The last refuge of the noble savage? A critical assessment of post‐development theory

Abstract

The most ostensibly radical response to the crisis in development theory has been to reject outright the idea of development. Theories of post‐development argue that all ideas of development imply the exercise of power over subject peoples in the so‐called Third World. Some writers argue that the idea of development therefore constitutes a new form of colonialism. This article questions such views, by suggesting that not all theories of development can be tarred with the same brush. Post‐development theory is guilty of homogenising the idea of development, thereby conflating all theories of development with the outmoded (and long discredited) theory of modernisation. Moreover, post‐development theory is reluctant to suggest concrete political alternatives, arguing the post‐structuralist position that to do so implies ‘capture’ by the development discourse. But this view similarly homogenises the development discourse, and leads to an alternative politics that uncritically celebrates resistance without analysing its differing political implications. When more concrete alternatives are suggested (as for example by ecofeminism), the result is an uncritical, romantic celebration of the local which can have reactionary political implications. Finally, an alternative, dialectical approach is suggested, which seeks to combine deconstruction with reconstruction, and which stresses the contradictory unity of development.