Question 4

In different parts of the globe different sets of historical, social, political, geographical
and economic factors, impact the trajectory and nature of development in each region. This
complexity calls for a thorough understanding of the specific context when laying out a path
towards development, acknowledging how outcomes may vary when pursuing development in
different parts of the world. As such, the postmodernist framework, entrenched within the school
of post-development, attempts to promote solutions that account for this complexity and
diversity, thus casting a critical eye on the proposition of universal development models.
For instance, Binns (2014) criticizes development models like Rustow’s ‘uni-linear’
model arguing that it seems inappropriate to apply such a model to nations that have experienced
colonial rule and had their economies and societies manipulated to cater to the agricultural and
mineral demands of burgeoning industries in metropolitan nations. Highlighting these dynamics
might inform and provide necessary context to the formulation of development initiatives in
parts of the world where the historical circumstances differ significantly from the premises on
which models like Rustow's “Eurocentric model” (Binns, 2014, p. 166) are conceived.
In this sense, Simon (2014) asserts that postmodernism emerged as a response to the
certainties and grand narratives of modernist thought, rooted in Enlightenment ideologies, that
employ a scientific methodology and neo-classical economics to pursue universal truths. He
argues that postmodernism signifies a profound shift towards acknowledging the multifaceted
and diverse nature of truth, emphasizing the validity of multiple, often disparate and intersecting
interpretations. Adopting this approach implies an understanding that different pathways towards
development might be valid depending on the different contexts of the different societies of the
world. For this reason, post-development calls for a nuanced, respectful, and locally-informed
approach to leveraging cultural resources and indigenous knowledge in development work
(Simon, 2006). The post-development framework, therefore, exists in contrast to the
“universalizing neoliberal-inspired approaches” which “imply or advocate global cultural
convergence/homogenization through the assimilation of western capitalist consumer culture,
and are thus very much metanarratives constituting latter-day versions of modernization theory”
(Simon, 2006, p. 6).
An example often cited in postmodernist literature, illustrating the pitfalls of disregarding
local context and traditional sustainable practices in development initiatives, is the agricultural
“Green Revolution” that transpired during the 1960s and 1970s. The Green Revolution involved
the widespread implementation of new technologies, including high-yielding variety (HYV)
seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides, primarily in countries of the Global South. It was an
attempt, driven largely by Western organizations, to significantly increase agricultural production
and thereby reduce hunger and poverty. In India, for instance, the Green Revolution initially
increased grain production significantly, staving off famine and making the country self-
sufficient in food grains. However, these improvements came with substantial environmental and
social costs, leading many to deem the Green Revolution a failure in the long term. Ecologically,
the over-reliance on chemical inputs led to soil degradation, reduced biodiversity, and water
pollution. Socially, the increased costs associated with the new technologies meant that only
wealthier farmers could afford them, leading to increased economic inequality. Moreover, the
focus on grain production neglected other important food sources, leading to declines in
nutritional diversity and quality (Shiva, 1991).
For these reasons, authors like Simon (2006) explore the intricacies of ‘localist
exceptionalism’ and its role in innovative progressive methodologies within development studies,
emphasizing the interplay between cultural identity, rights, indigenous knowledge, and
worldviews of marginalized and subordinated groups. He encourages consideration and respect
for local knowledge, practices, and values, recognizing that these may offer viable and
sustainable alternatives to global or Western-driven development models. In this same vein,
Mohan (2014) proposes a participatory development approach, aimed at involving local people
in their own development, “rejecting the statism and top-downism of ‘normal’ development”
(Mohan, 2014, p. 207) by empowering civil society while also incorporating local knowledge in
development strategies.
Other authors like Escobar (1995) calls to pay special attention to the power dynamics
present in development initiatives. He argues that development, for better or for worse, is always
embedded within relationships of power, which suggests that any action taken in the pursuit of
development, must account for and address the issues that those power dynamics impose in the
way of progress.
Post-development thought, with its varied perspectives and analytical tools, may serve as
a counterbalance to the universalizing tendencies seen in traditional development models, as
exemplified by Rustow's uni-linear model. This framework foregrounds the premise that
developmental conditions and prospects are inherently dependent on a region's specific
historical, geographical, political, and cultural circumstances. Consequently, it accentuates the
importance of actively and critically engaging with local knowledge and human resources while
challenging the notion that distant and uninformed outsiders can successfully lead long-lasting
development initiatives without serious unintended consequences. Finally, post-development
thought also underscores the need for humility and the willingness to learn from local contexts,
thereby paving the way for more nuanced and effective development strategies.

