Abstract
This term paper examines contemporary global development paradigms for assessing post-development theory and practice. According to post-development theorists, modernization and economic expansion give rise to ethnocentrism, cultural imperialism, and a limited emphasis on economic indicators. This study explores the fundamental principles and many approaches of post-development critique.
The investigation starts by presenting the key arguments put up by post-development theorists against top-down, Western-centric systems. The reactions above underscore the need to comprehend the multifaceted nature of group experiences, requirements, and ambitions in designing development endeavours. The present study examines the contextualized and regionally influenced approaches and reassessment of success by post-development theorists.
This study investigates the feasibility and ethical considerations of post-development theory to advance the discourse around development. The social and community implications of alternative methodologies will be assessed by examining empirical instances. This study examines several approaches to discern the advantages and disadvantages of a post-development framework.
The primary objective of this essay is to enhance understanding of the intricacies surrounding development and culture through a comprehensive examination of post-development philosophy from a critical perspective. This study aims to provide a broad perspective on development that acknowledges and appreciates human civilizations’ diverse nature and circumstances. This will be achieved by critically examining prevailing narratives and scrutinizing the assumption of development routes being universally applicable.
Introduction.
The questioning of the fundamental assumptions and methodologies of conventional development paradigms by researchers, activists, and practitioners emerged throughout the transition to the twentieth century, reshaping the discourse on development. This paradigm change gave rise to post-development thinking, a critical framework for evaluating conventional development approaches’ shortcomings and unintended consequences. To better comprehend development and prosperity amongst contemporary global socioeconomic challenges, this scholarly study examines the principal arguments and possible remedies by post-development critique.
The critical and multidisciplinary approach of the Post-Development School of Thought is applied to the study and practice of development. This school of thought criticizes the Western-centric assumptions dominating global development operations in reaction to traditional development theories’ alleged inadequacies and ethnocentrism. According to the post-development school of thought, development is inherently racist and often forces a uniform route of growth on culturally diverse countries. Instead, it advocates for a development strategy that considers local knowledge, values, and aspirations and is open and participatory.
Scholars who study the aftermath of development have raised concerns that expert-led, top-down development initiatives might have a negative impact on local cultures and encourage cultural imperialism. The basic tenets of this school of thought include rethinking power dynamics and giving communities more autonomy over their own economic and social development. Other progress indicators outside GDP growth should be considered more seriously. The Post-Development School of Thought values individuality and opposes a universal progress model. This paradigm, including ideas like “universality,” questions conventional wisdom based on the West by proposing an alternative model of social evolution.
For a considerable period, global policies and activities have been influenced by the conventional development paradigm centred on modernization, economic growth, and technical advancement. In the post-development age, there exists a perspective held by some individuals that posits the underpinnings of development theory to be rooted in ethnocentrism, cultural imperialism, and an undue emphasis on economic indicators. This analysis will examine the main arguments put out by post-development scholars against the deficiencies of Western-led development attempts that neglect to consider local circumstances and desires for advancement.
Post-development theorists argue that to address the criticisms of traditional development theories, it is necessary to customize interventions according to specific settings and empower local actors to carry them out. This paper will undertake an analysis of alternative techniques that post-development theorists have promoted. These approaches include grass-roots movements, participatory methodologies, and reevaluating the concept of progress. We aim to critically examine linear progress by researching post-development philosophy better to understand the intricate interplay between development and culture.
The project will additionally examine empirical cases to assess the impact of post-development thinking on local communities and identities. This analytical investigation aims to address the ethical and practical capacity of post-developmental thought in effectively managing the intricate challenges of the global society.
In our investigation of post-development criticism, we aim to uncover the underlying assumptions that have influenced development discourse in recent decades. This study aims to critically examine the fundamental arguments and alternative perspectives of post-development theory, stimulate scholarly investigation into the concept of progress, and challenge the prevailing normative narratives that have traditionally guided worldwide development efforts.
Historical Overview of Post-Development.
During the 1980s, several academics and activists opposed the term “development” and its associated practices without necessarily advocating for a different approach. Many writers, including Ivan Illich, Foucault, Gandhi, Polanyi, and others, came together to write the Development Dictionary (Sachs, 1992a), the first of three books often held up as emblematic of post-development. It was argued that the ecological crisis rendered the industrial model of society obsolete, that the project of development, which had been an instrument in the Cold War, was bound to exhaust itself after 1989, that the development era had not led to a process of catching up for most of the ‘developing world’ but to a widening gap between rich and poor countries, and that ‘development’ was itself obsolete.
