See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323226674

Development as a 'Contested Discourse': An Overview

Article · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

10 20,084

2 authors:

Mahendra Sapkota Mahesh Tharu

Yunnan University Edith Cowan University
35 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahendra Sapkota on 16 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Development as a ‘Contested Discourse’: An Overview

Mahendra Sapkota1

Mahesh Tharu 2

Abstract:

Globally, development is a value loaded concept. It refers to qualitative and quantitative changes
through a successive transformation that directly or indirectly improves the livelihood of people.
However, the meaning of development has been changed over a period of time in terms of its
approaches, strategies and paradigms. In this context, the present paper presents a concept of
‘contested development’. It is thus argued that development is contested discourse with a bunch of
contradicting claims and counterclaims. It is articulation between power and knowledge which is
recycled in terms of the discourse. In the development literature mainly three forms of the
discourses, i.e. Mainstream, Alternative and Post development, have been discussed. Basically,
Mainstream development deals with the theoretical framework of modernizations and its critics with
dependency theory. Alternative development discourse deals with human centric development
paradigm with a due focus of micro narratives and Post development discourse deals with the
criticism of the development itself. Finally, the paper presents how development has been contested
with these contrasting perspectives and being a hot cake in development discourse. Though the paper
is not based on own field reflections, the subsequent discussions are drawn by secondary literatures
and arguments developed accordingly.

Key words: Development; Rural Development; Development Paradigm; Discourse; Mainstream

Development; Alternative development; Post development etc.

1. Introduction:

What is development and what it is not? This paradox has been daunting since the period of
Renaissance in western philosophy while this was ever evidenced as cosmic self of existence in the
Vedic literatures. Development is not only an ideological concept but also a pragmatic and
multidimensional practice. It is a contested because no universally accepted truths and realities exist
in defining and perceiving development (Bernstein, 2006). Rather, development is different for

1
Mr. Sapkota is a PhD researcher and visiting faculty of Kathmandu University at the Department of Development
Studies, School of Arts. Corresponding email: Mahendra_sapkota27@yahoo.com
2
Mr. Tharu is a graduate student at the central department of rural development, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
Email: maheshchaudhary06@gmail.com

13
different people and it has differential contexts for different places and societies. Basically, it has
been understood as increase in income, increase in production, free from the hunger and poverty as
well as availability and accessibility of infrastructure including health services, educational
institution and effective and qualitative service delivery system of the administrative units. In this
regard, Sen seems very critical to mention development as a gradual improvement of the existing
structure that directly/indirectly enlarges the human choices, freedoms and capabilities (Sen, 1999).

In global discourse, the practice and methods of development are highly contested because of
multiple issues and changing paradigms (Bebbington, 2010), and Nepal seems no exception of this
(Sapkota & Manandhar, 2014; Sharma et al., 2014). Meaning of development has moved from
simple to complex. Over time, its meaning is becoming complex, contested and vague. However,
most of the approaches imply that development is a process of meeting basic needs by all people,
having access over various resources and services, having human dignity and self-respect. The
dictionary meaning of the development is varied and contextual like growth, expansion,
improvement, social change, transformation, well-being, and so on etc. Later, its meaning and
concept have been changed into highly value loaded concept by the domestic political system of the
countries and which are also compatible with or conditioned by the international development
agencies like UN, IMF, and WB etc.

Pieterse (2010) argues that earlier practices have been viewed as antecedents of development policy
primarily in terms of economic growth, though the term development was not used at time. This
seems more adjacent with the argument of Martin (1990) who concluded that from classical political
economists including David Ricardo to modern development thinkers Max, they directly/indirectly
addressed for the same problem in the name of development i.e. economic growth. The meaning of
development has been changing since the classical political economy to the early 21th century.
Indeed, colonial economics was the initial predecessor of modern development economics and post-
colonial studies largely have shaped current trends of development discourse. Besides this,
development in recent years have been questioned and challenged in terms of its hegemony and
superior complex that romanticizes short-cut benefits of development being reluctant to the long-
term harms to the society.

