Royal African Society

Review
Author(s): Paul Nugent
Review by: Paul Nugent
Source: African Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 338 (Jan., 1986), pp. 147-148
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/722233
Accessed: 23-01-2016 04:38 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal African Society and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
African Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 04:38:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

147

Significantly,when Wheatcroftfindshimselfon thin ice, he skatesfast andwrites

statementsthat, for example,Africanresentmentat their positionin contemporary
South Africa is really rather '. . . ambiguous. They want to be rid of white
supremacyand yet they want to go on enjoyingthe benefits of a rich industrial
society. Soweto is not merely a grim compound: it is the most prosperous
blackAfricancity anywhere. This explainsthe continuingfailureof the African
Nationalist [sic] Congress. . to stir up the blacks' (p. 268). Not only is
the thought of Soweto as 'prosperous' indefensible nonsense, present-day
developmentsin South Africagive the resoundinglie to Wheatcroft'sviews on the
ANC.
Instituteof Commonzvealth
Studies,
London
JEAN
JACQUES
VANHELTEN

What Is Political Economy? A Study of Social Theory and

Underdevelopment, by Martin Staniland. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven
and London, 1985. xi + 229 pp. ISBN 0-300-03295-1. ,618 50 in UK.
As Stanilandbegins by noting, almost every other book these days carriesthe
term 'politicaleconomy'in the title or sub-title. Often nothing specificis meant
by this, but usually it is intended to convey the idea that the book in question
hopes to show in some way an interplaybetweeneconomicand politicalprocesses.
Stanilandarguesthat, in spite of sometimesbeing accordedthe statusof a theory,
politicaleconomyis reallyonly a broadfield in which opposingtheoreticalschools
compete. WhatIs PoliticalEconomy?,
then, is an explorationof how some of these
quite differentschools cope with the same problemof depicting the relationship
between economics and politics, ranging from theories that are deterministicto
those that are interactive. It covers neo-classicaleconomicsand the attemptsto
apply its assumptions to political behaviour; counter-theory reasserting the
primacy of politics; theories of internationalpolitical economy; and Marxism.
This considerationtogetherof theoriesthatareoften so at odds as regardsconcepts,
methodologyand valuesas to miss any point of contact,is largelywhat makesthis
bookso appealing. Inevitablyin a bookwith this breadthof focus, whatthe author
says about the content of the theoriesis fairly schematicand some of the critiques
aresecond-hand,but the resultis as lucid andaccurateas one couldhope for.
A dominanttheme of the book is the quite differentexpectationsand development of theory in Western centres of learning and the Third World. In the
developed countries, Stanilandargues, theoreticaldebate has tended to produce
more complex interactive theories. Thus, neo-classical economics has been
criticizedon the grounds that the Adam Smithian stress on the primacyof the
individualand the marketbearslittle relevancein the modernworld of largecorporationsandincreasingstateinterventionism,but criticshavemerelyattemptedto
incorporatepower relationships none has apparentlygone so far as to write a
theory of political determinism. Theories that evolve in a Third World context,
by contrast,tend towardsa greaterdegree of determinism,as manifestedin the
growth of dependencytheory. Stanilanddoes not really attemptto explain why
this shouldbe so, althoughpresumablythe idea is that Third Worldacademicsare
on the whole as much concerned to change the world as to describe it. The
divergentdemandsof Third World theory resurfacein Staniland'sdiscussionof
Marxism. WithinWesternMarxism,dissatisfactionwith the instrumentalistview
of politicsin the classicaltraditionhas led to an assertionof the relativeautonomyof

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 04:38:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

AFRICANAFFAIRS

the state and a more complex accountof economic and politicalprocesses. But
within a Third World context, the further issue of the relationshipbetween
domesticand externalforces is raised. While some have adheredto the logic of
orthodoxMarxismand have portrayeddomesticpoliticalforcesas merelya reflection of the demandsof internationalcapital,Third World intellectualshave often
soughta theorythat gives some role to domesticclasses. The result,accordingto
Staniland,is that works such as that of Shivji are often an inversionof Marxist
analysis,vergingon politicism.
All of this gives plenty of food for thought,but one feels slightly cheatedby the
conclusionto the book. Having led his readerson a great trek through theory,
Stanilandleavesthemwith the followingproposition:as long as thereis a varietyof
cultures,therewill be a varietyof theories,and becausethese will containa variety
of valuesand assumptions,one can criticizethe theoriesbut never choosebetween
them. The readermight be excusedfor wonderinghow culturalvarietyhas stolen
centre-stagewhen, if anything,the book shows the strongestcorrelationbetween
theory and levels of development,which cuts across culture. Similarly,a new
book by Blomstromand Hettne (DevelopmentTheoryin Transition)shows how
qulte slmllarviews on dependencyhave emergedacrossthe Third World, sometimes independently. Secondly, it is difficultto see why underlyingvalues and
assumptionsshouldinsulatetheory. Marxismhas a strongvalue content,but the
validityof its analysis(and its values) can surely be assessed in the light of how
successfullyit copes with reality. It is true of course that no single theory has
managedto do justiceto all the complexitiesof humansociety but this is another
argument, besides which there is a clear distinction between theory that is
inherentlylimited (one thinks of 'public choice') and theory that possesses the
concepts but has not masteredthe equation. In spite of this, What Is Political
Ecorlomy?
will be of interestto a wide audience,not leastto Africanistswho will find
manyfamiliardebatesset in the contextof the problematicof the book.
Schoolof OrientalandAfricanStudies,
London
PAUL
NUGENT
.

And Night Fell, by Molefe Pheto. London, Allison and Busby, 1983. 218
PP

?8 95

It says somethingfor the impactthat this book has had that it has alreadybeen
snappedup as a paperbaekby the HeinemannAfricanWriters Series (No. 258,
1985)withintwo yearsof its originalpublieation. This will no doubtgive it wider
eireulationbut the originalLondon publishers,Allison and Busby, are to be eongratulatedfor reeognizingdistinetionin what could easily have been a predietable
catalogueof poliee brutality. Just as too many images of starvingchildren or
urbanviolenceean numb the averagetelevisionviewer'ssensibilityso, regrettably
but it wouldbe wrongnot to admitit, thepraeticedreaderof SouthAfricanliterature
and watcherof South Afrieanplays can be over-exposedto the chillinglyeandid
prisoneell interrogationor the screamof agonyas the eleetrodesare appliedto the
testicles. These are ignoblereflectionsbut I believethem to be true. We can all
build up a resistanceto humansuffering.
It is thereforewith a sense of debt to Molefe Pheto that I reviewAndNight Fell,
for he re-awakensin me, and I am surein all his readers,a senseof immediacyat the
horrorof South Africa'sofficialrepression. His book is sub-titled'Memoirsof a
PoliticalPrisonerin South Africa'. It is a recordof 281 days spent in detention

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 04:38:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions