Developmental Local Governance

A Critical Discourse in 'Alternative Development'

Eris D. Schoburgh, John Martin, Sonia Gatchair, Kenneth A. Loparo, Kenneth A. Loparo, Kenneth A. Loparo

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781137558367
• Topic: Economía
• Subtopic: Política económica

The primary purpose of this edited collection is to evaluate critically the relationship between local government and national economic development. It focuses on how the relationship between local government and development is structured, and the specific institutional arrangements at national and subnational levels that might facilitate local government's assumption of the role of development agent. In light of the contradictory outcomes of development and implied experimentation with new modalities, post-development discourse provides a useful explanatory framework for the book. Schoburgh, Martin and Gatchair's central argument is that the pursuit of national developmental goals is given a sustainable foundation when development planning and strategies take into account elements that have the potential to determine the rate of social transformation. Their emphasis on localism establishes a clear link between local government and local economic development in the context of developing countries.

1

Post-development Theory and the Local Developmental State

Eris D. Schoburgh

An aspect of the transformation in the conditions of development over the past fifteen years, often unacknowledged although of utmost importance, is that the very category and uses of knowledge – what and whose knowledge counts in development and for what purposes – have been subjected to increasing pressures from many sides. (Escobar, 1995, 2012: xi)

Introduction

Post-development theory might be seen as an antithesis of mainstream liberal and democratic blueprints for development that have resulted in several contradictions. Escobar (1995, 2012) contends that the dream of material prosperity and economic progress for two-thirds of the world has progressively turned into a nightmare. This is the essence of his seminal work Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, which he projects as a ‘history of the loss of illusion’ and in which he defines the social context that has given rise to post-developmentalism. In his words:

Instead of the kingdom of abundance promised by theorists and politicians in the 1950s, the discourse and strategy of development produced its opposite: massive underdevelopment, and impoverishment, untold exploitation and oppression. The debt crisis, the Sahelian famine, increasing poverty, malnutrition and violence are only the most pathetic signs of the failure of forty years of development. (Escobar, 1995, 2012: xiv)

Post-development thought represents a juncture in the ‘discourse’ of development at which critical analytic lenses are being turned on the goals and outcomes of development, citing especially the difficulty experienced in the group of countries categorized as developing (formerly referred to as ‘Third World’) to eradicate the insufferable conditions in which a majority of the population exists. The departure for post-development thinkers is that development has lost its utility and must be stopped. The pronouncement of the demise of development and an urge for ‘alternatives to development’ rather than alternative development is what distinguishes the post-development perspective from other critical perspectives, according to Matthews (2004).

Escobar (1995) argues that the discourse of development began during the mid-20th century (1940s to 1950s) with the overarching belief that the destruction of ‘archaic superstitions and relations’ could be done only by modernization, of which industrialization and urbanization were necessary instruments. Thus, development as a discourse became a ‘space for systematic creation of concept and practices’ where ‘social reality’ was created and where ‘knowledge and power of the visible and expressible’ were articulated. Social, cultural and political progress was positively linked to material advancement, establishing the basis for development theory, the rudiments of which were:

•capital formation;

•education and the fostering of modern cultural values; and

•institutional development.

The discourse in Escobar’s (1995: 87) view ‘was constituted not by the array of possible objects under its domain but by the way in which ... it was able to form systematically the objects of which it spoke, to group them and arrange them in certain ways, and to give them a unity of their own.’ Importantly, the ‘system of relations’ launched a discursive practice that sets the rules of the game about which voice or perspective is heard. The view is that, in the end, development created abnormalities that became objects of treatment and reform (Escobar, 1995: 88).

Ideas and arguments of post-development thought

Post-development thought constitutes a panoply of ideas and perspectives on the contested notion of development. Since Wolfgang Sachs (1992: 1) declared that ‘development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape’ and Escobar (1995) published what has now become the point of reference for critiques of post-development ideas, these ideas and perspectives have attracted new adherents who either join the chorus of critics of the outcomes of the post-World War II ‘development project’ or become critics of post-development ideas (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000; Lummis, 1994). Ziai (2004: 1035) identifies two strands of post-development ideas: one that offers a ‘cynical legitimation of neoliberalism’ and another that is described as ‘a futile romanticisation of premodern times’. It is the second that has generated the most interest.

