This article was downloaded by: [University of Limerick]

On: 3 March 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 788797385]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Third World Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713448481

Critical Development Theory: moving out of the twilight zone

Frans J. Schuurmana
a
Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (cidin), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The
Netherlands

To cite this Article Schuurman, Frans J.(2009) 'Critical Development Theory: moving out of the twilight zone', Third
World Quarterly, 30: 5, 831 — 848
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01436590902959024
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590902959024

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2009, pp 831–848

Critical Development Theory:

moving out of the twilight zone
FRANS J SCHUURMAN

ABSTRACT Since the onslaught of neoliberal triumphalism from the 1980s

onwards, critical development theory increasingly found itself in a sort of
academic twilight zone. With few exceptions development research became
characterised by an emphasis on empiricism, quantitative methodologies and
policy-oriented project evaluations. Interpreting Third World problems in terms
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

of the inner logic and shifting contradictions of a globalising capitalism was

limited to those situated in the critical theory twilight zone. However, a process
of rethinking development research set in some time ago. This process has been
accelerating since the end of 2008, when neoliberalism started to lose most of its
triumphalism because of the globalising financial and economic crisis. The
current article focuses specifically on a number of challenges which have to be
faced by critical theory when leaving the twilight zone.

Development studies has always been, and probably will always be, an
uneasy discipline and, by default, so is development research.1 There is a
number of factors which explain this uneasiness right from the start of
development studies at the end of the 1960s but in time others have been
added.
First, nobody has ever agreed about what the exact object of development
studies actually is: processes of development and underdevelopment, poverty
in the Third World, or causes of that poverty and attempts to do something
about it, etc. Development studies is not like sociology, for example, which
has a clearly defined object. If I were to ask colleagues what they thought the
exact explanandum of development studies was, I would get many different
answers. However, and I am now getting to the second factor responsible for
the unease, all those different answers would have a common denominator
and that is that the object of development studies and development research
has a significant degree of normativity. Content-wise, however, this
normativity would differ enormously in terms of what ‘a good and decent
life’ would have to be about and how to realise that goal. In addition, too
much emphasis on the latter (ie how to realise a good and decent life) would
lead to development studies being seen as a policy-oriented applied science
while in fact it is much more.

Frans Schuurman is at the Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Radboud
University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: f.schuurman@maw.ru.nl.

ISSN 0143-6597 print/ISSN 1360-2241 online/09/050831–18 Ó 2009 Third World Quarterly

DOI: 10.1080/01436590902959024 831
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

A third important factor is the interdisciplinary character of development

studies. Much could be said about that issue but I will limit myself to
pointing out that 1) interdisciplinarity tends to be associated with lower
academic prestige; and 2) because of the interdisciplinary approach,
development studies continuously has to deal with the spill-over effects of
the scientific flux in neighbouring disciplines.
Although these factors have been responsible for a certain degree of
uneasiness for development studies they were at the same time treasured by
those involved as core characteristics of their discipline. Since its emergence
in the late 1960s (in the case of the UK) or early 1970s (in the case of the
Netherlands, for example), development studies was more or less able to deal
with this uneasiness successfully. It seems, however, that development
research in general, and development studies in particular, has for some time
now shown signs of an increased uneasiness as it has moved into a twilight
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

zone between neoliberal globalism and global neoliberalism. Things have

changed drastically for development studies and the uneasiness as an
established fact of academic life has changed into an almost existential threat,
specifically for critical development theory.
First, there is an undeniable trend for development studies institutes, as
part of academia, to have to operate increasingly according to a market logic.
Being involved in research into poverty, marginalisation and ‘into the plight
of the Third World’ in general has not saved development studies from
having to justify itself in terms of input and output of students, the number of
publications in highly ranked peer-reviewed journals, the annual count of
large-scale outside-financed research projects, citation indices, (inter)national
ratings indicating academic prestige, and so on.
Second, this trend stands in contradistinction to the original critical
contents of the mission and scientific object of development studies. For
example, it is increasingly difficult to find funds for development research
which is not directly related to the UN Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) or which tries to assess critically the whole MDG-related media circus.
As such, third, neoliberal thinking is having a growing influence on
determining the research agenda of development studies, making it
increasingly difficult to maintain a critical research tradition.
Fourth, although, on the one hand, the geographical scope of development
studies research nowadays incorporates Eastern and Central European
countries, and also Western European countries for that matter, on the other
hand, with respect to research in the traditional development countries, the
geographical focus seems to be reduced to Africa (a direct consequence of the
focus on Africa of the aid industry).
Fifth, globalisation (whether as an ontological phenomenon and/or as a
discourse) has significantly challenged development studies in many respects.
Although originally globalisation theories could be considered as a challenge
to critical development studies, they have turned increasingly into a liability
basically because of their depoliticised and culturalist overtones.
So I would venture that the present uneasiness is of a different nature from
before. It is probably exaggerated to speak of an existential crisis but if we
832
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

take a look, for example, at how British (in 2006), Austrian (in 2007) and
Dutch (in 2008) development studies institutes celebrated their lustra one gets
an idea of what I mean. All these celebrations were organised around the
theme of ‘reinventing development research’ which actually came down to re-
establishing the relation between critical theory and development research.
Why is the unease related to that particular issue of a different nature from
what we were used to? To answer that question, allow me first briefly to
characterise what the relation is between critical development theory and—
let’s call it for the moment—‘the rest’ of development research. To start with:
there is hardly a relation anymore. From the point of view of critical theory
much of development research seems to hover in a sort of twilight zone,
between neoliberal globalism and global neoliberalism. At the same time
many development researchers think that it is critical theory which finds itself
in a twilight zone between more or less obscure forms of historical
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

