Lund University STVA21

Department of Political Science Tutor: Sara Kalm

Postcolonialism and Development

A critical analysis of “The European Consensus on
Development”

Claire Peacock
Linnéa Idh Lundgren
Abstract

The discursive analysis of development began in the 1980’s. We will continue in

its tradition, specifically with a focus on the often concealed ties shared by
development theory and colonial theory. The aim of this investigation is to reveal
the similarities between modern development policy and colonialism with the
intention of positively affecting the development discourse. Our object of study is
‘The European Consensus on Development’ (EU 2006), which identifies the
values, common goals, principles and commitments that are prioritized in the
European Union’s development policy. We have critically analyzed the document
to find hidden signs of colonial thinking. To facilitate our analysis, the presence of
‘othering’ and paternalism are used as indicators of colonial traits. We conclude
that colonialism and development share commonalities, though they are well
concealed. Where similarities do exist, the goals of colonial policy and
development often differ. Our analysis indicates that development is loosening its
ties with its colonial heritage.

Key words: post-colonialism, colonialism, EU, development theory, paternalism,

the ‘others’

Words: 8741
 Table of contents

1
 Introduction...............................................................................................................1


1.1
 Problem and Purpose ...........................................................................................1


1.2
 Theory ..................................................................................................................2

1.3
 Method and Material ............................................................................................2


2
 Method .......................................................................................................................4


2.1
 The Critical Research Method .............................................................................4


2.2
 Critical Discourse Analysis..................................................................................5


3
 Theory ........................................................................................................................7


3.1
 Development Theory............................................................................................7


3.1.1
 Defining Development..................................................................................8

3.1.2
 The Development Discourse.........................................................................9

3.2
 Colonial and Post-Colonial Theory....................................................................10


4
 ‘The European Consensus on Development’........................................................12


5
 Colonialism and Development ...............................................................................14


6
 Operationalisation...................................................................................................16


7
 Analysis ....................................................................................................................18


7.1
 Reproducing the Development Discourse and Colonialism ..............................18


7.2
 Textual Analysis ................................................................................................19

7.3
 ‘Othering’ and Paternalism in ‘The European Consensus on
Development’..............................................................................................................21


8
 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................22


8.1
 Future Research..................................................................................................22


9
 References ................................................................................................................24

1 Introduction

The concept of development arose in the wake of decolonization, mostly after the
Second World War. Recently, the validity of the developmental discourse has
become increasingly questioned. It is no longer obvious that development is
‘good’. Kothari exemplifies this in stating that when contrasting development and
colonialism, “…development can only be understood as unquestioningly ‘good’ –
humanitarian, moralistic, and collaborative – when set against a colonialism that
was oppressive and exploitative” (2006, p. 97).
In questioning development, recognition of the impact colonialism has had on
its advancement has also become more common. To that effect, postcolonial
theories have been developed to investigate and expose the ties between current
discourses and colonial patterns. However, comparing different historical periods
with an apparently ‘unproblematic’ present is fraught with problems. This is
especially true in the case of postcolonialism, which questions colonialism’s
impact because the term ‘colonialism’ itself is contested and difficult to
conceptualize (Duffield & Hewitt 2009, p. 1). Despite its difficulties, colonialism
is an important concept to grasp in the study of modern development policy, a
statement we will further develop throughout the course of this essay.
Development and colonialism may appear to be opposites, however in a closer
analysis is becomes apparent that they share similarities. In that respect, Duffield
contends there is “a close affinity between liberal forms of colonial administration
and contemporary development management” (2007, p. 42). This further
emphasizes that colonialism and modern development policy share many
attributes.
The European Union, comprised of several former colonial powers, has
evolved into the largest global actor in the field of development aid. Therefore, this
investigation will focus on EU development policy. In the following section we
will present our problem and further introduce this interesting subject.

1.1 Problem and Purpose

We have chosen an empirical problem which will analyze ‘The European

Consensus on Development’ (2006) from a critical standpoint to find evidence of
colonial ties. As the European Union grows as an actor in development policy, it
is important to investigate its agenda. Consequently, our problem is:

• How does the European development policy, as stated in the ‘European

Consensus on Development’, draw parallels with colonial traits?

1
Illustrating the remains of colonial frameworks in current policy is central in this
discussion. The traits common to colonialism that we have chosen to highlight are
paternalism and the presence of the ‘others’ or ‘othering’, which will be defined in
chapter 6.
The goal of this investigation is to highlight similar traits between current
European development strategies and colonialism in order to expose that these
comparisons are not just provocative, they are revealing. They may give a superior
understanding of current development policy and make room for new
improvements.

1.2 Theory

Development theory and postcolonial theory will be discussed with the intent of
giving understanding as to how development policy, and more specifically, the
‘European Consensus on Development’, can be explained by post-colonial theory.
This will aid in the analysis of the aforementioned document and the resulting
comparison between colonialism and modern development.
We have chosen post-colonialism as we will be conducting a critical analysis.
Both the theory of post-colonialism and the method of critical analysis focus on
straying from norms and finding new ways of explaining generally accepted truths.
Critical theory and post-colonialism also include examples of ‘otherness’, a
concept that we will develop in chapter 6.
Development theory gives important background that enables the analysis of
the ‘European Consensus on Development’. It also encompasses a wide range of
development strategies of which ‘The European Consensus on Development’ is an
applied example. Post-colonial theory, on the other hand, aims to illustrate that
colonial patterns can be used to explain current phenomena.