The central claim is that development is an expression of a Western system of thought ‘whose purpose has been to impose modernity upon people who live according to “tradition”’ (Cowen and Shenton, 1996: 455). The argument goes, ‘Within the incubus of capitalism, development is the means by which traditional sources of knowledge, learning, innovation and power have been deliberately undermined and then destroyed to secure command over populations and labour for the benefit of those who live through the progress of the modern world’ (Cowen and Shenton, 1996: 455).

For Sachs, the ‘age of development’ – a period associated with the years from 1945 to the 1980s – had a more fundamental purpose than simply a series of efforts geared towards socio-economic change. In his view, development was a perception that models reality, a myth that comforted societies and a fantasy that unleashed passion. Pertaining especially to nations that were emerging out of colonialism, development was an idea that oriented these nations ‘like a towering lighthouse guiding sailors towards the coast’.

The central problematic of post-development thinkers is the inability to sustain development as depicted through the lenses of an orthodox modern conception of development, given the deleterious impact on people, society and nature. Rist (2002: 13) advances that ‘development consists of a set of practices, sometimes appearing to conflict with one another, which require – for the reproduction of society – the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations’. The assurance of development smooths the way for a global order that ultimately is characteristically unequal. Inequality was evident in international relations as well as in systems of distribution among and within countries. A further claim is that neoliberal development, which is considered a reformulation of the modernization project, has resulted in benefits that accrue to a small group of nations, while the majority that is poor bears the costs. Post-development thinkers defined the costs in terms of economic volatility prompted by financial mobility and speculation or environmental degradation. As a consequence, development is thought to be imperialist in nature, constructed on Eurocentric values and externally influenced.

At the core of the arguments is a quest for uncovering the hypothesis and object of the idea of development and, to a large extent, mirrors Western critiques of modernity. At a glance, post-development thought might be interpreted as a paradigm of alternative development, but that is not entirely so, given the ambiguity that surrounds this dimension of its ideas. Cowen and Shenton’s (1996) concept of the ‘malcontents of development’ is useful in this regard; the objective of the critiques is to question the ‘means’ and ‘ends’ of development rather than explicitly offer alternatives to development.

It is perhaps not by accident that post-development thinking is gaining some traction, given that the global economy held its collective breath for 15 years on the promise of revolutionary social and economic transformation to be wrought by the millennium development goals (MDGs); in 2015, we have reached the end of the timeline set for achieving those 8 goals and 18 targets with 48 indicators. There is now much activism around framing a post-MDG agenda, at the top of which is a search for ‘alternatives’, simply because of the gap between expectation and reality that continues to widen – a scenario that reflects the discontent expressed in earlier critiques of modernization, dependency or Marxist theories.

The ‘business’ of development is the logic of post-development ‘theory’. It challenges pre-existing belief systems about the architecture and modes of social and economic progress and the hegemony of ideas. It is a critical theory geared towards questioning as well as transforming the views that have shaped political economies and societies since the mid-20th century.

Criticisms

The question of whether post-development is a ‘theory’ or simply a concept has been raised. The Oxford Paperback Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Wordpower Guide (2001: 943) defines a theory as ‘an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something’. If post-development thought meets these criteria, then it might be considered a theory; otherwise it is not. Settlement of the debate about the status of post-development thinking as theory or concept does not serve the purpose of this chapter and therefore does not detain the discussion here. Suffice it to say that post-development thinking is a useful construct of social critical analysis that compels deep interrogation and examination of the idea and practice of development.

Notwithstanding, the most severe criticism arguably concerns the connection between post-development ideas and praxis. Nederveen Pieterse (1996: 20) contends that post-development ideas lack focus because of their non-attempt to translate critique into construction. Some commentators concede that post-development thinking is relevant: It has a nice tune but the issue of where this leaves the development practitioner remains: Can they dance to it? In translation, the utility of the ‘theory’ is constrained by the inability to apply its ideas. The argument is that the value of a theory lies in its capacity to effect change – and from the perspectives of critics, that potentiality is absent from post-development ideas. It is for these reasons that post-development theory is flawed (Nederveen Pieterse, 1996; Brigg, 2002; Kippler 2010). For others, post-development thinking is a lightweight exercise, rooted in a failed theory, guided by ‘nothing’ as its advocates embark on a ‘journey of discovery at once of themselves and humanity through involvement in social movements and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)’ (Lehmann, 1997: 569). Despite the absence of a comprehensive description of ‘alternatives to development’, some commentators feel that this is an insufficient basis on which to reject the theory as a whole since it is an insightful and radical critique of development (Nustad, 2001; Matthews, 2004). Siemiatycki’s (2005: 60) reasoning on post-development thought resonates with the position of this chapter:

[I]n urban and rural communities throughout the less industrialized world, grassroots social movements are emerging as a reaction to, or reflection of, the ultimate failure of mainstream development. These entities, in their common struggle to reclaim politics from the state, economy from the market and knowledge from science, can only be understood as essentially post-developmental.

