Post-Development versus

Development
Henry JL Badenhorst
Email: henry_badenhorst@yahoo.com
4/20/2010

soli Deo Gloria

Development and Post-development is in a titanic battle for the souls of the Two/Third world or
Social majorities. Development is heavily critiqued as serving the purposes of the social minorities
in forcing the masses to convert to western culture and beliefs. Post-development in its rhetoric
language use, in an academical sense, offers no real practical alternatives. Post-modern grassroots
movements seem to appear on stage as the hero to save the oppressed masses from development.

Title:

Discuss the contribution of Post Development to

(a) Debates on development and;
(b) Debates on the welfare of the poor and marginalized people in
global capitalism.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Introduction

2. What is post development?

2-3

3. Post-Developments criticism of Development

3-4

4. Criticisms of Post-Development

4-8

5. Post developments overall contribution to the struggle

for human welfare

9-10

6. Conclusion

10

7. Bibliography

11

Introduction
Sachs starts his book; The Development Dictionary with these incredible words` `The last forty
years can be called the age of development. This epoch is coming to an end. The time is ripe to
write its obituary'' (Blaikie.2000:1036) and furthermore he states the idea of Development stands
like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crime have
been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work.
Moreover, the historical conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished:
development has become outdated (Pieterse.2000:285). Esteva in his rhetoric go as far to say that
Development stinks and that its a malignant myth which threatens social majorities.
(Pieterse.2000:286) Development is heavily criticised by Post Development thinkers and vice
versa. Development advocates agree that even though post development has no cure or
alternatives for development, it does have a valuable contribution towards development and
towards the struggle for human welfare of poor and marginalised people in global capitalism. Post
development will be conceptualized, if that is indeed possible, by looking at its contradictions.
Post development will be further explored by looking at the critique it has against development.
The critique that post development display towards development will be analysed, measured and
critiqued. Lastly the contribution that post development has had on the struggle for human welfare
by poor and marginalised people will be discussed i.t.o. grassroots movements that has sprung up
in the mainly Two/Thirds world where social majorities has to combat against modernism and
neo-liberalism instituted by social minorities.

What is Post-Development?
Post-development is according to Stewart (2007:4) a fundamental and radical rejection of the
whole of development, including its institutions, language and objectives. Pieterse paints postdevelopment as a radical reaction to the impasse of development theory and policy
(Stewart.2007:4), which starts out from a basic assessment that attaining a middle-class lifestyle
for the majority of the world population is impossible (Pieterse.2000:285). As summarised in
Stewart (2007:4), there are four claims of post development according to Pieterse. Firstly, postdevelopment attacks the way in which development characterizes poverty. Secondly, it tries to
highlight developments entanglement with forms of westernisation. Thirdly, it claims that
modernism, the worship of progress and the dominance of science all work together to serve
dominant minorities. Fourthly, it claims that development works as an ideological discourse, and
that different actions in the development field all assist to confirm and support this ideology.
These four claims are discussed later in more detail. Post-development strongly rejects alternative
development, since according to Esteva, it only acts as a deodorant trying to cover the stench of

Development (Stewart.2007:4). Post development concerns itself with unmasking the whole
development discourse, exposing ideas such as development, progress, poverty and equality as all
comprised due to their links to the failed project of development (Stewart.2007:5).
It may also be wise to include the meaning of Development thinking, since without a development
ideology there wont be post-development thinking. Up to the mid 1980s, development thinking ,
all development theories and the international aid industry shared three paradigms, namely;
essentialising the Third World and its inhabitants as homogenous; an unconditional belief in
progress and in the make-ability of society; and the importance of the nation-state in realising that
progress (Schuurman.2000:392). Since the mid 1980s, these three paradigms have lost their
hegemonic status, and have been replaced by a loose set of partly descriptive, partly heuristic
(involving trial and error) notions like civil society, social capital, diversity and risk, according to
Schuurman (2000:392).
Development thinking being an interventionist and managerialist discipline, steeped in social
engineering and the ambition to shape economies and societies, involves itself in telling others
what to do in the name of modernisation, nation-building, progress, mobilisation, sustainable
development, human rights, poverty alleviation and even empowerment and participation
(Pieterse.2000:292). Post-development is a response to this discourse or thinking, in that it rebels
against this authoritarian sensibility, due to its aversion to control (Pieterse.2000:292).

