South was still colonized at the time and had no say in how these institutions were built.
• These institutions were designed by and for the richest countries, especially the U.S. and its allies.
• Voting power is based on how much money each country pays in, which means richer countries make the rules.

Power Structures: Who Decides What?

Discussion or Journal Prompt:

• Based on this chart/map, who seems to have the most control over the IMF?
• Should power in global institutions be based on money?

More to Know:

After the wave of independence in the 1950s–60s, many newly independent nations joined the IMF.

• In response, the IMF created an “Africa Department”—but decision-making still stayed in the hands of the richest nations.
• This is why critics argue these institutions were never meant to serve the Global South—they were meant to stabilize and extend Global North economic power.

Voting power in IMF is based on how much a country pays in. The U.S. holds ~17% alone—enough to veto major decisions.

The Volcker Shock and Latin America’s Debt Crisis

• In 1979, Paul Volcker (appointed by Carter, continued under Reagan) raised U.S. interest rates to extreme levels to curb inflation. This move, called the Volcker Shock, triggered global economic pain:
  • Global South countries had taken on debt in the 1970s, often at low interest rates from U.S. banks flush with oil profits.
  • When interest rates soared, debt payments skyrocketed. Many countries, especially in Latin America, couldn’t pay back their loans.
  • This triggered the Latin American Debt Crisis, starting with Mexico in 1982.
• After Mexico fell into serious debt, creating a domino affect across Latin America, the IMF conducted what they called the “Silent revolution”, where they began to take on a more active role in controlling debt and dictating policy in the Global South.

Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS)

• In exchange for bailout loans (with low interest rates) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, countries were forced to adopt Structural Adjustment Programs—sets of neoliberal reforms that mirror Reaganomics
• Typical Conditions include:
  • Privatization of state industries
  • Deregulation of markets
  • Austerity: cuts to education, health, subsidies
  • Currency devaluation
  • Trade liberalization (elimination of tariffs, opening to MNCs)

Student Prompts:

• What did you notice about how the IMF rules affect local farmers or workers?
• What emotions or reactions did the video provoke?

Case Study: Thomas Sankara’s Speech Against Debt

Sankara talks about debt and sovereignty. He rejects foreign loans and external interference, calling for African self-sufficiency. This can be used to describe how debt is used to maintain global power dynamics.

Guiding questions for discussion:

• Why does Sankara reject paying debts?
• What does he mean when he says that “debt is a cleverly managed, organized reconquest of Africa”?
• Who benefits when countries like Burkina Faso accept loans? Who loses?
• What does debt have to do with sovereignty?

Ask students to write down one line from the speech that stood out to them, then share with a partner or small group.

Instructor Note: Great introduction to post-colonial critiques of debt.

The Debt Trap: How It Works

• Many poorer countries around the world are stuck in a cycle of debt that makes it nearly impossible to grow their economies or improve life for their people. This is most commonly known as a “debt trap.”
• This is how it works:

1. Starting in Debt:
   • Poorer countries often need to borrow money to build schools, roads, hospitals, and other important things. They might also borrow to invest in industries like mining or oil.
   • But here’s the problem:
     • These countries often don’t have enough of their own money to spend, partly because wealth was stolen during colonialism.
     • So, they rely on loans from rich countries or big financial institutions.
2. The IMF Steps In
   • When these countries can’t pay their debts, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) offers new loans — but only if they follow certain rules.
   • These rules usually include:
     • Cutting government spending (especially for things like education, health care, and food programs).
     • Making debt payments to wealthy countries and banks is the top priority.
   • This means: Paying foreign lenders becomes more important than helping their own people.
3. The cuts Hurt People
   • When governments cut spending:
     • Schools and hospitals lose funding.
     • Wages drop, unemployment rises, and people struggle more.
   • To earn money, countries are told to:
     • Sell off natural resources (like oil, copper, or bananas)
     • Export more raw materials instead of building industries to make finished products.
   • But when many countries do this at once, prices fall… it’s like a race to the bottom.
4. Lower Profits, More Debt
   • Because the prices of raw materials go down, these countries earn even less money,
   • So what do they do?
     • They borrow more money— just to pay off the interest on the money they already owe.
     • They are forced to sell off public assets like water systems, power plants, or farmland — often to foreign companies.
5. Trapped
   • Countries in debt can’t change things easily. The IMF demands:
     • Stable currency exchange rates limit what countries can do with their own money.
     • No raising taxes on the rich or foreign companies.
     • Balanced budgets which means more cuts and less investment.

• The debt spiral is a trap. It forces poor countries to keep paying rich countries, while cutting support for their own people— keeping the global economy unequal.
  • A report from 2019 found that 25 countries spent more on repaying debts rather than on education, social protection, and health combined. And 16 of these countries were on the African continent.

Critical Questions:

• Do you think rich countries or institutions should cancel the debt owed by poorer countries? Why or why not?
• Can a country ever truly develop while stuck in a debt cycle? What needs to change?

• Who decides what “development” looks like for a country?
• What would a “fair” system for helping countries in crisis look like?
• Should loans ever come with conditions? Who should set them?

---

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – Hope or Hype?

Critical Questions :

• Are the SDGs genuinely transformative—or do they reinforce the status quo?
• What kind of world do the SDGs imagine—and what kind do they ignore?
• Who has the power to set development priorities? Who doesn’t?
• Can inequality be solved without challenging capitalism, imperialism, or extraction?
• What alternatives to the SDGs exist? What would grassroots or socialist development look like?

[mini lesson & project coming soon]

Next Lesson: A Short History of Free Trade