Postdevelopment Theory

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International

Studies
Postdevelopment Theory
Sally J. Matthews
Print Publication Date: Mar 2010 Subject: Development Online Publication Date: Nov 2017
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.39

Summary and Keywords

Postdevelopment theory is a field of thought in contemporary development studies that has

generated considerable debate. It is difficult to define what exactly postdevelopment theory is,
but its proponents generally reject past development theory and practice and call for
“alternatives to development” as opposed to “alternative development.” Indeed,
postdevelopment theory was a product of the disappointment felt by many at the apparent
failure of development and at the impasse with which development studies seemed to be
confronted by the late 1980s. Postdevelopment writers argue that development is not simply a
set of projects aiming to address a set of problems, but rather a “cast of mind,” an “ideology,” an
“interpretive grid,” a “discourse,” and a “myth.” Most are also highly critical of contemporary
Western society and highlight various problems of the West, including what they believe is the
parasitical nature of the developed world with regard to underdevelopment. Given the radical
assumptions of postdevelopment theory, it is not surprising that it has attracted significant
criticism. One of the most common criticisms is that postdevelopment theory does not provide
an adequate alternative to development. The new focus on the part of postdevelopment
theorists, their willingness to work alongside other critical development theorists, and their shift
away from an emphasis on critique helps resolve some of these criticisms. Nevertheless, a
number of key challenges remain, such as the need to clarify the relationship between those who
advocate postdevelopment and those who advocate some kind of alternative development.

Keywords: postdevelopment theory, development studies, alternatives to development, alternative development,

development, Western society, underdevelopment, postdevelopment

Introduction

Postdevelopment theory is one of the most compelling – and controversial – fields of thought in
contemporary development studies. This body of literature emerged a couple of decades ago and
has since sparked fierce debate and attracted much attention, both positive and negative. The
discussion generated by postdevelopment theory has contributed not only to development

Page 1 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

studies but also to broader discussions about the so-called Third World and the future of left
politics in a post-communist, post-modern world. As such, postdevelopment theory makes an
interesting and important contribution to contemporary thinking about development.

A wide and varied range of literature is included under the umbrella term “postdevelopment
theory,” making it difficult to define what exactly postdevelopment theory is. Perhaps the most
common feature of texts described as “postdevelopment theory” is a rejection of past
development theory and practice and an insistence that development initiatives, on the whole,
did more harm than good, and hence the need for “alternatives to development.” In this essay,
this and other key features of postdevelopment theory will be outlined with the aim of providing
a concise overview of this varied school of thought. This overview will be followed by a summary
of the criticisms that have been directed against postdevelopment theory. Finally, the essay
concludes with a brief discussion of possible future directions in the field.

Historical Survey

As indicated above, postdevelopment theory is a relatively new area in development studies. The
idea of there being something that could be described as postdevelopment theory only arose in
the 1990s. That said, precursors to postdevelopment theory can be identified. To some extent,
dependency theory can be considered to be a precursor of postdevelopment theory as some
features of dependency theory are shared by postdevelopment theory, particularly a concern
with exploitation and oppression. However, as discussed by Manzo (1991) and Gülalp (1998),
dependency theory shares with modernization theory “the idealised notion of development
derived from the Western experience and the associated implicit longing to replicate it
voluntarily” (Gülalp 1998:957). Postdevelopment theory’s critique of modernity, and of how
notions of modernity are drawn from the Western experience, allows it to break with
dependency theory.

The first examples of what would become postdevelopment theory emerged around the 1980s
with the critiques of development provided by Escobar (1984), Illich (1979), Latouche (1986),
and Nandy (1983; 1986; 1988). This kind of literature burgeoned in the early 1990s with the
emergence of several scathing critiques of development in the form of books by Ferguson
(1990), Latouche (1993), Mies and Shiva (1993) and Verhelst (1990), as well as volumes edited
by Apffel Marglin and Marglin (1990; 1996) and Sachs (1992). In the mid to late 1990s, these
were joined by Escobar’s Encountering Development (1995), Esteva and Prakash’s Grassroots
Post-modernism (1998) and Rahnema with Bawtree’s Post-development Reader (1997). It was
these three texts that really consolidated the postdevelopment library and attracted much
attention to this school of thought.

Like most subfields in development studies, postdevelopment theory is by no means a unified

school of thought. While this label has been applied, and sometimes self-applied, in reference to
the above-mentioned authors and to several others, there is much diversity within this literature.
First, one can differentiate between postdevelopment literature that is mainly disseminated and
discussed in English and that which is predominantly influential within Francophone circles.
While it is possible to note some differences between these two groups, there has been a fair
amount of interaction between postdevelopment theorists from various linguistic groups.

Page 2 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Consider for example a conference held in 2002 in Paris (entitled Défaire le Développement,
Refaire le Monde – Unmake Development, Remake the World) bringing together participants
from all over the world, speaking mainly in French, but with sessions in English as well.

Two commentators on postdevelopment – David Simon and Aram Ziai – differentiate between
different schools of thought within postdevelopment. Simon distinguishes between what he calls
“anti-development” and “post-development” (2003:7, 36n; 2006:11–12). Antidevelopment texts
present a radical and derisive critique of development, lambasting it for causing cultural
destruction and dependency. Escobar’s Encountering Development is identified as an example of
such a text. In contrast, Simon characterizes postdevelopment theory as more forward-looking
literature in which new alternatives to development are proposed. Esteva and Prakash’s
Grassroots Post-modernism is considered an example here. The distinction Simon makes is not
between two sets of writers (indeed some authors, like Escobar, have written both anti- and
postdevelopment texts), but rather a distinction between a critical backward-looking approach
(antidevelopment) about which he is not very positive, and a more forward-looking constructive
approach (postdevelopment) about which he is more optimistic.

Ziai’s (2004) distinction is different: he distinguishes between a reactionary populist variant of

postdevelopment theory and a radical democratic one. The former rejects modernity completely
and advocates a return to a romanticized, subsistence-based existence. Ziai (2004:1054–6)
identifies Alvares (1992) and Rahnema with Bawtree (1997) as proponents of this approach. The
other variant, which Ziai believes is promoted by Escobar (1995), Esteva and Prakash (1998),
Banuri (1990A; 1990B), and Apffel-Marglin and Marglin (1996), is as cautious in its praise of
“the local” and of non-Western cultural traditions, as in its criticism of modernity. He argues that
this variant fits nicely with the idea of radical democracy as espoused by Lummis (1996) and
Laclau and Mouffe (2001), in that it favors radical decentralization and the rejection of universal
models.

Simon’s and Ziai’s distinctions are quite different, yet both help to delineate the field of
postdevelopment theory. This essay will, however, treat postdevelopment as a single school of
thought even while it is acknowledged that there are significant variations within
postdevelopment literature.

Before outlining some of the key themes in postdevelopment theory, a brief comment on the
intersections between postdevelopment theory and other “post” literature is necessary. Some
authors, such as Power (2003) and Esteva and Prakash (1998), treat postdevelopment theory as
if it is a postmodern approach to development. This is misleading because while some of the
above authors have been influenced by postmodern writing and concerns, overall,
postdevelopment theory cannot be said to unambiguously reflect a – and certainly not the –
postmodern approach to development. It would be more appropriate to say that much
postdevelopment theory is influenced by postmodernism, but that there is much variation in the
extent of this influence. Postdevelopment theory also shares much in common with postcolonial
theory, although there has been surprisingly little interaction between the two. It can be hoped
that attempts by Sharp and Briggs (2006) and Simon (2006) to bring out common themes
between postdevelopment and postcolonial writings will be further expanded upon.

