Post-Development Theory Analysis - Research Paper Example

Post development theory Name Institution Post development theory Introduction Post development theory came up in the 1980s and 1990s through various scholars who came up with various works (Clark & Corporation 2009). The members that led the post development school argue that development bore no fruit since it was unjust. The scholars pointed out that the concept of development brought about a hierarchy of both developed and under developed countries. The developed countries are more advanced and superior to the under developed countries which are seen as inferior and needing help from the developed countries. The school of thought of the post development era points out that the development models are ethnocentric and based on the western industrialization models applied. The post development theorists view a problem in development and its practice which is often an imbalance of influence or western domination. The theorists often promote pluralism in ideas about the entire development. Post development theory When it emerged that the available classical approaches to development had failed together with the post modernism ideas, then several scholars started discussing the end of the era of development at the beginning of the nineties. Thus, post development is a critique of the theory of development (Haynes 2008). The main aim of these scholars was to expose that development occurred during the cold war thus calling for other alternatives. According to the post development theory, under development was invented in the era of post world war two by the west to promised material improvements to countries in the global south to reduce the threat of socialism and to make economic expansion legitimate. Through various investments, technological transfer and other development experts, the under developed countries were supposed to catch up with the other advanced countries in the era. Thus, post development theory indicates that this view is Eurocentric as it reduces the way of living through different cultures to follow the footsteps of the industrialized capitalist’s societies. Those countries that were not westernized were viewed as backward and under developed (Schuurman 2013). Later, the theorists of post development indicated that the development era was ending. This was at the twelfth century. There were four reasons for this the first one being that there was a rising ecological awareness that had led to the realization that the western way of living was oligarchic. Considering the resources used and the pollution incurred, western way of life could not be made universal thus could not be seen as a model to be emulated by other societies. Secondly, the end of the cold war, the overall rationale that gave rise to the promise of development became obsolete and thus making it to be abandoned. In addition, the existing gap between the rich and the poor was growing at a significant pace during the development era thus proving that the project was not successful. Lastly, more individuals began to see the development concept’s implicit idea of westernization as dubious. Thus, the post development theorists argue that the post development era has begun since individuals in the grass roots have began to see the light. They were beginning to turn away from the false promises of development and looking for other alternatives (Brett 2009). This was through reclaiming the economy from the economists in the area through reciprocity and solidarity and reclaiming knowledge from the existing science by building on their transitional knowledge to come up with better practices that suited them. To fully understand the emergence of the post development notion and how it has functioned in the debate of international development, then it is important to first locate it within the field of development studies. In the past fifty years, the development conceptualization in the social sciences has seen three main moments. These moments corresponds to three contrasting theoretical orientations: modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s with its allied theories of growth and development, dependency theory and other related perspectives in the 1960s and 1970s. Another perspective was the critical approach to development as a cultural discourse in the second half of the 1980s and 1990s. On its part, modernization theory brought about a period of certainty in the minds of various theorists and elites in the globe who were premised on the beneficial effects of capital, technology and science (Desai & Potter 2014). This certainty suffered a blow with the theory of dependency which argued that underdevelopment roots were located in the connection between the external dependence and internal exploitation, but not in any alleged lack of capital, technology or other modern values. For the dependency theorists, their problem was not so much with development as it was with capitalism. In the 1980s, a growing number of cultural critics in many world parts questioned the idea of development. They analyzed the concept as a discourse of western origin that was able to operate as a powerful mechanism for the production of socio, cultural and economic production in the third world. These three moments are classified according to the paradigms roots from which they initially emerged which are the liberal, Marxist and post structuralist theories respectively. Despite the overlaps and more eclectic combinations than in the recent past, a main paradigm continues to inform most positions at present, making the dialogue at difficult times. Main ideas of the post-structuralist critique Considering that the concept of post development emerged from the post structurtalists critique directly, it is important to give a brief account of this analysis. In keeping with the questioning of the realist epistemologies of post strucxturalism, the main thrust of the post structuralist critique was not so much to oppose yet another version of development (Dittmar 2009). However, the main idea was to understand the criteria used in terming the less developed countries as under developed including Africa, Asia and Latin America. The question asked here were what historical processes and consequences did Asia, Africa and Latin America become invented as third world countries through the scours and the practices of development. The answer to this question included various elements indicated below: 1. As a historical discourse, development emerged in the early post Second World War period, though its roots lie in deeper historical processes of modernity and capitalism. A reading of the texts and historical events in the period of 1945 -1960 in particular was able to validate this observation. It was in this period that development experts of all kinds started to land massively in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, thus giving reality to the construct of the third world. 2. The development discourse enabled the creation of vast institutional apparatus through which discourse deployed. Through this, it became real and effective social force which transformed the economic, socio, cultural and political reality of the societies in question (Ziai 2007). 