2. Development: How is it a “discourse”?

The term ‘discourse’ refers to a use of language in speech or writing to produce meaning in
particular discipline. Discourse is generally used to designate the forms of representation, codes,
conventions and habits of language that produce specific fields of culturally and historically located
meanings. Originally, the term discourse was used by Michal Foucault at first time and his early
writings ('The Order of Discourse', 1971; The Archaeology of Knowledge, 1972) were especially
influential in this regard. Foucault's work gave the terms 'discursive practices' and 'discursive
formation' to the analysis of particular institutions and their ways of establishing orders of truth, or
what is accepted as 'reality' in a given society. Power is the central unit of discourse formation. A

14
key point about Foucault’s approach to power is that it transcends politics and sees power as an
everyday, socialized and embodied phenomenon. This truly replicates in the genesis of development
in terms of ideology, knowledge and practice. As a discourse, development constitutes a legitimate
perspective for the agent of knowledge and the fixing of norms for the elaboration of concept and
theories that was/ has been already shaped with such legitimacy. It then becomes an articulation
between power and knowledge. Geiser (2014) maintains that the discourse is not just composed of
the words but that words can become potentially powerful through their normative and strategic
usage in social interaction (p. 4).

In terms of philosophy, discourse is indeed not a new thing though. Development has been
conceptualized in terms of its own essence of the value of life and Godhood in the classical texts.
The eastern development discourse is nearer to metaphysics while the western view point is about
the epistemology. The nature of reality is less important than the constituent of the reality. What is
real is dubious. It also rings true in development thinking. As also reflected in the Table 1, well-
being and ideal are highly praised in eastern view of development while progress and individual
satisfaction are more prioritized issues of western development thinking. Pragmatically, however,
generation of formal knowledge and achievement of development indicators is more focused in the
western philosophy. Rather, the Vedic literatures often focus on peace and harmony as essence of
life which has become the core value of modern development discourse. 3

Table 1: Philosophical positioning of development discourse

Eastern world-view Western world-view

Well-being orientation Growth and development orientation
Universal value of development Individual value of development
Focus on spiritual identity, cosmic values, soul and
Focus on physical needs, and knowledge generation
intellect
Interrelated or oneness Separate parts from the whole
Harmony and unified; collectivism Master and control reality; realism
Source: Adapted from different sources and reviews

Modernization and Post Structuralism have played very crucial roles behind the emergence of the
development discourse. Contextually, when the already established theories like Modernization,
Structuralism, and Functionalism couldn’t address the newly born problems and issues regarding the
different aspects of the decolonized countries, the concept of discourse emerged and followed with
orientalism and post-developmentalism. In recent years, discourse analysis in development studies

3
For example in Isha Upanishad, there is one manra in Sanskrit which expresses:
ॐ सर्वे भर्वन्तु सख
ु िनः सर्वे सन्तु ननरामयाः । सर्वे भद्राखि पश्यन्तु मा कश्श्िद्ःु िभाग्भर्वेत ् । ॐ शाश्न्तः शाश्न्तः शाश्न्तः ॥
[Meaning: Om, May All become Happy; May All be Free from Illness; May All See what is Auspicious; May no
one Suffer; Om Peace, Peace, Peace]

15
has been not only limited as the methodology for linguistic but also an articulation of ideology,
power and politics. The discourse perspective in development studies offers one angel on current
trends. Several trends are linked in methodological terms, what stands out is the trend towards
interdisciplinary and the role of the discourse analysis.

3. History of the Development Debate

The debate about development has been found since the emergence of classical political economy
though the hot development debate began with the termination the World War II. The development
debate was held in between the Democratic principles and values and Socialistic principles and
values i.e. whether the democratic principles are more appropriate for the development of the
developing countries or the socialistic values are more applicable. It has been seen in the Harry S.
Truman’s speech (given on January 20, 1949) that created a dichotomous concept in development
and contributed for ‘modernization’ project of the capitalist school of though.