Question 1 (40 marks)

Most classical approaches assume that the state is the primary agent of development policy.
However, many scholars argue that the days of blanket state-centrism are well and truly past. Do
you agree or disagree? Write an 800-word essay in which you unpack this phenomenon. In other
words, argue whether (a) the state remains a pivotal player in development policy and practice or
(b) the state no longer plays such an essential role in development policy and practice.
 In any case, assuming that the modern conception of nation-states is the end-all-be-all
with regards to social organization, might prevent us from imagining different social
arrangements that could address the problem of dealing with anti-social behavior in a better or
more efficient way. Restricting ourselves to the currently predominant monopolistic structures,
would imply that we keep bearing the harmful consequences that adhering to those monopolies,
and any monopoly for that matter, carry with them: a lack of competition and thus the
exploitation of the public.

Question 4 (40 marks)

Postmodernists argue, amongst other things, that development is context-specific. Write an 800-
word theoretically informed essay in which you explain what they mean with the
aforementioned statement and whether you find their assumptions theoretically and empirically
convincing.
Some text we could use:
Introduction:
Postmodernism is an intellectual movement that rejects grand narratives and universal truths in
favor of localized, contextual realities. In development studies, postmodernists challenge the
concept of universal development models, arguing that development is a context-specific process
influenced by cultural, social, and political factors.

The Postmodern Perspective on Development:

Postmodernism questions the assumptions and methodologies of modernist development
approaches. It argues that development isn't linear or universal, but rather diverse, dynamic, and
heavily dependent on local context. This perspective emphasizes that what may be considered
'development' in one context may not apply in another, given the diverse historical, socio-
cultural, and political realities.

Theoretically Convincing?
The postmodern perspective can be seen as theoretically convincing for several reasons. Firstly,
it allows for a more nuanced understanding of development that goes beyond purely economic
metrics to incorporate social, cultural, and political aspects. This perspective also promotes
plurality, emphasizing the need for locally tailored approaches rather than one-size-fits-all
models. Moreover, it challenges the power dynamics inherent in development discourse,
particularly the dominance of Western development paradigms.

Empirically Convincing?
Empirically, the context-specificity of development can be observed in various real-world
scenarios. Numerous development projects have shown that strategies successful in one context
can fail in another due to differences in cultural, political, or social environments. The mixed
results of 'copy-paste' strategies, such as Structural Adjustment Programs, are testament to this.
Additionally, the rise of 'alternative development' approaches that are rooted in local knowledge
and cultures provide empirical support for the context-specific nature of development.

However, some criticisms can be leveled at the postmodern perspective. While it excels in
critique, it often falls short in providing clear alternatives or solutions for development practice.
Additionally, by emphasizing the importance of context, it risks promoting cultural relativism
and overlooking shared human rights and equality issues.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the postmodernist argument for the context-specific nature of development offers
valuable insights that challenge traditional development paradigms. While theoretically
compelling and supported by empirical evidence, it also raises new challenges and questions that
require further exploration. Despite these critiques, the context-specific perspective is integral in
shaping a more pluralistic, equitable, and sustainable vision for development.