1.3 Method and Material

We are going to use the critical research method as the basis for our essay. It will
be implemented using critical discourse analysis. Critical theory helps to reveal
patterns of dominance and power. It is relevant in this study because we are going
to critically analyze the European development policy in search of hidden patterns
of dominance and oppression.
We will perform a critical discourse analysis, which focuses on testing theories
and methods to empirically investigate the relationship between discursive
practices and social and cultural developments in different social contexts. In this
case we will use critical discourse analysis to analyze the relationship between the
development discourse, as stated in the consensus, and the colonial discourse.
Our method is limited in that our operational indicators, elements of
paternalism and ‘othering’, may not be significantly present in ‘The European

2
Consensus on Development’. Despite this, should our premise - that the ‘European
Consensus on Development’ contains colonial traits - not prove true, it is
nonetheless a relevant result as it would expose that development policy has
moved away from its colonial origins.
Our operational indicators will be used in the analysis of our primary source of
material, ‘The European Consensus on Development’. It is a document published
by the European Union, which we judge as a reliable source as its documents are
critiqued and debated before publication. As the consensus is a primary source, its
authenticity is guaranteed. It is also relevant as it is the common framework for
development policy for the largest single donor of development aid in the world.
However, finding colonial patterns may prove to be challenging as politicians are
most often aware of the negative feelings that colonial traits provoke and tend to
conceal them.
Our secondary sources include prominent post-development and post-colonial
researchers such as Duffield, Escobar, Loomba and Rist. It is important to be
aware that these authors may present radical ideas that hyper focus on very specific
questions. One must be critical of their findings as their aims are often to stimulate
reinterpretation and change. We have used a limited number of sources as
discourse analysis demands a deep-reading of material to facilitate the analysis.

3
2 Method

We will use the tools of the critical research method and those of critical discourse
analysis to perform our analysis. These two traditions complement each other. The
critical research method focuses on challenging the ‘established’ and on disrupting
and questioning accepted cultural traditions and conventions. Similarly, critical
discourse analysis makes it possible to trace connections between the visible and
hidden, the dominant and the marginalized (Loomba 2005, p. 45), also common
goals of post-colonial theory.

2.1 The Critical Research Method

The goal of critical analyses is to counteract the dominance of general goals, ideas,
ideologies and discourses that are evident in different social contexts (Alvesson &
Deetz 2000, p. 22). The critical research method focuses its attention on situations,
relationships, events, institutions, ideas, social practices, and processes that can be
considered to exert repression, or be influenced by a discourse. Development is
one such practice.
Paying attention to underlying discourses and meanings, which are associated
with different forms of power and dominance, are crucial elements of critical
research. (Alvesson & Deetz 2000, p. 159) We will attempt to highlight these
underlying meanings throughout our essay as we present our analysis of European
Development policy.

Critical methods can be divided into three main elements:

• interpretation to give insight

• critique to reveal dominance and oppression
• re-evaluation of existing concepts and the proposal of alternative ways to
understand them
(Alvesson & Deetz 2000, p. 20)

These three elements will be present in our analysis, though insight and critique
cannot be wholly separated as critical elements lie in every insight (Alvesson &
Deetz 2000, p. 160). We will begin our investigation by giving an overview of
‘The European Consensus on Development’ and highlight post-colonial tendencies
(see Chapter 4 and 5). The document will subsequently be criticized to expose
patterns of dominance and oppression using text analysis (see chapter 7). Lastly,
we will reevaluate the existing concept of development as proposed in the
Consensus and give suggestions of alternative ways to understand it (see chapter
8).

4
 An understanding of discourse analysis will more easily facilitate understanding
of the development discourse, colonialism and development policy today.

2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

Discourse itself is a contested concept, often used imprecisely in writing and

discussions. However, the concept of discourse has appeared more frequently in
recent social science research and deserves a clear definition. Discourse can be
broadly defined as “… a practice, with conditions, rules, and historical
transformations” (Escobar 1995, p. 216) or as a decided way to speak of and
understand the world (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p. 7).
It is important to note that discourse analysis is both a theory, in that it analyses
language and society, and method in that it is a tool for performing investigations.
Discourse analysis often relies on defined interpretations of discourse, social
practices and critique that lead to specific methods, empirical focuses, and
purposes. The central goal of critical discourse analyses is to plot the connections
between language use and social practice (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p.
76). To that effect, critical discourse analysis is not politically neutral – it puts
itself on the side of the underrepresented an oppressed, aiming to clarify how the
world is perceived and which social consequences result (Winther Jørgensen &
Phillips 1999, p. 70).
Social change and equal power are goals of critical discourse analysis, which
attempts to establish the role of discourses in retaining unequal power
relationships, a goal that fits in with post-colonial theory (see Chapter 3.2).
The retention of power and the status quo are also important in explaining and
understanding discourses. This characteristic is not present in all discourse
analyses but is fundamental in Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, which we
have chosen to focus upon as it presents a complete guide. Centrally, Fairclough
(1992) contends that discourses help to maintain and to reproduce the social status
quo as well as contribute to transforming it. Fairclough (1992) clarifies that
discursive events are both shaped by situations and shape them; they are
constructive and constructed. Furthermore, he sees discourse as a form of ‘social
practice” (Fairclough 1992, p. 86).
Fairclough presents three dimensions of analysis:

i) analysis of discursive practices

ii) analysis of texts
iii) analysis of the social practice of which the discourse is a part
(1992, p. 231)

We will briefly discuss the development discourse (see chapter 3.1.2),

corresponding to point i), and subsequently analyze the text of the consensus (see
chapter 7). That text analyses may isolate text from context is a problem we will
have to solve throughout this analysis. The third dimension, analysis of the social
practice, demands a complementary theory. Therefore we will use post-colonial
theory to describe development. Post-colonial theory states that ideologies and

5
social practices are interconnected and constitute each other (Loomba 2005, p. 37),
this is consistent with Fairclough’s discourse analysis.
Fairclough’s key elements of critical analysis: transitivity and modality are also
important to include in our analysis. Transitivity aims to see whether particular
processes or types of participants are favoured in the text (1992, p. 235). Modality
is chosen by the author and is his/her degree of accordance with what is stated in
the document to be analysed (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p. 87).
New research is formed upon learning from prior studies just as discourses are
built upon past frameworks. The former is termed intertextuality, while the latter is
referred to as interdiscursivity. In this case, the developmental discourse was built
on the framework of the colonial discourse, though adapted and transformed to
meet new needs just as ‘The European Consensus on Development’ is based on
previous research.
Lastly, critical discourse analysis highlights non-transparent cause and effect
relationships and explains how they are formed. Transparency is a factor that
ensures power and hegemony are upheld (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p.
69). Critical discourse analysis supplies the tools to analyse theory, specifically
development theory and colonialism / post-colonialism, discussed below.

