Perspective of Development in the 1990s

In the 1990s, development meant ―illusion‖ from the perspective of postdevelopment (Greig, Hulme and Turner, 2007, p. 252). Postdevelopment approach is a radical response to the crisis of development; it arose following a realization that the attainment of middle-class life for most of the people of the world is impracticable (Dasgupta, 1985). In his own account, Esteva (1992), development starts off as a Western concept long used by the Western powers with respect to colonialism `which is characterized by the domination of the South by the North.

Corroborating this, Kothari (1988, p. 143) states that ―where colonialism left off, development took over.‖ In his postdevelopment discourse, Sachs (1992, p. 1) states that ―the idea of development stands in ruin in the intellectual landscape;‖ he goes ahead to state that ―delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work.‖ Further discrediting the term development, Sachs states that ―the historical conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished:

development has become outdated‖ and that ―above all, the hopes and desires that made the idea fly, are now exhausted: development has grown obsolete‖ (p. 4). Development is described by Sachs as ―amoeba-like concept, shapeless but ineradicable, with no contours, so blurred it denotes nothing‖ (p. 4). Arturo Escobar, the most famous postdevelopmentalist sees development as a kind of external norm of Eurocentrism and colonialism imposed on the poorer countries of the South by the richer countries of the North and their institutions in the post

Second World War period of which should be confronted from the grassroot level to put an end to an unequal Western-dominated rhetoric that refuses the grassroot level approach (Escobar, 1995). This Eurocentric domination has ―destroyed indigenous cultures, threatened the sustainability of natural environments and has created feelings of inferiority among people of the South‖ (Willis, 2011, p. 32). Escobar does not pitch his tent with any form of alternative development because most of the efforts put into such forms of alternative development ―are also products of the same worldview which has produced the mainstream concept of development‖

(Nandy, 1989, p. 270). Postdevelopment approach rejects development because it is new religion of the West; it is the imposition of science as power; it does not work; it means cultural Westernization and homogenization; and because it brings environmental destruction (Rist, 1990; Nandy, 1998, Kothari, 1998; Constantino, 1985 cited in Pieterse, 2010). This is a clear indication that postdevelopment does not only probe the means by which development is achieved but the whole concept of development as comprehended in the Eurocentric discourse.

Postdevelopment supports a condition under which indigenous people of the South are

―able to choose the way they want to live without being made to feel that they are somehow inferior or backward by not following patterns that has been adopted elsewhere‖ or imposed on them by the North (Willis 2011, p. 32; Maiava, 2002). Therefore, participation should be key to development under which the focal point should be the views and actions which should be given priority in policy development rather than considering and attempting development at the global scale (Esteva and Prakash, 1997). Clear-cut Western solutions to development problem in the Southern countries is refuted by Esteva and Prakash (1998), Escobar (1995), and Sachs (1992);

they completely say no to universal rationality, modernization, Westernization, capitalism, industrialization and technology. In place of these, they prescribe that the key to good life in

modesty and economizing which involves meeting basic needs from local sources should be established. Quality of life should thus be advanced in a bottom-up process driven by social local movements. In summary, the main actors of postdevelopment are the grassroot, organizations and individuals; its scale is a very small scale; its definition of development is that it is a dangerous, Eurocentric concept that destroys local cultures and environment; and its description is that it focuses on grassroot activities and local level participation (Willis, 2011, p. 225). From the account of postdevelopment so far, it can be inferred that it has a relationship with dependency theory as it bears resemblance with its faith in endogenous development. However, while dependency theory‘s main actor is the nation-state, that of postdevelopment is the local/grassroot autonomy. It can further be inferred that postdevelopment has a relationship with the alternative development approach as it bears resemblance with its focus on self reliance; the main demarcation between the two is that postdevelopment rejects development outright while alternative development does not.

Postdevelopment has been criticized based on a number of reasons. The idea that development is an illusion is challenged based on the premise that progress is real, progresses in science, technology, medicine, improved living standards, and decrease in the percentage of people living in extreme poverty have ―been real and sustained; this claim is accurate ―as long as it is not taken to be a claim of perfection‖ (Riggs, 2003; Sachs, 2005, p. 252). Postdevelopment is also criticized on the premise that it fails to proffer solution to or offer concrete actions to the development problems such as poverty and inequality; it is therefore worrisome and worrisome that postdevelopment approaches with all their sharp rejection of the concept of development are mere replica of ―studies that cry out for some proposal of what to do in desperate situations suddenly ending where they should propose or call safely for further research‖ (Peet, 1999, p.

193). Specifically criticizing Escobar‘s idea of sharp rejection of the concept of development, Willis (2011) states that his ―influential study is based largely on the policies in Colombia in the 1950s and 1960s;‖ further to this, Willis states that ―rather than recognizing the diversity and dynamism of development theorizing and practice, much postdevelopment analysis has drawn on a stereotypical image of how development has been defined and implemented‖ (p. 232). These criticisms notwithstanding, postdevelopment approaches have so far functioned to contest some long-held assumptions which revolve around the nature of development. In line with this, Rapley (2002, p. 16) states that ―if postdevelopment theory fails to provide answers to the pressing needs of today‘s Third World, it remains useful for the questions it raises.‖

3.4 The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)