Postdevelopment theory emerged out of the despair felt by many at the apparent failure of
development and at the impasse with which development studies seemed to be confronted by
the late 1980s (see Booth 1985; 1994; Schuurman 1993; 2002; Simon 1997:183; 2003:5–7; Power
2003:83; Sharp and Briggs 2006:7). Given this context, it is not surprising then that a lot of

Page 3 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

postdevelopment theory – particularly those texts that Simon (2006) refers to as “anti-
development” writings – focused on the shortcomings of past development theory and practice.
As the discussion below indicates, postdevelopment writers spend much time critically
interrogating the assumptions that had informed development work and the practices that had
characterized attempts to bring about development. However, in addition to such a critical
interrogation, postdevelopment writers also point to some possible better ways to define and
address the problems development initiatives typically purport to tackle – problems like poverty,
oppression, and exploitation. In the sections to follow, key themes which emerge in
postdevelopment theory will be overviewed with the intention of providing the reader with a
broader understanding of the arguments provided by postdevelopment theorists as well as
pointing the reader toward texts dealing with particular themes.

Postdevelopment Theory’s Critique of “Development”

Postdevelopment theorists believe that development has failed in that its promises remain
unfulfilled. Here they are in agreement with most critical development theorists, who concur
that since the 1980s, the so-called lost decade of development, there has been growing
disappointment with the whole project of bringing development to the Third World. As Sachs
puts it: “The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and
disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady companions of development and they
tell a common story: it did not work” (1992:1). The persistence of problems such as poverty and
inequality after decades of attempts at bringing about development is considered by
postdevelopment theorists as testimony to the failure of development.

These theorists also believe that in addition to its failure to bring about the benefits it promises,
development causes problems of its own. Rist (1997:20) argues that over and above failing to
alleviate poverty in the Third World, development has increased the dependence of the Third
World and resulted in the depletion of its resources; and Rahnema says that “not only did
development fail to resolve the old problems it was supposed to address, but it brought in new
ones of incomparably greater magnitude” (Rahnema with Bawtree 1997:378). The problems to
which he is referring here are problems such as cultural alienation, environmental destruction,
loss of self-esteem, conflict, and the creation of perpetually unfulfilled expectations.

Postdevelopment thinkers believe that the failure of development and the new problems it has
apparently provoked have led to a loss of faith in development. This loss of faith is a further
indicator that it may be time to call for an end to development, to “write its obituary” (Sachs
1992:1) and proclaim a postdevelopment era. The contemporary notion of development has been
delegitimized, such that it is increasingly difficult to remain convinced that poverty, inequity, and
other problems can be solved by development.

One reason why postdevelopment theorists do not find the failure of past development initiatives
a motivation to intensify efforts to bring about development is that they understand the failure of
development to be related to flaws within the idea itself, rather than being the result of failed
implementation of a basically sound idea. To postdevelopment theorists, development as an idea
is deeply problematic, such that the failure of development is inevitable, and indeed such that

Page 4 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

the success of development would ultimately be no better than its failure. Development is
premised upon shaky assumptions.

To make this argument, postdevelopment theorists stress that development is not just a set of
projects aiming to address a set of problems, but rather that development is a “cast of
mind” (Sachs 1992:1), an “ideology” (Alvares 1992:90), an “interpretive grid” (Ferguson
1990:xiii), a “discourse” (Escobar 1995:5–6), and a “myth” (Latouche 1993; Rist 1997). In this
way they emphasize that development is more than just a series of policies and practices, and
that the failure of development is ultimately the failure of an idea. Marglin sums this up nicely
when stressing that criticisms of development offered by contributors to a book he coedits “are
directed not at particular failures, which might be explained away as poor implementation of
basically sound ideas, but at the theories which have undergirded and legitimized
practice” (1990:1).

Rist’s The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith offers a useful
discussion of this theme. Rist argues that development is a Western idea, and that to understand
it one needs to acknowledge and explore its Western origins. Rist reveals development to be part
of the “religion of modernity” (1997:21), and stresses that “modern society,” like all other
societies, has its own traditions and myths and is not, as is often suggested, different from all
other societies by virtue of being “secular” and “rational.” He then presents the idea of
development as a myth of Western society, tracing the intellectual history of the idea and
showing how development thinking fits into Enlightenment thought. Rist shows that
development is rooted in a particular intellectual tradition and that the flaws in this tradition are
reflected in the idea of development itself. He identifies the idea of infinite progress as “an idea
which radically distinguishes Western culture from all others” and also an idea that is hopelessly
flawed (1997:238). The contemporary idea of development, he argues, fits into a set of Western
ideas regarding the infiniteness of progress, and, given the flaws of these ideas, the idea of
development is also deeply flawed. Progress is not infinite, and development, as it has been
conceived, is not possible.

If, as Rist and other postdevelopment theorists argue, development’s failure can be attributed to
flaws in the very idea itself, rather than flawed implementation, then no amount of improved
development practice will allow the problems which development purports to address to be
solved. For this reason, postdevelopment theorists believe that what is needed is a new
approach to these problems, one which might even reveal certain “problems” not to be problems
at all, and which may expose new difficulties.

One of the flaws in the idea of development, according to postdevelopment theorists, is that it
misrepresents both those it labels “developed” and those it labels “underdeveloped.” For
postdevelopment theorists these labels make little sense, involve the essentialization of both
those labeled “developed” and “underdeveloped,” and create false impressions about those
assigned to each camp. It is important to note that while postdevelopment theorists take issue
with the developed/underdeveloped distinction, they do believe that important distinctions exist
between regions classed under these headings. However, they question the explanatory value of
relating these distinctions to “levels of development.”

Postdevelopment theorists point out that “underdevelopment” is not an objective condition.

People, it seems, came to be described as “underdeveloped” at some stage. In an account of his
own experience of development, Shrestha writes that as a young boy growing up in Nepal he
had no idea that he was “underdeveloped” – “poor and hungry I certainly was. But

Page 5 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

underdeveloped? I never thought – nor did anyone else – that being poor meant being
‘underdeveloped’ and lacking human dignity” (1995:268). It was only in the 1950s that this word
(or the local translation of it) began to take on some meaning in the village where Shrestha grew
up, and indeed in many other parts of the world. Postdevelopment theorists point out that
describing a group of people as underdeveloped means defining them in relation to what they
are not and ignoring their diversity. Diverse groups of people are united by their lack of
something that has been achieved by others (Sachs 1992:3). Highlighting this, Esteva talks
about how the emergence of development discourse meant that people

ceased being what they were, in all their diversity, and were transmogrified into an
inverted mirror of others’ reality: a mirror that belittles them and sends them off to the
end of the queue, a mirror that defines their identity, which is really that of a
heterogeneous and diverse majority, simply in the terms of a homogenizing and narrow
minority. (1992:7)

Development literature tends to present “underdeveloped” ways of life as absolutely undesirable

and inferior to the “developed” way of life. But, asks Rahnema, “Was everything so bad in the old
world?” (Rahnema with Bawtree 1997:379). He refers to the work of Marshall Sahlins and others
who have shown that the life of hunter-gatherers, who would typically be classified as extremely
underdeveloped, was not as bad as it is often presented to be – in fact, Sahlins (1997) calls this
kind of society “the original affluent society.” Similarly, in Shrestha’s narrative of his own
development experience, he argues that the Nepalese economic system and values, which he
had earlier rejected in favor of the “developed” way of life, had much more going for them than
he originally thought. This way of life was “generally self-reliant, self-sufficient, sustainable, and
far less destructive of humanity as well as nature” (1995:276). Likewise, Shiva (1989:10) points
out that traditional diets, building styles, and forms of clothing are often healthier and
ecologically more appropriate than their modern counterparts. The “underdeveloped” way of life
cannot so easily be dismissed as completely undesirable.