Another text:
Postmodernism, as a theoretical perspective, underscores the inherent complexity, diversity, and
plurality of human experiences and social realities, which inevitably influences the concept of
'development.' Postmodernists argue that development is context-specific; this essentially means
that the experience, processes, and outcomes of development vary significantly depending on
geographical, cultural, political, economic, and social contexts.

The critique of development from a postmodernist perspective draws heavily from Michel
Foucault’s conceptions of power and knowledge (Text 1). To understand context-specificity, one
must understand the postmodernist lens on 'power' and 'knowledge,' which suggests that these
two are intertwined and dynamically shape the reality of societies. The 'knowledge-power' nexus
facilitates certain discourses that construct 'truths' and 'norms.' In the context of development,
this includes a set of normative ideals that define what 'development' should look like and the
acceptable pathways to achieve it. However, these norms and standards are largely influenced by
Western capitalist ideologies and disregard the diverse socio-cultural, historical, and political
realities of societies.
According to postmodernists, development strategies cannot be universally applied. They
critique the linear 'developmentalism' paradigm which posits that all societies must follow the
Western model of development, transitioning from 'traditional' to 'modern' stages (Text 2). This
model's one-size-fits-all approach tends to overlook the particularities of different contexts and
the complex interplay of local variables. Instead, postmodernists advocate for more nuanced,
context-specific strategies, which cater to the unique needs, cultural practices, and aspirations of
the people in a particular society.

Foucault’s notion of the 'dispositif' or apparatus further elucidates the context-specificity

argument. An apparatus like 'development' is not a homogenous, unified structure but rather a
complex network of institutions, discourses, laws, administrative measures, and scientific
propositions that are contextually grounded (Text 3). The World Bank, as an example, despite
being a global institution, exerts its power and influence through a context-specific network of
institutions, policies, and practices (Text 6). It shapes and is shaped by the socio-political and
economic realities of the countries it operates in, reflecting the context-specificity of the
development apparatus.

However, while theoretically sound, the assumptions of postmodernism can be contested

empirically. The concept of context-specificity, though appealing, raises questions about its
feasibility in practice. In the complex, interconnected world of globalized economies and shared
environmental challenges, can development truly be context-specific without ignoring the
broader, interconnected systems that societies are a part of? Moreover, while postmodernist
critiques shed light on the failures of the developmentalist approach, they have often been
criticized for their lack of a clear alternative pathway for development (Text 4).

Furthermore, context-specific development strategies could potentially be co-opted by local

elites or governments to maintain their power and control, leading to exclusionary practices that
could further marginalize certain groups within the society. Empirical evidence shows that even
well-intentioned context-specific development projects can fail due to lack of resources,
corruption, or mismanagement, indicating that context-specificity alone is not a guarantee of
successful development (Text 5).

In conclusion, while the postmodernist assumption of development as a context-specific process

