Does the Development Discourse Learn from History?

Abstract

What is the nature and extent of historical awareness in the development discourse? Does the development discourse learn from history, including its own? Set in the contexts of aging development institutions and a changing geopolitical climate, this paper provides one account through a historiographical survey of 136 journal articles across 10 leading development journals. It uncovers a substantial body of works, which offer descriptive histories, derivative lessons, and historiographical critiques. Altogether, they evidence two modes in which the development discourse attempts to learn from history. The first lies in the proactive use of external histories as empirical evidence for a variety of development issues. This is the predominant mode exhibited in the survey. A second mode lies in the use of internal histories of the development discourse, itself. Here, the survey finds a number of noteworthy but largely disparate efforts. This suggests a relative dearth in historiographical selfconsciousness for a narrow but influential segment of the development discourse. A number of consequences are considered, ultimately responding to the legitimacy, efficacy, and sustainability of development action. In sum, our survey finds that the mainstream development journal discourse is adept at learning from external histories, but not necessarily from its own. Evidence, however, suggests that it can. A case is made for why it must.

Why Is There No Reactionary International Theory?

“…British voters, led by activists chiefly from the right, have narrowly chosen to leave the European Union, putatively restoring a more independent country. The stated positions of the new American president, who campaigned on a promise to "Make America Great Again," often upend the traditional party system and deride liberal international order (Patrick 2017). The so-called Islamic State has declared a Caliphate, modelled putatively on a premodern Islamic world order.…”

Preference for modernization is universal, but expected modernization trajectories are culturally diversified: A nine‐country study of folk theories of societal development

“…Economic prosperity appeared to be a dominant answer for the second half of the 20 th century (Krys et al., 2020, cf. Madrueño & Tezanos, 2018; Park, 2017), but the growing body of research documenting the drawbacks of a purely economic paradigm (Arrow et al., 1995; Balestra, Boarini, & Ruiz, 2018; van den Bergh, 2009) indicates that new paradigms of societal development are arguably needed for the 21 st century (Krys et al., 2020; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009; van den Bergh, 2009). The contemporary public debate, however, is far from reaching a consensus on what direction should be taken when developing societies (Stiglitz et al., 2009).…”

Towards Cultural Sensitivity in Societal Development

“…Economic prosperity has seemed to be a universal answer for the second half of XX century (Krys et al, 2019, cf. Madrueño & Tezanos, 2018Park, 2017), but due to the growing body of research documenting drawbacks of economic paradigm (Arrow et al, 1995;Balestra, Boarini, & Ruiz, 2018;van den Bergh, 2009;Victor, 2013), a new paradigm of societal development is needed for XXI century (Krys, et al, 2019;Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009;van den Bergh, 2009). Actors of the contemporary public debate, however, are far from reaching a consensus on what direction should be taken when developing societies (Stiglit et al, 2009).…”