Post-developments criticism of Development

Post-development, first of all, attacks the way development defines poverty. Poverty according
to the development approach implies real material poverty (Pieterse.2000:287). Shiva, as post
development thinker, argues that it should not be, mentioning subsistence economies, serving
basic needs through self-provisioning, which are not necessarily poor in the sense that they are
deprived (Pieterse.2000:287). Developments idea of poverty, according to Shiva, includes those
who do not participate overwhelmingly in the market economy, neither consuming commodities
provided for and distributed through the market (Pieterse.2000:287). Rahnema points out, that
pro-development advocates represent poverty as the worlds impoverished, incapable of doing
anything for themselves, furthermore refusing the help of do-gooders (Pieterse.2000:287). Instead,
it is the economics of development which is truly pauperising leading to poverty alleviation and
elimination to slip off the map (Pieterse.2000:287).
Post-development

secondly,

highlights

developments

entanglement

with

forms

of

Westernisation. Development is used as a tool to force countries to adopt, or to convert them, to

Western culture, beliefs, customs and practices in matters such as law, economics, industry,
lifestyle, etc. Latouche critiques development by stating that it has been and will always be the
westernisation of the world (Pieterse.2000:288). Escobar argues that development is external,
based on the model of the industrialised world (Pieterse.2000:288). According to Kothari,

development only took over where colonialism left off (Pieterse.2000:288). Thus sounds the
critique that post-development thinkers have for Developments involvement and equation with
westernization.
The third claim to fame of post-development, is its critique of developments involvement with
modernism, the worship of progress and science, all working together to advance dominant
minorities. This critique of modernism fits in with the critique of westernization
(Pieterse.2000:288). Development thinking represents the new religion of the West, according
to Rist, but on the other hand it is to be said that the worship of progress is not only limited to the
West (Pieterse.2000:288). Part and parcel to this critique of modernism, is the critique of science,
where science is viewed as power (Pieterse.2000:288).
The final claim of post development is that it sees development as an ideological discourse.
Escobar states that the discourse of Development has been a mechanism for the production and
management of the Third World (Pieterse.2000:289-290). The rhetoric doesnt stop there, it is
also described by Esteva as a Frankenstein type dream, an alien model of exploitation that
reflects urban bias (Pieterse.2000:290). What is needed, according to Escobar, instead of
development, is a different regime of truth and perception, suggesting an undertaking of an
archaeology of Development implying a change in the order of discourse and mind shift in the
way we think (Pieterse.2000:290,294).
Other critique against development includes that of Lumis, who declares an end to development,
since its inherently anti-democratic (Pieterse.2000:292). However its not only states who forms
part of this development managerialism, but also international financial institutions and NGOs,
who all share a lack of humility and is a key characteristic of the development
power/knowledge complex (Pieterse.2000:292). Alternative development is thus seen by post
development as alternative managerialism, enforcing their suspicions and therefore not
considering alternative development as alternatives to development, instead rejecting that too
(Pieterse.2000:292). Should the alterative, as Roe suggests, be to do nothing? (Pieterse.2000:292).