Postdevelopment theorists like Rahnema, Shrestha, and Shiva caution that they do not mean to
suggest that everything about the “underdeveloped” way of life is good and desirable. Shiva, for
example, stresses that not all cultural practices are of equal value and describes traditional
practices such as dowry, India’s caste system, and genital mutilation as undesirable (Mies and
Shiva 1993:11); and Shrestha emphasizes that he is “not trying to suggest that whatever was old
was good and desirable and that every aspect of our lost heritage should be reclaimed […]
Nobody should be oblivious to the many tyrannical practices of our feudal-religious
heritage” (1995:276). However, Rahnema, Shiva, Shrestha, and others would like to stress that
while the “underdeveloped” way of life may have been flawed in several important ways,
development discourse misrepresents this way of life when it presents it as being like Hobbes’s
state of nature – “poor, nasty, brutish and short.” It is misleading to present the lives of the
“underdeveloped” as perfect and trouble-free but, as Latouche points out, “the incredible joie de
vivre that strikes many observers in African suburbs misleads less than the depressing objective
evaluations using statistical apparatus which discern only the Westernized part of wealth and
poverty” (1993:216). More positive accounts of life in the “underdeveloped” world are often
criticized for romanticizing the poor, but postdevelopment thinkers suggest that such
romanticization is no more misleading than the standard way in which the “underdeveloped” are
presented in development literature.

Page 6 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Postdevelopment Theory’s Concerns about Westernization

Most postdevelopment theorists are deeply critical of contemporary Western society. If

developing means adopting the modern, Western way of life, then, as Sachs comments, “it is not
the failure of development which has to be feared but its success” (1992:3). According to
postdevelopment theorists, the modern, Western way of life is not sufficiently good and desirable
to function as a model for what other parts of the world ought to become. Development surely
means becoming like those labeled “developed,” but if this is so, then the form of development
being proposed is only desirable if the developed way of life in which it results is desirable. But,
argue postdevelopment theorists, it most assuredly is not.

Much development literature implies that suffering, deprivation, and misery are the preserve of
the underdeveloped. Citizens of the developed world apparently live basically good, meaningful,
happy lives. From the perspective of a Third World citizen, familiar only with images of the
developed society and not with the reality of day-to-day life in the developed world, this
developed way of life seems very desirable. But, as a character in the play Mon Oncle
d’Amerique commented, “America doesn’t exist. I’ve been there” (quoted in Banuri 1990A:59).
Much the same can be said of the “developed” world. If the developed world is the world in
which poverty, injustice, conflict, want, and misery have been eradicated, then indeed, the
“developed” world does not exist. Nevertheless, certain parts of the world are continually
labeled “developed,” and development literature continually assumes the desirability of life in
these parts.

Postdevelopment theorists acknowledge that there are many benefits to life in the “developed”
world, but point out that “the attractions of the Western model need no elaboration” (Marglin
1990:3) – we are well aware of the high levels of physical comfort enjoyed by those in the West
and of the other benefits of the Western way of life. Despite these benefits, postdevelopment
theorists argue that “the Western model remains less than compelling” (Marglin 1990:3). There
are several problems with the “developed” way of life, and postdevelopment theorists feel that
these problems ought to be highlighted. As Verhelst (1990:66) points out, many in the Third
World are attracted by the well-advertised benefits of the Western way of life, and surely honesty
requires that the problems of the West be publicly described and analyzed to prevent the
“persistent, servile admiration” of the West reflected in the attitude of some Third World
citizens.

One of the problems of the West highlighted by postdevelopment theory relates to the
environmental destruction which the developed way of life has brought with it. This problem is
well known and many in the developed world are actively trying to pursue ways in which to
continue the developed way of life while mitigating its effects on the environment. The
environmental crisis casts doubt on the viability and desirability of the development project.

Another problem experienced by the developed world has to do with the sociocultural
characteristics of the developed regions. The developed world has certainly not found a way to
eradicate misery. Marglin lists “spiritual desolation, meaningless work, [and] neglect of the
aged” as some of the characteristics of the “developed” society which make it a “dubious
example” for the rest of the world (1990:3). Latouche talks of the West as “an impersonal
machine, devoid of spirit” and stresses that Western civilization has its “dark side” which
includes desolation, numbness, and insecurity (1993:11–13). Verhelst dedicates a chapter

Page 7 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

(entitled “Alienation amidst Plenty”) in his book on culture and development, to the cultural
desolation of the West. He begins the chapter by noting that “there is something insulting and
narrow-minded in speaking only of the ‘problems of the Third World’ as if humanity’s evils were
confined to the tropics and to people of color; as if the West, in contrast, was sheltered from all
the misery and depravity that thrives overseas” (1990:65).

A further problem that postdevelopment theorists identify with the developed society is that it is
parasitical upon the existence of underdevelopment. Here, they echo and build upon the ideas of
dependency theorists who argue that the underdevelopment of some regions is a result of the
same process that brought development to other regions. It seems to postdevelopment theorists
that the developed society is only made possible by the deprivation of others. Alvares (1992:145)
argues that the levels of resource use and wastage of the developed world require the
“permanent victimhood” of the many excluded from this way of life.

Disillusionment with the benefits of the modern Western way of life is thus a key feature of
several postdevelopment writings. From the perspective of postdevelopment theorists,
development appears to be premised on exploitation and oppression and to result in a way of life
which, while having many benefits, is by no means unambiguously far superior to other ways of
life.

The critique of the West enables postdevelopment theorists to question both the possibility and
the desirability of development. If development is premised upon environmental destruction and
the exploitation of others, then it may not be possible for the Third World to develop as it lacks a
periphery to exploit and as it seems that the development of the Third World would escalate
already terrifying levels of environmental destruction, until such a point that all further
development becomes impossible. Furthermore, if the goal of development – becoming
“developed” – is not as desirable as it has been presented, then there seems to be no reason to
justify the exploitation of people and nature in pursuit of development.

Several postdevelopment theorists, particularly Sachs (1992; 2000; 2002) and Shiva (1989;
1991; Mies and Shiva 1993), draw attention to the ecological limits which suggest that the
developed way of life cannot possibly be generalized. Sachs, for example, talks of the “five or six
planets [that] would be needed to serve as mines and waste dumps” if the industrialized model
was to be generalized (1992:2). Shiva and other ecofeminists argue that something more radical
than the “greening” of development or “sustainable” development is required. Drawing on
statistics about current and projected future resource usage, postdevelopment theorists argue
that proposing development as the solution to the problems of the Third World is at best unwise
and at worst suicidal. They do not see new “green” technology and “sustainable” development as
solutions to such problems. It seems clear that even with attempts to “green” development, it is
not possible for the whole of humanity to consume or waste in a manner similar to that of
citizens of the “developed” world. For postdevelopment theorists, then, ecological limits make
development impossible, and suggest the need for a new approach to the problems of the Third
World.

Development is also impossible because it seems, as mentioned earlier, that the development of
some parts of the world was at least to some extent predicated on the exploitation of other parts
of the world. We can only speculate about what our contemporary world would look like had
there been no imperialism, no slave trade, and no colonial and neocolonial trade practices;
however, it seems reasonable to assume that the developed parts of the world could not have
achieved their current levels of material comfort if these practices had never taken place, and

Page 8 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

indeed did not continue to take place today. To use Sachs’s (1992:2) image, the underdeveloped
would not only need five or six planets to serve as mines and waste dumps, but also to serve as
areas to be exploited and to provide cheap labor. Thus the exploitative nature of the
development of the developed world suggests that the underdeveloped will not be able to
achieve development.

For postdevelopment theorists, development is not only undesirable because it seems to be at

least partially predicated upon exploitation, but also because the outcome of development – the
developed society – does not make development seem a worthwhile process. If, as discussed
earlier, developed society affluence has not led to the eradication of misery, hopelessness,
loneliness, fear, and deprivation among its citizens, then it seems necessary to question both the
possibility and the desirability of becoming developed.

As pointed out earlier, postdevelopment theorists believe that to group together large sections of
the world under the label of the “underdeveloped” is to ignore the differences between these
groups. The underdeveloped regions of the world are home to diverse cultural groups with
diverse ways of seeing and being in the world. Postdevelopment theory gives much attention to
this diversity and presents it as a valuable asset which is being undermined by development.