offers a useful critique of dominant development models, it needs to be tempered with practical
considerations of how such an approach can be implemented and the potential challenges it may
face. Therefore, while the postmodernist critique adds value to development discourse by
highlighting the importance of cultural and contextual sensitivity, it should be taken as part of a
larger discussion that incorporates multiple perspectives and approaches to development.
Ideas
1. Giles Mohan explores participatory development (PD) in theory and practice in this text.
He first defines PD as a process that aims to involve local people in their own
development. This approach has gained popularity due to critiques of traditional
development models, which are often criticized as Eurocentric, positivist, and top-down.
2. (Text 3) A key idea in postcolonialism is the critique of how dominant discourses come
into existence through speaking and writing. Terms like "the Third World" homogenize
people and countries and carry certain associations, which are often inscribed in
development writings. Knowledge is recognized as a form of power, with its control and
production largely located in the West.
3. (Text 3) Postcolonialism also engages critically with development studies. It critiques
development discourses that depict the North as advanced and progressive and the South
as backward, proposing a re-evaluation of indigenous systems of equity, reciprocity, and
communalism over capitalism. It challenges the categories like "Third World," questions
power relations, and seeks to include diverse perspectives and priorities.
4. (Text 4) “Postmodernism and development - David Simon” The text also discusses the
use of postmodernism in social sciences, stating that it emerged as a reaction against
modernist meta-theories and grand narratives. It was part of a broader shift towards a
rejection of a single mode of explanation or 'truth'. Instead, postmodernists favor multiple
perspectives and an acknowledgement of complexity and diversity.
5. IBID This section of the text expands on the discussion of postmodernism as an
intellectual practice, arguing that this is where it is most relevant from a development
studies perspective. It juxtaposes modern and postmodern approaches, explaining that
modern approaches, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, seek universal truths using
scientific methodology and neo-classical economics. These are referred to as meta-
narratives.
6. IBID Postmodernism, on the other hand, rejects singular explanations in favour of
multiple, divergent, and overlapping interpretations. It calls for complexity and pluralism,
legitimizing different perspectives and accounts. This includes official and informal
discourses from dominant and subordinate groups, pushing against top-down
development and promoting bottom-up or hybrid approaches.
7. (Text 5) One main objection is that post-development overstates its case by completely
rejecting the concept of development, which could ignore the tangible improvements it
has brought to some places. Another objection is that post-development, as a critique,
may have limited practical relevance to the realities of impoverished regions.
8. IBID In summary, this excerpt delves into the intersection of culture, power, and
development, suggesting a need for a nuanced, respectful, and locally-informed approach
to leveraging cultural resources and indigenous knowledge in development work.
9. IBID The controversies surrounding the concept of 'development' should not be a reason
to abandon the term or concept. Instead, we should distinguish between conventional
modernization-as-development and more progressive, empowering visions. This can pave
 the way towards a more meaningful dialogue between development and postcolonial
studies.
10. IBID The text points out that post-development is not a monolithic discourse, with
contributors occupying different intellectual and political positions. Critics like Escobar
are aware that their critique of development doesn't mean a rejection of change, but rather
a call to be conscious of the power dynamics embedded in development initiatives.
11. (Text 6) The text discusses the need to revisit the concept of power as taught by Foucault,
emphasizing that power is not solely about repression or domination. Instead, it also
involves productive force, increasing the utility of human subjects and producing
individual identities.

Despite its considerable influence on development planning at the time, Rostow’s model has
been strongly criticized for a number of reasons.

First, it is a ‘unilinear’ model, implying that ‘things get better’ over time, which is by no means
always as true as, for example, the experience of many sub-Saharan African countries indicates.
Increases in per capita income have scarcely kept pace with world trends and the HIV/AIDS
pandemic has had a devastating effect on mortality and life expectancy rates. Most sub-Saharan
African countries are relatively worse off in the early twenty-first century than in the 1960s when
many gained their independence.

Second, it is a ‘Eurocentric’ model, suggesting that all countries will imitate the experience of
Europe and America. It is quite inappropriate to apply such a model to countries which have
been subjected to colonial rule and whose economies and societies have been manipulated to
serve the demand for agricultural and mineral resources from the growing manufacturing sectors
in the metropolitan countries.

Third, the model suggests that all countries progress through these stages in the same sequence
as happened in Europe and North America. But in some developing countries, the sequence of
events has not been so straightforward, with rapid change, for example, in the agricultural,
industrial and service sectors happening at the same time, rather than sequentially. Whilst
modern consumer goods, schools, and hospitals may be present in towns and cities, in remote
rural areas these facilities are frequently absent, and poor farmers still use simple technology to
produce food for their families.

Finally, it is often wrongly seen as a ‘development’ model, whereas it is actually an ‘economic

growth’ model. Rostow was concerned more with economic progress and increasing industrial
investment, rather than human welfare and other non-economic indicators of development. Some
countries have experienced periods of rapid economic growth, yet much of the population has
felt little benefit from this – what might be called ‘growth without development’ (Binns, 1994;
Binns et al., 2012).

The real significance of the Rostow model was that it seemed to offer every country an equal
chance to develop.