The ‘bold new program’ unveiled by US President Truman on January 20, 1949, classified Africa, Asia, and Latin America as ‘underdeveloped regions’ in need of ‘development.’ This was often cited as the ‘creation of underdevelopment’ by post-development opponents. Secondly, Escobar’s Encountering Development was an important book in which he argued that “the development discourse… has created an extremely efficient apparatus for producing knowledge about, and the exercise of power over, the Third World” (Escobar 1995: 9). According to him, many alternative approaches to development could only criticize mainstream development policy within the confines of this discourse since it was the only one available to them. In addition, Escobar provided a framework for what would become known as the “post-development school of thought.”
The Post-Development Reader (Rahnema with Bawtree, 1997) is the third book cited as crucial to school formation. Here, development was seen as a “threat to people’s autonomy,” in the words of Ivan Illich (quoted in Raheema 1997a:9). The editor’s key argument was that development, as it was forced on its “target populations,” was fundamentally the incorrect response to the needs and ambitions of those people. It was an ideology that originated and developed in the North, primarily to serve the needs of the dominant powers looking for a more ‘appropriate’ tool for their economic and geopolitical expansion. This ideology helped a fading and outmoded form of colonialism transform into an aggressive and, at times, appealing tool that could reclaim lost territory. Every development project has subtly but unmistakably communicated to the locals that they are condemned to a lower state of existence due to how they have always lived, thought, and acted.
Therefore, a new justification was required for the post-development period to come, one that may be influenced by vernacular cultures’ even if the goal was not to revert to an unchanging state of nature’ When progress stops, it does not mean we stop looking for ways to improve. All this should signify is the end of the two-track, mechanical, reductionist, cruel, and ultimately counterproductive method of approaching transformation. Specifically, (Rahnema, 1997b, p. 391) Grassroots movements, urban and rural local communities, and the informal sector are where the ‘alternatives to development’ proposed by post-development writers may be found. They argue that new social structures were forming as a response to the failure of development, with distinctive views on the economy (solidarity and reciprocity rather than homo oeconomicus and the global market), politics (direct democracy rather than centralized authorities), and knowledge (traditional knowledge systems rather than modern science). It was typical for ‘traditional” and” and”‘ and modern features to combine or “hybridized.”
Primary arguments of the Post-Development School of thought.
Development Discourse and Cultural Imperialism.
The post-development criticism argues that development endeavours often perpetuate cultural imperialism. The predominant focus on Western-centric perspectives within development initiatives can erode indigenous cultures and enforce unfamiliar standards. Sachs (1992) posits that the global diversity of cultures is now in danger due to ongoing endeavours aimed at standardization. Post-developmental attitudes prioritize recognizing and appreciating local knowledge and values while actively engaging communities in development activities.
Rejection of Universal Metrics of Progress.
The notion of “post-development” engenders skepticism about the significance of GDP growth as a metric for gauging progress. In their study, Esteva and Prakash (1998) analyze the concept of development through the lenses of society, culture, and the environment. The need to use locally tailored indicators of well-being is underscored, leading to the dismissal of universal measures (Esteva & Prakash, 1998; Escobar, 2012). This paradigm promotes using other measures to evaluate development outcomes, surpassing relying only on GDP growth.
Critique of Eurocentrism and Modernization.
The post-development theoretical approach posits that the development paradigm rooted in modernization theory constrains countries within a linear trajectory. The perspective mentioned above, which sets a linear progression from traditional to innovative, puts significant value on Western paradigms. The modernization paradigm, rooted in a Eurocentric viewpoint, challenges Western concepts’ universal applicability and emphasizes cultural diversity’s importance (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997). Post-development theorists assert that it is essential for development plans to consider local cultures, histories, and values.
Power Dynamics and Expert-Led Interventions.
Scholars investigating post-development phenomena bring forward the issue of power asymmetry inherent in conventional development approaches, namely those that are driven by experts and follow a top-down trajectory. According to Escobar (1995), the use of these strategies results in the marginalization of local populations since their expertise and agency in decision-making processes are disregarded. The involvement of communities in the design and execution of projects has been advocated by scholars such as Escobar (1995) and Chambers (1997), as shown by the findings of post-development assessments. This transition facilitates the advancement of power parity and diminishes the paternalistic nature of traditional development approaches.
Alternative Visions of Development.