Shanin (1997) suggests that the idea of progress, a core element of the idea of development,
emerged partly in response to the West’s need to explain the diversity of humanity. As European
travelers became more and more aware that the world consisted of a vast variety of different
people groups who lived in numerous very different ways, it became necessary to try to explain
this diversity. The old dichotomy of civilization/barbarity no longer seemed adequate given the
vast variety of societies which came to light during the period of European conquest. The idea of
progress or development proved a useful tool to explain this diversity. Different societies were
portrayed as being at different levels of development, with Western society presented as a more
evolved version of earlier societies (Shanin 1997:67). This way of explaining diversity
strengthened the West’s belief in its superiority and helped legitimize colonialism. The
postcolonial era may have seen the delegitimization of the idea that the “advanced” countries
should rule over the “backward” regions, but it has not seen an end to the belief that differences
in societal arrangement reflect varying levels of some kind of evolutionary progress.

By explaining social difference in a way that ranks different people groups, non-Western ways of
life are denigrated. Moreover, this way of understanding difference denies non-Western societies
a future other than by gradual assimilation with the West. As Marx put it, “the country that is
more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own
future” (1958:74, cited in Rist 1997:42). According to this understanding of difference, a
developed world would be one in which differences in terms of socioeconomic arrangements and
general lifestyle would be significantly reduced. Postdevelopment theorists believe that current
development initiatives have thus far served to reduce diversity and that the reduction of
diversity is to be lamented and opposed.

Diversity, to postdevelopment theorists, is an asset. As long as there is diversity, alternative ways

of living are evident. The persistence of diversity means the existence of “other ways of building
economies, or dealing with basic needs, of coming together into social groups” (Escobar 1995:
225), and thereby provides us with lived alternatives to the way we do things. Marglin (1990:15–
17) compares cultural diversity with biological diversity. Just as biologists speak in favor of
maintaining the diversity of the genetic pool, so we should defend cultural diversity because the

Page 9 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

existence of a variety of cultures maintains “the diversity of forms of understanding, creating,

and coping that the human species has managed to generate” (1990:16–17).

Postdevelopment Theory’s Defense of the Local and the Non-Western

Postdevelopment theorists are defenders of the “local.” They give attention to what is happening
“on the ground” and at the “grassroots,” rather than focusing on international strategies and the
like. In line with their defense of diversity discussed above, many are opposed to “global
solutions” because such solutions tend to ignore the specificities which may make a solution
appropriate in one place but less appropriate elsewhere. Thus, for some postdevelopment
theorists, to resist development is not to propose in its place another solution to the world’s
problems, but rather to stress that different societies need to find different ways to cope with
the problems they face – and that these problems too will differ from place to place.

Some, like Esteva and Prakash (1997; 1998), are opposed to both thinking and acting “big.” They
argue that the slogan “Think globally, act locally” epitomizes a common approach among
“alternative development” activists, but that it is preferable to both act and think locally as they
believe global thinking to be impossible and unwise. It should be noted that Esteva and Prakash
are not opposed to “effective coalitions for specific purposes,” nor to the articulation of a
“shared No” to common enemies (1997:24, 28), but they are cautious about more general and
restrictive affirmative coalitions which try to define a broader common project. Similarly,
Escobar believes that “there are no grand alternatives that can be applied to all places or all
situations […] One must resist the desire to formulate alternatives at an abstract, macro
level” (1995:222). The argument is not one in favor of a radical localism which seeks no contact
outside the immediate locality, but is a position that both favors the local and is rather
suspicious of big, far-ranging approaches.

Other postdevelopment theorists are less cautious about presenting general solutions or
identifying general problems. Mies and Shiva warn against a position that is so sensitive to
difference, and so opposed to universalism, that it advocates a form of cultural relativism. They
argue that what “grassroots women activists” want is a new form of universalism and that we
should not only focus on differences between people but also on “interconnectedness among
women, among men and women, among human beings and other life forms,
worldwide” (1993:12–13).

Postdevelopment theorists’ suspicion of big, grand-scale projects leads them to support local
social movements. Rather than placing their faith in government agencies, international
institutions, and large nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), postdevelopment writers place
their faith in smaller, “grassroots” organizations, many of which are referred to as “new social
movements” (NSMs). It is hoped that these locally based, locally inspired groups will be better
able to play a role which is sensitive to difference and which is based on the particular needs of
particular groups of people.

In line with their critique of the West, their emphasis on the value of diversity, and their focus on
the local, postdevelopment theorists stress that many non-Western, “nondeveloped” ways of life
are valid and worth defending. Thus they challenge the desirability of “development” both by

Page 10 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

challenging the desirability of becoming “developed” and by challenging the undesirability of

being “underdeveloped.”

Postdevelopment theorists are more likely than other development theorists to draw on non-
Western thinkers and philosophies in defense of their arguments. One of the non-Western
thinkers much respected and referred to by postdevelopment theorists is Gandhi (see, for
example, Alvares 1992:131–5; Shiva 1993:264; Mies and Shiva 1993:322). Alvares (1992:131–41)
also draws on other non-Western thinkers, including Indian thinkers such as Manu Kothari and
Lopa Mehta, and a Japanese agricultural scientist, Fukuoka. Rahnema refers to the Chinese
thinkers Confucius and Lao Tzu in the closing chapter of The Post-development Reader
(Rahnema with Bawtree 1997:387–9). This reliance on non-Western thinkers is by no means
unique to postdevelopment theory, but contributes to their general stance in favor of the non-
Western.

Postdevelopment theorists clearly do not think that development should be rejected only
because being “developed” is not all it has been made out to be; they believe, too, that the
“underdeveloped” ways of life, and the philosophies of those coming from “underdeveloped”
areas, have much to contribute to discussions about how to live good lives. In order to make this
point, they implicitly and explicitly stress the value of “underdeveloped” worldviews and
practices.

Postdevelopment Theory’s Proposed “Alternatives to Development”

What ultimately characterizes postdevelopment theory, and sets it apart from other critical
development theory, is its rejection of “development.” While many critical development theorists
would agree with many of the arguments outlined above, they draw the line at calling for an
“end to development.” At this point they caution against “throwing the baby out with the
bathwater” (see, for example, Parpart 1995:264; Sutcliffe 1999:151; Sharp and Briggs 2006:8).
Rejecting the whole contemporary notion of development seems to many a little extreme.

Extreme it may be, but this appears to be the position of postdevelopment theorists. In Sachs’s
introduction to his Development Dictionary he describes the intention of the contributors to the
book as being “to clear out of the way this self-defeating development discourse” (1992:4).
Alvares talks about a need for “a frontal attack on the ideology of development,” and says “there
is no such thing as a developed or an undeveloped person” (1992:108). Rahnema states that
while he does not believe that all development projects are bad, he and most other contributors
to The Post-development Reader “have come to the conclusion that development was indeed a
poisonous gift to the populations it set out to help” (Rahnema with Bawtree 1997:381).

It seems clear that postdevelopment theorists differ from other critical development theorists in
that they choose to oppose development rather than to reform and rehabilitate it. However, the
difference between the two positions is not all that clear: is it a squabble about words – about
whether or not the word “development” should still be used in descriptions of initiatives aiming
to improve people’s lives; or is there some deeper difference? My impression is that to a certain
extent the dispute is about whether or not the word “development” ought to be used given the
many problematic connotations it has, but that this disagreement does go deeper than words.

