Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1021
DAVID SIMON
CEDAR, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX
E-mail: d.simon@rhul.ac.uk
This paper was accepted for publication in December 2005
The relationship between mainstream development policy (and perhaps also development
studies) and postcolonial theorists has often been characterized as a dialogue of the deaf.
Rather like in the old debates between adherents of modernization and neo-Marxist
theories, the protagonists are often thought to be talking at or past one another, rather
than with each other. This paper reassesses some firmly held views on both sides of the
schism. On the one hand, many official development agencies appear to promote
business as usual (often quite literally, as a recent War on Want report attests in the case
of the UKs DFID using its aid budget to promote profitable opportunities for British
corporations). On the other hand, some postcolonial purists rely on surprisingly
modernist, totalizing discursive techniques while claiming post-structural credentials,
or baulk at the prospects of practical engagement. Discrepancies between theory,
discourse, policy and practice are not the preserve of one side. However, the middle
ground is firmer and better trodden than most believe. Considerable progress has been
made and the paper assesses examples of productive engagement and concludes with
suggestions for carrying forward the challenges.
KEY WORDS: global South, development theory, development, postdevelopment,
postcolonialism, empowerment
Introduction
0016-7398/06/0002-0001/$00.20/0
11
12
although they do not actually use the term postdevelopment, preferring postmodernism. While the
prefixes anti- and post- (development) are still often
used almost interchangeably in the literature, there
is considerable analytical and discursive value in
adhering to the distinction just made above.
Nevertheless, the power of development discourse,
to paraphrase the title of Crushs (1995a) book, is
not to be beholden only out there, in the field
and world beyond, but also in the academy, where
otherings and marginalizations occur often silently,
perhaps sometimes conspiratorially, but often
subliminally because of our fascination with, and
adherence to, intellectual innovations, turns and
fashions. For instance, 1995 also saw the publication of a third landmark academic book that was
critical of the dominant development discourse and
its implementation, and, moreover, was far more
influential than either of the two discussed above
in terms of its impact on real world development
policies and practice. Yet it has been comparatively rarely cited in the critical literature and it
is certainly not held up as a beacon of the genre in
a similar way as Encountering development and
Power of development. The reason seems principally to be that it was not couched in poststructural
discourse and sought to promote change through,
rather than outside, the existing global institutional
development architecture. It was therefore largely
ignored by the left, despite being written by one
of the leading progressive liberals in development
studies over several decades, and today undoubtedly one of the doyens in the field. He has held
influential academic and policy-making positions,
is associated as much as anyone with the basic
needs focus of the 1970s, and has maintained his
independence, integrity and critical ability throughout. He is Paul Streeten and the book, based on
the Raffaeli Mattioli Lectures in 1991, is entitled
Thinking about development (Streeten 1995). It
refocused attention on poverty eradication and the
regressive impact of structural adjustment programmes
in this context by emasculating the implementational capacity of Southern states. The thrust of
these arguments contributed directly to the belated
about-turn by the World Bank in recognizing in
no less prominent an outlet than their World development report 1997: the state in a changing world
that the overkill and deleterious impact of their
previous neoliberal extremism had to be reversed
and efficient and effective state capabilities rebuilt.
Does this not deserve credit in terms of fomenting
important policy change, albeit of a reformist
nature?
It could be argued that the whole thrust of antiand post-development is precisely the rejection of
the existing institutions and procedures; that they
reactions to the specific, non-participatory interventions that threaten or undermine lives, livelihoods
and environments in the name of development
through displacement by large dam schemes,
corporate greed and the like. Indeed, Moore (2000)
offers a vivid illustration of this, where a Zimbabwean communitys resistance against successive
colonial and postcolonial impositions in the name
of development rejected these as not constituting
development, which is what they still demanded:
He [a prominent headman] used the English term
development that global keyword of modernity. It
was the only English word he used. Then the
headman quickly carved out the discursive distinction
again, sharply, and in Shona, reiterating the difference
between the lines of oppression and the path of
development, this time glossed as budidiro (development).
Moore 2000, 655
This nuanced rejection of unwanted state impositions as oppression, but the aspiration for positive
change in the form of investment and infrastructure
in line with local priorities as constituting development is, in my experience, more common in
Southern contexts than general rejectionism of the
antidevelopment genre. It is also both discursively
and programmatically much closer to the many
radical empowerment and other grassroots, bottomup and participatory approaches articulated as
alternatives to modernization-as-development by
John Friedmann (1992), Manfred Max-Neef (1992)
and others since, but which are largely ignored in
post-development writings. The one partial exception is in relation to the recent critiques of participatory methodologies as development agency
panaceas (Mohan and Stokke 2000; Cooke and
Kothari 2001; Long 2001).
Notwithstanding the attention gained and debate
spawned by the more polemical and globalizing/
universalizing contributions on anti- and postdevelopment, this at least partially Foucauldian
work on the powerknowledge nexus of the
development industry was weak empirically and
shallow in its grasp of the development institutions
themselves, as Michael Watts (2003, 437) has
noted. By contrast, James Ferguson (1990 1999)
and others have added great value by seeking to
explore development in a much more grounded
institutional and textual way, posing hard questions
about how development ideas are institutionalized
and how particular development interventions may
generate conflict as much as consent . . . (Watts
2003, 437). The relevant volumes in the ambitious
UN Intellectual History Project (Emmerij et al.