materialism, completely outdated socialist utopian ideas and a touch of

post-developmental nihilism. Both zones are convinced that the other hasn’t
got a clue about how the world functions, that they don’t properly
understand how poverty came into the world, why it is concentrated in the
global South, what people there actually think and expect, and what is the
best way to improve upon situations of poverty.
Let me give an example from the point of view of critical theory of what
goes on in the other twilight zone. In a recent article about the tension
between critical theory and the policy-orientedness of development studies,
Henry Bernstein quotes from an advertisement for Research Fellows at the
University of Manchester’s new Brooks World Poverty Institute, of which
Joseph Stiglitz is chair:
Successful applicants will have a demonstrated capacity to conduct innovative
and rigorous research that refines and extends our understanding of poverty,
while also identifying plausible and politically supportable options for what
might be done to reduce it.2

There doesn’t seem to be much communication between those two twilight

zones in spite of the fact that they outwardly share a lot of concepts like
sustainable development, poverty, attention to gender, etc; the interpretation
of these concepts is very different, so much so that effectively they seem to
belong to different paradigmatic, phenomenological and epistemological
universes. Constructive communication seems further blocked by a number
of other factors. For example, researchers from both twilight zones seem to
inadvertently transmit a sort of moral righteousness which seems to be rather
irritating for the other party. If, for example, those directly or indirectly
involved in the praxis of international development co-operation are accused
of (unwittingly) being the Trojan horses of imperialism, then there isn’t much
common ground for a fruitful dialogue. Neither is it very helpful if critical
theorists are accused of being ideologically blinded by an outdated Marxist
framework supporting the search for an unrealistic socialist-like utopia. The
two zones differ significantly in terms of research objectives, research
questions, and even research methodology. So what makes the present unease
833
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

in development studies different from previous periods? To answer that

question we will have to go back to the period in which development studies
was constituted as an academic discipline.
Looking back at 35 years (or 40 in the case of the UK) of development
studies, its genealogy basically follows Robert Michel’s iron law of the
oligarchy, Max Weber’s iron law of the bureaucracy and Foucault’s notion
of governmentality. Development studies as an academic discipline emerged
in the late 1960s and early 1970s from the womb of anti-imperialist social
movements consisting of students and young university professors, and from
the so-called ‘country-solidarity committees’. As such, there is no doubt that
the ideological, political and intellectual roots of development studies are
firmly embedded within critical theory. The anti-modernisation Zeitgeist of
that period, in combination with a pretty much particular body of theories
(dependency theory and world-system approaches) and its interdisciplinary,
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

comparative approach led to development studies being accepted (or perhaps

tolerated) as a separate academic discipline by the end of the 1970s. Many
students saw in development studies a way to combine their solidarity with
the Third World with theoretical insights and a possibility to actually do
something about poverty. It attracted an increasing number of students and
as such became unavoidably enmeshed in the academic bureaucracy. Ties
with the social movements were redefined to fit academic rules. In addition,
there emerged a job market for the graduate students in the field of
international development co-operation. Ministries of development co-
operation in the various European countries, Northern development NGOs
and United Nations organisations provided ample employment opportunities
for development studies graduates. Unavoidably this also affected the
academic curriculum of development studies; for example, knowledge about
how to set up and run development projects was required as was how to
make a five-year development plan (which was very much in vogue in that
period). Both previously mentioned iron laws explain why development
studies slowly started to drift away from its original historical roots within
critical theory. Obviously the increasing hegemony of neoliberalism, in
combination with the globalisation rhetoric from the 1990s onwards, meant a
drastic change of the Zeitgeist in comparison to the 1960s and 1970s. Critical
theory within development studies became increasingly sidelined specifically
from the beginning of the 1990s onwards as a result of the quickly growing
hegemony of a depoliticised, post-cold war globalisation discourse and a
depoliticisation of the development debate in general, of which the
presentation of the MDGs in 2000 is a clear example. Instead of seeing the
MDGs as the epitaph of 50 years of development co-operation, the MDGs have
been used to discipline development research towards neoliberal globalisa-
tion discourses, further away from critical theory; a manoeuvre that Foucault
could have labelled academic governmentality. Of course, there is still plenty
of critique on, for example, international development co-operation but
much of it seems to be geared to the question of how to make it more
efficient. There is much less debate on the issue of development research in
terms of what critical theory stands for, despite publications by authors like
834
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

James Ferguson, Robert Biel, Ben Fine, John Harriss, David Harvey, Uma
Kothari and, more recently, Ray Kiely just to mention some names who
share perspectives derived from critical theory.3
However, critical development research is not a homogeneous package of
meta- and substantive theories which can be taken out of the drawer. There is
also much ‘uneasiness’ with respect to critical development research. In spite
of accepting a Marxian political economy of capitalism as a broad common
framework, positions differ with respect to a whole range of issues, such as 1)
the necessity of incorporating a radical praxeology (ie providing guidelines
for anti-systemic movements); 2) disagreement about the characteristics of
the supposed anti-systemic movements (ie the present analytical value of the
concept of socioeconomic classes); 3) the extent to which critical discourse
analysis (specifically focusing on the Eurocentrism in development narra-
tives) should be incorporated; and 4) the degree to which actors are
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

considered as free agents (ie the continuous actor–structure debate).

It is time to move critical development research from its twilight zone into
the spotlight. In 2008 the contours of a partial meltdown of global financial
capitalism and the subsequent global recession in the real economy made
clear that there is more need than ever for critical development research to
move out of the twilight zone and to contribute to new, much needed insights
into processes of development and underdevelopment and possible alter-
native routes towards a more sustainable future. However, to move critical
development research forward in this sense, a number of contentious issues
will have to be addressed, the first of which I attempt in the next paragraph.
The last section discusses the value of perspectives on new imperialism to
move critical development theory out of the twilight zone.

