"You must either be very numb or very rich if you fail to notice that Development stinks" Gutavo Esteva (1987:135). Assess the challenge of Post-development theory to mainstream development paradigms

Authors Avatar

“You must either be very numb or very rich if you fail to notice that Development stinks” Gutavo Esteva (1987:135).  Assess the challenge of Post-development theory to mainstream development paradigms

The rise of Post-development theory in the late 1980’s through to the 1990’s advocated by scholars across the globe (Sachs, Escobar, Esteva,  Shiva and Illich – to name but a few) brought to the fore more radical interpretations and critiques of mainstream development paradigms.  The post-development theorists set about a brutal yet arguably necessary attack upon current development practices and theories claiming to uncover some of the hidden truths behind the ‘Western’ development project, as Esteva states ‘The time has come to unveil the secret of development and see it in all its conceptual starkness’ (1992:7).  Post-development embarked on a complete rejection of current development practice naming it a failure in every sense.  However, others were sceptical, many believing that such a position was unnecessary and indeed unhelpful in terms of suggesting development alternatives, as Nederveen-Pieterse writes ‘Post-development is caught in a rhetorical gridlock.  Using discourse analysis as an ideological platform invites political impasse and quietism. In the end post-development offers no politics besides the self-organising capacity of the poor, which actually lets the development responsibility of the states and international institutions off the hook’ (2000: 187).  Under such stark criticism the question often posed is what real challenge does post-development theory have to offer to the wider debate and reality of the development situation, if all it appears to be is semantic hot air?  

        This paper will discuss in detail this very point, arguing that despite its at times, extreme radical view points, post-development has much to offer in terms of challenging our neoclassical interpretations and understanding of mainstream development theory.  An initial overview will be given of the progression of development over the last four decades, highlighting the rise of post-development theory in the 1980’s through to the 1990’s.  Following this, an in-depth assessment of the challenges posed to mainstream development by post-development will be given stressing the complexities associated with such challenges.  Case studies and critique will be apparent throughout.

Post-development theory grew out of a huge sense of dissatisfaction and disillusion with the way mainstream development theory was both constructed and operated.  Such mainstream development has been seen as intrinsically linked to Neoliberal policies of economic reform and a dominant western understanding of how countries should progress and grow along the same teleological path as Western societies, the end goal of which being modernization and industrialisation.  Mainstream development appeared to be constructed of a single, monolithic and imperialist vision of progress and planning as Escobar notes ‘…the idea that poor countries could move more or less smoothly along the path of progress through planning has always been held as an indubitable truth’ (1992:64).  Post-development thinkers date the beginning of mainstream development to 1949 when President Truman made his famous speech, during which as Esteva believes, two billion people became burdened with the label ‘underdeveloped’ (1992:7).  Since that date development theory and practice has moved hap-hazardly through the decades along various initiatives and practices led by Western International Financial Institutions, development professionals and agencies.  Development aims and goals were headed up by a number of schools of thought including the structuralists and dependency theorists of the 1960’s, the modernisation and basic needs approaches of the 70’s, through to the Neoliberal structural adjustment programmes of the 1980’s (the so-called lost decade of development).  The 1990’s and into the 21st century, against the backdrop of the growing Globalisation phenomena, have heralded what is being called a more alternative and participatory approach to development theory and practice, based on a more human development and rights based approach.  Scholars such as Robert Chambers have brought to the fore the importance of participatory methods to the development field, advocating methods such as PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) which places  a greater emphasis on the role of local people in defining and solving their ‘development problems’, a realisation ‘that villagers have a greater capacity to map, model, observe, quantify, estimate, compare, rank, score and diagram than outsiders have generally supposed them capable of’ (1994:1255).  Despite these  efforts to give development a human face many argue that such forms of so-called ‘alternative development’ remain undistinguishable from the mainstream and have arguably merged, ‘The problem is that there is no clear line of demarcation between mainstream and alternative – alternatives are co-opted and yesterdays alternatives are today’s institutions’ (Nederveen Pieterse.  1998:349).   As development has crawled through the 1990’s and into 2000 the gusto and courage of the post-development thinkers  has merely been fuelled. Not happy with mainstream development or the alternatives it offers, post-development poses the ultimate challenge, to find not an alternative development rather an alternative too development. With its provocative statements and voice of certitude post-development challenges every development workers mind.  The following discussion will draw out some of the key challenges posed by post-development including case studies and examples of development failure.  Critique of these challenges will be given throughout.

Join now!

The collapse of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit held in September 2003 in Cancun marked a significant moment in time and provided a stark reminder that mainstream development is not working.  At the summit unfair trade rules were met with resistance from more than 71 developing nations who refused to accept the forced agenda set by the rich nations. The result : the collapse of the talks.  The failure of the rich nations to accept and negotiate resistance and the subsequent abandonment of the summit, marks what so commonly occurs within such “agreements”, that of ‘Our way, or ...

This is a preview of the whole essay