Indeed, development thinking in 1950s and thereafter was dominant with the core meaning of the
development was the economic growth, as in Growth theory, and big push theory. Ideologically, it
was ever perceived that development is not other than the ‘modernization’. In 1960s the
development concept became more critical to the modernization which criticized hegemonic
mechanism of development, delinking the relation with core developed countries for self help
sustaining development. The era of dependency became more popular though it could not develop as
alternative to the so-called mainstream development, i.e. the dependent development induced by
modernization. Later, alternative development was emerged keeping the human at the centre of the
development activities since human beings are both the ends and means of the development. The
alternative approaches introduced new vision and understanding of the so called development
emphasizing social development, rural development and community development i.e. localization.
Similarly, post-development approaches have made severe criticism to development in terms of its
outcomes and consequences. This notion has been less theorized though many questions have been
raised as anti-developmental, nihilist, anarchist and pessimistic epistemological positions. The 1990s
was dominated by the contradiction between socialistic versus capitalistic school of thought and this
became gradually less effective with the fall of Soviet Bloc in Europe and other countries. The table
2 presents a brief narrative of development discourse over time in terms of their theoretical
approaches, strategies and assumptions.

Table 2: Theories and meanings of development over time

Era Theoretical approach Assumptions/ arguments

1800s Classical political economy Remedy for progress; catching up

16
 1870> Latecomers Industrialization; catching-up
1850> Colonial economics Resource management; trusteeship
1940> Development economics Economic growth; industrialization
1950> Modernization theory Growth; political and social modernization; technology transfer
1960> Dependency theory Dependent development; development of underdevelopment
1970> Alternative development Human flourishing; small is beautiful; indigenous knowledge and
development
1880> Neo-liberalism Economic growth; structural reform; deregulation; liberalization
and privatization
1990> Post-development Authoritarian engineering; disaster; critique, emancipation and
anarchism
2000 MDGs Structural reforms; poverty reduction; ecological sustainability;
gender equity; literacy; maternal health and global partnership
2015 SDGs Follow up of the MDGs
Source: With added emphasis see Pieterse (2010, p. 7)

With the shifting of global power in uni-polar world led by United States and subsequent European
bloc, the mainstream development discourse became formal since the 2000s. Various development
approaches then incepted with this notion which include the capitalist version of poverty reduction,
human development, sustainable development, human rights and participatory democracy.
Following this, the era 2000-2015 was declared by and conditioned with Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) where 8 half-way goals and aid focused indicators were created through a top-down
process. Primarily, they attempted in addressing symptoms of poverty, hunger and illiteracy. The
MDGs have been recently replaced with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved
during 2016-2030 including 17 interconnected ‘zero-based’ goals. The goals have been set as
universal goals for all the countries and development/ donor agencies with a steady focus on poverty
issues plus issues of peace, stability, human rights and good governance. The goals seem more
comprehensive and multi-faceted though they are rooted with rhetoric of an inclusive participatory
process. 4 As reflected in the Table 3, the goals of MDG and SDG have advocated for collective
effort and global partnership in development. They, however, largely neglect the various issues of
developing countries and seem dominated with a superior complex from developed countries.

Table 3: Development Goals envisioned in MDGs and SDGs

Millennium Development Goals Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

(MDGs)
1. To eradicate extreme 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
poverty and hunger 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and
2. To achieve universal promote sustainable agriculture

4
See for detail: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/2016/75&Lang=E;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals

17
 primary education 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
3. To promote gender 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
equality and empower opportunities for all
women 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
4. To reduce child mortality 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
5. To improve maternal sanitation for all
health 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy
6. To combat HIV/AIDS, for all
malaria and other diseases8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full
7. To ensure environmental and productive employment and decent work for all
sustainability 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
8. To develop a global industrialization and foster innovation
partnership for 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
development 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources
for sustainable development
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and
reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and
inclusive institutions at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development

4. Dimensions of ‘discourses’ in Development

In the course of time different development paradigm shift took placed both in the theories and
practices of development. In social sciences, such shifts are inevitable to form and deform the
discourses as per the need of time and context of knowledge generation. Phenomenology,
participatory approaches and discourse analysis have played a crucial role to create different
dimensions of discourses in development which are further coupled with epistemology and
methodology. Briefly, these discourses and their development theories are discussed as below.