3. The discourse of development operated through two principal mechanisms a) the professionalism of development problems which included the emergence of expert knowledge and fields to deal with every aspect of under development and b) the institutionalization of development, and the vast network of organizations already mentioned above. These processes enabled a systematic link of knowledge and practice through various projects and interventions. Strategies that included rural development could be seen as a systematic mechanism fro linking expert knowledge of agriculture, food and other commodities with particular interventions in ways that resulted in a transformation of the countryside and peasant societies of many parts of the Third World along the lines of modern capitalist conceptions of land, agriculture, farming and many more concepts. 4. Moreover, the post structuralists analysis indicated that various forms of exclusion went along with development project particularly the exclusion of knowledge and concerns of those development was supposed to serve which include Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The idea of post development Thus, a series of observations of the increasing discontent in the Third World with development led some theorists to come up with the idea of post development. The theorists decided to come up with a post development era. Some of them saw this as an era where development would not be viewed as a central organizing principle of social life. Others added to the characterization a re-valorization of other vernacular cultures, the need to rely on expert knowledge. Moreover, they relied more on the attempts of ordinary people to construct more humane, culturally and ecologically sustainable worlds and the important points of taking social movements seriously and grassroots mobilization as the basis for moving towards the new era (Pieterse 2011). This indicates that post-development is not a new historical period to which its proponents believe that the world has arrived or that it is within reach. This could mean falling into the trap or even going back to a realist position which could be against the spirit of post-structuralism. To ascertain in more details the differences that exist between the post-structuralist and better known analysis modes, it is instructive to review how they give answers to a series of questions asked. Thus, the idea of post development refers to the following ideas: 1. The possibility of coming up with different discourses and representations that are not mediated by the construct of development 2. The need to change the overall practices of knowing and doing and the political economy of truth that defines development regime 3. The need to multiply the centers and agents of knowledge production to give salience to the forms of knowledge that is produced by those who are supposed to be the objects of development so that they become subjects of their own right. 4. Two particular ways to accomplish this is by adaptation, subversions and resistance that local people have in relation to the development interventions. Second, they can accomplish this by highlighting the alternative strategies produced by social movements as they encounter the projects of development Critique of post development Most of the literature focusing on post development is highly influenced by the Foucault and overall discourse method analysis (Munck & O'Hearn 2009). In the process, hegemony and power structures are on their own deconstructed. However, what follows is the underlying ignorance of how varying discourses can be transformed and also resisted at the level of the local people. In addition, the celebration of the local knowledge and the resistance they have results into an unquestioned believe in the existing tradition. The local is equally set with authenticity and high level of emancipation. Though the shift towards cultural sensibilities accompanying this perspective is a move that is welcomed by many, the plea for the people’s indigenous culture could lead to the reification of the culture and the; locality of individuals in the area. In addition, other critics argue that under the pavement of modernity, the only thing to be found is the hard soil of the pre-modern times but not the progressive era that is imagined by the post development theorist. Despite this, they admit that post development points out varying prejudices and failures. Critics also add that post development theorist neglected the positive aspects of modernity, science technology and development by substituting the diversity within the west fro essentailized accounts (Rapley 2007). Thus, they indicate that if individuals could be faced with the high infant mortality for the cultural differences could be misplaced in the long run. Conclusion Post development theory came up in the 1980s and 1990s through various scholars who came up with various works. The members that led the post development school argue that development bore no fruit since it was unjust. The scholars pointed out that the concept of development brought about a hierarchy of both developed and under developed countries. Thus, post development is a critique of the theory of development. The main aim of these scholars was to expose that development occurred during the cold war thus calling for other alternatives (Dittmar 2009). According to the post development theory, under development was invented in the era of post world war two by the west to promised material improvements to countries in the global south to reduce the threat of socialism and to make economic expansion legitimate. Through various investments, technological transfer and other development experts, the under developed countries were supposed to catch up with the other advanced countries in the era. Despite the many ideas that post development theorists gave, they were faced with various critics that came to discredit the theory. Bibliography Brett, E. 2009. Reconstructing Development Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Clark, D., & Corporation., E. 2009. The Elgar companion to development studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Desai, V., & Potter, R. 2014. The Companion to Development Studies. New York: Routledge. Dittmar, C. 2009. The so called 'impasse of development theory' and the alternatives proposed to move beyond it. Munchen: GRIN Verlag. Haynes, J. 2008. Development studies. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Munck, R., & O'Hearn, D. 2009. Critical development theory : contributions to a new paradigm. London: Zed. Pieterse, J. N. 2011. Development theory : deconstructions, reconstructions. London: Sage Publishers. Rapley, J. 2007. Understanding Development : Theory and Practice in the Third World. Boulder, Colo: Lynee Rienner Publishers. Schuurman, F. J. 2013. Beyond the impasse : new directions in development theory. London: Zed. Ziai, A. 2007. Exploring Post-Development. New York: Routledge. Read More

