By Dr Louisa Hann

The field of Development Studies is no stranger to grand narratives. One much-cited example concerns the inaugural address of US President Harry S. Truman in 1949. Tasked with inspiring national optimism and pride in a context of Cold War tensions and collapsing European imperialism, Truman deployed the language of development to position the US as a heroic global actor. Given its superior abilities to amass wealth and produce advanced technologies, the story went, the US was primed to help poorer parts of the globe ‘catch up’ through generous aid and development programmes.

Beneath the surface of this triumphal rhetoric, however, lay realities of colonial violence and dispossession that spurred the US to global hegemonic dominance. As many critical development scholars point out, Truman’s words implicitly disavowed this history by characterising disparities between nations as ‘natural’ and therefore legitimate. What’s more, pinning the notion of ‘progress’ to delimited models of capitalistic growth and industrialisation validated the implementation of policies that have negatively impacted the Global South.

The problem with ‘progress’

Today, the limits of linear industrial development and growth-oriented politics are well-documented within Development Studies. Many scholars are also reckoning with academia’s own role in perpetuating global inequalities and stifling alternative narratives. The Africa Charter, for example, represents a renewed approach to advancing Africa-centred scholarship and epistemologies within the global production of scientific knowledge. Despite widespread recognition of the colonial and neocolonial foundations upon which ‘development’ rests, however, debates surrounding the purpose, genealogy and ethical imperatives of Development Studies remain hotly contested. As GDI PhD student Caroline Cornier lucidly posits in a recent blog post,

The lack of a clear definition of ‘development’ and the resulting ambiguity of Development Studies’ goals seems to lead development researchers to talking past each other, instead of constructively debating.

Mired in disparate conceptions of ‘progress’ that are equal parts vestigial, hegemonic, and emergent, contemporary Development Studies invites numerous crucial questions. How can we reckon with past and present injustices while continuing to produce knowledge that positively impacts the world? Against what frameworks should we measure these impacts? How do we navigate development needs in the context of a growing climate emergency? And what stories do we tell ourselves that may hamper the success of development projects in practice?

To answer such questions, academics must probe the validity of dominant narratives from a range of angles and perspectives, generating knowledge that tackles some of society’s most complex challenges. Of course, dominant narratives may have served – or continue to serve – useful or explicatory functions across various contexts. At the same time, however, prevailing accounts often fail to tell whole stories, either concealing discomfiting histories or overlooking vital caveats and contingencies.

With this in mind, we’ve collated just a few of the ways GDI academics are questioning the prevalent and persistent narratives we often hear about progress, equality, and justice. We also take a look at shifting theoretical narratives within Development Studies itself.

Questioning the European welfare state as an exemplary model of social protection

When considering successful forms of social protection, people often look to European – especially Nordic states – as having implemented some of the strongest welfare systems to which the rest of the world should aspire. As GDI’s Armando Barrientos argues in his recent open access monograph, Social Protection in Latin America: Causality, Stratification and Outcomes,

Implicit in much of the literature on social protection in [Latin America] is the assumption that our institutions are on a slow march towards fully-fledged European welfare states, taken as the inescapable point of destination. (2)

As Barrientos’ research reveals, this assumption inhibits understandings of how social protection works in Latin America. Highly fragmented and unequal, these systems are designed to stratify wage earners in terms of employment, protection, and incorporation, with insured workers strongly resistant to the idea of expanding social protection provisions. Far from a replicable norm, therefore, Nordic-style universalism requires political and economic conditions specific to certain European states.

The first task for policymakers and researchers interested in improving living standards in Latin American states, therefore, is to better understand the motivations and politics behind existing institutions and social protection programmes across the region – not to replicate European welfare state ideals.

Read more on the blog: Beyond ‘welfare state’ idealism: Is it time for a general theory of social protection?

Listen: Social Protection in Latin America: Stratification, Politics and Influences

Troubling familiar messages about non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Today, it’s no secret that the origins of aid are enmeshed within colonial histories that facilitated wealth accumulation in the Global North and installed poverty in large parts of the South. As such, many of the NGOs involved in redressing poverty around the world actively acknowledge their place within unjust systems and espouse commitments to decolonising their working practices, professional cultures, decision-making practices, and funding models.

More specifically, NGOs across the world identify significant power disparities between NGOs in the North and NGOs in the South that preclude the possibility of transformative systemic change. In response, many pledge to platform Southern voices and work to rebalance power. So far, so good.

