Liberalism(s) and the Critical Securitization of Development Debate

Abstract

The securitization of development theme has developed substantially since the late 1990s within the critical global governance literature. To varying degrees, contributors to this debate argue that a liberal global governance complex links the discourses of security and development in what is described as the ‘security–development nexus’, such that the South is conceived as an international security threat. Whilst the security–development nexus itself has been thoroughly explored, the use of the central concept of liberalism has not. This paper addresses this issue through demarcating and critiquing the three readings of liberalism relevant to the securitization of development debate. Identifying and elucidating the three distinct strands of liberalism enable this paper to identify several weaknesses within the debate and propose a number of amendments. This includes proposing that the liberal discourse of global governance reflects complexity rather than consensus and that the centrality of ‘liberalism’ is at the expense of a robust investigation into how the structural power of global capitalism underpins the security–development nexus.

Keywords:

• development
• security
• global governance
• liberalism
• securitization

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank three anonymous reviews and Dr Patricia Shamai, University of Portsmouth, for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The global development policy discourse and corresponding development interventions which seek to link security and development concerns.

2 Within this paper, as within the securitization of development literature, global governance refers to the strategic networks that bring together governments, international organisations, NGOs, and private companies. Rather than understanding global governance as attempting to facilitate order in the complexities of modern life (Ronenau, 2002, p. 70), a critical approach to global governance is taken. From a neo-Gramscian perspective, this means understanding global governance in the context of transformations in global capitalism and ongoing conflicts, whilst for post-structuralists, global governance broadly involves the ‘development of often insidious new ways of defining, invigilating, managing and indeed governing social relations' (Selby, 2003, p. 8). Both critical approaches are discussed within this paper.

3 This discussion is concerned with neo-liberalism as governmentality, which Larner (2006) distinguished from neo-liberalism as policy and ideology.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Melita Lazell

Melita Lazell holds a PhD from the University of Southampton and is currently a Lecturer in International Political Economy and International Relations at the University of Portsmouth. Her current research focuses on the Securitization of International Development, specifically the way in which securitization is reflected in development programming and aid distribution.