Criticisms of Post-Development
Putting post development under the spotlight exposes certain truths about it. In emotive language,
post development thinkers have proclaimed the evil of development as an instrument in the hands
of social minorities to modernise and to westernize the unwilling masses of the Two/Third world
and bring them in step with their beliefs, customs and practices as a mechanism of control and to
force subservience. This blatant rejection of cultural autonomy by Western powers is done in the
good name of development, which post modernists and post development thinkers reject as
being conducive to the welfare of the masses or Two/Third world, as Esteva and Prakash refers to.
Even though being tempted to be swayed by emotive language use by post-development thinkers,

there is another side to the coin. Post-development does indeed have its faults and shortcomings,
which can be criticized.
Post-developments claims and critique of development, as discussed above, have also been
critiqued by pro-development advocates. Pieterse (2000:287) argues with regards to postdevelopments critique of market representation and its link to poverty, according to prodevelopment advocates, that less market representation not necessarily implies more social
presentation, lest we romanticize poverty and equate it with purity.
Post-developments second critique of development namely Development equals westernization,
especially that of Kotharis where its argued that westernization took over from colonization, is
vehemently attacked by Pieterse that this view is as old as the modernisation theory, which calls
to mind the momentum and pathos of decolonisation, the arguments against cultural imperialism,
Coco-colonisation, Mcdonaldisation and the familiar cultural homogenisation thesis according
which

western

media,

advertising

and

consumerism

induce

cultural

uniformity

(Pieterse.2000:288). Its furthermore one sided and old hat and it denies the agency of the
Third World and denies the extent to which the South also own development
(Pieterse.2000:288). The fact is that the South has contributed towards recent development
perspectives, such as dependency theory, alternative development and human development
(Pieterse.2000:288). Pieterse criticizes Latouche and others over their broad use of the term The
West, since sharp historical differences between North-America and Europe exist
(Pieterse.2000:288).
Post-developments third claim or criticism towards development is against modernism, science
and the worship of progress. Even though Pieterse recognizes the fact that technological
progress is at times placed above human development, he makes the point that even states in the
South are guilty of using science as an instrument of power as proved by examples of Indias high
modernisation drive and Indonesias experimental aircraft technology industry
(Pieterse.2000:289). Although Rist sees development as the new religion of the West, the fact
remains that its not restricted to the West and that an aversion to modernism also exists in the
West (Pieterse.2000:289). Science is not all bad; it can be used for good, such as ecological
movements using scientific methods to monitor energy use pollution and climate changes
(Pieterse.2000:289).
The last claim or critique by post-development about development is that it works mainly as an
ideological discourse, used as a mechanism for the production and management of the Third
World. Pieterse criticize Escobars perspective as a broad and uneven mixture of exaggerated
claims, sustained by weak examples (Pieterse.2000:290). Its broad in the sense that it combines
vocabularies such as post structuralism, social movement theory and development; uneven in that

his perspective (which represents post-developments perspective), centres on anti-development

without giving a clear delineation between anti-development and alternative development; and
exaggerated in that his position hinges on a discursive trick, a rhetorical ploy of equating
development with Development (Pieterse.2000:290). Escobars perspective on actual
development is flimsy and based on confused examples, with more rhetoric than logic
(Pieterse.2000:290).
Sachs in 1992, found the concept of development outdated (Schuurman.2000:395). He gave the
following reasons, namely that; the belief in ecology led and will always lead to ecological
disasters; the concept of development was an ideological weapon in East-West conflict, which no
longer exists; the welfare gap between North and South is growing instead of shrinking; and
development leads to a loss of diversity, which is boring (Schuurman.2000:395).
Post-development thinking is fundamentally uneven, since it concerns itself with much discourse,
yet the actual language use is indulgent and sloppy (Pieterse.2000:293). Pieterse (2000:293)
accuses Escobar of playing games with rhetoric by referring to development as Development
suggesting its the same, in fact, essentialising development. Pieterse (2000:293) argues that
Sachs makes the call on the one hand for the banishment of development, yet in this call for
banishment, he suggests that its possible to define development unambiguously. Escobar does the
same, on the one hand he caricatures Development and argues for alternatives to
development, yet on the other hand, he pleads for redefining development, contradicting himself
(Pieterse.2000:294). The contradictions seem endless, on the one hand rubbing shoulders with
anti-intellectualism,

yet

on

the

other

calling

for

complex

discursive

operations

(Pieterse.2000:295). Pieterse (2000:293) remarks that it seems necessary for post-development to