Critical theory: some contentious issues

What is critical development research about?
In order to answer this question we will have to look at the explanandum
(object), the explanans (explanatory framework) and the methodology of
critical development research. Critical theory as a meta-narrative or
paradigmatic-like perspective would read something like Robert Biel proposes:

International capitalism will always need a South to exploit. If countries from

this area were to become successful latecomers, the accumulation system would
suffer a double blow: the size of the exploiting area would increase while the
territory available for exploitation would shrink! This is the fundamental
reason why all the talk about generalised growth is pure nonsense.4
However, the same author comes close to interpreting critical theory as a
substantive explanatory framework with the following observation:

The problem of poverty, which has become the central problem of development
today, cannot be understood outside the context of capital accumulation, and
fundamentally can never be resolved while capital accumulation is the ruling
principle of the international system.5
835
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

Andrew Sayer’s emphasis on what critical theory is specifically concerns the

explanandum, ie substantive normative issues, as the object of research (eg
injustice, poverty) without linking that choice explicitly with a particular
theory or meta-narrative.6 That would not be my preferred option because in
that sense practically all research within the development studies community
would be critical. In Appelbaum and Robinson’s anthology, Critical
Globalization Studies, several chapters (eg the editors’ introduction as well
as James Mittelman’s ‘robust conceptualisation’ of critical globalisation
studies) are quite useful for elaborating in a broad sense the essence of critical
development research.7 As such, a shortlist of the most important
characteristics of critical (globalisation) theory, mentioned in Appelbaum
and Robinson would contain the following: 1) reflexivity: the acknowl-
edgement that the society in which we live, or other societies, is only one
possible form of society; 2) knowledge is power; 3) critical theory attempts to
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

uncover historic processes which link the various elements of a particular

social reality without falling into the trap of reductionism; 4) critical theory is
transdisciplinary in the sense that it tries to establish crossovers with critical
approaches in other disciplines (like cartography or critical legal studies); 4)
critical theory is subversive, ie it challenges accepted ideas, ideologies,
policies, etc; 5) critical theory questions the positivist faith in empiricism, ie it
questions the distinction between facts and values; 6) critical research
involves decentring, taking into account perspectives not only from the
epicentre but also from the so-called margins.
The minimum position which I would prefer for characterising critical
development research is a combination of 1) an object of research which
concerns the lack of emancipation of large groups of people, the structural
causes thereof and attempts to do something about it; 2) an explanatory
framework using the inner (but globalising) logic of the capitalist system in
terms of production, market and consumption; and 3) challenging accepted
ideas, ideologies and policies (something which Robinson calls the
‘subversive’ side of critical theory).

Critical theory and the academic curriculum

What does it mean for the educational curriculum of a development studies
institute to be functioning in an academic setting which is increasingly being
invaded by a market logic? In order to survive, concessions have had to be
made. Original mission statements, which were strongly normatively
inspired, started to act as barriers in the survival strategy. In the 1970s a
common view shared by students and staff in development studies was that
development projects were an extension of Northern-based imperialism (a
basic view of ‘Third Worldists’ or ‘tier-mondistes’) or at most a way to evade
more fundamental changes in North–South trade relations and political
regimes in underdeveloped countries themselves. There is currently little
reason to believe that development co-operation has changed dramatically
from these (un)intended consequences.
836
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

Yet development studies underwent large shifts in terms of its explanan-

dum, explanans and subject (methodology). In terms of its object,
development studies went from a structural analysis of the mechanics of
underdevelopment to studying the efficiency of development projects. In this
shift an approach inspired by critical theory was entirely lost. In fact, in
general the adjective ‘critical’ lost its original meaning. Many development
studies students nowadays reduce the adjective ‘critical’ to delivering critique.
In addition, there has been a shift (not only in development studies but also
in the social sciences in general) from structural analysis to actor-oriented
analysis. Studying or evaluating development projects in terms of efficiency
and impact means a shift from macro- to micro-level analysis. Now there is
nothing wrong with an actor-oriented analysis as long as the structural
context is not lost from sight.8 But this is exactly the point, the broader
context in project-based evaluation studies often remains outside the
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

analytical framework (partly also because it falls outside the sphere of

influence of policy makers—ministries of development co-operation as well
as NGOs—which often finance these studies in the first place).
Another example of the shift within development studies from structural to
actor-oriented analysis is the way that notions like poverty and inequality are
conceptualised. We see here a historic shift in the level of analysis from macro
to meso to micro. Poverty in the Third World used to be conceptualised in
terms of differences between rich and poor countries. Admittedly the
definition of poverty has been much improved through the years (from a
purely income-oriented definition to a much broader set of indicators) but
poverty is now often reduced to an individual characteristic with individual
solutions (eg through micro-credit schemes). This trend is also reflected in
analytical frameworks like, for example, the currently much favoured
livelihood approaches where individual actors are plotted into a matrix
according to their access (or lack thereof) to assets or different forms of
capital (financial, social, human, etc). The livelihood framework is useful to
point out the heterogeneity existing within a particular local space, something
which has always been a notoriously weak point in critical theory.9 But this
can hardly compensate for the lack of a much more systematic analysis of
structural components. In other words, the shift within development studies
from research inspired by critical theory to research according to a neoliberal
agenda is accompanied by dramatic shifts in object, subject and explanatory
framework.
How could the above be seen from the student’s point of view (ie more
precisely: my perspective on their perspective)? Development studies still
attracts, perhaps remarkably so, quite a number of students. The reasons for
studying development studies have not changed over the years. Students
continue to have a genuine concern for the plight of the poor in the Third
World, indignation about the unequal distribution of resources on a global
scale and the urge to do something about this. Students also are still very
active outside the university although the characteristics of their activities
have changed somewhat. In the ‘old days’ students joined anti-imperialism
working groups and as such were well equipped with theoretical knowledge
837
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