6
3 Theory

In the following section, development theory will be briefly described from a

critical perspective, offering insight on the positive and negative aspects of
development. After, development will be briefly defined and the development
discourse introduced. Lastly, colonialism and postcolonialism will be discussed.

3.1 Development Theory

Development emerged in the wake of colonialism. President Truman’s Four Point

Message (1949) is seen as the opening act of a new era in the creation of ‘the
development age’ (Rist 2002, p. 71). The term ‘underdevelopment’ was used,
changing the meaning of the term developed to signify an opposite to
‘economically backward’ areas; however, this meaning altered and soon there was
little difference between developing areas and underdeveloped areas. Development
became an action performed by one agent upon another.
Development theory has evolved from modernization theory, to dependency
theory, to models of self-reliance and grassroots approaches. More recently, the
roles of the environment and human development have gained prominence.
Modernization theory was presented by Rostow in his book Stages of
Economic Growth (1960). The stages are: traditional society, the preconditions for
take-off, take-off, the drive to maturity, and finally, the age of high mass-
consumption. Rostow viewed colonialism in a positive manner as the occasion of
awakening to modernity (Rist 2002, p. 110). Lastly, modernization theory is based
on an evolutionist view of history, similar to Marx (Rist 2002, p.101). Ironically,
the rise of the dependency school, supported by neo-Marxists, formed a coherent
opposition to modernization.
The dependency school argued that the international system brought
domination effects on the countries of the geographic South and locked them into
dependent relationships (Rist 2002, p. 109). It focused on the study of real history
as opposed to Rostow’s focus on a philosophy of history. The dependistas argued
that internal inequalities demanded state intervention and dissociation from the
structure of exploitation.
Self-reliance, was a new form of domination through giving (Rist 2002, p.
134). Briefly stated, self-reliance models promote development from below, food
self-sufficiency, domestic production when effective, using local factors of
production, creativity and innovation, and finally an end to centre-periphery
opposition. However, self-reliance may bolster exploitation at the local level if the
democratic institutions are not properly administered. It also risks promoting a
wider-divide between developed and underdeveloped and splitting those who have
the ability to become self-reliant and those who do not. Subsequently, ‘another
development’ was proposed by the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in 1975.

7
 ‘Another development’ stated that there is no universal formula for
development; it is a process that needs to arise from deep within a society and not
only concern economic factors. It should focus on providing the essential needs of
the population, later taken-up by the UN. The Dag Hammarskjöld report acted as a
partial response to the demands highlighted in the New International Economic
Order (NIEO), proposed in 1974.
Today, the grand theories of development that promised a generalization of
material welfare have lost much credibility (Rist 2002, p. 212). Decades into the
‘era of development’, an end is not in sight. Therefore, new ideas are necessary
and seeing development through new eyes as an extension of colonialism may lead
to these very insights. Currently, a diversification of development strategies is
most common as is present in the ‘European Consensus on Development’, which
will be discussed further on.

3.1.1 Defining Development

Development concerns global actors; it is a historically distinctive phenomenon

that does not solely concern countries of the ‘South’. Traditionally development
has been defined as:

1. “Developing country or region, whose economy has not yet reached the
level of North America, Western Europe etc.” (Le Petit Robert, 1987).

2. “[A] process which enables human beings to realize their potential, build
self-confidence, and lead lives of dignity and fulfillment. It is a process
which frees people from the fear of want and exploitation. it is a movement
away from political, economic, or social oppression. Through development,
political independence acquires its true significance. And it is a process of
growth, a movement essentially springing from within the society that is
developing” (The Report of the South Commission 1990 p. 10).

3. Human development aims to “enlarge the range of people’s choices to

make development more democratic and participatory” (Human
Development report, 1991 p. 1).

Rist remarks that the aforementioned definitions of development contain various

presuppositions: social evolutionism (having the west as the ideal type),
individualism (developing a distinct personality), and economism (achieving
economic growth) (2002 p. 9). Therefore, critical views of development have
evolved. Escobar presents a critical view of development in stating that
development is often a top-down, ethnocentric and technocratic approach, treating
people and cultures as abstract concepts (1995, p. 44). He further describes it as a
destructive process to the cultures of the Third World.
Development is often described as ‘natural’, positive, necessary, and
indisputable. However, these beliefs are products of Western history, in which old
Western conceptions are mixed in with knowledge from the last two centuries of

8
exceptional growth (Rist 2002, p. 44). Development can however also produce
history and has done so in recent decades.
Lastly, it is important to note that these definitions they do not capture all the
attributes of development; they lack reference to external characteristics to help
place where development exists. They are based upon how one person or group
views the ideal conditions of social existence. We have chosen to present
development in this negative manner to provoke a reaction, a questioning of the
accepted form of ‘development’.

