THE DIFFUSION THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
The traditional theory of development equated development with modernization, with developed- or modern-state refering to the accumulation of capital in concentrated
productive stock structured toward the industrial process and exchange economy. The benefits of such concentration are to 'trickle-down'
and influence the entire social system. The traditional systems would lose their power as the modernizing processes assmilated
more and more of the resident populations: differentiating social activities, specializing economic functions, and offering contractual
dominate - subordinate relations. The term 'diffusion', also 'from-above' has been applied to this dissemination of development.
It was based on twin assumptions of the system's benevolence and stability. It was considered to be both orderly and evolutionary.
There were many terms used in describing the processes expected, most having synonomous implications.
Hirschman (1958) suggested that key sectors be chosen for investment which had the most value on the basis of
'backward- and 'forward-linkages' within the input-output model. This form of concentrated investment would allow the
greatest return for public capital and managerial skills. Private capital was then invited to balance the input-output matrix,
seizing on external economies and market demand. Furthering the concept of concentrated investment, the growth-pole concept--
which envisioned a 'spatial diffusion' of economic growth-- was introduced. There would be a 'filtering' of innovations down the urban
hierarchy, as well as a 'spreading' of economic benefits from urban center to hinterland areas (Berry, 1972).
The economic cores are central to a nested hierarchy of spatial systems
(Hansen, 1981).
Through communication and transportation, political administration and market monopolization,
the dominance of the center over the periphery was cumulative. Within the formal rationality,
it appeared the only way of articulating the development process and integrating the periphery into the market economy.
Outside this formal rationality, we might expect some dissension which came from the sociological perspective.