which enabled them to discuss the relevance of Marx’s 18th Brumaire on

the same level as their professors. Nowadays students join United Nations
Youth Forums and travel to Washington to meet their peers from other
countries to discuss good governance. So extra curricular activities are still
there and still express a basic concern with the ‘Other’. In fact, these
activities should perhaps be appreciated more than in the old days because
now many students work at least 20 hours per week to earn their
livelihood.
The job market for development studies students is still largely composed
of employment in the domain of international development co-operation,
although this means being sent overseas significantly less than before. Only a
small percentage manages to proceed to undertake a PhD. Many graduates
find jobs in ministries of development co-operation, NGOs, embassies or
international development organisations and become directly involved in the
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

domain of development management and policy making. This particular job

market requires critical students but in a more generalised sense of the word.
Above all, there is a need for students who know how to prepare, manage
and evaluate development projects, who know how to measure efficiency and
increase the impact of projects. The job market does not particularly emit
signals that it needs students who think that the MDGs are the latest example
of depoliticising the development debate. However, this could be too sombre
a take on things. In an interesting article on what MA students in
development studies ought to be taught, Michael Woolcock of the World
Bank’s Development Research Group, surprisingly perhaps, states the
following:
but students whose confidence stems from, and identity is solidly grounded in,
possession of technocratic skills alone risk—as David Halberstam (1974)
famously noted of the Vietnam War architects—becoming part of the problem
rather than the solution. Why? Because a good measure of the repeated failure
of the ‘aid industry’ over its 50-year history can be attributed to the enormously
strong organizational imperatives and institutional incentives to frame all
development problems in terms that are amenable to the logic, techniques, and
sensibilities of technocrats and bureaucrats (Scott, 1998), of which quantitative
skills are a central component. Policy school faculty members are thus required
to manage a difficult tension between seeing quantitative expertise as both a
necessary but very insufficient component of the development professional’s
overall skill portfolio.10
Although this is not exactly an immediate invitation for critical scholars to
apply for a job at the World Bank, it offers at least some reason to relax the
partly self-imposed academic governmentality to overemphasise the narrow
empiricist approaches in development research. As such, it is also vital to
incorporate into critical theory elements of an enlightened deconstructive
postmodernism not only to deconstruct mainstream development concepts
but also to increase critical theory’s capacity for self-reflexivity because it has
strong eurocentric overtones.11
In so far as students are not ignorant of what critical theory is, it seems to
be generally considered as a relic of the turbulent past of development studies
838
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

instead of an approach of any immediate use in research projects or in future

jobs. Besides, by now every European university has implemented the
Bologna Treaty, which means that officially the academic period for students
consists of a three-year BA followed by a one-year MA. Time for fieldwork is
limited, which means that students need a pragmatic ‘toolkit’ for local-level
research. Critical theory is rather abstract and needs considerable oper-
ationalisation to be used in short term micro-level MA research projects. It
can be considered as a major challenge for development studies to try to
reincorporate critical theory into that pragmatic toolkit.

Critical theory and the de/repoliticisation of the development debate

The end of real existing socialism in 1989 led the political left into an
ideological impasse which is one of the reasons for the depoliticisation trend
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

in the development debate. Frantically searching for an acceptable

replacement for socialist ideals, the left chose political participation at
national and, especially, local levels as the closest thing to a progressive
political agenda.
However, experiences with participation of civil society organisations in
local government, for example, show in general that these are rather devoid
of serious political discussions and target-micro material issues above all.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that but the idea of political
emancipation does not appear to come any closer. In her booklet, On the
Political, Chantal Mouffe has aptly described this process and emphasises
that we should return to ‘the political’ in the sense of what she calls agonistic
confrontations.12 Hegemonic in the mainstream development debate are
versions of globalisation rhetoric rampant with depoliticised notions
associated with multiculturality, civil society and good governance (like,
for example, the notion of social capital). There are emerging attempts, also
within development NGOs, to repoliticise the development debate and it is
imperative that critical theorists participate in those attempts.13
However, as has, hopefully, become clear in the presentation of the
previous ‘contentious issues’, the contributions of critical development theory
to a repoliticisation of the development debate will not have a unified
content. Instead of interpreting this as a sign of weakness it should, on the
contrary, be seen as a welcome enrichment to current development debates.

Should critical development research incorporate a praxeology, that is:

should it present strategic and tactical suggestions for actors which
would lead to political transformation?
For varying reasons critical development research is often expected to come
up with ‘something better than capitalism’. This issue has become all the
more pertinent since the crisis of global capitalism emerged in 2008.
Alternatives on offer range from anarchy to forms of participatory economics
and direct democracy but not everyone into critical development research
feels that coming up with viable alternatives should top the list. In an article
839
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

on critical theory and international relations Roger Spegele is very explicit,

however: ‘Critical theory should contribute to the emancipation of X from
structure or condition Y in order to achieve Z’.14 Spegele does not limit
structure or condition Y to global capitalism. It is worth quoting Spegele a
little more extensively, if only to indicate the large variety in critical
positions:
Thus, for example, X might refer to the working classes, the exploited poor,
women, nations, ethnic groups, the marginalized, religious groups, minorities,
climate, forests, modernist philosophy and so forth. Quite clearly, we are
dealing with a large class of theory here, both actually and potentially. Y, on
the other hand, could be filled in with: class structures; patriarchy; sovereignty;
nationalism; colonialism; liberalism and neo-realism; the state-system; militar-
ism; global capitalism; Christianity; modernism; greenhouse gas emissions;
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

deforestation, etc. Z would be filled in with ideas concerning the goals of

liberation: a Kantian kingdom of ends [meaning rational individuals bound
together by universal laws], communism, a world state, global citizenship,
anarchy, Otherness, a nongendered world, a maternal world, and so on.15