3.1.2 The Development Discourse

The strength of development discourse comes of its power to seduce, in every sense
of the term: to charm, to please, to fascinate, to set dreaming, but also to abuse, to
turn away from the truth, to deceive.
(Rist 2002, p. 1)

The developmental discourse is appealing in theory, as suggested by the citation

above. It was established in the late 1940s and early 1950s and has subsequently
created an efficient apparatus for producing knowledge about and power over the
Third World (Escobar 1995, p. 9). We have chosen to question the developmental
discourse through seeing it through ‘colonial lenses’ and identify its appearance in
the ‘European Consensus on Development’. A detailed discussion on the origins of
the developmental discourse is outside the aims of this essay, although a brief
introduction on the subject will follow.
Development is a social creation that has been elevated to the status of ‘natural
phenomenon’ with its own laws that govern society. It has arguably legitimized the
creation of enormous bureaucracies such as the UNDP and more recently, the EU
counterparts, which will be examined in this essay
The developmental discourse emerged though the exclusion of other possible
solutions to the problems of humanity. The ‘Third World’ countries were no longer
categorised as individual cultural entities; rather as a single, underdeveloped entity
(Rist 2002, p. 44; 77). Development became the ‘natural’ alternative to choose and
generally accepted, though its form could still be debated (how to distribute its
effects equitably). Justice and equity became central notions in this discourse. As
discursive practices make it difficult for individuals to think outside of them
(Loomba 2005, p. 38), the development discourse became naturally accepted and
difficult to contest.
Remarkably, the developmental discourse has relied almost exclusively on
Western knowledge. It has dictated the marginalization and disqualification of
non-Western knowledge systems (Escobar 1995, p. 13). Escobar contests that the
developmental discourse “...has been the central and most ubiquitous operator of
the politics of representation and identity in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America in the post-World War II period (1995 p. 214). These areas have
witnessed a series of regimes of representation, originating in colonialism.
Likewise, Rist comments that “development’ is becoming universal but not
transcultural” (2002, p. 44). It is a concept of Western origins, already built into
relationships of power and generally accepted. The misunderstanding is that

9
‘development’ is the proper and desirable way of achieving improvements in all
societies. There may be another solution.
Development - a social creation - has the appearance of a natural phenomenon
with governing laws of its own (Rist 2002, p. 215). It is remarkably adaptable and
has survived through the reinvention of itself. The developmental discourse is
changed and its dominant relations reinforced and altered through commercial,
development, relief and economic aid (Duffield 2002, p. 253). The slightly
negative connotations concerning development, as implied by Rist and Duffield,
are not the mainstream ones, though may evoke reactions and are therefore
important to mention.
The problems of underdevelopment have not been solved by the
developmental discourse; instead, a type of underdevelopment that is politically
and technically manageable has resulted (Escobar 1995, p. 47). The guidelines set-
out in the ‘European Consensus on Development ‘(2006) may be a strategy in
managing underdevelopment.
Our analysis will be based on the development discourse, as stated in the
Consensus and its attempts to solve or manage underdevelopment that share traits
with colonial policy.

3.2 Colonial and Post-Colonial Theory

Post-colonial thinking has today become both a widespread phenomenon and a

theory about how different worldly occurrences relate to each other in the
aftermath of colonialism. This section aims to clarify important features of
postcolonial theory and colonialism.
Postcolonial studies aims to illuminate that colonialism does not belong in the
past and that it still shapes the world. Postcolonialism can be seen as a criticism of
the argument that what is happening politically, culturally and economically is
outside and beyond the history of colonialism. On the contrary, it stresses that
modern societies are still influenced by their colonial heritage and clarifies that
there is a power relationship between the West and (formerly) colonized countries
(Thörn, Eriksson, Eriksson Baaz 1999, p. 16 pp).
Postcolonial theory examines different problems concerning awareness that
colonialism still has influence over the world today. Today's society differs from
that of the colonial era economically, politically and culturally, while it is still
marked by it. Postcolonial theory argues that binary oppositions create and
maintain social hierarchies. The world is defined in terms of opposites that derive
their significance in relation to each other. An example of this is the dichotomies
‘we’ in contrast to ‘them’ or ‘black’ in contrast to ‘white’ One of these opposites
are often attributed to greater value and thus elevated to the norm. This contributes
to the creation and maintenance of social hierarchies and power relations (Thörn,
Eriksson, Eriksson Baaz 1999, p. 34 p).
Loomba argues that the stereotypical role in postcolonial discourse is to
establish an artificial sense of the difference between ‘us’ and ‘the others’. To

10
discuss stereotypical characteristics as accepted truths, keep the colonial ideas
maintained even in the postcolonial society (Loomba 2005, p. 55).
Linking postcolonialism to development is not necessarily a negative action
though it is generally regarded as such. It is simply a tool for helping to better
understand development policy by seeing it in a new context, with the hope of
being able to improve it in the future. A brief summary of ‘The European
Consensus on Development’ will follow.

11
4 ‘The European Consensus on
Development’

Today, the European Union is the foremost donor of development aid in the world,
currently accounting for 55% of total aid, although the number is increasing (EU
2007). Therefore sheer size makes it essential that the EU’s development strategy
is to be criticized and analyzed. EU development policy is outlined in ‘The
European Consensus on Development’ - referred to as ‘the consensus’ throughout
this essay. It was the first common framework for development strategy in the
EU’s fifty years of cooperation and was signed in 2005. Following, we will
provide a brief overview of the document.
The chief goal of the consensus is to promote poverty eradication in the context
of sustainable development. The Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), listed
below, are central goals of the European policy.

• trade and regional integration

• the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources;
infrastructures
• water and energy
• rural development, agriculture, and food security
• governance, democracy, human rights and support for economic and
institutional reforms
• prevention of conflicts and of state fragility
• human development; and social cohesion and employment

(EU 2007)

In addition to the aforementioned MDG’s, the consensus aims to promote good

governance and respect for human rights. It also implies that a balance is necessary
between human development, the protection of natural resources, and economic
growth and wealth creation to benefit the poor (EU 2007).
Furthermore, ownership, partnership, in depth political dialogue, participation
of civil society, gender equality and the prevention of state fragility are keywords
mentioned in the document. The EU stresses that developing countries are
ultimately responsible for their own development but the EU accepts to share that
responsibility and partake in joint efforts.
The consensus contends that the individual policies of member states must
complement each other. They can make use of the added value of the
Community’s policy (i.e. the EU Consensus on Development), namely, “its
expertise in dispensing aid, its role in promoting consistency between policies and
best practice and in facilitating coordination and harmonisation, its support for
democracy, human rights, good governance and respect for international law, and
its role in promoting participation in civil society and North-South solidarity” (EU
2007).