essentialise development, in order to radically repudiate development. This dichotomous thinking
by post-development is rather confusing and as Pieterse rightly remarks, they tend to turn on a
language game rather than an analysis (Pieterse2000:293).
There are several problems according to Pieterse with the dichotomous line of thinking posed by
post development thinkers. Firstly, some of their claims are simply misleading and it
misrepresents the history of development, such as Esteva and others who refer in the
Development Dictionary to Truman in the 1940s who started the development era, when in fact
in the South it started with colonial economics, a much older history than development
(Pieterse.2000:293). Secondly, dichotomic thinking underrates the dialectics and the complexity
of motives and motions in modernity and development (Pieterse.2000:293). Lastly, postdevelopments attitude towards real, existing development is narrow. Post development literature
only seems to cite instances that concern Africa, Latin America and India (Pieterse.2000:293).
Post-development does receive positive feedback. Even Pieterse, the critic of post development, is
ready to admit that Development suffers from psychological modernism, where technological

progress is placed above that of human development, a condition that post-development heavily
criticize, leading to their rejection of development (Pieterse.2000:288). He, furthermore, admits
that post-development makes positive claims and that its associated with affirmative
counterpoints, such as indigenous knowledge and cultural diversity (Pieterse.2000:294). Post
development opts for Gandhian frugality, not consumerism, for conviviality (pleasantness), for
grassroots movements and local struggles (Pieterse.2000:294). Post-development, furthermore
takes the critique of development to the point of retreat from business-as-usual, which can be a
creative position from which an alternative practice can grow (Pieterse.2000:296).
Post-development heavily criticizes development, but it offers no or very little solutions or
alternatives. The development dictionary, compiled by Sachs, where nineteen development
concepts are critiqued by different post-development thinkers, does not significantly go into what
courses of action should be taken instead of development (Stewart.2007:5). The general trend in
post-development literature is to stop at critique (Pieterse.2000:294). Rist for example states that
alternatives are not his affair (Pieterse.2000:294). We have thus an endorsement of the status
quo and in effect more of the same, exposing post-developments core weakness
(Pieterse.2000:294).
An exception to this general trend of no alternatives to development, is the post-development
reader by Rahnema, that includes a lot more material on alternatives to development, most notably
a whole section on the vernacular world about the economic and cultural resources present in
indigenous societies; and traditions unharmed by development (Stewart.2007:5). Another section,
suggests new post-development social and perceptual spaces, meaning localities, philosophies of
simplicity, inner spaces and different ways of experiencing the present (Stewart.2007:5). The
alternatives suggested seem to have romantic and conservative element aimed at the welfare of
traditional and indigenous societies, on the on hand, yet on the other hand these suggestions have
great moral sensitivity and awareness of the dimensions in the lives of the poor (Stewart.2007:5).
Post-development critique does not amount to a Foucaultian critique of development, even
though post-development texts are usually associated with the concepts of Michel Foucault, such
as archaeology of development, autonomous production of truth, and most notably discourse
(Ziai.2004:509,511). Following Foucault, Post-development sees development as a discourse
(Ziai.2004:510). Ziai (2004: 510-511), however points out five post-development deviations from
Foucault. Firstly, post-development development discourse does not take into account the
diversity of four decades of development theory, policy and alternative approaches, whereas
Foucaultian archaeology claims that the unity of a discourse is constituted by its rules and not by
common assumptions, emphasising breaks, differences and discontinuities. Secondly, postdevelopment writers remain captured within a traditional objectivist critique of ideology, where
developments universal promise of prosperity is unmasked as a deceitful mirage or malignant
myth and whereby development discourse is accused as being a political project whereby Third