The political philosopher James Bohman also emphasises that critical

theories are supposed to come up with practical guidelines to support
political agency towards societal transformation, guidelines which should, he
says, be verified by those participating in the practice of transformation, a
verification which for Bohman, is part of the research process itself.16 This
position is very similar to the idea of action research which was popular in
the 1970s and 1980s.
Harry Dahms, however, finds that a critical theory should in the first place
be about ‘pertinent questions’ and much less about providing guidelines for a
strategic praxeology for social, economic and political change.17 The latter
option will most likely lead, he says, to unsound reductionist, prescriptive
and deterministic guidelines which we have in the past seen go astray.
According to Maeve Cooke:
Critical social theory is a mode of reflection that looks critically at processes of
social development from the point of view of the obstacles they pose for
individual human flourishing. It has an in-built emancipatory perspective: it
seeks to liberate human beings from the social chains that bind them by
showing them how certain social mechanisms and institutions prevent them
from fulfilling their potentials as human beings, and by drawing attention to the
essential contingency of these social arrangements. Emancipation takes the
form of eliminating the social obstacles to human flourishing by way of
transformative social action.18

While in need of an ethical reference point, critical social theory finds itself
between a rock and a hard place:

Critical social theory has an uneasy relationship with utopia. On the one hand,
the idea of an alternative, better social order is necessary in order to make
sense of its criticisms of a given social context. On the other hand, utopian
840
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

thinking has to avoid ‘bad utopianism’, defined as lack of connection with the
actual historical process, and ‘finalism’, defined as closure of the historical
process.19

In other words, critical theory must come up with an ethical reference point
which is within the grasp of actors with a transformative potential but it
should be able to adapt to changing circumstances in order to avoid an
authoritarian finalism. So it would be unwise for critical scholars to come
up with utopian idea(l)s from behind their desks but at the same time it
begs the question of who decides which actors are the ‘chosen ones’ with
enough transformative potential to work towards whichever utopia is
chosen. There is an additional point here in terms of the spatial level for
strategic action. Suppose that critical theory needed to engage in a
praxeology, what would be the level of analysis that such a critical theory
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

would engage in: macro or micro? In other words, would such a critical
theory direct the ‘transformative actors’ towards the local, national or
global level?
If one insists that critical theory qualitate qua needs a praxeology then that
would probably not only be an undesirable task but also a ‘mission
impossible’. It will then have to incorporate actors’ perspectives (which are
undoubtedly much more heterogeneous than assumed), preferably in a
dialogical inter-perspectival way (but with whom exactly does the critical
social scientist communicate?), take into consideration all sorts of structural
constraints and possibilities (which could also differ between the actors
involved), then theoretically relate actors and structures, and finally come up
with sound strategic advice which, preferably, would take into consideration
unintended consequences. The impossibility of this task is exactly the reason
why mainstream development theory doesn’t work. This is a ‘mission
impossible’ indeed and leads to the suggestion that those insisting on critical
theory’s incorporation of a praxeology should seriously reconsider. First and
foremost, critical theory should be about pertinent questions and not about
correct answers.20 A preliminary conclusion here could be that there is no
reason to suppose that, even if the explanatory framework of a critical
development theory explicitly consisted of a political economy of capitalism,
this should imply the simultaneous construction of alternatives to capitalism
and/or guidelines for a political strategy to realise those alternatives.
However, as we will see in the next section, the plausibility of this preliminary
conclusion depends to a large extent on what exactly is meant by ‘political
economy of capitalism’.

Moving beyond ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ versions

of a political economy of capitalism
Whether the core issues of critical development theory, as I indicated
earlier, consist indeed of a political economy of a globalising capitalism
and a critical discourse analysis, depends on how a political economy of
capitalism is interpreted. Although a distinction is not generally made
841
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

between a ‘weak version’ and a ‘strong version’ of political economy,

for the purpose of our present discussion it can be useful. In discussing
critical human geography in relation to Marxist geography, Kevin Cox
presents the political economy approach within critical human geography
as follows:
For ‘political economy’ the focus is material inequality, the condition of the less
privileged, and how these are expressed spatially. Ideas of spatial or
environmental justice are part of the implicit framing of work in this genre.
The interpretive framework is dominated by ideas of market forces, especially
competition, and the superior leverage enjoyed by capital, particularly the
major firms, like the multinationals. The ‘political’ part of ‘political economy’
enters in through the way in which state agents are mobilized or affected in their
actions by corporations. Major recent foci of interest have included
globalization, including world cities, and neo-liberalism, with the latter now
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

coming up very strongly and overtaking the former. The same concern for the
relation between state and economy is evident, however, with some theoretical
gloss given to it through references to regulation theory which, as a result of the
way it foregrounds competition and consumption and marginalizes ideas of
class and production, is a significant choice anyway.21

