Does Post-Development Represent the End of Development or Thinking about How It Should Be Promoted - Term Paper Example

Does post-development represent the "end of development" or a new way of thinking about how development should be promoted? Explain. The world is constantly changing and to maintain its stability different policies are adopted. These policies are devised so that the environment of this world is safe and according to the needs of the people. These policies are the platform through which the world is developing. Since the beginning of the world the development process was started and is going on even till date. However there have been some contradictory views about how the development process takes place. This article would further explain if there is still a need for development keeping in view the role of post development in the present world. It would give an illustration as to how alternative techniques should be designed to overcome any problem which may occur during the development process. At the end of the 1980s, there was and still is little proof that the ever-present Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) had motivated any development, or shaped circumstances helpful to growth. In these situations it was barely astonishing that a lot of individuals involved in development started to sense that the previous theories had unsuccessful (a remarkable exception incorporated those practitioners and intellectuals who were linked with the Washington, and other support organizations, that had prepared a considerable intellectual and economic investment in such plans as SAPs). The query was where to go from that place. Such was the character of the ‘impasse’. In the deficiency of any reliable hypothetical foundation many theorists have sought a trail through the impasse by reference to the body of premise usually known as ‘post-modernism’, or post-structuralism. History is analyzed merely as a reliant series of events. Post-modernists would also be likely to condemn what is frequently observed as an unusually modernist trust in the talent of human race to advance their situation through science, generally visualized as the capability to form and shape their world through the use of technology and such processes as balanced techniques of planning. This is not to declare that post-modernists quarrel that technology and planning never end in the most wanted, or at least useful results, although some approach quite near to such a point at times (e.g. Paul Feyerabendon science). However, they are generally doubtful of the capability of planners and social engineers to attain their apparently benevolent objectives for society (and this is to close the eyes to the chance that they may state such benign goals as a coat for less generally valuable aims).The above does not make something like a complete explanation of post-modernism. However, it does identify that certain troubles occur out of post-modernism for the connected ideas of development and aid. After all, most, if not all of the conventional progress theories, whether of the right or the left, took the appearance of teleological theories that envisaged development in terms of achievement of some sort of societal end goal, for example communism in the form of the previous group, or capitalism in the form of the later. Post-modernists would not just discharge leftist theorists who saw record as an improvement towards communism, but also pro-capitalist theories, such as that of Rostow, who quarreled that the entire societies progressed through five steps of development, finishing in the success of high mass consumerism on the American representation. It also chases from the giving observations that post-modernists would be dangerous of the whole enterprise of development planning, both at the macro-level of national and regional planning, and at the micro-level of designing particular assignment interference, such as an agricultural, physical condition or instructive project. Without a doubt, there are a lot of instances of development projects and plans that fall through for a variety of causes, as well as weak design, failure to do in advance operational or other troubles, administrative disorganization or shortage of facility and so forth. Given the plenitude of such fact and the post-modern apprehension of teleology and planning, it is barely unexpected that the theorists who took a post-modern method out of the deadlock frequently ended by taking a rejectionist position on the way to development. One of the first instances of this post-development line of thoughts was The Development Dictionary, published in 1992. Its writer, Wolfgang Sachs exposed development in the subsequent expressions: The thought of development stands like a damage in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, crashes and crimes have been the firm companions of development and they enlighten a familiar story: it did not work. In addition, the historical conditions which projected the idea into distinction have exterminated: development has become outdated. But especially, the expectations and desires that made the idea powerful are now worn out: development has grown obsolete. (Sachs, 1992: 1)In the same volume, Gustavo Esteva offers a influential critique of the word ‘development’ investigating its origins as a Western concept and the way in which it has been used by imperial influences of a variety of stripes as a prop up for their own ideological schemes of domination. He also remarks the altering content of the word, as it has moved from representing a fundamental economic process of growth to obtain on further implications such as participation and human-centered development (Esteva, in Sachs, 1992: 6–25). Sachs Introduction: remarks that ‘development has become an amoeba-like concept, shapeless but ineradicable’, with ‘contours so blurred it denotes nothing ...’ (Sachs, 1992: 4). The position of development has grown to be difficult to discover again. In the former decades of the development period, and regardless of an array of positions, there appeared to be a noticeable conformity on the requirement for some kind of development. Modernization and dependency hypothesis were the paradigms of the date. Gradually this agreement started to wear away because of numerous features, both social (the increasing incapability of development to accomplish its promises, the rise of movements that questioned its very reasonableness) and intellectual (the accessibility of latest tools of investigation, mainly post-structuralism). In the 1990s, post-structuralist evaluations became successful in emitting a serious doubt not merely on the feasibility but on the very desirability of development. Going ahead of earlier critiques, development was exposed to be a pervasive cultural communication with deep consequences for the creation of social certainty in the so-called Third World. The deconstruction of development by the post-structuralisms ended up in the opportunity of visualizing a post-development era, one in which the centrality of development as a systematizing code of social life would no longer grip. In the next half of the 1990s, these studies developed themselves into the object of