World societies are being restructured according to the needs of the West ,an idea which Foucault
explicitly rejected (Ziai.2004:510). Thirdly, essentialisations of development, as a frequent
phenomenon in post-development literature, unlike Foucaultian literature (Ziai.2004:510)
Fourthly, post-development texts are stuck within a sovereign, repressive concept of power, which
is only partly accurate, whereas Foucault has overcome this narrow perspective on power in his
later works (Ziai.2004:511). In the last instance, whereas post-development texts demonise
industrial modernity as gulag and holocaust, yet simultaneously romanticizing pre-modern
subsistence communities, Foucault on the other hand insists that power is ubiquitous in the sense
that is to be found in international institutions as well as local and self evident relations and
discourses (Ziai.2004:511)
Sceptical post-developments connectedness with radical democracy is another point brought
forward by Ziai (2004:519). The criticisms and demands of sceptical post-development are in
agreement with those of radical democracy (Ziai.2004:519).

Relations of oppression and

exploitation in the and culture, knowledge and the relationship to nature are important and
significant to post-development texts, but gender and the relations of oppression, is a blind spot
(Ziai.2004:519). Post-development is similar to Laclau & Mouffes project of radical and plural
democracy where democratic struggles for equality and liberty are extended to a wide range of
social relations (Ziai.2004:519). Post-development tries to extend struggles for self-determination
in the South, to seemingly harmless efforts aiming at development and in general to various
structures of modern societies such as market, state and science (Ziai.2004:519). Existing power
structures have to be radically decentralized and power has to remain at the local level, as Lummis
points out: democracy is a critique of centralized power of every sort, which also implies a
critique of the system of political representation (Ziai.2004:519). Radical democratic/postdevelopment critique not only challenges the principle of political representation, but also the
principle of epistemological representation, which is the ability to represent the world
conceptually and symbolically, enabling the disengaged observer to manipulate that world
(Ziai.2004:519). Sceptical post-development could be seen as a manifesto of radical democracy
in the field of development policy and theory, extending social conflictuality to the area of
development policy and development aid, through formulating relations of subordination implicit
in development discourse, as relations of oppression (Ziai.2004:520).

Post-Developments overall contribution to the struggle for human welfare

The Chiapas movement in Mexico, comprised of different Indian peoples, signals the uprising of
social majorities against the global project. These grassroots movements are born from
disillusionment with the ballot box and party political apathy and from popular resistance to
conventional forms of participation (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86). Post-development writers like
Esteva and Prakash state that the end of the economic era has come and that development, which

once offered hope of eternal life to economic societies, has instead dug their graves (Esteva &
Prakash.1998:93). Can these grassroots movements, consisting of ordinary men and women, and
who are seeking to go beyond the premises and the promises of modernity, actually contribute
towards human welfare for the social majorities or masses? These movements who are nonpolitical, non-violent, open to all creeds and religions, non-intellectual, detached from abstract
ideologies, proven by success stories like those of the Chiapas, can indeed avoid the mainstream
minority march towards global progress and development.
Development over the last four decades has only succeeded in worsening the five centuries of
modernization, which preceded development, in the way that social minorities have consumed
the cultural and natural spaces of the social majorities, with the intention of developing them for
progress, economic growth and progress (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89). The social minorities are
not lying down in this war; they have continued to resist the inroads of that modern world into
their lives in an effort to save their families and communities. They have resisted modernization,
intended for their betterment, but it has made its mark and created a lot of destruction, leaving
them less human, suffering indignity and dehumanization, being forced out of their traditional
communal spaces, which they occupied for centuries, by social minorities (Esteva &
Prakash.1998:89). Neo-liberal policies continue to push these social majorities further into the
wastelands of the modern world, considered by social minorities as human surpluses making too
many babies, over-populated, disposable and redundant (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89). No wonder
social majorities feel the way they feel and why many more are acting in the best way they can,
collectively.
These post modern (post development) grassroots movements have certain characteristics. Like
the Chiapas movement, they shun political platforms or ideologies; it has no interest in seizing
power from the government; membership is not exclusive; it has a collective leadership, made up
out of elected representatives; its contemporary, using modern means of communication; and it
adopts a political style that is post-modern (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86). One is tempted to add, by
the people for the people. They are furthermore, deliberately open; they distrust leaders and
centralized political direction; they avoid the temptation to control or lead the social forces they
activate; they opt for flexible organizational structures, which they use for concerted action rather
than for channelling demands; and they first exhaust any democratic and legal means, before
resorting to direct action or revolt (Esteva & Prakash.1998:86).
A distinction must be made, however, between grassroots post development and academic
development. Grassroots post-modernism are initiatives autonomously organized by the people
themselves for their own survival, flourishing and enduring, and antagonistic to the state and its
formal and corporate structures (Esteva & Prakash.1998:92). Academic post-modernism, agrees,
but they leave some modern sacred cows untouched, unwilling to dissect or deconstruct