This use of political economy as an explanatory framework could be called

the ‘weak version’ (in Cox’s terms: the neo-Smithian version). It emphasises
material inequality as a consequence of the discriminatory logic within the
sphere of circulation. In contradistinction, the ‘strong version’ emphasises the
sphere of production and class analysis, ie takes Marxist historical
materialism as an explanatory framework. Discussing the influence of the
‘culturalist’ turn in critical human geography, Cox laments that:
The emphasis is on practices of exclusion and the discursive construction of the
Other as the basis for exclusion: exclusion from recognition/votes/governing/
citizenship/jobs. Interpreted thus one can see why class cannot be an object of
study in the politics of difference.22

In the historical materialist interpretation of political economy (the ‘strong’

version) critical discourse analysis would form part and parcel of a critical
approach as an ‘Ideologie-Kritik’. As such, the issues discussed in the
previous section (the need for the outlines of a non-capitalist utopia and a
subsequent praxeology) would have much more stipulated answers (ie
socialism and class struggle) than using a ‘weak version’ of political economy.
In the latter sense ‘classifying’ actors in terms of, for example, ethnic identity,
religion and gender would make more sense in understanding (material)
inequality. Alternatives to capitalism and a strategic praxeology, if
considered opportune after all, would show a much greater variation than
in the ‘strong version’ of political economy.
Although it is useful and worthwhile to discuss how weak and strong
versions of political economy in combination could increase our under-
standing of how, for example, race and ethnicity could be combined with a
class analysis, the characteristics of a globally evolving capitalism urgently
require an additional angle. In the past two decades the dynamics of global
842
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

capitalism has increasingly been influenced by the transnational financial

sector. Currently it seems more adequate to characterise global capitalism as
a transnational rentier economy than in terms related to the real economy.
The question then is how to insert the notion of class within that context and
what the analytical surplus value would be. At the same time, when all the
financial soap bubbles have finally evaporated what is left is still the real
economy (and more specifically the material production within the real
economy). For critical development theory the challenge is to integrate the
‘weak’ and ‘strong’ version of the political economy of capitalism with special
attention to the dynamics of global financial capitalism.

Critical theory towards new imperialism?

The way that globalisation (as a theory and as a phenomenon) has generally
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

been incorporated into development research/theory is largely devoid of the

issues that form part of the realm of critical development theory. Concepts
like interconnectedness, network of networks, transnational spaces, de- and
reterritorialisation, hybridity, glocalisation, cosmopolitanism, good govern-
ance, global civil society, etc. now form part of any self-respecting
development research project but are usually stripped of the issues discussed
in the previous section. Thus globalisation has turned from a challenge into a
liability for critical development research.
However, there is no reason why globalisation could not be incorporated
into critical development theory. Robinson formulates the starting point as
follows:
capitalism has changed fundamentally since the days of Lenin, Hilferding, and
Bukharin. We have entered a qualitatively new transnational stage in the
ongoing evolution of world capitalism, which is marked by a number of
fundamental shifts in the capitalist system, among them: the rise of truly
transnational capital and the integration of every country into a new global
production and financial system; the appearance of a new transnational
capitalist class (TCC), a class group grounded in new global markets and circuits
of accumulation, rather than national markets and circuits; the rise of
transnational state (TNS) apparatuses, and the appearance of novel relations
of power and inequality in global society. The dynamics of this emerging stage
in world capitalism cannot be understood through the lens of nation-state
centric thinking. This is not to say that the nation-state is no longer important
but that the system of nation-states as discrete interacting units—the inter-state
system—is no longer the organizing principle of capitalist development, or the
primary institutional framework that shapes social and class forces and
political dynamics.23

Critical development theory is still busy building a convincing new

theoretical bridge between the globalising logic of capitalism and the
political regulatory role of national states, however.
Also, as previously discussed, critical theory encountered problems in
theoretically incorporating the shift from the centrality of material
production towards services and specifically towards the rapidly growing
843
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

importance of the financialisation of capitalism and the meaning of all of this

for class analysis. Perhaps recent publications about ‘new imperialism’ offer
critical development theory new beckoning horizons.24 Before I try to deal
briefly with the major characteristics of the new imperialism perspective, it is
important to demystify at least one so-called globalisation myth, which is
that nation-states have lost their erstwhile priority status.25 This is important
because talking about new imperialism begs the question about the units of
analysis. As Robinson pointed out, all the old imperialism theories referred
to the relations between states, or nation-states for that matter. If, however,
globalisation discourses are correct in pointing out the demise of the state
and that to understand global capitalism it is the market as an institutional
arrangement which is important to understand and not the relations between
nation-states as actors, then the imperialism perspective loses its spatial and
geopolitical connotations, which are its most central characteristic. This is a
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

tricky issue even among authors who adhere to notions of imperialism, such
as Hardt and Negri, who in their best-seller, Empire, picture a globalised
imperialist capitalism without a clear geopolitical centre.26 To demystify the
globalisation myth about the demise of the role of nation-states in global
capitalism, Leo Panitch emphasises that:
globalisation is a process that is authored by active states; states that are not
victims of the process but active agents of making globalisation happen, and are
increasingly responsible, I would argue, for sustaining it, and even burdened
with the increasing responsibility of managing its contradictions and crises.27

Panitch adds the following (and we are now already moving towards one of
the characteristics of new imperialism):
there was certainly a restructuring of states (but not a bypassing of states) in
relation to: the rapid movement of capital; the changing balance of class forces
transnationally towards financial capital; the increasing orientation of each of
the world’s nation-states to external trade. [What was taking place in that
context was] . . . a shift in the hierarchy of state apparatus, whereby those state
departments that were more closely associated with the forces of international
capital—treasuries, central banks, and so forth—were increasing their status at
the cabinet table, if you like, vis-à-vis departments of labor or departments of
welfare that were more closely associated with domestic subordinated class
forces.28