Page 11 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

From the perspective of postdevelopment theorists with their emphasis on the nonmaterial, the
power of words such as “development,” “modernity,” “First World” or “Third World” must be
recognized, as such words do not just indicate and describe “things out there,” but conjure up a
whole number of images and feelings. We need to recognize that “development” and related
terms have been used in particular ways and that such terms carry with them a number of
connotations. Esteva argues:

Development cannot delink itself from the words with which it was formed – growth,
evolution, maturation. Just the same, those who now use the word cannot free
themselves from a web of meanings that impart a specific blindness to their language,
thought and action. No matter the context in which it is used, or the precise connotation
the person using it wants to give it, the expression becomes qualified and colored by
meanings perhaps unwanted. (1992:10)

In a later work, Esteva (1996) describes the words common in development discourse as buoys
in a net, such that when one uses them, one finds oneself trapped in the net. In a similar vein,
Latouche argues that “words are rooted in history; they are linked to ways of seeing and entire
cosmologies which very often escape the speaker’s consciousness, but which have a hold over
our feelings” (1993:160). Latouche does not believe that the debate about the word
“development” is simply a matter of words. For him development is a “toxic word” that cannot
escape the connotations that attach themselves to it. To argue that development must be
completely different to what it has always been, seems dangerous to him – it is to “don the
opposition’s colors, hoping perhaps to seduce rather than combat it – but more likely to fall into
the abyss itself” (1993:160). For Esteva, Latouche, and others, it seems safer to avoid the
terminology generally used in development discourse altogether. In this, postdevelopment
theorists clearly differ from many other critical development theorists who prefer to redefine
development, arguing like Tucker (1999:15) and Rahman (1993:213–14) that the term
“development” is a powerful word and that to reject it “would amount to handing over a
powerful tool to those who exploit it for their own purposes” (Tucker 1999:15).

Postdevelopment theorists distance themselves from the advocates of various forms of

“alternative development,” arguing instead for “alternatives to development.” Their distaste for
“alternative development” stems partly from the realization that many so-called alternatives
have been co-opted into standard development discourse, and that what is needed is a more
radical position – one that opposes standard development discourse, rather than trying to coax it
in a new direction. Banuri’s distinction between “internal” and “external” critiques is useful here
(1990A:35–8; 1990B:75–6). “Internal” critiques of development accept the underlying moral
arguments and assumptions made in the development theories they criticize, while external
critiques of development “reject the basic notions of welfare and behavior implicit in such
theories” and are opposed to the “presumed superiority of Western values” implicit in much
development theory (Banuri 1990A:35–6). External critiques resist being assimilated into
development theory, while internal critiques do not. Postdevelopment theorists, unlike the
advocates of “alternative development,” are clearly external critics, standing outside the value
system from which development initiatives emerge, and opposing the assumptions upon which
the idea of development is premised. In this way, they resist being “co-opted” into standard
development discourse. The recent history of development discourse demonstrates the very real
risk of co-option: when development’s impact on the environment was criticized, the idea of
sustainable development came to the fore; when development was criticized for the way it
approached culture, attempts were made to see culture as a “tool” for development, and so on.

Page 12 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Thus the postdevelopment theorist’s position of standing outside standard development theory
and vehemently opposing it can be understood as an attempt to resist co-option within standard
development discourse.

Of course, it should be pointed out here that the internal critic/external critique distinction is not
a very clear one. Many advocates of “alternative development” share some but not all the values
and assumptions implicit in standard development theory, and postdevelopment theorists cannot
be said not to have a single value or assumption in common with mainstream development
theorists. Nevertheless, the postdevelopment theorists’ position is at greater variance with the
standard development position than is the position of most advocates of various “alternative”
forms of development.

Indeed, some postdevelopment theorists not only distance themselves from “alternative
development,” but show themselves to be completely opposed to it. Latouche calls “alternative
development” a “siren song” and describes it as more dangerous than “true blue” development
(1993:149). By presenting a “friendly exterior,” “alternative development” is harder to resist
than standard development; nevertheless, it shares many of the pitfalls of standard
development. For Latouche, “the opposition between ‘alternative development’ and alternative
to development is radical, irreconcilable and one of essence, both in the abstract and in
theoretical analysis” (1993:159, emphasis in the original).

As indicated earlier, postdevelopment theorists do not just believe that past development
initiatives failed, but that the failure of development is a result of the inherently flawed nature of
the contemporary concept and project of development, and, furthermore, that development has
not only failed to bring about prosperity and a better life for the citizens of the Third World, but
that it has harmed the Third World and undermined their belief systems and ways of living. Thus
they feel the need to adopt a position that is clearly and radically opposed to development,
rather than one that seeks to improve, alter, rehabilitate or even redefine development.

A further distinguishing feature of postdevelopment writing is its emphasis on the nonmaterial –

on culture, discourse, and mindsets. Many critics of past development initiatives point to the
material failures of past development practice, but few give as much attention to the
nonmaterial aspects of development, and of its failure, as do postdevelopment theorists. As
mentioned earlier, postdevelopment theorists emphasize that development is a way of seeing the
world, an ideology or a mindset. This emphasis on the nonmaterial also extends to the approach
that postdevelopment theorists take when suggesting how to address the failure of development.
Rather than proposing new strategies and approaches which could bring about “real” benefits
such as GDP growth, increases in literacy levels, and so on, they suggest that the most
important requirement for addressing the failure of development is a change in the way we
understand the world.

Postdevelopment theorists point out that the way we act and the way we see the world are
intimately connected – “The act of belief is performative, and if people must be made to believe,
it is so that they can be made to act in a certain way” (Rist 1997:22). Development has become
the preoccupation of so many in the Third World because their imaginations have been
conquered by the contemporary idea of development. In order for this idea of development to be
popularized, people had to begin to see the world in terms of development – they had to perceive
certain situations as being situations of underdevelopment and see the solution to certain
problems as development. As Esteva points out, “in order for people to seek to escape
underdevelopment, they first have to believe that they are underdeveloped” (1992:7). Likewise,

Page 13 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

if contemporary development initiatives are to be discarded and new ways of approaching

problems such as poverty and injustice are to be initiated, then new ways of seeing and
understanding the world need to emerge. Verhelst stresses this, saying that “there can be no
solution to the crisis if we merely change structures without effecting the sort of personal
conversion that allows collective changes of mentality and behavior” (1990:71). So often, talk of
the discourse and imagery of development is seen as neglecting the “real” effect of development
or the lack thereof, but, as Ferguson underlines, “thinking is as ‘real’ an activity as any other […]
ideas and discourses have important and very real social consequences” (1990:xv).

Postdevelopment theory’s emphasis on the nonmaterial is one way in which it breaks with
dependency theory. Postdevelopment theory echoes dependency theory in its belief that the
development of the West was premised upon the exploitation of the Third World, but it does not
see this exploitation as being only or even primarily material, nor does its way of addressing the
problem stress the material. Verhelst discusses the importance of paying attention to
nonmaterial aspects, and quotes Ziegler (in Verhelst 1990:20) who argues that many radical
approaches are so fascinated by the “practical aspects of class struggle” and on material
conflicts that they neglect another “battlefield” – “the one where wars are fought for the control
of the imaginary.” Postdevelopment theory seeks to enter into combat on this battlefield.

Postdevelopment theorists believe that the idea of development is losing its hold over people’s
imaginations and that it is consequently becoming possible to approach the problems of the
Third World in new ways. Sachs (2000:13) says that the failure of development initiatives is not
enough to cause people to abandon development, but that development only loses its appeal
when its implicit promises no longer command credibility. This, he believes, has begun to
happen. Banuri also believes that development is losing credibility, arguing that the dominant
models of development “have relinquished their hold over the imagination of Third World
intellectuals” (1990a:32). It is this shift in beliefs that ultimately signals the “end of
development” to postdevelopment theorists, rather than just the material failure of development.

Criticisms Directed against Postdevelopment Theory

Given the radical nature of postdevelopment theory, it is not surprising that it has attracted
significant criticism. This criticism has come from a variety of sources, but it appears that most
critics are advocates either of a Marxist, neo- or post-Marxist understanding of development, or
otherwise of some alternative conception of development. While it could thus be said that
criticism of postdevelopment comes mainly from “the left” within development studies, it should
be stressed that critics of postdevelopment theory are by no means a homogeneous group and
that there is no single “anti-postdevelopment” position – rather there are a number of different
thinkers coming from a number of different academic disciplines, and different subject positions
with regard to development, who have found aspects of postdevelopment theory, the work of
particular theorists, or in some cases the whole body of literature, problematic.