12
 Despite its large scale, the EU development policy is currently not fully
operational as individual partner countries have a large degree of autonomy over
their own development policies, which may lead to overlap and inefficiency. The
overlap between colonialism and development will be introduced below.

13
5 Colonialism and Development

“Colonialism and development do not, at first, sit together easily, or lend

themselves to comparison” (Duffield & Hewitt 2009, p. 9). Despite the
recognition of the historical trajectory that links colonialism to development,
development’s colonial legacy has often been concealed in order to distance the
work of development from the negativity surrounding colonialism (Kothari 2006,
p. 97). However, upon a closer look, there are hidden similarities and common
discourses.
The similarities and differences between colonialism and development can be
identified through institutional histories, analyses of the origins of development,
and the colonial ancestry of developmental thinking and practices (Kothari 2006,
p. 93). These continuities and divergences will be generally discussed below to
give a background on colonialism and development’s similarities and thus
motivate our hypothesis that they share similarities.
Colonialism provided the means for capitalism to achieve global expansion
(Loomba 2005, p. 107). Similarly, it can be argued that development provides the
means for capitalist entrepreneurs to have access to new and expanding markets
and cheaper production means.
A liberal problematic of security is a shared view of both colonialism and
development strategies (Duffield & Hewitt 2009, p. 10). For example, the
consensus highlights the need for long-term peace and security in number 37 and
40 rather than a more realist desire for a balance of power. It states that security is
essential to accomplish poverty eradication (EU 2006, p. 7). The concept of
security was internal to the colonial state, whereas today, it is internationalized.
However in both cases, states of insecurity call forth similar mechanisms of
trusteeship or external intervention.
Colonialism involved a confrontation with or disapproval of practices ‘repulsive
to civilization’. These practices included bride price, female circumcision,
polygamy, and widow immolation – the forced suicide of widows after their
husbands have died (Loomba 2005, p. 182; Williams & Young 2009, p. 104).
Today, development policy has similar goals and is known to work to combat
these practices. Number 19, referring to gender equality, in the consensus (EU
2006, p. 4) aims to combat violations of women’s rights such as bride price and
female circumcision. Number 12 also promotes equitable access to sexual and
reproductive health services. This can be seen as a way to ensure that women
receive support should the aforementioned practices occur.
Elements of civil society began to appear in the more advanced colonies
(Williams & Young 2009, p. 104) as institutions arose. Today the consensus
encourages civil society to develop in stating that it plays a vital role as a promoter
of democracy, social justice, and human rights (Number 18, EU 2006, p. 4).
Although the consensus shares this similarity with colonialism, it may not have
promoted civil society for the same reasons.

14
 Lastly, colonial administration functioned largely through existing local
authorities and power structures (Loomba 2005, p. 97). Modern development also
often goes through the existing structures of local administration to facilitate the
delivery of aid.
In order to more closely analyze the consensus and its colonial ties, we will use
the aid of two operational indicators to transform our work from theory to practice,
outlined in the next chapter.

15
6 Operationalisation

To determine if colonial traits are present in the European common development

policy, we will operationalize two concepts with the intent of exposing patterns of
dominance and oppression (point two in the critical research method). We have
limited ourselves to two concepts with the intent of providing a deep analysis of
both.
The concepts we have chosen to operationalize are paternalism and ‘othering’.
We are going to use these concepts to focus our analysis. Paternalism is present in
colonialism and development as both tend to be steered by a ‘father figure’.
‘Othering’ is a tradition justification of ‘difference’, used to rationalize
interventions in both colonialism and development (Kothari 2006, p. 98).
We have chosen the aforementioned concepts because they can be linked to
both colonial thinking and to development thinking, though originally appeared in
the former. Moreover, these concepts exemplify colonial mindsets and are
therefore relevant tools. They can however not accurately measure all colonial
traits that may be present. It is therefore important to note that because we have
limited ourselves to two concepts, it may be difficult generalize our results on a
greater scale. Paternalism and ‘othering’ will be further explained below:

1. Paternalism

Paternalism may be defined as “the attitude (of a person or a government)

that subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own good”
(Princeton 2010). This is a dominant and oppressive relationship as one
partner is in the position of power. Paternalism is a concept that is recurrent
in colonial thinking which in its philanthropic case holds a promise of
civilisation for all, with the ‘higher races’ being morally obliged to share the
benefits of science and progress with the ‘lower races’ (Rist 2002, p. 52).
This relationship is paternalistic in that it likens Western society to parental
figures who should nurture the growth of their children, the non-Western
societies.
On the side of development, the changes that must happen in the
developmental process require careful guidance by the experts of the West
according to a paternalistic viewpoint. This is necessary because paternalism
states that ‘Third Worlders’ do not have the necessary knowledge to
accomplish success. This bold viewpoint is recurrent in development
literature, though often downplayed and hidden. Escobar (1995, p. 159)
elaborates that the narratives of planning and management, always presented
as ‘rational’ and ‘objective’, are essential to development planners, exposing
their paternalistic nature (p. 194).