Government departments of international development co-operation are

generally also affected by a reshuffling of the hierarchy in the state apparatus.
Humanitarian aid (once the prerogative of development co-operation), for
example, nowadays means above all sending troops and diplomatic missions
to conflict areas, activities carried out under the responsibility of ministries of
defence and foreign affairs.
Another defining characteristic of new imperialism (in reference to older
variants of imperialism) is that in spite of the post-World War II inter-
imperialist economic rivalries between European, US and Japanese capital,
this did not result (as in the ‘old days’) in military conflicts between the
844
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

imperialist powers. What is interesting about this particular issue is that

imperialist powers have joined forces in some military operations in
developing countries (although not always wholeheartedly) and that, in
what is considered as a specific characteristic of new imperialism, the USA
has taken the lead in many of these military campaigns. Columnist Thomas
Friedman (in the New York Times on 28 March, 1999) puts it as follows:
The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist . . . and
the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is
called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

The increasingly unilateral political ideology in the USA (of going it alone, so
to speak, boycotting international treaties to regulate environmental
pollution, boycotting the International Court of Justice in The Hague, etc)
is seen as an important characteristic of the new imperialism. It remains to be
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

seen whether under the presidency of Barack Obama this will change.
According to Michael Peters, Europe and the USA do not necessarily
share a common strategic culture anymore.29 He quotes neo-conservative
Robert Kagan (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace) who stipulates that:
Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between
friends and enemies . . . They favor coercion over persuasion, tending towards
unilateralism. They are less inclined to act through the United Nations or other
international institutions and more skeptical of international law. By contrast,
Europeans see a more complex picture . . . They are both more tolerant of
failure and more patient, preferring peaceful solutions, negotiation, diplomacy,
and persuasion to coercion.30

At the same time Kagan points out that the EU, with its new Eastern
European members and possibly Turkey in future could become involved in a
process of evolving identity, changing the importance of national priorities
and shifting international agendas.
Let me move on to another characteristic of the new imperialism
perspective, namely that spreading the gospel of democracy and good
governance is seen as an ideological instrument meant to detain the poor,
marginalised, exploited masses in the Third World from engaging in political
upheavals. What is specifically interesting here is the role awarded to civil
society.
Much has been said and can be said about the role of civil society, specifically
in the context of the support it receives through international development
assistance. Supposedly strengthening civil society forms part of good governance
(empowering the powerless through participation in national or local political
institutions). In the context of a perspective derived from new imperialism, (the
notion of) civil society is created and supported by international donors, and
functions (if it functions at all) as a means to keep a check on Southern states
becoming too independent from the North. Through supporting civil society
imperialist powers can indirectly influence how government policies in the
South are shaped. According to Henry Veltmeyer:
845
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

Radical political economists . . . tend to view NGOs as instruments [Trojan

horses], oftentimes unwitting and unknowing, of outside interests and regard
both economic development and democracy as masks for an otherwise hidden
agenda: to impose the policy and institutional framework of the new world
order.31

Political transformations through revolutionary changes are not considered

real options anymore once a supposed democracy is in place. The rhetoric
spread by the international development community has firmly established
that accepting the synergy between democracy and market-oriented
economic growth is the only way forward not just for nation-states but also
for individuals. The current crisis of global financial capitalism and the
consequences for the real economy have apparently, for the time being at
least, led only to a minor blow for the hegemonic triumphalism of the
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

neoliberalist ideology in the sense that governments are expected: 1) to bail

out banks and private companies in trouble; and 2) to award central banks,
albeit grudgingly, greater vigilance over the global banking system. However,
the neoliberal analysis of the current crisis of global capitalism is very
superficial compared with the analyses of new imperialism by authors like
Robert Biel and David Harvey who have examined the crisis-prone role of
financial capitalism to counteract the continuing problems of over-
accumulation and falling rates of profit in global capitalism.
Let me try to sum up the most important characteristics of the new
imperialism perspective as follows:

1. There is definitely still a clear geopolitical spatiality attached to global

capitalism. The core–periphery hierarchy of old may have additional new
characteristics (viz the changing positions of China and India) but there
still remains a North–South power hierarchy.
2. At the same time it is true is that the units in that power hierarchy are
not just nation-states but consist of an amalgam of actors, among
which are supranational institutions, multinational corporations, NGOs
and social movements. However, nation-states can still be regarded as
major actors.
3. The USA takes up a primordial position in the globalised power
hierarchy. There has been an increasing unilateralism in how the USA
manifests itself based upon its military hegemony.
4. The dynamics in the globalised power hierarchy are based upon changing
characteristics of the capitalist mode of production which, however, are
still leading to imperialist, exploitative relations between North and
South and increasing worldwide inequality between and within countries.
Imperialism by necessity was and still is closely attached to the survival
strategy of the capitalist mode of production.
5. These imperialist relations are sustained on the one hand through an
ideological legitimisation in the form of globalism and on the other hand
through direct military intervention, specifically in a unilateral way by
the USA.
846
 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

6. Methods of absolute surplus appropriation seem to have returned:

intensifying work regimes, reducing real wages, and restructuring
employment away from full-time and secure employment into part-time
and insecure work, something which David Harvey has labelled as
‘accumulation by dispossession’ which relies on ‘power, with the use of
numerous techniques, ranging from stock market manipulation, through
debt crises, to the commodification of nature, and open military
conquest’.32
7. Development assistance, currently with the emphasis on good govern-
ance, democracy and the involvement of civil society, depoliticises the
development debate and prevents the rise of alternative forms of social
order with emancipatory potential for the world’s poor.