One of the most common criticisms of postdevelopment theory is that the methodologies used
and arguments made by postdevelopment theorists are unsound and that postdevelopment
theorists provide inadequate support for their conclusions. Some critics feel that
postdevelopment theory’s conclusions are based on sentiment rather than sound argumentation.
Sidaway notes that some see postdevelopment as nothing more than an “intellectual

Page 14 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

fad” (2002:18), while Nanda (1999:9) argues that postdevelopment theory’s rejection of
development stems from a particular predisposition or “mood” rather than from careful analysis
of development practice. Postdevelopment theory’s use – or misuse – of postmodern writings,
especially of Foucault, is highlighted by several critics. Some critics (see, for example, Lehmann
1997; Brigg 2002; Ziai 2004) feel that Foucault is not always well used by postdevelopment
theorists, while others (such as Kiely 1999) feel that the use of Foucault, and of postmodern
thinking in general, is in itself a flaw which compromises postdevelopment theory. A final
problem with regard to methodology and argumentation relates to certain gaps in the
arguments presented by postdevelopment theorists. Berger (1995), for example, criticizes
Escobar for paying insufficient attention to the Cold War; and Lehmann (1997) and Nederveen
Pieterse (1998) accuse postdevelopment theorists of not adequately examining the experiences
of the Asian countries, especially the Newly Industrialized Economies, in their analyses of the
way in which development operates.

A second, and related, criticism levied against postdevelopment theory relates to its
homogenization of development. Critics argue that the rejection of development by
postdevelopment theorists is a consequence of their failure to recognize that development has
changed over the decades and that not all development is the same (see, for example, Grillo
1997; Simon 1997; Kiely 1999; Storey 2000; Van Ausdal 2001). As Simon puts it,
postdevelopment theory “set[s] up a straw elephant in seeking to portray postwar engagements
with poverty in the South as a single or singular ‘development project’ in order to be able to
knock it down more easily,” and postdevelopment theory ignores “the very tangible
achievements” of many development programs (1997:185; see also Simon 2006:12–13). Kiely
says that postdevelopment is a kind of reverse Orientalism which “turns all people from non-
western cultures into a generalized ‘subaltern’ that is then used to flog an equally generalized
‘West’” (Chow 1993:13, cited in Kiely 1999:47). Likewise Corbridge accuses postdevelopment
theory of presenting the West as “inauthentic, urban, consumerist, monstrous, [and] utilitarian”
and Westerners as “lonely, anxious, greedy and shallow” (1998A:144). A related criticism of
postdevelopment theory is that it romanticizes the non-West, the peasant, the traditional way of
life, and, in the case of ecofeminist writers, women and nature (Molyneux and Steinberg 1995:
91–2; Corbridge 1998A:145; Storey 2000:42; Gidwani 2002). Indeed, Kiely (1999) goes so far as
to ask if postdevelopment theory is “the last refuge of the noble savage.” Postdevelopment
theorists are thus criticized for exaggerating the benefits of the non-Western way of life and
underestimating the appeal of the Western way of life to non-Westerners.

Perhaps the most common criticism of postdevelopment theory relates to critics’ sense that
postdevelopment theory does not provide an adequate alternative to development. Blaikie’s
feeling is that the deconstruction of development offered by postdevelopment theorists “leaves
only fragmented remains […] an agenda-less program, a full stop, a silence, after the act of
deconstruction” (2000:1038–9), while Nederveen Pieterse accuses postdevelopment theory of
being all “critique but no construction” (2000:188). Some critics avoid accusing
postdevelopment theory of completely lacking a future program, but criticize the alternatives on
offer for having “a high New Age-like content clad in Third World clothes” (Schuurman 2001A:6)
and for seeming “romantic and utopian” (Berger 1995:725). There is a feeling among critics that
the alternatives presented by postdevelopment theorists lack detail, are unlikely to be realized,
and are ultimately less constructive than the alternatives offered by “alternative development”
approaches.

Page 15 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

A final criticism of postdevelopment theory centers on the ethics and politics of postdevelopment
theory. For many critics of postdevelopment theory, development is ultimately about addressing
the terrible inequities evident in our world by emancipating the underdeveloped from their
condition. The failure of past development initiatives only makes this task more urgent, and
makes the postdevelopment theorists’ contemplation of the ultimate desirability of becoming
“developed” seem like immoral navel-gazing. While a position that is critical of past development
theory, but supportive of the idea of development, enables further action to bring about
development – and is, therefore, a politically feasible position – postdevelopment theory’s focus
on discourse, ideas and images, and their questioning of mindsets and philosophies, seems to
some to pause if not to halt action in favor of improving the lives of the “underdeveloped” (see
Schuurman 2000; 2002; Nederveen Pieterse 2000). For many critics of postdevelopment theory,
the postdevelopment position seems nothing less than indifference to the suffering of distant
others, a shirking of duty, or an unwillingness to assist those less well off. It does not seem to
many critics that this position is of any use to those in the Third World – to those who Simon says
“can still only aspire to safe drinking-water, a roof which does not leak and the like” (1997:184).
Postdevelopment theorists are thus not only politically, but also morally irresponsible. Corbridge
argues along these lines when he suggests that postdevelopment theory is “ethically deficient”
because insufficient attention is paid to the “costs and disbenefits” that the “alternatives to
development” suggested and the “end of development” would entail (1998b:35). Similarly, Fagan
(1999:180), Mkandawire (2005:37) and Simon (1999:18; 2003:7) have a sense of moral
discomfort about the idea of rejecting development from the position of a person who has access
to all the benefits of a modern, “developed” life.

One of the apparent problems with the politics of postdevelopment theory is its stance in favor
of the “local” and the “grassroots” and its concomitant suspicion of the state. Postdevelopment
theorists see the improvement of the lives of those in the Third World as more likely to result
from the activities of local groups and from local strategies than from the initiatives of the state
or suprastate organizations, but critics question whether the “local” can really offer a solution
(see for example Schuurman 2001B). A further problem with postdevelopment theory’s focus on
the local and “grassroots” movements is that some postdevelopment theorists seem naively to
believe that local and grassroots movements will necessarily act in the interests of the poor and
marginalized, yet, as Nanda (1999) and Storey (2000) show, such groups may not necessarily be
pro-poor and may even have sexist, ethnocentric or racist aims. Kiely calls this faith in local
social movements “Pontius Pilate politics” (1999:45) – because postdevelopment theorists do not
provide clear criteria for the identification of the kinds of groups that can help improve the lives
of the poor in the Third World, they are actually washing their hands of the fate of the poor.

These, then, are some of the criticisms that have been directed against postdevelopment theory.
That postdevelopment theory has been the target of so much criticism indicates that there are
some serious shortcomings with some aspects of postdevelopment theory. However, it also
indicates the postdevelopment theory has touched a nerve and triggered much lively debate.

Page 16 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Future Directions

Postdevelopment theory received a great deal of attention around the turn of the century, but
the debate has since abated somewhat. Along with this abatement has come a slight change in
emphasis on the part of some of the key postdevelopment thinkers. Escobar, perhaps the best
known of the postdevelopment theorists, has recently been writing about social movements and
the World Social Forum (WSF) with which he has been actively involved (see Escobar 2004A;
2004B). While his key postdevelopment writings focus predominantly on critique, his new work
is more concerned with building alternatives to current economic practices. Two other
prominent postdevelopment thinkers, Sachs and Latouche, have also shifted focus a little.
Sachs’s recent publications focus on the environment and sustainability, and he was involved in
a large critical discussion forum related to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
(see Sachs 2000; 2002; Heinrich Böll Foundation 2002). For his part, Latouche has been writing
about and campaigning for something called la décroissance (“low growth” or “degrowth”
economics). He, and other proponents of décroissance, oppose infinite economic growth and
believe that we should work toward the creation of “integrated, self-sufficient, materially
responsible societies” (see Latouche 2004). These shifts in focus on the part of Escobar, Sachs,
and Latouche are slight, with their recent research building on their earlier work. Their more
recent work is more moderate and forward-looking and all three authors now collaborate with a
variety of alternative development thinkers who do not necessarily embrace postdevelopment.

