Which of the following explains a weakness in Rostows Stages of Economic Growth Model?

Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep

Yearly Plan

• Access everything in the JPASS collection
• Read the full-text of every article
• Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep

Log in through your institution

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $10.00 USD.

How does it work?

1. Select the purchase option.
2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

journal article

Econometrica

Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1964)

, pp. 619-648 (30 pages)

Published By: The Econometric Society

https://doi.org/10.2307/1910181

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1910181

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Alternate access options

For independent researchers

Read Online

Read 100 articles/month free

Subscribe to JPASS

Unlimited reading + 10 downloads

Purchase article

$10.00 - Download now and later

Abstract

This paper gives a non-linear growth model, which explains the development of an economy through stages somewhat similar to the Rostovian stages. Non-linearity is introduced by including the inaugmentable factor of land or natural resources in the production function along with labor and capital, and by recognizing that net saving is not a linear homogeneous function of income alone, but might be affected by the distribution of income and the interest rate and tends to be negative when per capita income is very low. Furthermore, population growth is assumed to follow a Neo-Malthusian pattern. The effects of non-neutral as well as neutral technical progress are discussed in this paper.

Journal Information

Econometrica publishes original articles in all branches of economics - theoretical and empirical, abstract and applied, providing wide-ranging coverage across the subject area. It promotes studies that aim at the unification of the theoretical-quantitative and the empirical-quantitative approach to economic problems and that are penetrated by constructive and rigorous thinking. It explores a unique range of topics each year - from the frontier of theoretical developments in many new and important areas, to research on current and applied economic problems, to methodologically innovative, theoretical and applied studies in econometrics.

Publisher Information

The Econometric Society is an international society for the advancement of economic theory in its relation to statistics and mathematics.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Econometrica © 1964 The Econometric Society
Request Permissions

Geographers often seek to categorize places using a scale of development, frequently dividing nations into the "developed" and "developing," "first world" and "third world," or "core" and "periphery." All of these labels are based on judging a country's development, but this raises the question: What exactly does it mean to be "developed," and why have some countries developed while others have not? Since the beginning of the 20th century, geographers and those involved with the vast field of Development Studies have sought to answer this question, and in the process, have come up with many different models to explain this phenomenon.

W.W. Rostow and the Stages of Economic Growth

One of the key thinkers in 20th-century Development Studies was W.W. Rostow, an American economist and government official. Prior to Rostow, approaches to development had been based on the assumption that "modernization" was characterized by the Western world (wealthier, more powerful countries at the time), which were able to advance from the initial stages of underdevelopment. Accordingly, other countries should model themselves after the West, aspiring to a "modern" state of capitalism and liberal democracy. Using these ideas, Rostow penned his classic "Stages of Economic Growth" in 1960, which presented five steps through which all countries must pass to become developed: 1) traditional society, 2) preconditions to take-off, 3) take-off, 4) drive to maturity and 5) age of high mass consumption. The model asserted that all countries exist somewhere on this linear spectrum, and climb upward through each stage in the development process:

• Traditional Society: This stage is characterized by a subsistent, agricultural-based economy with intensive labor and low levels of trading, and a population that does not have a scientific perspective on the world and technology.
• Preconditions to Take-off: Here, a society begins to develop manufacturing and a more national/international—as opposed to regional—outlook.
• Take-off: Rostow describes this stage as a short period of intensive growth, in which industrialization begins to occur, and workers and institutions become concentrated around a new industry.
• Drive to Maturity: This stage takes place over a long period of time, as standards of living rise, the use of technology increases, and the national economy grows and diversifies.
• Age of High Mass Consumption: At the time of writing, Rostow believed that Western countries, most notably the United States, occupied this last "developed" stage. Here, a country's economy flourishes in a capitalist system, characterized by mass production and consumerism.

Rostow's Model in Context

Rostow's Stages of Growth model is one of the most influential development theories of the 20th century. It was, however, also grounded in the historical and political context in which he wrote. "Stages of Economic Growth" was published in 1960, at the height of the Cold War, and with the subtitle "A Non-Communist Manifesto," it was overtly political. Rostow was fiercely anti-communist and right-wing; he modeled his theory after western capitalist countries, which had industrialized and urbanized. As a staff member in President John F. Kennedy's administration, Rostow promoted his development model as part of U.S. foreign policy. Rostow's model illustrates a desire not only to assist lower-income countries in the development process but also to assert the United States' influence over that of communist Russia.

Stages of Economic Growth in Practice: Singapore

Industrialization, urbanization, and trade in the vein of Rostow's model are still seen by many as a roadmap for a country's development. Singapore is one of the best examples of a country that grew in this way and is now a notable player in the global economy. Singapore is a southeast Asian country with a population of over 5 million, and when it became independent in 1965, it did not seem to have any exceptional prospects for growth. However, it industrialized early, developing profitable manufacturing and high-tech industries. Singapore is now highly urbanized, with 100% of the population considered "urban." It is one of the most sought-after trade partners in the international market, with a higher per-capita income than many European countries.

Criticisms of Rostow's Model

As the Singapore case shows, Rostow's model still sheds light on a successful path to economic development for some countries. However, there are many criticisms of his model. While Rostow illustrates faith in a capitalist system, scholars have criticized his bias towards a western model as the only path towards development. Rostow lays out five succinct steps towards development and critics have cited that all countries do not develop in such a linear fashion; some skip steps or take different paths. Rostow's theory can be classified as "top-down," or one that emphasizes a trickle-down modernization effect from urban industry and western influence to develop a country as a whole. Later theorists have challenged this approach, emphasizing a "bottom-up" development paradigm, in which countries become self-sufficient through local efforts, and urban industry is not necessary. Rostow also assumes that all countries have a desire to develop in the same way, with the end goal of high mass consumption, disregarding the diversity of priorities that each society holds and different measures of development. For example, while Singapore is one of the most economically prosperous countries, it also has one of the highest income disparities in the world. Finally, Rostow disregards one of the most fundamental geographical principals: site and situation. Rostow assumes that all countries have an equal chance to develop, without regard to population size, natural resources, or location. Singapore, for instance, has one of the world's busiest trading ports, but this would not be possible without its advantageous geography as an island nation between Indonesia and Malaysia.

In spite of the many critiques of Rostow's model, it is still one of the most widely cited development theories and is a primary example of the intersection of geography, economics, and politics.

Additional References:

Binns, Tony, et al. Geographies of Development: An Introduction to Development Studies, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2008.

What is a weakness in Rostow's Stages of Economic Growth Model?

What are the 5 stages of the Rostow model?

What is Rostow's model concerned with?