Does new imperialism offer a beckoning perspective to critical development

Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

research, wedged as it is between global neoliberalism and neoliberal

globalism? One way of answering this question is to look at how new
imperialism deals with the earlier mentioned contentious issues.
However, at the same time, my intention of drawing attention to these
issues was not to insist on definite answers but to increase the reflexivity or
sensitivity of those interested in critical (development) theory about these
issues. Also, in this sense, Harry Dahms’s remark about preferring ‘pertinent
questions to correct answers’ is applicable. In conclusion, quite apart from
new imperialism’s ‘score’ on the contentious issues, I would like to make
three additional remarks. First, in building up a critical perspective for
development research based on the concept of new imperialism, one has to
take care not to be dragged into conspiracy-like theories, which are often
fascinating but cannot form the basis of a reconstruction of critical
development studies. Second, in order to lead to empirical research, the
new imperialist perspective has to be operationalised. In other words, if new
imperialism exists at a paradigmatic level it should be connected to middle-
range critical theories to enable research ‘on the ground’. Third, and in
connection with the previous point, a reconstruction of critical development
theory and research should re-establish the relationship between academics
and social movements.

Notes
Thanks are due to Detlev Haude for suggestions and critical comments.
1 Cf A Sumner & M Tribe, International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research and
Practice, London: Sage, 2008.
2 H Bernstein, ‘The antinomies of development studies’, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, 23 (2), 2007,
p 20, emphasis in the original.
3 J Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in
Lesotho, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994; R Biel, The New Imperialism: Crisis and
Contradictions in North/South Relations, London: Zed Books, 2000; B Fine, Social Capital versus
Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium, London: Routledge,
2001; J Harris, Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Delhi: Leftword,
2001; D Harvey, The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005; U Kothari (ed), A
Radical History of Development Studies: Individuals, Institutions and Ideologies, London: Zed Books,
2005; and R Kiely, The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism, Hegemony,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

847
 FRANS J SCHUURMAN

4 Biel, The New Imperialism, p 35.

5 Ibid, p 20.
6 A Sayer, ‘Who is afraid of critical social science? A critique of the decline of critique’, Lecture,
Radboud University Nijmegen, 12 November 2008.
7 R Appelbaum & W Robinson (eds), Critical Globalization Studies, New York: Routledge, 2005.
8 For a useful discussion on post-structural challenges in development theory see D Simon, ‘Political
ecology and development: intersections, explorations and challenges arising from the work of Piers
Blake’, Geoforum 39, 2008, pp 698–707.
9 Cf R Munck & D O’Hearn, Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm, London:
Zed Books, 1999.
10 M Woolcock, ‘Higher education, policy school and development studies: what should Masters degree
students be taught?’, Journal of International Development, 19, 2007, p 62. Cited in this quote are D
Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest, Random House: New York, 1974; and J Scott, Seeing Like a
State: How Well-intentioned Efforts to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1998.
11 Munck & O’Hearn, Critical Development Theory.
12 C Mouffe, On the Political, London: Routledge, 2005.
13 Cf M Burawoy, ‘The critical turn to public sociology’, in Rhonda Levine (ed), Enriching the
Downloaded By: [University of Limerick] At: 11:48 3 March 2011

Sociological Imagination: How Radical Sociology Changed the Discipline, Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers, 2005, pp 309–323.
14 R Spegele, ‘Emancipatory International Relations: good news, bad news or no news at all?’,
International Relations, 16 (3), 2002, p 384, emphasis added.
15 Ibid.
16 J Bohman, ‘How to make a social science practical: pragmatism, critical social science and
multiperspectival theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2002, 31 (3), 2002, pp 499–524.
17 H Dahms, ‘Sociology in the age of globalization: toward a dynamic sociological theory’, Current
Perspectives in Social Theory 21, 2002, pp 287–320.
18 M Cooke, ‘Redeeming redemption: the utopian dimension of critical social theory’, Philosophy and
Social Criticism, 30 (4), 2004, p 418.
19 Ibid, p 413.
20 Dahms, ‘Sociology in the age of globalization’.
21 K Cox, ‘From Marxist geography to critical geography and back again’, Keynote address at the
Annual Critical Geography Conference, Miami University, OH, 28 October 2005, p 6.
22 Ibid, p 12.
23 W Robinson, ‘Beyond the theory of imperialism: global capitalism and the transnational state’,
Societies without Borders, 2, 2007, pp 7–8.
24 Cf Biel, The New Imperialism; and Harvey, The New Imperialism, as well as D Harvey, Spaces of Global
Capitalism, London: Verso, 2006.
25 The way in which national governments have currently acted to prevent a complete global meltdown of
capitalism already answers this question. Faulty banks are bailed out by the state, companies on the
verge of bankruptcy are supported, etc. As usual the final bill is passed down the line towards the
people as wages and pensions are frozen, retirement ages increased, etc.
26 M Hardt & A Negri, Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
27 L Panitch, ‘Roundtable conference’, Historic Materialism, 9, 2001, p 10.
28 Ibid, p 10.
29 M Peters et al (eds), Global Citizenship Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publications, 2008.
30 Ibid, p 9.
31 H Veltmeyer, ‘Democratic governance and participatory development: the role of development NGOs’,
Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, summer/fall 2005, p 91.
32 Harvey, The New Imperialism, ch 4.

Notes on Contributor
Frans Schuurman is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for International
Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Radboud University Nijmegen. He
has published widely on development theory and globalisation. Most well
known are Beyond the Impasse (1993) and Development Studies and
Globalisation—Challenges for the 21st Century (2001).

848