2. The ‘Others’

16
 ‘Othering’ is the process of creating negative identities about the colonized
who are the binary opposition of Western ideals according to this concept. In
postcolonial theory the concept of the ‘Other’ is used to describe how
colonial understanding patterns created the colonized peoples as the
opposites to Westerners (Ashcroft, Griffiths, Tiffin 2007, p. 156 pp)
The construction of ‘the Other’ in colonial theory was in many aspects
central in legitimizing that the colonial powers plundered, controlled and
dominated the colonies. By describing ‘the other’ as the counterpart to
European (western) - using terms such as animals, wild men, savages or
barbarians - could legitimize the colonial powers’ exploitation of its
colonized people and make them into slaves (Loomba 2005 p. 53p).
Kothari states that postcolonial analyses describe colonialism and
development as “projects of modernity and progress” which reassert the
classification of ‘other’ and ‘difference’ to justify their involvements (2006
p. 98). They use stereotyping to perpetuate this artifical separation (Loomba
2005, p. 55).
An example of ‘othering’ is described by Edward Said (1978) who
argues in his book Orientalism that the idea of the Orient was created as a
sort of inverse to the West. East became (and today perhaps remains) the
West’s colonized ‘Other’, possessing the opposite of the characteristics to
those of the West. The Orient is described as irrational and backward, while
the West is depicted as rational and progressive. By constructing the Orient
as the Other it creates a positive western self-image. Said means that this
image was central to legitimize the control and domination of the Orient, as
the colonization of the Orient was prepared to be for "their own good"
(Loomba 2005, p. 48).
Today, critics fear that through exposing ‘othering’ in colonialism,
they will overemphasize its function and possibly reproduce it through other
discourses (Loomba 2005, p. 91). In this case we will focus on it applicability
on the development discourse.

We contend that the use of paternalism and ‘othering’ are negative in that they
separate Western peoples from ‘the rest’ in a derogatory sense. However, positive
colonial traits do also exist, such as education policies and the sharing of
technology, though it is outside the framework of this analysis to expose them.
It is important that our operationalisation of the aforementioned concepts is
precise and valid. Validity is the lack of systematic errors and/or that we measure
what we say we measure and/or and that the operational indicators we have chosen
to base our analysis upon are good measurements of our theoretical definition
(Esaiasson et al. 2007, p. 63 pp.). To reach a high level of validity it is essential
that we perform a high-quality operationalisation.
Below, we will perform our analysis beginning with a discussion about the
presence of the development discourse in the consensus and finishing with a
textual analysis and general overview of the appearance of the concepts
paternalism, and ‘the others’ in the document.

17
7 Analysis

In this section we will analyze ‘The European Consensus on Development’. The

appearance of colonial traits in The Consensus is not obvious. Rather, it is hidden
behind words with generally positive associations, making it difficult to reveal
colonial patterns. Therefore, we will perform a deep text analysis to uncover
colonial traits. Elements of paternalism and ‘othering’ will be highlighted
throughout the analysis.
Discourses may be reproduced, discarded or changed in new documents,
according to discourse analysis. The extent to which the development discourse,
including its colonial traits, is reproduced in the consensus will be discussed below
in Chapter 7.1.
Precise terminology and word choice are vital in discourse analysis. For
example, today, failed states have become ‘fragile states’ just as ‘underdeveloped’
regions have become ‘developing’ regions. These name changes create more
positive and hopeful thoughts concerning a rather dire subject. The EU refers to
fragile states eight times in the consensus (2006). Using the term fragile states
changes thoughts surrounding developing regions just as the developing regions
may be affected by the new terminology. Moreover in referring to states as
‘fragile’, the risk arises that elements of paternalism may become present as a
more stable actor must come in and protect the fragile actor. A detailed text
analysis of the consensus document will be presented in Chapter 7.2.

7.1 Reproducing the Development Discourse and

Colonialism

The existing development discourse is reproduced to an extent in the European

Consensus on Development. It continues in the path of a politically and
economically manageable form of underdevelopment that has been present during
the past decades. Equity and morality are central in the development discourse and
their presence in the consensus will be discussed below.
Equity, a key term promoted by the development discourse, reappears twice in
the Consensus. Point 93 promotes gender equality and equity (p. 15), whereas,
point 98 supports social and fiscal policies that promote equity (p. 16).
Furthermore, in referring to the aid receiving countries as ‘partners’ the EU
highlights its goal of an equal or equitable power relationship. Equity however,
was not stressed in colonial policies and thus striving to attain it represents a
critical break with colonial policy.
On the contrary, the use of moral obligation as a justification for intervention
was present in colonial times and is currently used in development policy. In

18
speaking of colonialism, Bayet states that the West “... has by virtue of its past the
mission to spread wherever it can the ideas that made it great” (Rist 2002, p. 51,
original not available). Comparably, in the consensus point 1 states: “Combating
global poverty is not only a moral obligation: it will also help to build a more
stable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable world [...]” (EU 2006, p. 1). By focusing
on morals, intervention is justified as it is what society would deem morally
correct. However in stating that it is morally correct, the validity of the statement is
not questioned; rather it is accepted without questioning.
Western values also permeate the consensus just as they infiltrate the
development discourse and were present in colonial policies. For example, it can
be argued that eurocentrism is apparent in point 13 which states: “EU partnership
and dialogue with third countries will promote common values of: respect for
human rights, fundamental freedoms, peace, democracy, good governance, gender
equality, the rule of law, solidarity and justice” (EU 2002 p. 3). However, this is a
controversial statement. These goals highlight western values that are not always
reciprocated or prioritized in developing nations. Colonialism also favoured the
promotion of Western notions of governance and education that are evident in the
governing structures of many former colonies.
However, the consensus also diverges from the conventional development
discourse. Firstly, the development discourse often generalizes developing
countries into one large entity. The consensus focuses on identifying priorities in
partner countries through a joint analysis and in-depth dialogue with individual
countries (point 68, EU, 2006 p. 11) highlighting its commitment to providing
individual strategies for different developing countries. The title of Chapter four:
‘A Range of modalities based on needs and performance’, also emphasizes a tailor-
made approach for each country.
Secondly, the consensus aims to incorporate local knowledge into its work. To
that effect, in point 30, the EU states, “The EU encourages partner countries to
lead their own development process [...]” (2006, p. 6). Having partner states
initiate their own strategies effectively includes their own skills and knowledge.
Contrarily, spreading western knowledge and values is often the focus of the
development discourse.
Lastly, colonialism eroded several matrilineal cultures in favour of the western
patriarchal model (Loomba 2005, p. 141-142). The development discourse,
including the measures outlined in the Consensus, works towards replacing the
current patriarchal discourse which is arguably present in society today. The EU
illustrates its favor of female initiative in stating: “the empowerment of women is
the key to all development” (point 11, EU 2006, p. 3). This marks a divergence
between colonial policy and development and a reinforcement of the development
discourse.
Overall the consensus is mostly consistent with the reigning development
discourse which was built on colonial policies. Fairclough’s elements of textual
analysis will provide more insight in the following section on the colonial traits
present in the consensus.