distressing condemnation and confutations. A lot of these workings are heading in opposition to what is now explained as ‘the post-development school’ or position. For the sake of conciseness, I accept the explanations of the ‘post-development’ with three evident works, The Development Dictionary (Sachs ed, 1992), Encountering Development (Escobar, 1995), and The Post-development Reader (Rahnema and Bawtree eds, 1997). These volumes are isolated from a number of articles having the major passage on post-development, although there are additional authors added at times to this list (e.g, Rist, 1997; Vandana Shiva’s ‘ecofemism’, Cf. Kiely, 1999) (1). I observed thee major arguments in the anti post-development writings: First argument observed is that post-development disbelievers presented an over comprehensive and critical analysis of development, whereas in actuality there are huge distinctions within different development strategies and foundations; second argument is that they idealized local civilizations and local social movements, not take into account that the local is also rooted in global power affairs and that, in reality, many efforts nowadays are about access to development; and final argument is that they botched to become aware of the on-going competition of development on the ground. Behind these evaluations, to be certain are stern disagreements about the nature of social realism (e.g., for the Marxist critics, discourse has little to do with actuality, whereas for post-structuralists it is the major medium for the creation of reality), and concerning the nature of political practice and the means of social transformation. These disagreements occur in huge part out of divergent paradigmatic orientations (broadminded, socialist, or post-structuralist). I would like to draw attention to the significance of reflecting on these model differences if we are to build a more momentous text about development, post-development. It gives an impression to me that it is likely to differentiate three main reading strategies on the component of the anti-post development writers. These reading strategies are accomplished from, and in the name of, a particular position. I ought to say that in the majority of the cases you discover two or even the three strategies at play, some times producing odd bedfellows carried together by their anti-post-development position. Post development is described by one of the individual who supported it widely as the basic rejection of the development and bringing a new stance to the development process. Post development involves the interest of the culture and knowledge of different people; a vital stance towards the theories of science and the support of local movements. (Escobar 1995) In other words development has been described by different people as being a stance adopted by the western society to popularize their western culture and traditions. It can be said that development is a way through which people are deprived from their own culture and traditions (Esteva 1992). As said in the book written by Sachs that development is the process through which the world would be westernized (Sachs 1992). The way how states and science works are considered to be ways through which the world can be modernized and adopt the image that the West has. Thus nowadays there is a wide rejection of the word and the process of development. According to the proponents of Post development, the era of development has already come to an end. This is because the societies which were stuffed with industrial zones took the whole planet of earth towards an environmental catastrophe. After the Cold War ended the process of development started to diminish slightly and as the countries tried to adopt the developing process they incurred many problems such as cultural problems. This clearly illustrated that the process of development was failing in the world. However this failure paved a way for the post development to arise. And to show that the era of development has failed many societal organizations have developed in the grass root associations. These organizations are raising their issues of regaining economy from the market and the politics from the state. And these organizations work in a democratic manner in which all the people have a right to give in their views. These organizations are based on the local culture and traditions. This new system gives a rise to the graph of post development. This system not only provides the people the freedom to practice their culture but also provide them with power to control their lives accordingly. However in the recent years the system of post development has also been criticized by the opponents. The major criticism that the system is getting is about the extremism of the culture and traditions which are being practiced. As many authors of the post development show their deep interest in their customs they are largely criticized. However there are also other authors like Escobar who maintain a balanced view of post development. As Escobar emphasizes that both the extremes should be avoided i.e. to embrace the alternatives without any criticism; or to dismiss the alternatives as romantic expositions (Escobar 1995). Rist at another instance describes post development as a process through which new ways of life would be derived. A way of life which would involve both modernization to an extent and the traditions of different people which may become a source of inspiration (Rist 1997) Post development has completely changed the era of development in the world. It can be said that the process of development has failed but on the other hand it can also be said that the process of development has been replaced by the process of post development. And this process of post development despite receiving criticism has been successful. The main achievements of post development have been described by Laclou and Mouffe in these words “it extends social conflictuality to the area of development policy and development aid through reformulating relations of subordination implicit in development discourse as relations of oppression”. However it can also be said that Post Development has some flaws which need to be addressed so that it gets more successful. Bibliography SACHS, W. (1992). The Development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. London, Zed Books. ESCOBAR, A. (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton studies in culture/power/history. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. RAHNEMA, M., & BAWTREE, V. (1997). The post-development reader. London, Zed Books. ESTEVA, G., & PRAKASH, M. S. (1992). Grassroots resistance to sustainable development: lessons from the banks of the Narmada. Ecologist. 222, 45-51. RIST, G. (1997). The History of Development: from western origins to global faith. London, Zed Books. MATTHEWS, S. (2004). Post-development theory and the question of alternatives: a view from Africa. THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY. 25, 373-384. LEPENIES, P. H. (2002). The Companion to Development Studies edited by Vandana Desai and Robert B. Potter. JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES -LONDON-. 39, 187-188. Read More