The Post-Development Discourse

Development discourse took another turn in the 1990s following the emergence of a group commonly referred to as the post-development theorists. This group is questioning the relevance of the “development project” or “modernist development”. The fundamental difference between this group and other development theorists is their strong rejection of the “development project” which they described as Eurocentric, imperialistic, paternalistic, visionless and problem-ridden. “Applying the lessons of post-structuralism, this nascent school – which has come to be known as post-development thought – proposes that development is itself an arbitrary concept rooted in a meta-narrative which, in turn, reflects the interest of its practitioners” (Rapley, 2004: 350). The tenets of post-development theory have been outlined in the following terms:

“Since the middle and late 1980s, for instance, a relatively coherent body of work has emerged which highlights the role of grassroots movements, local knowledge, and popular power in transforming development. The authors representing this trend state that they are interested not in development alternatives but in alternatives to development, that is, the rejection of the entire paradigm altogether. In spite of significant differences, the members of this group share certain preoccupations and interests: an interest in local culture and local knowledge; a critical stance with respect to established scientific discourses; and the defence and promotion of localised, pluralistic grassroots movements” (Escobar, 1995: 215).

Essentially, post-development theorists are questioning the desirability of ‘development’. According to Siemiatycki (2005: 60) “post-development theory is a response to the resounding failure of the development project of the last century.” “The issue is, therefore, not that development strategies or projects could or should have been better planned or implemented. It is that development, as it imposed itself on its ‘target populations’, was basically the wrong answer to their true needs and aspirations” (Rahnema, 1997: 379). Thus, “these advocates of ‘alternatives to development’ argue that we must cut ties with this paradigm and build a new

28

idea of development”, (Grischow and McKnight, 2003: 517). “Development, according to this critique, has to be seen as an invention and strategy produced by the ‘First World’ about the ‘underdevelopment’ of the ‘Third World’, and not only an instrument of economic control over the physical and social reality of much of Asia, Africa and Latin America” (Escobar, 1992: 22). In view of its nature and intentions, post-development theorists have called for the rejection of abandonment of ‘development’ in its entirety (see Ziai, 2004; Rapley, 2004; Siemiatycki, 2005; Simons, 2006; McGregor, 2007). Post-development theorists are thus advocating ‘alternatives to development’ and not ‘alternative development’ (see Grischow and McKnight, 2003; Ziai, 2004; Rapley, 2004; Siemiatycki, 2005; Simons, 2006; McGregor, 2007).

But some scholars think otherwise. In the view of Matthews (2004: 376) “post-development theorists reject post-World War II development project, rather than development.” This notion has been clearly captured in the following terms:

“If development is defined most simply, it could be said to be a process involving unfolding of changes in the direction of reaching a higher or more mature state of being [...] Stripped of the connotations that have attached themselves to the concept over the past few decades, the concept ‘development’ is close in meaning to improvement, to amelioration, to desirable change. Surely post-development theorists cannot mean to reject the desirability of positive change when they called for an ‘end to development’. Post-development theorists’ enthusiasm regarding the so-called New Social Movements, and other grassroots organisations aiming to bring about change in their communities, shows that such theorists certainly do not view positive social change as impossible or undesirable [...] Thus the call for an ‘end to development’ and ‘alternatives to development’ is a rejection of the post-World War II attempts to engineer particular changes in the so-called ‘Third World’ in order to bring about a situation deemed by various development theorists, (who, more often than not, do not come from the ‘Third World’) to be more desirable than the current situation” (Matthews, 2004: 376).

“Post-development theorists clearly reject attempts to reform the post-World War II development project in order to eliminate its negative effects” (Matthews, 2004: 375). According to Matthews (2004: 374) “this rejection appears to emerge from a feeling that the negative consequences which have been observed to result from development are intrinsic to development, rather than being unintentional side-effects of it.”

Despite her scepticism about the focus and intentions of post-development theorists, Matthews nevertheless acknowledges the failure of what she terms the “post-World War II development project” to impact positively on the conditions of the developing countries.