4.1 Mainstream Development Discourse

Mainstream development discourse is primarily dominant with Euro centric and American driven
motives. Western countries especially, United States and Europe were powerful in terms of shaping
economic status, writing history and promoting science and technology. So they developed the

18
knowledge of development systematically and prescribed some approaches and strategies for
development of third world countries. As mentioned earlier, development economics got high
importance during the 1950s and increase in per capita income and GDP was taken as the sole
indicator of mainstream development. It was argued that the growth would be possible only by the
systematic application of western science and technology.

The mainstream discourse has been characterized as follows.

a. It is at core position, devised top down model.

b. Universalize the knowledge of development.
c. Dependent on high tech.
d. Based on logical reasoning and consciousness (profit oriented).
e. Guided by hegemonic and appealing either by power, persuasion and beauty.
f. Inclusive by nature
g. Market is taken as the first agent of development and state as second. It is capitalistic
motive.

Development theories of mainstream development discourse

A. Modernization Theory of development

Modernity means the following the westernization like market relation, urbanization, nuclear family,
individualization and democratization that could promote development in the developing countries
as granted by so-called developed ones. However, modernity is preconceived in different ways. In
the European context, it is influenced by Renaissance concept and in North America, it is understood
as Enlightenment. It has been taken as the adoption of the western culture by developing countries in
line with ‘west is the best’.

The school of Modernization was first which coincided to articulate the problem of development in
terms of need to transform the “traditional or backwardness” nature of third world economies into
“modern or advanced economies”. Pieterse (2010) has beautifully defined the modernization as the
movement of from particularism to universalism, form ascription to achievement, from functional
diffuseness to functional specificity and form affective roles to affective neutrality. However, this
definition fails to raise the political dimension of modernization which includes contrasting values
like secularism, individualism, commoditization and consumerism. The concept of modernization
was found in the thinking of sociologist during late19th century. Durkheim’s notion about the binary
division of society, and Weber’s idea about the configuration of things have played good role behind
the origin of modernization theory. However, several critics have been made to this theory from
critical theorists and neo-Marxists, and a subsequent counter arguments have been advocated by
poststructuralists and post-modernists.

B. Liberalism and neo-liberalism

19
Liberalism and neo-liberalism are re-invented in mainstream discourse with the premise of
modernization. Both the approaches surround with the nexus of Aid-State-Market.

Liberalism is the belief in freedom and equal rights generally associated with such thinkers as Johan
Locke and Montesquieu. The classical liberalism espoused by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and
others, broadly emphasized the importance of free market, civil liberties and laissez-faire style
governance with a minimum of interference - this approach dominated the liberal tradition during the
19th century, and it has contributed to the modernization process.

Neo-liberalism is a term which has been used since 1938, but became more prevalent in its current
meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics primarily in
reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with lasses-faire economic
liberalism. Empirically, neoliberals support extensive economic liberalization policies such
as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in
order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. In recent years, neo-liberalism has
been a strategy of the donor agencies and state economies.

However, neo-liberal perspective has been heavily criticized by the post development thinkers and
neo-Marxist authors. Its genesis seems capitalist which believes on ‘survival of the fittest;, and not
‘of the poorest’. Likewise, neoliberals often romanticize the outcomes of development in terms of
poverty reduction and expansion of freedom. Despite this, the issues of distribution of the resources
and freedom of the oppressed classes have been denied to serve and recycle elite structure in the
society.

4.2 Alternative Development Discourse

Alternative development discourse emerged popularly in 1970 s with the frustration of grand
theories and practices of development. In surface, it seems alternative to the functionalism, Marxism
and modernism. However, it lies in the mainstream approach that would create the capitalist mode of
production in a harmonic relation of state and market. It argues that the world is tired of grand
solutions (Max –Neef, 1991, p. 110). Latouche (1993) examines ‘three principal planks of
alternative development: food self-sufficiency; basic needs; and appropriate technologies and finds
each of them wanting. In fact these were part of ‘another development’ in the 1970s and are no
longer specific to alternative development in the 1990s.

Alternative development is very often understood as the alternative practice of the mainstream
development approach which intends to address many problems of developing countries including
social evils, high utilization of technologies, environment degradation and dependency. Rather, it has
emphasized over the participatory approach, people centered development and small-scale
technologies.

