By Hamid Khalafallah, PhD Researcher at GDI

Ahead of the Development Studies Association (DSA) 2024 conference, I attended a workshop organised by the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) in collaboration with the DSA and co-sponsored by the University of Manchester’s Global Development Institute (GDI) and King’s College London (KCL). The workshop, entitled “Unity in Diversity”, provided a space for development scholars from the UK and beyond to reflect on and rethink the purpose and trajectory of development studies.

The workshop started with a panel on development framings, the contentious definitions of development, and the baggage they carry. It was chaired by Sam Hickey (University of Manchester), and the speakers included Arief Anshory Yusuf (Padjadjaran University), Emma Mawdsley (University of Cambridge), Nita Mishra (University of Limerick) and Eyob Balcha Gebramariam (University of Bristol). The panel asked questions about desirable development outcomes, and who decides what is desirable and what is not. One point that emerged in different presentations was that we cannot and should not have a universal understanding of what a desirable development outcome is. Mawdsley also argued that our understanding of development should be inspired by believing that another world is possible. While speakers tackled this point from different angles, there was an agreement that development is not about poverty, but rather about injustice and inequalities around the world that are driven by capitalism and geopolitics. Mishra also weaved in the human rights framework, and framed development from a rights-based perspective. More specifically, it was suggested that development means expanding rights and freedom to ensure the well-being of everyone. Another key point raised by Gebramariam was decentring the coloniality in development studies by focusing on epistemic (in)justice. On that note, I found it quite intriguing to think about development framings and whose voices matter in developing these framings.

The second panel was chaired by Laura Camfield, and featured presentations by David Hulme (Manchester), Pritish Behuria (Manchester), Alessandra Mezzadri (SOAS) and Ravi Kanbur (Cornell University). The panel discussed the universalist positions for the study of development, and the binary categorisation of “developed” and “developing” countries. Through a historical analysis, Hulme demonstrated how our understanding of development has progressed throughout the years. One of the positive changes noted was the shift from International Development as an aid-driven scheme by the Global North to eliminate poverty in the Global South, to Global Development as an endeavour to address poverty and inequality everywhere, within and between countries. In the same vein, Behuria and Mezzadri argued that the distinction between countries that are developed and countries that are developing is inaccurate, manufactured and can be derogatory and infantilising to the Global South. This was vividly demonstrated in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic when the levels of inequality and brutality were unveiled in the Global North and the Global South alike. Moreover, with regard to development framings, Behuria stressed that development can and should be emancipatory.

In the last session, the conversation moved to reflections on the discourse on decolonising development studies and what it means in today’s world. This panel was chaired by Lyla Mehta (IDS), and the speakers were Karina Batthyany (CLACSO), Kate Meagher (LSE), Lata Narayanaswamy (Leeds) and Devika Dutt (KCL). Similar to the former panel, speakers argued against the binary categorisation of the developed and developing worlds and the coloniality of such classifications. Furthermore, speakers delved into discussing how decolonisation and rethinking development are closely intertwined. Indeed, decolonising development studies must prioritise the decolonisation of knowledge associated with development. Narayanaswamy and Dutt argued that, despite progress, development studies remain Eurocentric and continue to reproduce the developed versus developing binary. For development to be useful, there is a need to dismantle the Eurocentric theories and methodologies of development studies. According to Meagher, that does not necessarily mean rejecting Western thinking, but rather using it innovatively while valuing indigenous and other non-Western sources of knowledge. Nevertheless, Dutt also argued that decolonising development studies should not merely focus on the epistemic aspects but must also consider the material aspects.

All the panels enjoyed great interactions and contributions from the audience. A key point raised by a few participants highlighted how development studies still view the Western version of modernity as aspirational for everyone around the world. To that end, a case was made for how democracy would help different communities across the world to push their version of modernity forward. In addition, some participants flagged the dangers of “fetishising” indigenous knowledge and assuming it is good just because it is indigenous. Echoing this, it was argued that every knowledge is indigenous in some way, but the problem with the coloniality of knowledge is the hierarchies it produces by centring Western knowledge. Lastly, most of the audience interventions supported the critiques of the developed countries versus developing countries binary and argued that decolonising development must start by getting rid of the binary. In my opinion, this is a fundamental point that one could use as a lens to explore all of the other points that were raised in the workshop.

As someone from the Global South who studied development studies in the Global North, I found the workshop extremely refreshing. I found myself in agreement with many of the points raised by the speakers and the audience, particularly around the binaries and the coloniality of development studies. During my former studies in the UK and after moving back to Sudan, I was in a constant internal battle with some of the underlying assumptions of development studies and the realities on the ground. The North-South divide in development studies produces an ‘us’ and ‘them’ binary, which is particularly difficult to grapple with when you are from the Global South but working within Global North institutions. Now, as I progress through my PhD journey at GDI, the workshop was a great opportunity to critically reflect on my positionality, assumptions and the types of knowledge that I am consuming and using to formulate my thinking. It is vital that we continue to have conversations on rethinking development as a discipline, and to push for a genuine paradigm shift that goes beyond acknowledging the problematic aspects of development.

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.