The new focus on the part of such thinkers, their willingness to work alongside other critical
development theorists, and their shift away from a focus on critique helps resolve some of the
key criticisms directed against postdevelopment theory. Some of the recent writings of Escobar,
Sachs, and others are less open to accusations that they are all “critique and no
construction” (Nederveen Pieterse 2000:188) than their earlier work. Furthermore, there is now
a growing body of literature which responds to and builds upon postdevelopment theory with the
aim of making more particular and often more practical and detailed suggestions of how to
improve upon past development practice – see for example the recent volume edited by Ziai
(2007). These are all positive developments, but there remain some key challenges which
advocates of postdevelopment theory need to address.

First, the relationship between those who advocate postdevelopment and those who advocate
some kind of alternative development needs to be thrashed out. In an early postdevelopment
text, Latouche (1993:149) describes alternative development as being more dangerous than
“true blue” development, but recently several postdevelopment thinkers, including Latouche,
seem more willing to cooperate with those who do not share their antidevelopment stance.

Secondly, while there has already been much sparring between postdevelopment theorists and
their critics, perhaps a little more is still needed whereby postdevelopment theorists respond to
some of the criticism that has been given of postdevelopment theory, and, where necessary,
rework some of their ideas in response to the thoughtful comments by some critics. Certainly, it
would not be desirable for this debate to continue indefinitely while the apparent concerns of all
parties to the debate – poverty and suffering in the so-called “Third World” – remain
unaddressed, but some careful work is needed in response to the large body of critical responses
to postdevelopment theory.

Page 17 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Thirdly, more needs to be written about on-the-ground instances of postdevelopment practice.

The challenge here is that there are few organizations which explicitly call what they are doing
“postdevelopment practice,” but it would be helpful if research was done exploring current
practices by NGOs and community-based organizations to identify where there are examples of
practices which seem similar to what postdevelopment theorists advocate. Some work along
these lines is already being done (see, for example, Maiava 2002; Gibson-Graham 2005;
Matthews 2007; Ravi Raman 2007), but more would be helpful. There is much skepticism among
critics about the possibility of building a workable postdevelopment practice, meaning that
considerable research is needed to flesh out exactly how these so-called “alternatives to
development” are to be realized.

Postdevelopment theory provides a useful and thought-provoking critique of past development

theory and practice. It has been very helpful in stimulating an invigorating and important debate
within development studies. This ability to spark debate is perhaps the greatest strength of
postdevelopment theory, with its weakness being the lack of careful argumentation and the
vagueness of the positive program outlined by postdevelopment theorists. It can be hoped that
postdevelopment theory will now move past being primarily a critique of existing development
practice toward building upon this critique in order to make clear, concrete suggestions about
how best to go about (post)development today.

References
Alvares, C. (1992) Science, Development and Violence: The Revolt against Modernity. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.

Apffel Marglin, F., and Marglin, S. (eds.) (1990) Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture
and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Apffel Marglin, F., and Marglin, S. (eds.) (1996) Decolonizing Knowledge: From Development to
Dialogue. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Banuri, T. (1990a) Development and the Politics of Knowledge: A Critical Interpretation of the
Social Role of Modernization Theories in the Development of the Third World. In F. Apffel
Marglin and S. Marglin (eds.) Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture and Resistance.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 29–72.

Banuri, T. (1990b) Modernization and Its Discontents: A Cultural Perspective on the Theories of
Development. In F. Apffel Marglin and S. Marglin (eds.) Dominating Knowledge: Development,
Culture and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 73–101.

Berger, M.T. (1995) Post–Cold War Capitalism: Modernization and Modes of Resistance after the
Fall. Third World Quarterly 16 (4), 717–28.

Blaikie, P. (2000) Development, Post-, Anti-, and Populist: A Critical Review. Environment and
Planning 32, 1033–50.

Booth, D. (1985) Marxism and Development Sociology: Interpreting the Impasse. World
Development 13 (7), 761–87.

Page 18 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Booth, D. (ed.) (1994) Rethinking Social Development: Theory, Research and Practice. Harlow:
Longman.

Brigg, M. (2002) Post-development, Foucault and the Colonisation Metaphor. Third World
Quarterly 23 (3), 421–36.

Chow, R. (1993) Writing Diaspora. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Corbridge, S. (1998a) Beneath the Pavement Only Soil: The Poverty of Post-development. Journal
of Development Studies 35 (1), 138–48.

Corbridge, S. (1998b) Development Ethics: Distance, Difference, Plausibility. Ethics, Place and
Environment 1 (1), 35–53.

Escobar, A. (1984) Discourse and Power in Development: Michel Foucault and the Relevance of
His Work to the Third World. Alternatives 10, 377–400.

Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: the Making and the Unmaking of the Third
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Escobar, A. (2004a) Beyond the Third World: Imperial Globality, Global Coloniality and Anti-
globalisation Social Movements. Third World Quarterly 25 (1), 207–30.

Escobar, A. (2004b) Other Worlds Are (Already) Possible: Self-Organisation, Complexity, and
Post-capitalist Cultures. In J. Sen, A. Anand, A. Escobar, and P. Waterman (eds.) World Social
Forum: Challenging Empires. New Delhi: Viveka Foundation, pp. 349–58.

Esteva, G. (1992) Development. In W. Sachs (ed.) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to

Knowledge as Power. London: Zed, pp. 6–25.

Esteva, G. (1996) Au-delà du Développement: Les Ruines du Développement. At www.apres-

developpement.org/alire/textes/lalignedhorizon/esteva_audeladev.htm, accessed July
2009.

Esteva, G., and Prakash, M.S. (1997) From Global Thinking to Local Thinking. In M. Rahnema
with V. Bawtree (eds.) The Post-development Reader. London: Zed Books, pp. 277–89.

Esteva, G., and Prakash, M.S. (1998) Grassroots Post-modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures.
London: Zed Books.

Fagan, G.H. (1999) Cultural Politics and (Post) Development Paradigm(s). In R. Munck and D.
O’Hearn (eds.) Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm. London: Zed
Books, pp. 178–95.

Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization and Bureaucratic

Power in Lesotho. Cape Town: David Philip.

Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2005) Surplus Possibilities: Postdevelopment and Community Economies.

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26 (1), 4–26.

Gidwani, V. (2002) The Unbearable Modernity of “Development”? Canal Irrigation and

Development Planning in Western India. Progress in Planning 58, 1–80.

Page 19 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Grillo, R.D. (1997) Discourses of Development: The View from Anthropology. In R.D. Grillo and
R.L. Stirrat (eds.) Discourses of Development: Anthropological Perspectives. Oxford: Berg, pp. 1–
33.

Gülalp, H. (1998) The Eurocentrism of Dependency Theory and the Question of Authenticity: A
View from Turkey. Third World Quarterly 19 (5), 951–61.

Heinrich Böll Foundation (2002) The Jo-burg Memo: Fairness in a Fragile World. Berlin: Heinrich
Böll Foundation.

Illich, I. (1979) Outwitting the “Developed” Countries. In C.K. Wilber and K.P. Jameson (eds.) The
Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, 2nd edn. New York: Random House,
pp. 401–9.

Kiely, R. (1999) The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-
development Theory. European Journal of Development Research 11 (1), 30–55.

Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. London: Verso.

Latouche, S. (1986) Faut-Il Refuser le Développement? Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Latouche, S. (1993) In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-development,

trans. M. O’Connor and R. Arnoux. London: Zed Books.

Latouche, S. (2004) Why Less Should Be So Much More: Degrowth Economics. Le Monde
Diplomatique (English edn), November.

Lehmann, D. (1997) An Opportunity Lost: Escobar’s Deconstruction of Development. Journal of

Development Studies 33 (4), 568–78.

Lummis, D. (1996) Radical Democracy. New York: Cornell University Press.

Maiava, S. (2002) When Is Development Not “Development”? Recognising Unofficial

Development (or Practicing Post-development). Paper presented at the 3rd biennial conference
of the Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network (DevNet), Dec. 5–7. At
www.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Maiava_Susan.pdf, accessed July 2009.