20
It is criticism of mono-centric approach of development highlighting the plurality of development
origin. It discards the development as American and European myth. It has focused over the
diversity of nature, culture and social practices around the world and argued that they are the base of
development to get sustainable development to its indigenousness. Pieterse (2010) viewed the
alternative development as the loose profile, as the development paradigm and post paradigmatic
way of thinking. It can be characterized as follows (see also Tvedt, 1998; Cooke and Kothari, 2001):

 It is criticism of mainstream development discourse.

 It the qualifying to modernization at micro (local) level.
 It is as entirely external to mainstream development paradigm.
 It keeps the human beings as active agent of the development.
 It concerns with alternative practice of development i.e. participatory, people oriented and
redefining the goal of development.

The alternative development concentrates over the three spheres, though Escober (2006) very
crucially differentiates between ‘alternatives of development and ‘development alternatives’:

a. Agent: Human beings are the active agent of the development.

b. Methods: It is guided by inclusive participatory approach. So it adopts decentralization,
governance, use of appropriate technology, mobilization of grassroots organizations and
NGOs.
c. Values of development: The goal of alternative development discourse is well being of
human beings, emancipation and transformation, i.e. humanization of development.

Contemporary trends of Alternative Development Discourse

In alternative discourse, various notions of development have become popular which were initially
co-opted with the mainstream development agendas. They necessarily become ‘non-economic’ and
‘beyond the economic’ dimension of development by making development multidimensional,
inclusive and multi-disciplinary in nature. Post-1990 perspectives on alternative development
discourse include:

Sustainable development: Ideologically, there are three pillars in sustainable development: society
(community), economy (market and state policies) and ecology (environmental sustainability and
resource base). It has been defined as a process for meeting human development goals while
sustaining the ability of natural systems to continue to provide the natural resources and ecosystem
services upon which the economy and society depend. While the modern concept of sustainable
development is derived most strongly from the 1987 Brundtland Report, it is rooted in earlier ideas
about sustainable forest management and twentieth century environmental concerns. As the concept
developed, it has shifted to focus more on economic development, social development and

21
environmental protection (see Atkinson et al., 2009; Sachs, 2015). The concept of sustainable
development has now co-existed with the livelihood perspective (Scoones, 2009).

Social development: it has focused on social and human dimension of development including
institutions and capabilities as a member of the society. It refers to many of the non-economic
processes and outcomes of development, including but not limited to: reduced vulnerability;
inclusion; wellbeing; accountability; people-centered approaches; and freedom from violence. It is
fundamentally concerned with human rights, formal and informal power relations, inequality and
possibilities for building greater equality between individuals and groups within societies (Korteen,
1992). The social development focuses on five social development issues: human rights,
accountability, gender inequality, age and social exclusion.

Human development: The human development approach extends to gender, political rights and
environmental concerns. It is a process of enlarging people’s choices by building human capabilities
to lead lives that they value. This involves the capability to lead long and healthy lives, to be
educated, to access resources and social protection, and fair employment. As such, human
development is also fundamentally concerned with human rights, including those to life, health and
wellbeing (see also Haq, 1995; Banuri et al., 1997; UNDP, 2014). In recent years, the influence of
four human development sectors has been much debated in terms of the outcomes of development
involving: 1) health; 2) sexual and reproductive health (SRH); 3) education; and 4) water, sanitation
and hygiene (WASH).

Rights-based approaches (RBAs): The adoption of rights-based approaches (RBAs) in

development work – that is, approaches that are informed and guided by the framework of
international human rights law, and the values that underpin it – has had a significant impact on the
ways in which development agencies operate. RBAs emphasize the centrality of power relations, and
the core principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination. RBAs draw attention to
the responsibility of duty-bearers to uphold human rights, and seek to support rights-holders to claim
their rights.

4.3 Critical Development Discourse

Critical discourse often seeks reasoning, causes and consequences. In turn, critical theory is a school
of thought that stresses the reflective assessments and critique of society and culture by applying
knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. In sociology and political philosophy, the
term "critical theory" describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfort School, which was
developed in Germany in the 1930s and became popular until 1970s (Elliott, 2009). The critical
perspective in development theory/ studies however is not necessarily guided or influenced by
critical theory. Likewise, neither it would necessarily become Frankfort school nor belong to the
neo-Marxist. However, most of the development critiques are largely influenced by structural
questions that have been already raised by critical theorists. The questions include the uneven

22
development, existing production/ distribution system, identity politics, and myths of development.
Very recently, concepts of subaltern and hegemony have been added in this discourse (Gramsci,
2009; Guha, R. and Spivak, 2004).