Lastly, more individuals began to see the development concept’s implicit idea of westernization as dubious. Thus, the post development theorists argue that the post development era has begun since individuals in the grass roots have began to see the light. They were beginning to turn away from the false promises of development and looking for other alternatives (Brett 2009). This was through reclaiming the economy from the economists in the area through reciprocity and solidarity and reclaiming knowledge from the existing science by building on their transitional knowledge to come up with better practices that suited them.

To fully understand the emergence of the post development notion and how it has functioned in the debate of international development, then it is important to first locate it within the field of development studies. In the past fifty years, the development conceptualization in the social sciences has seen three main moments. These moments corresponds to three contrasting theoretical orientations: modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s with its allied theories of growth and development, dependency theory and other related perspectives in the 1960s and 1970s.

Another perspective was the critical approach to development as a cultural discourse in the second half of the 1980s and 1990s. On its part, modernization theory brought about a period of certainty in the minds of various theorists and elites in the globe who were premised on the beneficial effects of capital, technology and science (Desai & Potter 2014). This certainty suffered a blow with the theory of dependency which argued that underdevelopment roots were located in the connection between the external dependence and internal exploitation, but not in any alleged lack of capital, technology or other modern values.

For the dependency theorists, their problem was not so much with development as it was with capitalism. In the 1980s, a growing number of cultural critics in many world parts questioned the idea of development. They analyzed the concept as a discourse of western origin that was able to operate as a powerful mechanism for the production of socio, cultural and economic production in the third world. These three moments are classified according to the paradigms roots from which they initially emerged which are the liberal, Marxist and post structuralist theories respectively.

Despite the overlaps and more eclectic combinations than in the recent past, a main paradigm continues to inform most positions at present, making the dialogue at difficult times. Main ideas of the post-structuralist critique Considering that the concept of post development emerged from the post structurtalists critique directly, it is important to give a brief account of this analysis. In keeping with the questioning of the realist epistemologies of post strucxturalism, the main thrust of the post structuralist critique was not so much to oppose yet another version of development (Dittmar 2009).

However, the main idea was to understand the criteria used in terming the less developed countries as under developed including Africa, Asia and Latin America. The question asked here were what historical processes and consequences did Asia, Africa and Latin America become invented as third world countries through the scours and the practices of development. The answer to this question included various elements indicated below: 1. As a historical discourse, development emerged in the early post Second World War period, though its roots lie in deeper historical processes of modernity and capitalism.

A reading of the texts and historical events in the period of 1945 -1960 in particular was able to validate this observation. It was in this period that development experts of all kinds started to land massively in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, thus giving reality to the construct of the third world. 2. The development discourse enabled the creation of vast institutional apparatus through which discourse deployed.

Read More