Post-developmentalism describes a period of reflection on, and contestation of ideas and perspectives about, meanings and understandings of development across countries of the north and south, where the notion of ‘alternatives to development’ is interpreted variously, but mostly emerging contemporaneously as the opportune time for new actors to be included in the process. One of these actors is local government; others may argue that one is the civil sector. The critical point is that in the context of the state of global development, national governments no longer have a monopoly on the strategies and tools that are needed to transform economy and society.

The relevance of post-development ideas

Effective problem-solving at any level – macro, meso or micro – or in any context begins from an appropriate definition of the problem. A carefully crafted definition of a problem incorporates adequate casual theory. Put another way, the design of solutions aimed at particular results must establish clear cause-and-effect relationships for efficacious outcomes. With respect to the utility of post-development ideas, sympathetic critics have acknowledged its value in the analysis of the deficits of development theory and policy under the guise of modernism and outcomes that are not always positive for some groups of countries. In that regard, post-development thinking has satisfied the core elements of the cause-and-effect relationship. The cause is the perspective from which development is pursued – it is external; the effect is the asymmetries in power relations and systems of distribution that have occurred across and within countries. In truth there is vagueness in the arguments on how to resolve these problems. On one hand, post-development critiques shun reform of the existing development paradigm, or the global economy and political systems on which the paradigm rests as answers to the problems of development. Nor is a shift from one system (capitalist) to another (socialist) or to ‘de-link’ as it relates to dependency theory considered useful options. The position that is frequently advocated is a rethinking of the meaning of ‘development’. And the natural question following this position is, for what purpose?

Nevertheless, the assertion that post-development ideas stop short of offering practical alternatives might be contested. Upon closer examination of the literature, ‘alternatives’ are implicit in the interest expressed in local culture and local knowledge and the seeming solidarity with pluralistic grassroots movements (Ziai, 2007). The underlying aspiration of post-development thinkers is the transfer of power used in the interpretation of development problems and solutions from the hands of outside ‘experts’ to the members of the society itself, which in Ziai’s (2004) view represents ‘a radical democratic position’ and from the perspective of this chapter a source of alternative approaches applicable to development practice anywhere. The notion of external influences on local problem-solving is not a ‘condition’ or ‘problem’ that is unique to developing countries. In any setting where there are questions about democracy, self-determination and ‘agency’, there will be efforts to minimize these types of influences – for example, a central government’s dominance of local decision-making in unitary states; or federal control of state or state control of regional and local government; or any combination. Out of the need for ensuring greater autonomy beyond the ‘centre’ has emerged a process of questioning about scope of responsibilities and degree of power associated with concepts and principles such as decentralization, subsidiarity and self-management, among others. These may be seen as attempts at ‘decolonization’ of the ideas and influences imposed from ‘external’ sources. The point in relation to post-development ideas and ‘alternatives’ is that there is ample opportunity for alternatives to be socially constructed through argumentation. The mantra ‘think globally, act locally’ that pays homage to the idea that sustainable development depends on the extent to which ‘local’ perspectives and actions are integrated into the process responds in some way to the defici...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Post-development Theory and the Local Developmental State
• 2  Developmental Local Government: From Concept to Praxis
• 3  The Evolving Roles and Relationships of Government in Local Economic and Sustainable Development: The Case of the United Kingdom (and particularly England)
• 4  Local Government and Economic Development in the Australian Federation: Dispersed Efforts in a Complex Geography
• 5  From National to Local Economic Development (LED): The South African Case
• 6  Nigerian Local Government System and Governance: Lessons, Prospects and Challenges for Post-2015 Development Goals
• 7  Managing Development in Local Government: Frameworks and Strategies in Jamaica
• 8  The Imperative of a Local Economic Development Approach in the Context of the Dutch Disease
• 9  The Making of Developmental Local Government in Belize
• 10  Informality and Developmental Local Government: What Is at Stake?
• 11  From Developmental Local Government to Developmental Local Governance
• Conclusion: Towards a Model of Developmental Local Governance
• Index