Major critical perspectives in development discourse include:

A. Dependency Theory of development

Dependency theory is ideologically rooted with the critical development discourse which was
introduced in 1960s by Paul Baron and A.G. Frank, Samir Amin, T.D. Santos, Raul Prebisch etc. It
was formally devised by United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America. It is the radical
criticism of the modernization perspective in development. The theory is based on the Marxist ideas
and has put some assumptions with neo-Marxist ontology. The main argument of this theory is that
the modernization perspective gave the birth of dependency and invited rise of underdevelopment
and inequality in developing countries (Korotayev & Zinkina, 2014)
The dependent theorists argue that the resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and
underdeveloped countries to a "core" of wealthy countries, enriching the latter at the expense of the
former in terms of trade, media, politics, education, etc. It is a central contention of dependency
theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated
into the dependent relations (Paul, 1997). It is, therefore, argued that dependency theory is basically
guided by socialistic motives which eventually emphasize to breakdown the relationship of core
(developed countries) and periphery (developing countries). Dependency theory has been criticized
by free-market economists and other liberalists. It is criticized as a political blame, pessimistic and
rhetoric. Pieterse (2010) criticized it as fallacy because it discards to the economic growth but finally
fails to give immediate alternative to the growth.

B. World-Systems Theory

This theory was emerged as a multidisciplinary and macro-scale approach to world history and
social change. Ideology of world-system theory is based on the neo-Marxist premise and it has been
also influenced by the dependency theory. Unlike dependency theory, world system theory
emphasizes the world system (and not nation states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of social
analysis. Immanuel Wallerstein has developed the best-known version of world-systems analysis,
beginning in the 1970s. He has traced the rise of the capitalist world-economy from the "long"
journey of history since 16th century (c. 1450-1640). The rise of capitalism, in his view, was an
accidental outcome of the protracted crisis of feudalism (c. 1290-1450). The western/ European
countries used its advantages and gained control over most of the world economy and presided over
the development and spread of industrialization and capitalist economy, indirectly resulting in
unequal development (Wallerstein, 2004).

C. Chaos theory and Tao of development:

23
Chaos theory is a recently added approach in development literature. It seems more relevant in the
sense that linearity and singularity seems one of the problems in conventional development thinking.
It can be better option for public policy analysis and modern value systems in contemporary
societies. However, there is no any readymade dichotomy to transform chaos theory from its natural
science to the social sciences. It has also contributed to view randomness, absence and
unpredictability of the outcomes of development (see Elliott and Kiel, 1997). Following this
unpredictability, Tao of development is becoming an innovative concept as development discourse
in recent years. While Tao of physics refers to a combination of physics and mysticism, the Tao of
development is a more difficult combination because development is not merely a science or
analytics, but also a politics. It necessarily evokes an association of inaction, quietism.

D. The Post Development Discourse

Post development discourse is the criticism of both Mainstream and Alternative Development
Practices. It is a kind of severe criticism on the so-called progress and development. Post-
development theory arose in the 1980s and 1990s through the works of scholars like A. Escobar, G.
Esteva, M. Rahnema, W. Sachs, J. Ferguson, S. Latouche, G. Rist and F. Sabelli. Leading members
of the post-development school argue that development was always unjust, never worked, and at this
point has clearly failed. Also leveled as anti-development, it holds that the whole concept and
practice of development is a reflection of Western-Northern hegemony over the rest of the world,
particularly the South.

