Development Theory, Regional Politics and the Unfolding of the ‘Roadscape’ in Ladakh, North India

Abstract

The idea that 'more roads mean more development' is part of conventional wisdom and is firmly entrenched in the development discourse and practice. However, what this stability and pervasiveness should not conceal is that arguments in favour of roads have evolved over time, shaping the expansion of the 'roadscape', that is, the part of the landscape made up by roads. I illustrate this point at three levels: global development theories, road construction in India and in Ladakh. First I demonstrate how arguments for road construction have evolved in the literature and adapted to criticisms, backing the firmly entrenched idea that roads are conducive to development. Second, I show that the expansion of the road network in India is determined by changing national priorities and policies. Finally, I attempt to account for the factors that explain the late and sudden development of the roadscape in Ladakh, namely, the role of the state and geopolitics. Together, the three levels illustrate the adaptive character of roads, as they survive successive shifts in theories and state priorities. JEL Classification: O, O18, O21, O53, R4, R42

Multifunctional Roads

“…As a result, the consequences of roads on rural development-which should serve as justifications for road construction-remain little understood and rather contested (Simon 1996;van de Walle 2002). Moreover, over six decades of development arguments in favour of roads have evolved; intended consequences attributed to roads and the way in which road construction has been justified have changed too (Demenge 2012(Demenge , 2015.…”

“…Finally, based on evidence gathered elsewhere, general recommendations that encourage inclusive participation in road negotiations are not sufficient (Demenge 2012). Road construction within villages inevitably causes damage, but if vulnerable households are to be spared or even to benefit from road/ water infrastructure creation, one cannot rely solely on village institutions that often embody and reproduce existing power relations.…”