Manzo, K. (1991) Modernist Discourse and the Crisis of Development Theory. Studies in
Comparative International Development 26 (2), 3–36.

Marglin, S.A. (1990) Towards the Decolonization of the Mind. In F. Apffel Marglin and S. Marglin
(eds.) Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
pp. 1–28.

Marx, K. (1958) Das Kapital, Volume I. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

Matthews, S. (2007) What Then Should We Do? Insights and Experiences of a Senegalese NGO.
In A. Ziai (ed.) Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems and Perspectives.
London: Routledge, pp. 131–44.

Mies, M., and Shiva, V. (1993) Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.

Page 20 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Mkandawire, T. (ed.) (2005) African Intellectuals: Rethinking Politics, Language, Gender and
Development. Dakar: CODESRIA.

Molyneux, M., and Steinberg, D.L. (1995) Review Essay: Ecofeminism. Feminist Review 49, 86–
107.

Nanda, M. (1999) Who Needs Post-development? Discourses of Difference, Green Revolution and
Agrarian Populism in India. Journal of Developing Societies 15 (1), 1–31.

Nandy, A. (1983) The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.

Nandy, A. (1986) The Idea of Development: The Experience of Modern Psychology as a

Cautionary Tale and as an Allegory. In C. Mallmann and O. Nudler (eds.) Human Development in
its Social Context. London: Edward Arnold Overseas, pp. 248–59.

Nandy, A. (ed.) (1988) Science, Hegemony and Violence. Bombay: Oxford University Press.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998) My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-

development, Reflexive Development. Development and Change 29, 343–73.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2000) After Post-development. Third World Quarterly 21 (2), 175–91.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2001) Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. London:

Sage.

Parpart, J. (1995) Post-modernism, Gender and Development. In J. Crush (ed.) Power of

Development. London: Routledge, pp. 253–65.

Power, M. (2003) Rethinking Development Geographies. London: Routledge.

Rahman, A. (1993) People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research – a

Journey Through Experience. London: Zed Books.

Rahnema, M., with Bawtree, V. (eds.) (1997) The Post-development Reader. Cape Town: David
Philip.

Ravi Raman, K. (2007) Plachimada Resistance: A Post-development Social Movement Metaphor?

In A. Ziai (ed.) Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems and Perspectives.
London: Routledge, pp. 163–80.

Rist, G. (1997) The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, trans. P.
Camiller. London: Zed Books.

Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London:
Zed Books.

Sachs, W. (2000) Development: The Rise and Decline of an Ideal. Wupperthal Papers 108 (PDF
version www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/wp108.pdf, accessed November, 2009).

Sachs, W. (2002) Fairness in a Fragile World: The Johannesburg Agenda. Development 45 (3),
12–17.

Page 21 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Sahlins, M. (1997) The Original Affluent Society. In M. Rahnema with V. Bawtree (eds.) The Post-
development Reader. London: Zed Books, pp. 3–21.

Schuurman, F.J. (ed.) (1993) Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory.
London: Zed Books.

Schuurman, F.J. (2000) Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained? Development Studies in the
Twenty-First Century. Third World Quarterly 21 (1), 7–20.

Schuurman, F.J. (2001a) Globalization and Development Studies: Introducing the Challenges. In
F.J. Schuurman (ed.) Globalization and Development Studies: Challenges for the 21st Century.
London: Sage, pp. 3–14.

Schuurman, F.J. (2001b) The Nation-State, Emancipatory Spaces and Development Studies in the
Global Era. In F.J. Schuurman (ed.) Globalization and Development Studies: Challenges for the
21st Century. London: Sage, pp. 61–76.

Schuurman, F.J. (2002) The Impasse in Development Studies. In V. Desai and R.B. Potter (eds.)
The Companion to Development Studies. London: Arnold, pp. 12–15.

Shanin, T. (1997) The Idea of Progress. In M. Rahnema with V. Bawtree (eds.) The Post-
development Reader. London: Zed Books, pp. 65–72.

Sharp, J., and Briggs, J. (2006) Postcolonialism and Development: New Dialogues? Geographical
Journal 172 (1), 6–9.

Shiva, V. (1989) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.

Shiva, V. (1991) The Violence of the Green Revolution. London: Zed Books.

Shiva, V. (1993) Decolonizing the North. In M. Mies and V. Shiva, Ecofeminism. London: Zed
Books.

Shrestha, N. (1995) Becoming a Development Category. In J. Crush (ed.) Power of Development.

London: Routledge, pp. 266–77.

Sidaway, J. (2002) Post-development. In V. Desai and R.B. Potter (eds.) The Companion to
Development Studies. London: Arnold, pp. 7–11.

Simon, D. (1997) Development Reconsidered: New Directions in Development Thinking.

Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 79 (4), 183–201.

Simon, D. (1999) Development Revisited: Thinking about, Practicing and Teaching Development
after the Cold War. In D. Simon and A. Närman (eds.) Development as Theory and Practice.
Harlow: Longman, pp. 17–54.

Simon, D. (2003) Dilemmas of Development and the Environment in a Globalising World: Theory,
Policy and Praxis; Progress in Development Studies 3 (1), 5–41.

Simon, D. (2006) Separated by Common Ground? Bringing (Post) Development and (Post)
Colonialism Together. Geographical Journal 172 (1), 10–21.

Page 22 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Storey, A. (2000) Post-development Theory: Romanticism and Pontius Pilate Politics.

Development 43 (4), 40–6.

Sutcliffe, B. (1999) The Place of Development. In R. Munck and D. O’Hearn (eds.) Critical
Development Theory. London: Zed Books, pp. 135–54.

Tucker, V. (1999) Myth of Development. In R. Munck and D. O’Hearn (eds.) Critical Development
Theory. London: Zed Books, pp. 1–26.

Van Ausdal, S. (2001) Development and Discourse among the Maya of South Belize.
Development and Change 32, 563–92.

Verhelst, T.G. (1990) No Life without Roots: Culture and Development, trans. B. Cummings.
London: Zed Books.

Ziai, A. (2004) The Ambivalence of Post-development: Between Reactionary Populism and

Radical Democracy. Third World Quarterly 25 (6), 1045–60.

Ziai, A. (ed.) (2007) Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems and
Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Links to Digital Materials

The Post-development Network. At www.apres-developpement.org/, accessed Apr. 2009. This
website, which is available in French, English, Spanish, and Italian, provides information about
activities linked to postdevelopment activism. It also provides a list of suggested readings and
links to some of these readings.

La Ligne d’Horizon. At www.lalignedhorizon.org/, accessed Apr. 2009. Provides information

about francophone postdevelopment literature. Some of the literature is for sale from the site.
Also provides information on events related to postdevelopment such as conferences and
colloquiums.

Arturo Escobar website. At www.unc.edu/∼aescobar/, accessed Apr. 2009. This website

provides information about one of the most prominent postdevelopment theorists, Arturo
Escobar. Readers can download much of his published work here. Links to projects related to
postdevelopment are provided.

World Social Forum. At www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/index.php?

cd_language=2&id_menu=, accessed Apr. 2009. The World Social Forum (WSF) brings
together activists and movements opposed to neoliberalism. Many of their activities are of
interest to postdevelopment theorists, and key postdevelopment thinkers, such as Escobar, are
actively involved in the WSF.

Institut d’Études Économiques et Sociales pour la Décroissance Soutenable. At

www.decroissance.org/, accessed Apr. 2009. A francophone website which provides
information about the idea of décroissance or degrowth economics which is supported by
postdevelopment theorists like Serge Latouche.

Page 23 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018
Postdevelopment Theory

Acknowledgments

This chapter draws on PhD research conducted at the Centre of West African Studies, University
of Birmingham. I would like to thank Reginald Cline-Cole for his supervision of this research and
also to acknowledge useful comments made on the research by my two examiners, Lynne Brydon
and David Simon.

Sally J. Matthews
Department of Political & International Studies, Rhodes University

Page 24 of 24
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
(internationalstudies.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal
Notice).
date: 01 June 2018