It was emerged as the radical reaction of the development failure which severely distorted and
challenged with the fundamental crisis. The main goal of the post development is to level the
development outdated and somehow dead, uncertain and counterproductive. In few contexts, it
seems resembling with post-modernist discourse, but it is also pessimistic and nihilistic in ideology.
It has drawn the new paradigm in the development primarily in the so-called developed countries
which later switched to the developing countries. It regards the western – driven development
arguing it as a catastrophic for the third world’s people and culture (Escobar, 1992, 1995, 2001).
Again, to quote Sachs (2010):

The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and
disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady companions of development and
they tell a common story: it did not work. Moreover, the historical conditions which
catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: the development has become outdated
(p.1).
The post development thinkers reject the definition and meaning of the development and termed it as
a mythical rhetoric in terms of the way of its expression. It is just the way of benevolent persuasion
while the reality is very different and painful. Hence, post development is ‘anti development’ and
‘beyond development’ which is radical of development dilemmas (Pieterse, 2010, p. 110). As the
development is disastrous and destructive, post development seems a product of dissatisfaction with
the rhetoric and reality of mainstream and alternative development.

24
The writers of the post development reject development due to mainly two reasons. First, they argue
that all development denies the all prospect of the improvements like health, education and material
well beings. Second, rejecting the development means establishing the development as homogenous
practice. Arturo Escobar, who is known as the most important post development thinkers, speaks of
the following characteristics that mark post development discourse:

 Interest in alternatives to development, not the interest of alternative development

 A fundamental rejection of the classical development paradigm
 An interest in local culture and local knowledge
 A focus on self – autonomy and indignity
 A critical perspective on established scientific discourses
 Solidarity for pluralistic grassroots movements

Thus, the post-development discourse is influenced by Ivan Illich and other critics of colonialism
and post colonialism. In turn, it has challenged the very meaning of development. According to post
developmentalists, the way we understand development is rooted in the earlier colonial discourse
that depicts the North as "advanced" and "progressive", and the South as "backward", "degenerate"
and "primitive". However, post development is not apart from criticism. It is the critic of the
established development practices though it has been criticized due to its loose profile like one
dimensional view of globalization. It talks about the self origin without external hegemony but how
it is possible in underdeveloped communities is less answered. It is therefore somehow overstated. A
rejection of all development is a rejection of the possibility for material advancement and
transformation. Thus, post development notion is pessimistic or anarchist. It ignores the tangible
transformations in life opportunities and health and material well-being that have been evident in
parts of the developing world. More critically, post-development thought perpetuates neo-liberal
ideals as it rejects a top-down, centralized approach to development and promoting development
through local means.
4. Recent trend and future of development

The twenty first century seems an era of globalization, social movements and also influential for the
post-development critique. Specific issues in particular context may be also dominant which include
trade, finance, hegemony, institutions, inequality, terrorism, climate change, disaster reduction and
international development cooperation. The possibility of any turning point and beginning of a new
development era cannot be denied in near future as development is becoming plural and
multidimensional. Political movements are also being equipped with the development ideology and
agenda. With this, emergence of new fields of development studies including gender, ecology,
democratization, good governance, empowerment, culture, communication, development critique,
inclusion and state-society relations is more crucial. For this, development discourse is likely to
make a shift from macro-structures to actor-orientation, agency and institutions; from structuralism

25
to constructivism; from determinism to interpretative turn; from generalizing/ homogenizing to
differentiating; and from singular to plural.

In context of Nepal, we are now on the process of state structuring and implementation of the newly
promulgated constitution. Escaping out from the long decade conflict, subsequent social movements,
disastrous earthquakes and political instability are the major challenges of Nepali development and
politics. Despite this, right-based approaches have come as I/NGO agendas and in essence they are
conditioned with the vested interests of the donor agencies. Donor-dependent development of our
state should be reversed in this context both in terms of politics and economics. For the well-being of
ourselves and prosperity, we do not need to watch the face of other hoping when they give some
initiatives for survival. Development is not a thing as if it could be granted as gift or chartered as
cargo. It is indeed a structural issue rooted in the conventional power structure. Without changing
the pyramid, mere changes in public policies, bureaucratic reforms and remittances economy could
not ensure survival of Nepali development. We people need to think creatively not cheating. If we
look over the problem and find out the good prospect, definitely, we start good job on our own
locality crystallizing the own indigenous knowledge and Nepali culture.

