New Possibilities? Shifts in Post‐Development Theory and Practice

Abstract

When post‐development first emerged as an outraged collection of critiques in the early 1990s theorists called for fundamental changes or the abandonment of development, declaring it had failed in its own limited terms and had instead lead to the destruction of people, places and spaces. Post‐development drew from post‐structural ideas to destabilise the taken‐for‐granted truths, knowledges and languages of development to highlight the faulted cultural assumptions and violences inherent within development industries. Not surprisingly post‐development attracted a good deal of critique which has tempered its ferocity and contributed to a more constructive approach, albeit in its infancy, intent on exploring the practical applications of this body of theory. This article overviews the travails of post‐development from its early angry incarnations to its current experimental and optimistic mood. I argue that although post‐development insights are infusing broader development approaches its future as a coherent body of work will be determined by its ability to re‐imagine agency and place and create new networks and spaces of opportunity for people and communities. For this to occur post‐development research must be couched in the languages of hope and possibility.

Is religion a force for good? Reformulating the discourse on religion and international development

“…This statement echoes some of the concerns raised by those involved in the post-or antidevelopment movement of the 1990s. See for example Pieterse (1998) and McGregor (2009). 9.…”

“…Moreover, because these organisations typically originate outside the community, they may not have a deep sense of responsibility to the community. FBOs and CBOs, on the other hand, because they are embedded in and attuned to the realities of the community, are frequently able to devise ingenious and flexible solutions that gain the support and participation of community members (Clarke 2006;Orrnert 2006;McGregor 2009;Hipple and Duff 2010;Phillips 2010). 9 I witnessed this first hand in 2006, in the coastal region of Nagapattinam in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.…”

Critical Reflections on Development

“…Moreover, in so far as development professionals work with governments and elites, they actually reinforce the structures of inequality that development programmes are meant to overcome (Wallace et al 2006). They have blocked the nurturing of ordinary people's own capacities (Nair 2003) and have sometimes led to the actual destruction of people, places and spaces (McGregor 2009). Such understandings highlight how far, then, development has come to be seen as 'a dream turned sour' (Schuurman 2000).…”

Cultural Capital and Sustainable Livelihoods in Sri Lanka's Rural Villages: Towards Culturally Aware Development

“…Here we have purposely highlighted and made visible the positive enabling aspects of culture, rather than negative, and the capabilities and possibilities rather than hindrances (following the hopeful performative approach advocated by GibsonGraham, 2008;McKinnon et al, 2008;McGregor, 2009). Many development models and mindsets assume that traditional cultures are 'backward', and are lacking the stimuli necessary for capitalist development processes (see Hennayake, 2006;Daskon and Binns, 2010).…”