However, as research produced by GDI’s Nicola Banks and colleagues demonstrates, NGOs appear to overestimate their performance when it comes to remedying power imbalances. While frustrations surrounding the colonial legacies shaping the global aid system are rife, most Northern NGOs view their own partnerships as outperforming others and attribute continued disparities to wider systemic problems. Meanwhile, Southern NGOs cite unwillingness to change among Northern NGOs as a major barrier to transformation.

So, where do we go from here? As the authors of the research set out in a policy brief (and the video below), achieving more transformative change requires further self-reflection, redistributive action, and a willingness to challenge the broader aid system among Northern NGOs.

 

 

Examining the complex politics behind ambitious state projects

A major task for many academics within Development Studies is to assess the histories, outcomes, and underlying politics of development programmes and frameworks across the world. While many such initiatives promise prosperous futures and sustained progress, their optimistic visage often cloaks more complex political motives, conflicts, and economic challenges that lie beneath the surface.

For example, Tom Gillespie and Baraka Mwau’s recent open access article, ‘Road Corridors as Real Estate Frontiers: The New Urban Geographies of Rentier Capitalism in Africa’, examines some of the new urban geographies that have emerged in the name of Kenya’s Vision 2030, a national development strategy prioritising investment in large-scale connective infrastructure as a means to catalyse social and economic modernisation. Launched in 2008, the strategy has advanced road-building projects and converted much agricultural and ranching land into urban real estate, driving a peri-urban property boom. However, the authors cite significant scepticism surrounding the strategy’s promise to deliver national prosperity, especially for Kenyan workers subject to rising living costs and austerity programmes. With this in mind, the paper looks beneath the headlines of Vision 2030 to identify the expansion of rentier capitalism and its urban geographical dimensions.

Another GDI researcher to have examined the drawbacks and complexities of ambitious state projects is Tom Lavers, whose work looks at the recent history of Ethiopia’s so-called ‘developmental state’, a strategy of state-led development spearheaded by the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) from the early 1990s through to the 2010s.

As laid out in Lavers’ open access book, Ethiopia’s ‘Developmental State’: Political Order and Distributive Crisis, the EPRDF trod fragile political ground after coming to power, lacking popular support outside the region of Tigray (you can read Lavers’ summary of Ethiopia’s political history and ethnic divisions on our blog). In response, the

project of state-led development was wrapped in a nationalist narrative of an Ethiopian Renaissance as a counter-balance to growing ethnonationalism. The result was a relatively rare instance in which an African authoritarian ruling party viewed structural transformation as imperative to its political survival. (37)

In light of Ethiopia’s relatively unusual history compared to other African countries, the book examines the achievements and challenges associated with Ethiopia’s ‘developmental state’, the narratives put forward as part of its national hegemonic project, and the potential lessons for other late developing countries.

Most recently, Lavers has zoned in on the role of dam-building in Ethiopia’s so-called Renaissance for his upcoming open access book, Dams, Power, and the Politics of Ethiopia’s Renaissance. The book is co-authored with a range of experts and examines both the domestic and international politics that have shaped Ethiopia’s dam-building boom, including how dams such as the controversial Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam have been used by the EPRDF as a symbol of Renaissance and historical glory. Set for publication in late October, Lavers’ book uses analysis of Ethiopia’s hydropolitics to reflect on the wider role of the state in late development, especially as the need for renewable energy transitions grows more urgent.

GDI’s role in critiquing old and emerging narratives

As with any academic field, Development Studies goes through phases wherein certain critical approaches gain popularity, helping us reorient tired orthodoxies or better understand complex phenomena. GDI is frequently at the forefront of such discussions. Beyond the texts mentioned above, Indrajit Roy (University of York) recently intervened in the much-contested ‘Global Development’ paradigm for GDI’s Working Paper Series and Clare Cummings published a revised approach to an influential theoretical framework known as political settlements analysis.

If you’re keen to find out more about how GDI is critiquing common development narratives and expanding our understanding of the world as we know it, check out our research outputs on the GDI website or via Research Explorer. You can also keep track of the latest updates from the institute via X, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Photo by Pixabay

Note: This article gives the views of the author/academic featured and does not represent the views of the Global Development Institute as a whole.

Please feel free to use this post under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Full information is available here.