James D. Sidaway’s essay on post-development included in the the companion to development studies is another challenge to the intellectual pursuit of development studies. In an earlier review I discussed how Shuurman summarizes the various critiques of the paradigms followed in development studies and questions the underlying assumptions behind the goals and techniques of the scholarly pursuit as well as the practical policy and funding decisions that follow. In the current essay, James Sidaway summarizes another criticism leveled by post-development authors. In a sense, these authors challenge the development project at a more fundamental level – they question the very meaning and intention of the development project as well as the difference it creates for those affected. On the other hand, these criticisms are weaker. A common broad-based theme does not run through them all, leaving them open to being challenged on grounds of being too specific to the critic’s particular situation.
Post-development refers to a variegated group of perspectives disillusioned with the development project, like those of Vandana Shiva, Arturo Escobar, Wolfgang Sachs and Ashish Nandy. Some of the common themes in this criticism are continuations of long-standing challenges to development. In the central place is the rejection of development as a one-size-fits-all grand solution to the world’s problems. Instead, post-development positions development discourse as a particular vision, one that is neither innocent nor benign. It is a continuation of colonial discourse led by Western intellectuals and eastern elites that seeks to mold the third-world societies in the developed societies’ image. At the same time the third-world elites reap the most benefits from the development of their regions. In this way, it is another geopolitical tool for power consolidation by the elites in unstable nations. Thus, both the intention and the impact of development are in question.
There are several problems with the post-development challenge to development discourse. First and foremost, the challenges raised are particular to the situation of the critic. For instance, Escobar is disillusioned because of the terrible consequences of the opening of the Colombian economy in the form of a long-running civil war and rampant corruption and drug smuggling. It is natural for Escobar to question the impact of development on Colombia, but the generalization of that challenge to development goals in general is arbitrary and untenable. Secondly, while challenging the goals of the development project, critics often contrast the results with an idyllic vision of a heterogeneous, culturally rich, environmentally sound society. None of those goals are at odds with the development project, nor are those goals assured in the absence of a push for development. Also, the idealism associated with the alternative vision is specious because it is advanced in the writings of authors residing themselves in urban societies of the very kind that development aims for. Many a people living in the pre-development societies of the kind idealized would and do strive to trade-in what they have for the comforts of the developed society enjoyed by these authors. If it is presumptuous of Western intellectuals to assign value to the development of the third-world citizens, it is equally wrong for them to assign value to trading development for an idealized pre- or post-development world for those third-world citizens.
In my view, the biggest takeaway from the post-development debate for development studies is the message of tolerance and responsibility. Gaving Kitchin argues beautifully that development is an awful process and various development paradigms vary only, and importantly, in their awfulness. In the path of a dynamic society, there are winners and losers and challenges without easy and clear answers. The most valuable ideas and the most beneficial leaders are those that recognize this and take the moral responsibility associated with accepting specific goals for society and working towards them.