Discourses of Global Development

Applying an analysis of discourses to the development field in a way which is not unitary or deterministic is complex. For the purposes of this research and owing to limitations of space, I am suggesting that it is useful to focus, briefly, on discourses of global development. These, I argue, throw light on different ontological, identity and relational assumptions about global development, many of which underpin DE discourses discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four. Drawing from a range of development literature, I understand that, broadly, there are four discourses of global development, which are associated with different theoretical perspectives and assumptions underpinning development representations and practices. These are a modernist discourse, a patronising discourse, a critical and post-critical discourse and an ‘other’ discourse (Andreotti, 2014).

A modernist discourse of global development assumes that development is about modernisation; it addresses causes of poverty which are seen to be located internally; the model of development is based on Western modernity’s ‘shine’ (Andreotti, 2013); and technical assistance is valued as one form of development agency in the light of this. A modernist discourse places value on development as

progress (Esteva, 1993), through, for example, education, healthcare and good governance. It involves a depoliticised analysis of poverty (lack of consideration of the broader power structures which affect global poverty) and promotes technical responses to same, e.g., through new public management and results-based frameworks. Where such approaches take account of globalisation, it is often to view global interconnectedness as an opportunity for trade and investment (see the IMF Annual Report, 2015). Famously, Joseph Stiglitz wrote in 2006 about “making globalisation work" where he calls for greater state management and regulation of the economy. Modernist discourses are sometimes critical of neoliberal globalisation and where they are, such criticisms can generally be understood to be about prioritising reformist improvements rather than systemic change, poverty reduction rather than tackling the root causes of poverty, and promoting foreign direct investment and entrepreneurship, which gives primacy to the economic over the political or social (Collier and Dollar, 2002; Sachs, 2005). In this context, we can see valuing of the MDGs which attempted to reform development cooperation and global development relationships. Understandings of the global in this construct are very much based on understandings of divisions between the global North/global South or ‘Least Developed Countries’, ‘Developing Countries’ and ‘Developed Countries’ (UN, 2017). Here, the state is seen to play a key role in regulating the institutionalisation of development for market or self-interested purposes (OECD, 2010). As such, development cooperation is regarded as playing an important role in economic advancement of the donor country as well as the aid recipient country, through trade, contracts etc. NGDOs act as service-providers and contractors for state alongside other private business companies.

A patronising discourse of global development (acting ‘as a patron of’ others, associated with paternalism and with connotations of condescension) approximates to Andreotti’s liberal humanist root narrative of social engineering (2014). Here, the notion of global development is underpinned by assumptions related to trusteeship. Trusteeship involves a sense of responsibility for the well-being of the ‘other’ through aid and ‘helping’ as well as the sharing of technical skills, which Cowen and Shenton, (1996: 43 in Behan, 2009: 39) argue are “exercised by the knowing and the moral on behalf of the ignorant and corrupt”. It focuses on development as ‘help’, ‘concern’, ‘care’ and ‘charity’ and is often based on humanitarian or moral “grounds for acting” (Andreotti, 2006: 47), e.g., using language like ‘working with the poorest of the poor’, ‘meeting basic needs’ and ‘ensuring human dignity’. Many of the actions and assumptions associated with trusteeship can have very positive associations, e.g., they are often linked to community or locally-based responses to poverty and inequality, but there is a tendency here for service-based approaches at this level rather than advocacy-based, critical ones.

Patronising discourses are also linked to ethnocentrism, viewing global realities through one’s own lens, ‘othering’ the people and situations of the global South, and coloniality (Mignolo, in Andreotti, 2013). This involves the justification for global development relationships based on positions of superiority-inferiority and therefore is often closely linked with modernist discourses. This approach is linked in many ways to the charity or development service-delivery role of NGDOs (Choudry and

Kapoor, 2013) where a North-South construction of global poverty is maintained to the detriment of global thinking and analysis. It is also linked to ‘best practice’ and aid effectiveness (Eyben, 2010;

2013) which prioritises value for money (Shutt, 2011) when it comes to aid and accountability to state donors, who are seen as largely responsible for development in the countries of the South. Policy influencers in this area include the human development index and human development reports of the UNDP which call for reform of development to meet basic needs and rights in the context of the SDGs (UN 2015).

At the same time, there is a lot of critique of these dominant ‘modernist’ and ‘patronising’ discourses.

Arguably, in this context, a third ‘critical’ (Andreotti, 2014) discourse of global development is also evident in the literature. Drawing from neo-Marxist critique and critical, participatory development approaches (Frank, 1967; Freire, 1970; Rahman, 1993; Chambers, 1997) this discourse suggests the centrality of critical engagement with local and global power relationships. It draws on critiques of globalisation and the inequalities of neoliberalism (Rapley, 2004) as well as addressing the responsibilities of elites for their role in exploitation, e.g., through unfair trade, illegitimate debt, and the marginalisation of different groups in society. It is associated with gender and development as well as feminist theories of development (Harcourt, 2016; Rai, 2002; Rai and Waylen, 2008). In this case, critical development is about working with communities to overcome exploitation. Though sometimes articulated as the global North exploiting the global South, these days there is more often talk of inequality and power in terms of local-global intersections. When it comes to discourses of aid effectiveness, this critical approach is reflective of CSO concerns relating to the power and influence of civil society as well as the importance of quality development processes. The role of NGOs is highlighted here though working with the state is not precluded. In this case, NGOs are seen more as watchdogs of the state and playing an advocacy role rather than the service-delivery role of the patronising and modernist discourses (Shivji, 2004; Civicus, 2015).

Broadly approximating to influences from post-development and post-colonial theory, increasingly an

‘other’ or fourth discourse of global development can be located in the context of an understanding of

“asymmetrical globalisation, unequal power relations, Northern and Southern elites imposing their own assumptions as universal” (Andreotti, 2006: 47). This discourse, which may reflect the 'post-critical' or ‘other’ narratives that Andreotti (2014) identifies, places value on horizontal relationships, through ‘solidarity’, ‘commoning’ (Esteva, 1998; McDermott, 2014), and ‘dialogue’, for example.

While the emphasis is on critique, reflexivity and analysis of representations, stereotypes and power relations shaping the development field, it is also about imaging and creating ‘otherwise’. In terms of development actors, the emphasis here is on grassroots organising, transnational advocacy networks and indigenous social movements (Escobar, 2009).