2001; Berthelot 2004; Jolly et al. 2004; Toye and
Toye 2004; Forum for Development Studies 2005)
13
14
to integrate the local scale discursively and nondeterministically with the broader national, regional
and ultimately global contexts. The term glocalization
captures this well, since cultures can, and do, exist
or find expression at different scales. By nondeterministically I refer to the need to avoid both
the exceptionalist cul-de-sac of localism and the
universalizing or totalizing trap of the many
broadly neoliberal versions of cultural and globalization theory or neo-Marxist renderings which
often privilege national, rather than local, issues
and dynamics. Rao and Waltons (2004) approach
exemplifies this new discursive strategy particularly
well, focusing on the value of locally specific
cultural understandings that avoid exceptionalism
and determinism in promoting improved public
action to alleviate poverty and reduce inequality.
Variants of localist exceptionalism both intentional and sometimes unintentional can be
detected in quite diverse poststructural and other
progressive epistemologies and methodologies
seeking to (re)valorize and/or mobilize politically
around the cultures, identities, rights, indigenous
knowledges (including environmental) and world
views of marginal(ized) and subordinated groups.
Examples include localization and locality-based
anti-globalization agendas (e.g. Escobar 2001; Escobar
et al. 2002) and a range of empowerment-oriented
participatory approaches to development (see
Mohan and Stokke 2000; Cooke and Kothari 2001;
Simon et al. 2003; Golooba-Mutebi 2005). By contrast,
the universalizing neoliberal-inspired approaches
imply or advocate global cultural convergence/
homogenization through the assimilation of western
capitalist consumer culture, and are thus very much
metanarratives constituting latter-day versions of
modernization theory (Nederveen Pieterse 2004,
721). Slater (2003) helpfully draws attention to the
distinctive position of the USA as a postcolonial
society now wielding global imperial power and
the problems thereby posed for radical postcolonial
agendas of situated local rather than hegemonic
neoliberal democratic forms.
How do postcolonialisms profoundly cultural
concerns with subaltern histories, voices and
identities interface with critical or progressive
approaches to development? On the one hand,
there has been potentially disabling angst about
issues of representation and reflexivity (especially
by western authors in respect of Third World
others), although Bell (2002) has demonstrated
ably how postcoloniality can inform analysis of
poverty and development at a distance. Some
Southern critics reject postcolonialism as itself too
Eurocentric by retaining the often short, if brutal,
colonial interruption as the central defining referent
both chronologically and methodologically. Instead,
15
16
17
18
Acknowledgements
19
20
eds International development and the social sciences University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London
15075
Ferguson J 1999 Expectations of modernity: myths and meanings of urban life in the Zambian Copperbelt University of
California Press, Berkeley
Fine B, Lapavitsas C and Pincus J eds 2001 Development
policy in the twenty-first century: beyond the Post-Washington
Consensus Routledge, London and New York
Finnemore M 1997 Redefining development at the World Bank
in Cooper F and Packard R eds International development
and the social sciences University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 20327
Forum for Development Studies 2005 The UN and Economic
and Social Development Special issue 32(1)
Friedmann J 1992 Empowerment: the politics of alternative
development Blackwell, Cambridge MA
George S 1976 How the other half dies: the real reasons for
world hunger Penguin, Harmondsworth
Golooba-Mutebi F 2005 When popular participation wont
improve service provision: primary health care in Uganda
Development Policy Review 23 16582
Hardt M and Negri A 2000 Empire Harvard University Press,
Cambridge MA
Hayter T and Watson C 1985 Aid: rhetoric and reality Pluto, London
Hobsbawm E and Ranger T eds 1983 The invention of tradition
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jolly R, Emmerij L, Ghai D and Lapeyre F 2004 UN contributions to development thinking and practice Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN
Jones P 2000 Why is it alright to do development over there
but not here? Changing vocabularies and common strategies
of inclusion across the First and Third Worlds Area 32
23741
Kapoor I 2004 Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on
representing the Third World other Third World Quarterly
25 62747
Karlstrm M 2004 Modernity and its aspirants: moral community and developmental eutopianism in Buganda Current
Anthropology 45 595619
Kiely P 1999 The last refuge of the noble savage? A critical
assessment of post-development theory European Journal of
Development Research 11 3055
Lehmann D 1997 An opportunity lost: Escobars deconstruction
of development Journal of Development Studies 33 56878
Ley D 2003 Forgetting postmodernism? Recuperating a social
history of local knowledge Progress in Human Geography 27
53760
Long C 2001 Participation of the poor in development initiatives: taking their rightful place Earthscan, London
Mawdsley E, Townsend J G and Porter G 2005 Trust, accountability, and face-to-face interaction in NorthSouth NGO
relations Development in Practice 15 7782
Max-Neef M 1992 From the outside looking in: experiences in
barefoot economics Zed Books, London
Mbembe A 2001 On the postcolony University of California
Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London
21