If development studies means anything it presumably means the study of those countries which have a past in common, if not a common past – I refer to the history of colonialism and post-colonialism – and which can only reasonably be understood in relation to the so-called developed countries.
(Corbridge 1995: x–xi)
In this part we seek to introduce structural adjustment programmes in two ways. The first chapter is historical and demonstrates the ways in which SAPs represented one of the few viable alternatives open to developing countries in the face of economic crises. It also shows that these crises were neither inevitable nor due simply to ‘internal’ mismanagement, but part of a longer process which tied developed and developing countries into, sometimes exploitative, relation-ships. We have done this to give a context against which the political and economic ‘logic’ of SAPs was set as they sought to respond selectively to the causes of these interlocking crises. We say ‘selectively responded’ since the blame for these crises has usually been placed at the door of the governments of devel-oping countries for adopting ‘inappropriate’ policies rather than the global system which structures and constrains their economic and political position within it.
The second chapter introduces SAPs by setting out what actually constitutes an ‘average’ programme as well as explaining the lenders’ theoretical premises. We have done this since it underpins part II, in particular, which focuses upon the impacts. Most SAPs are built around a standard package of policy measures designed to address the balance-of-payments position and further integrate national economies into the world system. Given that we analyse their impacts in subsequent chapters, it is vital that the reader knows what each policy aims to do and how it interacts with, and sometimes contradicts, other policy measures. The chapter also shows the economic reasoning behind these policies which is firmly rooted in neo-classical thought. The chapter concludes with a critique of these theoretical models, at the level of theory, while the following part criticises their articulation in practice.