7.2 Textual Analysis

19
Assessing intertextuality, the usage of elements from different texts in one’s text,
helps to better understand a document. Elements of intertextuality appear
throughout the Consensus, most concretely in point 124, which make reference to
the assessment of the 2000 European Community Development Policy (EU 2006,
p. 18). The Consensus builds upon the lessons learned from this previous policy.
Less, concretely, the Consensus builds upon the development discourse and
colonial policy, which will be further discussed below.
Interdiscursivity focuses on the different discursive elements present in a single
text. The Consensus has a low grade of interdiscursivity. The text is mainly based
on the traditional Western development discourse (see chapters 3.1.1; 7.1).
However, elements of the postcolonial discourse are present, such as paternalism
and ‘othering’. According to Fairclough’s theory, high grades of interdiscursivity
point to change and lower grades to reproduction of the current discourse (Winther
Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p. 87). Therefore, at this stage in the analysis, we can
draw the conclusion that the Consensus does more to preserve the development
discourse than to change it, consistent with the results of section 7.1.
In the case of transitivity, the Consensus is clear in stating how the different
actors - the EU and individual states - are connected and that development is a
shared responsibility. It attempts to not openly favor one group. Using phrases
such as “effective multilateralism” (p. 3), “share[d] responsibility and
accountability” (p. 3), “joint efforts” (p. 3), and “cooperation with partner
countries” (p. 6), the EU illustrates its normative position on development; namely,
that it should be shared between the actors involved.
The EU’s emphasis on shared responsibility can be directly contrasted with
colonial policy, which promoted a hierarchical system with the Western colonizers
on the top of the pyramid. However, as the E.U. provides the development
funding, its normative position may not hold true in practice and an unequal
relationship results. Eriksson Baaz reinforces this sentiment in stating that
development cooperation is characterized “...by an unequal power relationship
where the donor sets up the rules of the game [...]” (2005 p. 121).
The degree of certainty or commitment to truth with which the author presents
his/her ideas can be highlighted through the use of words such as ‘is’ / ‘is not’ or
‘do’ / ‘do not’. Oppositely, an uncertain writer may use words such as ‘probably’,
‘perhaps’ or ‘usually’. The Consensus consistently uses strong words such as
‘will’, ‘is’ and ‘shall’. For example, in point 2, it is stated that: “Community policy
in the sphere of development cooperation shall be complementary to the policies
pursued by the Member States” (2006, p. 1). This analysis of modality reveals that
the Consensus is certain in its claims.
The modality of the author (in this case the EU Council, Commission and
Parliament) may be illustrative. Specifically, deontic modality, referring to what
the author thinks concerning how things should be, can be revealing in a text
analysis. The word ‘should’ appears 18 times in the consensus in phrases such as
“Developing countries should decide and reform trade policy...” (2006, p. 7) and
“The Commission should develop a set of measurable objectives....” (2006, p. 18).
This reveals that the writers are aware of the gap between what policy says ought
to occur and what in reality takes place. In this case, paternalism and ‘othering’ are
not desirable and the authors guard themselves against mentioning them, though
traces slip through.

20
7.3 ‘Othering’ and Paternalism in ‘The European
Consensus on Development’

‘Othering’ and paternalism are often denoted as negative concepts. Therefore it is

not unusual that a document such as the Consensus does not openly contain
elements of either concept. For example, in guarding against ‘othering’ the
consensus highlights the need for differentiation and the creation of ‘tailor-made’
strategies for each region in point 57 (2006, p. 9), thus not creating a collective
‘other’. However, traces of othering are present in the document. The use of
‘poverty’ as a reason to justify intervention may be one such example.
The EU states: “Poverty includes all the areas in which people of either gender
are deprived and perceived as incapacitated in different societies and local
contexts” (number 11 EU 2006, p. 3). The key word in the previous citation is
incapacitated or incapable. In contexts where the involved persons do not have the
knowledge or capacity to provide for themselves, or are in other words
impoverished, intervention is justified for ‘their own good’. They effectively
become a single entity of impoverished peoples and therein ‘others’. This example
is simply an interpretation of the document and in no way the only way to view the
EU’s view on poverty.
In preventing paternalistic strategies, the consensus refers to aid recipients as its
partners, which implies an equitable rather than a paternalistic relationship
between the actors. Nonetheless, paternalism is vaguely present in the document.
For example, moral obligation, mentioned in point 1, can be loosely likened to a
form of paternalism as it rationalises intervention through making it the plight of
the developed world (the parental role-models) to share its fortune and
innovations with those who are ‘unable’ to provide for themselves (the children).
Moreover, in stating the EU promotes the common value of democracy (point 4,
EU 2006), the consensus suggests that democracy is a shared goal of all cultures.
Debating the applicability of democracy in all countries is outside the framework
of this investigation, though it worth noting that democracy is not necessarily
desirable in all circumstances. It may be the paternalistic nature of the relationship
between the West and ‘the rest’ which dictates that democracy is a goal because
we, the knowledgeable western world, have found it useful.
Finding the colonial traits of ‘othering’ and paternalism in the consensus is
difficult at best. It is however interesting to compare the similarities and
differences between colonial policy and development policy regardless of the
outcome. In this case, few traces existed. However, othering and paternalism are
only two indicators of colonial traits, had we broadened the investigation to
include several factors, our results may have differed.