5. Conclusion

Development is relative value loaded concept which essentially assumes for the being sound
economic capacity and at all well-being of living of people. Development is contested since its
origin. At its origin, there was conflict and debate about the meaning of development like economic
growth or economic development. Similarly later it faces that which types of strategies are
appropriate for the empowering and assuring the quality of life of the people. Later, it is blamed that
development is western driven and it brings nothing except the crisis, illusion and finally ruin the
prosperous indigenous life of people and their culture. Hence, development has now become
political affair being contested discourse in terms of its ideology. Finally, the authors came to
conclusion that in context of Nepal’s future development discourse, we should revisit the basic
issues for building ‘New Nepal’.

26
 References

Atkinson, G., Dietz, S. & E. Neumayer (2009). Handbook of Sustainable Development. Edward
Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1848444729.

Bebbington, A. (2010). Social movements and poverty in developing countries. Background paper
for RISD’s Poverty Report. University of Manchester.

Bernstein, H. (2006). Studying development/development studies. African Studies, 65(1), 45-62.

Blewitt, J. (2015). Understanding Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.

Browne, E. & Millington, K. A. (2015). Social development and human development: Topic guide.
Birmingham / Oxford: GSDRC / HEART.
Colander, D. (2000). The Death of Neo Classical Economics. Journal of the History of Economic
Thoughs, Vol. 22 No.2 , 128 - 143.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed

Curry, G. N. (2003). Moving Beyond Postdevelopment: Facilitating Indigenous Alternatives for

"Development". Economic Geography Vol.79 No. 4 , 405 - 423.
Elliott, A. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge Companion to Social Theory. London: Rutledge.

Escobar, A. (1992). Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought. Development and Social
Movements. Social Text, No. 31/32, Third World and Post-colonial Issues, pp. 20-56.
Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466217

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Escobar, A. (2001). Beyond the search for a paradigm? Post development and beyond. Development,
43/4, p.2

Geiser, U. (2014). Conceptualizing ‘Contested Development’ – from Grand Narratives to the Nitty-
gritty of the Everyday. In Sharma, S. R, Upreti, B. R., Manandhar, P.,Sapkota, M. (eds).
Contested Development in Nepal: Experiences and Reflections. Kathmandu: School of Arts,
Kathmandu University and Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR). Pp. 1-25.

Gramsci, A. (2009). Hegemony, intellectuals and the state. Cultural theory and popular culture: A
reader, 2, 210-16.

Guha, R. & Spivak, G. (2004). Selected subaltern studies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

James, P. (1997). Post-Dependency: The third world in an era of globalism and late
capitalism. Alternatives: Social Transformation and Human Governance 22 (2): 205–26.
Korten, David C. (1990). Getting to the 21st Century. W Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. p. 4.

27
 Latouche, C. (1993). In the wake of affluent society: An exploration of post development. London:
Zed

Martin, K. (1990). Modern Development Theory. London: Macmillan (pp. 27-74)

Max –Neef, M.A (1991). Human scale development. New York: Apex Press

Pieterse, J. N. (2010, 2nd edition). Develoment Theory . New Delhi, India: Sage Publications India
Pvt. Ltd.
Sachs, J. D. (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. New York: Columbia University
Press. ISBN 9780231173155.
Sachs, W. (2010). The Development Dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed
Books Ltd. UK.

Sapkota, M. and Manadhar, P. (2014). Ethnic Movement and Contested Rural Development: A
critical Reflection from Nepal. International Journal of Agriculture and Applied Science Vol.
6 No. 1 , 1 - 8.

Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihood’s perspective and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies.
Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Vol. 36, (1), 171-196.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor

Sharma, S. R., Upreti, B. R., Manandhar, P., & Sapkota, M. (eds.) (2014).Contested Development in
Nepal: Experiences and Reflections. Kathmandu: School of Arts, Kathmandu University and
Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR).

Simon, D. (1997). Development Reconsidered: New Direction in Development thinking.

Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Huaman Geography, vol. 79, No.4 , 183 - 201.
Tvedt, T. (1998). Angels of mercy or development diplomats? NGOs and foreign aid. Oxford
Trenton, NJ: James Currey and Africa World Press

Ul Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on human development. New York: Oxford University Press

UNDP (2014). Human Development Report 2015. UNDP

Wallerstein, I. (2004). "World-systems Analysis." In World System History, ed. George Modelski,
in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the
UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK

28

View publication stats