Post-development theory is distinguished by its focus on alternate possibilities for the future of development. The concept of “universality,” as articulated by Escobar (2012), encompasses a diverse range of realities and forms of knowing. The statement questions the idea of a standardized approach to progress and instead advocates for contextually suitable tactics that protect indigenous knowledge systems (Escobar, 2012; Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997). Post-development theorists advocate endorsing various development models considering local communities’ specific requirements and ambitions.
Critiques to the Post-Development Thought.
Despite challenging the traditional understanding of development, the Post-Development school of thought is not immune to criticism. It is essential to critically analyze these criticisms to identify the limitations and areas for future advancement within the discourse.
Ambiguity and Lack of Prescriptive Guidance
While the post-development paradigm effectively analyzes conventional methodologies, critics contend it lacks apparent, prescriptive alternatives. The absence of relevant guidance for policymakers and practitioners results from prioritizing context-specificity and rejecting universal frameworks (Rist, 2007). The presence of skepticism leads to inquiries about the efficacy and feasibility of post-development concepts.
Practical Implementation Challenges
There exists a perception among some individuals that the implementation of post-development concepts poses a considerable challenge. The effectiveness of participatory initiatives and locally driven activities might be impeded by governance frameworks, power dynamics, and institutional capacities (Long, 2001). This criticism sheds light on the intricacies of decentralized decision-making and alternative growth methods within various sociological and political settings.
Essentialism and Homogenization Concerns
The critique of post-development philosophy mainly revolves around its essentialist tendencies and its emphasis on homogeneity. Cultures and communities are often seen as unchangeable and essentialized constructs, a perspective influenced by the post-development paradigm’s rejection of universal measures and its focus on context-specific factors (Pieterse, 1998). This argument highlights the potential dangers of excessive simplification and insufficient consideration of the nuances inherent in local circumstances while addressing multifaceted societal concerns.
Neglect of Economic Realities
The post-development school has faced criticism for undervaluing the capacity of economic progress to enhance the living conditions of impoverished populations. Critics argue that considering cultural, social, and environmental concerns alone may result in neglecting the financial demands of disadvantaged individuals (Sachs, 2005). This raises doubts over the ability of post-development frameworks to address the pressing economic needs of marginalized groups.
Risk of Idealizing Traditional Practices
The post-development school has been shown to idealize traditional ways of life, condemning them when they sustain inequality or slow progress (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Critics argue that an unquestioning admiration of local knowledge often hides the need to analyze and change cultural practices that may damage women and vulnerable communities.
Alternative Proposals of Post-Development School of Thought.
Post-development theorists claim that a critical reassessment of prevailing methodologies in international development is required. These ideas emphasize the need to develop a comprehensive awareness of other cultures, engage in collective decision-making processes, and refrain from imposing universal norms. The ideas mentioned above demonstrate the intentions of post-development theorists to promote a more egalitarian and contextually sensitive approach to development.
Diverse Metrics of Progress.
Post-development theorists contend that the measurement of development should not be limited to GDP growth alone. Esteva and Prakash (1998) advocate the reevaluation of action considering social, cultural, and environmental variables. This alternative viewpoint critiques Western-derived metrics such as GDP, advocating for context-specific assessments of success based on geographical and cultural factors. The concept of post-development aims to expand the notion of success beyond financial prosperity, acknowledging the many dimensions of human contentment.
Cultural Sensitivity and Localization.
Post-development theory emphasizes the need for contextualization and cultural awareness. According to Escobar (1995), proponents of post-development theory believe that progress should be grounded in societies’ pre-existing norms and cultural context. The development process does not rely on the imposition foreign models upon a nation but instead on integrating local skills and knowledge. This concept advocates for a more profound and discerning involvement with diverse cultural settings in response to the prevailing inclination towards uniformity within mainstream development.
Participatory Development
The post-development agenda places a premium on citizen participation in development. Chambers (1997) argues that everyone living where a development intervention is planned should have a say. This necessitates a shift from expert-driven, top-down paradigms to bottom-up approaches that put power in the hands of local communities. The people most affected by development projects are encouraged to participate in their design, implementation, and evaluation via post-development discourse and engagement platforms.
Local Alternatives and Grassroots Movements.
Post-development methods prioritize grassroots movements and alternative community projects. Rahnema and Bawtree (1997) argue for the need for community-led initiatives that transcend the boundaries of conventional development rhetoric. Therefore, it is essential to recognize and promote community-driven initiatives to achieve sustainable development. The post-development paradigm significantly emphasizes human agency in bolstering local community activities.