21
8 Conclusions

We contend that development is built on the framework of colonial policy (see

chapter 6). By making development out to be ‘natural’ it may be possible to
disguise the political and economic motives behind it. These motives in certain
cases are similar to those deployed in colonial times.
To facilitate change and innovation within the development field, questioning
the current development discourse is necessary. Comparing development with
colonialism is a means to view development from a less known viewpoint. It also
provides and understanding of how the often positively viewed development
discourse came to be. However, though development is usually seen as positive, it
may leave negative side-effects in its wake, as outlined in Chapter 3.
Moving away from the development discourse and conventional Western
regimes of knowledge provides space for new alternatives to grow. This may be
increasingly important in the current world where development faces ever
mounting problems and challenges. A restructuring of the ties between foreign and
local, we and ‘the others’, and traditional and modern may lead to new
relationships and practices between the West and the rest, a relationship that has
built upon an unequal power balance since colonial times. Post-development
studies may offer new solutions to the problems facing the developing world.
Development’s habit of grouping the peoples of the Third World into one
category is disrespectful to the multitude of ‘selves’ that exists in the region,
stemming from colonial times where the ‘barbaric’ others were often seen as one
entity. ‘The European Consensus’ aims to solve this problem through creating
tailor-made development action plans for each country.
The Consensus also attempts to work against colonialism’s and development’s
inherent paternalistic natures. It promotes women’s rights and power, as well as a
more equal balance of power between developed and developing through
partnerships.
Our results can be used to describe European development policy, though they
may not be applicable on a larger scale as we chose a limited number of
operational indicators and therein had a highly specific investigation. Accordingly,
more research is needed in order to be able to generalize that our results would
hold true in several analyses.
Finally, we contend that ‘The European Consensus on Development’
reproduces the current development discourse and contains colonial traits, though
not openly (or without further investigation). Development policy, as outlined in
the Consensus, is a product of the very colonial discourse from which it tries to
escape. However, it contains only loose ties with its colonial heritage, as measured
by the presence of paternalism and ‘othering’ in the Consensus.

8.1 Future Research

22
More research is necessary concerning the differences between what is written in
the consensus and what actions are taken in the field. Colonial tendencies,
ingrained in Western history and knowledge may be more apparent in the actions
of the European Union than in its writings.
Changes within the development discourse in recent years also need to be more
amply described, with focus on new ideas emerging from the developing world.
More information is necessary regarding development from a Third World
perspective. Development may appear or feel different in different places. Cultural
difference is at the root of post-development (Escobar 1995, p. 225) and its defense
is important.

23
9 References

Alvesson, Mats & Deetz, Stanley (2000). Kritisk samhällsvetenskaplig metod.

Lund: Studentlitteratur

Ashcroft, Bill; Griffiths, Gareth och Tiffin, Helen (1998). Key Concepts in Post-
Colonial Studies. London: Routledge.

Bergström, Göran & Boréus, Kristina (red.) (2005). Textens mening och makt:
metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig text- och diskursanalys. 2., [omarb.] uppl.
Lund: Studentlitteratur

Duffield, Mark R. & Hewitt, Vernon Marston. (red.) (2009). Empire, development
& colonialism: the past in the present. Woodbridge, Suffolk: James Currey

Duffield, Mark R. (2007). Development, security and unending war: governing the
world of peoples. Cambridge: Polity

Duffield, Mark (2001). Global governance and the new wars: the merging of
development and security. London: Zed

Eriksson Baaz, Maria (2005). The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial

reading of identity in development aid. New York ; London: Zed Books

Esaiasson, Peter (2007). Metodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och
marknad. 3., [rev.] uppl. Stockholm: Norstedts juridik

Escobar, Arturo (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of

the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press

EU, 2007. “The European Consensus on Development”. [online] Available at:

[Link]
mework/r12544_en.htm [accessed 2 January 2011]

Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity

Princeton University, (2010). Wordnet [internet]. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 6 November 2010].

Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the
Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the
Commission on European Union Development Policy (2006): ‘The European
Consensus’.

24
Kothari, Uma, (2006). “From Colonialism to Development: Reflections of Former
Colonial Officers”. In Commonwealth & Comparative Politics Vol. 44, No. 1, p.
93 – 107, March 2006. Available through: EBSCO Host Political Science
Complete. [Accessed 6 November 2010].

Loomba, Ania (2005). Colonialism/postcolonialism. 2. ed. London: Routledge

Rey, Alain (1987). Le Petit Robert. Distribooks; 9th edition

Rist, Gilbert 1938- (2002). The history of development: from Western origins to
global faith. New editon, rev. and exp. London: Zed

Rostow, Walt Whitman (1960). The stages of economic growth: a non-communist

manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press

Said, Edward W. (1978). Orientalism. 1. ed. New York: Pantheon Books

The Challenge to the South: The Report of the South Commission, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990.

Thörn, Håkan, Eriksson, Catharina & Eriksson Baaz, Maria (red.) (1999).
Globaliseringens kulturer: den postkoloniala paradoxen, rasismen och det
mångkulturella samhället. Nora: Nya Doxa

UNDP. Human Development Report 1991, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991
What Now? The 1975 Dag Hammarskjöld Report. Sweden

Williams & Young (2009). “The International Politics of Social Transformation” in

Duffield, Mark R. & Hewitt, Vernon Marston. (red.) (2009). Empire,
development & colonialism: the past in the present. Woodbridge, Suffolk:
James

Winther Jørgensen, Marianne & Phillips, Louise (2000). Diskursanalys som teori
och metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur

25
26