certainties, left unquestionable by post-development thinkers (Esteva & Prakash.1998:91).

According to Esteva and Prakash (1998:91-92), there are three sacred cows left untouched by
post-development academics, namely; The myth of global thinking, that economic globalization
will now provide the manna, development failed to provide until the mid 1980s, goods and
services the social minorities now enjoy will be accessible to social majorities; secondly,
universal human rights, as spelled out in the UDHR, that will accompany this global economy;
and lastly, the myth of the individual self, accompanied by human rights that will be incorporated
into this global economy, to become a member with full rights and privileges of the club and
society of homos economicus.
The benefits of grassroots movements include the fact that culturally diverse groups of people
continue to find movements like the Zapatista movement, very relevant for their own struggles,
seeing that there is vital lessons to be learned from these movements on finding ways to react
against the evils that are plaguing their lives (Esteva & Prakash.1998:90). Common men and
women are leading the way walking beyond the oppressive reign of homos economicus and
homos educandus, away from developments salvation, towards options that offers real hope for
the masses (Esteva & Prakash.1998:93). The inevitable breakdown of modernity, terrorizing
social minorities, are now being used by social majorities as opportunities for regenerating
their own traditions, cultures and their unique indigenous and other non-modern arts of living and
dying (Esteva & Prakash.1998:89).

Conclusion
Development discourse and Post-development critique of development seems to be in titanic
battle for the souls of the Two/Thirds social majorities of the world. Development replaced
modernisation after World War II, but it seems that the hegemonic paradigms that all development
theory shared had been watered down and globalisation and neo-liberalism now dictates
development. Social minorities use development as a tool to force social majorities to adopt
western culture and beliefs. Post-development thinkers make wild accusations, albeit
contradictory, about development, eventually rejecting it in totality, yet offering no genuine
alternatives to development. Development critiques post-development as using rhetoric language
and for making contradictory statements. Grassroots post-development movements seems to offer
real solutions to the masses out there, who would like to regenerate their lost cultures and beliefs,
whereas post-development academics are more all insults and rhetoric, yet no-action,

no-

alternatives. One is almost swayed by the emotive language use by post development academics,
and feels very tempted to join the march against the global project. Post-development however,
offers no real alternatives to development and I could only go so far as to support postdevelopment/post-modern grassroots movements where on a practical scale the monster of
development is faced by collectiveness on a day to day concrete scale.

10

Bibliography

1. Blaikie, S.2000. Development, post-, anti-, and populist: a critical review:

Environment and Planning A 2000, volume 32. Great Britain: Pion.
2. Esteva,G & Prakash, M. 1998. Beyond Development, what?, in Analysing
contemporary development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by
P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
3. Pieterse, J. 2000. After post-development, in Analysing contemporary
development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart.
Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
4. Schuurman, F. 2000. Paradigm lost, paradigm regained? Development
Studies in the twenty-first century, in Analysing contemporary
development debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart.
Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
5. Stewart, P. 2007. Only Study guide for DVADEBT. Pretoria: University
of South-Africa.
6. Ziai, A. 2004. The ambivalence of post-development: between reactionary
populism and radical democracy, in Analysing contemporary development
debates and issues: a reader, compiled by P.D.S. Stewart. Pretoria:
University of South-Africa.

11