Reconceptualizing Development.
The concepts within the post-development age challenge the fundamental notion of progress. Escobar (2012) advocates for “universality,” which entails acknowledging and accepting many realities. This argument presents a counter perspective to the notion advocating for universal adherence to a singular developmental trajectory across all cultures and instead proposes exploring culturally appropriate alternatives. The post-development viewpoint anticipates a future in which autonomous communities have the agency to choose their development paths and adopt diverse approaches.
Conclusion.
In summary, the Post-Development School of Thought challenges conventional notions of development. The need to reassess progress becomes imperative when considering the criticisms around cultural biases, power disparities, and the use of universal measurements. The alternative suggestions argue for a forward-thinking development plan prioritizing local knowledge and community engagement. These recommendations also highlight the importance of cultural sensitivity, participatory techniques, and alternative indicators.
The consequences of post-developmental thinking for prospects are readily apparent. Both politicians and practitioners should adopt more open, collaborative, and culturally sensitive positions. The use of variety and regional customization represents a shift from a standardized approach. Within the intricate and interconnected global landscape, the diverse range of human encounters might potentially align with the ideals of post-development, which aim to foster a development narrative that is fair, empathetic, and flexible.
The Post-Development School of Thought posits the reframing of development as a collaborative and contextually relevant undertaking that upholds existing cultural norms and allows communities the autonomy to choose their trajectories. This study proposes a comprehensive and sustainable approach to fostering progress, emphasizing intelligence and inclusivity. Contributing to the continuing discourse on the future of development offers valuable insights.
References
Bebbington, A., Samuel Hickey & Diana Mitlin (2008). “Introduction: Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives,” in Bebbington, A., S. Hickey & D. Mitlin (eds.) Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. London: Zed Books.
Blaser, M. (2019): “Life projects,” in Kothari, A., A. Salleh, A. Escobar, F. Demaria, and A. Acosta (eds.): Pluriverse: A post-development dictionary. New Delhi: Tulika Books / Authors Up Front. Selected topics, pp. 234–237.
Borras, Bruno (2004). “Life projects: Development our way,” in M. Blaser, H. Feit & G. McRae (Eds.) In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization. London: Zed Books, pp. 47-51.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). “The Case for Participation as Tyranny.” In Beyond Participation: The Politics of Deeper Democracy (pp. 16–27). Zed Books.
D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. (2015). “Introduction, 3.2. Degrowth and autonomy,” in Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era, Routledge, pp. 36-37.
Escobar, Arturo (2018). “Farewell to Development,” interview by Allen White, Great Transition Initiative (February 2018), link.
Esteva, Gustavo (2019). “Autonomy” in Kothari, Ashish, Ariel Salleh, Arturo Escobar, Federico Demaria, and Alberto Acosta (eds.) 2019: Pluriverse: A post-development dictionary. New Delhi.
Evaluation Department in Norad and DEval (2020): Lessons from evaluations: The use of cash transfers in humanitarian and development settings. Oslo: Norad.
Fayez, Hikmatullah (2012). “The role of foreign aid in Afghanistan’s reconstruction: A critical assessment,” in Economic and Political Weekly, vol 47, no. 37, pp. 65-70.
Gómez-Baggethun, E. & J. M. Naredo (2015). “In search of lost time. The rise and fall of limits to growth in international sustainability policy,” in Sustainability Science, 10, pp. 385-395.
Gray, K. & Barry Gills (2016). “South-south cooperation and the rise of the global south,” in Third World Quarterly, 37 (4), pp. 557–574.
Hickel, J. (2017). “Is global inequality getting better or worse? A critique of the World Bank’s convergence narrative,” in Third World Quarterly, 38 (10).
Kothari, U. (2005). “From colonial administration to development studies: A post-colonial critique of the history of development studies,” in U. Kothari (ed.) A radical history of development studies: Individuals, institutions and ideologies. London: Zed Books.
Kothari, Ashish, Ariel Salleh, Arturo Escobar, Federico Demaria and Alberto Acosta (2019). Pluriverse: A post-development dictionary. New Delhi: Tulika Books / Authors Up Front. Selected topics.
Oxfam (2010): 21st-century aid: Recognising success and tackling failure. Oxfam Briefing Paper 137. Summary and Ch. 1.
Peace Direct (2021). Time to decolonize aid: Insights and lessons from a global conversation. Executive Summary and Introduction.
write