29

“The failure of the post-World War II development project in Africa and the rest of the so-called ‘developing’ world must be recognised. After half a century of theories and practices claiming to bring about development, the poor remain poor, inequities persist and grow more stark, and aspirations to a better future remain, for the most part, only aspirations [...] In the light of these flaws, post-development theorists assert, the post- World War II development project ought to be abandoned altogether” (Matthews, 2004: 382).

Despite their vociferousness, post-development theorists have received a fair share of criticism. One of the ardent critics of post-development theory asserts:

“In my view, post-development and ‘alternatives to development’ are flawed premises – flawed not as sensibilities but as positions. The problem is not the critique, which one can easily sympathise with easily enough and which are not specific to post- development, but the companion rhetoric and posturing, which intimate a politically correct position. ‘Alternatives to development’ is a misnomer because no alternatives to development are offered” (Pieterse, 2000: 188).

But other scholars also disagree with this criticism levelled against post-development. “Post- development often does present alternatives to development in the form of communal solidarity, direct democracy, informal economy, traditional knowledge, and so on” (Ziai, 2004: 1053). “Again, as post-development theorists react to the problems of disorder embodied in the failure of modernist development, they appear to turn to local communities to try and solve those problems”, (Grischow and McKnight, 2003: 518).

Interestingly, some scholars of local economic development are linking the recommendations of post-development theory to the contemporary LED approach:

“In a world where post-modern thinking encourages a rejection of all-encompassing models and a greater focus on local uniqueness, LED is clearly an expression of a broader paradigm shift in both the social sciences and global reality. In addition, there seem to be close parallels between the fundamental principles of LED and the ideas advocated by anti-development theorists, namely that future development initiatives should focus on strengthening local social movements rather than encouraging alien or imposed Western development theories [...] Whilst it seems inappropriate to argue for the total abandonment of external involvement in the development process, there are instances where LED might provide an alternative form of development in Africa” (Binns and Nel, 1999: 393).

Post-development theorists have provided a useful reflection on or critique of ‘development’, but their recommendations remain dreams about the future than practical actions to change

30

the status quo. As Cavalcanti (2007: 90) points out “the contribution made by post- development thinkers is to have deconstructed development, and the theoretical task they have bequeathed to us is not how to reconstruct development but how to construct something new in the midst of the debris.” “That being said, the potential for post-development theory to conceive of, and ultimately execute an organic system of culturally sensitive, community- oriented improvement – or ‘real development’ – can only be realised with the further engagement of those indigenous and marginalised knowledge which promote diversity, equity and justice” (Siemiatycki, 2005: 60). Certainly, “constructing something new out the debris” cannot be a simple task for local communities or local actors. Thus, the extent to which post- development thought can inspired community initiatives like local economic development promotion would be hard to assess now. As demonstrated in this thesis, LED initiatives in Ghana are still directed by foreign agencies and state actors. This runs counter to the position held by post-development theorists.

From the discussion above, one can conclude that the contemporary local economic development approach is a product of mainstream development theory/discourse. As Beer (2009: 64) notes “all theoretical approaches have implications for local economic development practice: for example, regulation theory approaches emphasise the creation of appropriate institutions for regional or local development; neo classical models highlight the need to attract capital and/or labour to the region or locality; new regionalism perspectives emphasise encouraging growth locally; while new institutional economics draws the attention of the economic development practitioner to the need to encourage information and infrastructure provision in order to reduce transaction costs.” From the different theoretical perspectives or discourses explored above, the fundamental question that is being addressed by each theoretical block is “who drives local economic development at which period of time”? As can be seen, whilst the neo-classical discourse places the responsibility of organising or promoting (local) economic development on the state or central government, the neoliberal and globalisation discourse on the other hand places that responsibility on the market or private sector actors. The decentralisation discourse places the responsibility of organising local economic development on local government authorities or sub-national actors. Similarly, the post-development school of thought emphasises the role/importance of organised community groups and local knowledge systems in the organisation or promotion of development. Whilst the responsibility of promoting traditional local economic development has shifted or moved along these theoretical strands, contemporary local economic development takes a common ground: the promotion of local economic development is the collective responsibility of the state/central government, private sector operators, local government authorities as well as community groups, and with or without the support of donor agencies. In other words, contemporary local economic development is the product of the actions of multiple actors working in concert; but with local government authorities as the conveners.

31