Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained?

Development
Studies in The Twenty-First Century: An Overview

Submitted to:
Professor Nayeem Sultana
Faculty of Arts & Social Science (FASS)
Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

Submitted by:
Towheedul Alam
ID: 2112091028
7th Batch
Master of Development Studies (MDS)
Department of Development Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS)
Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

April 30, 2021

Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)
Introduction
After many ups and downs ‘Development Studies’ has able to reach twenty-first century. In the
mid-1980s, the overall concepts of development studies were being criticized and showing the
signs of constructing new theories. Its appearance provided the factors which were the reason of
impasse (e.g. role of the state), a structural nature. So, it became a part of theoretical framework
of development studies. This led to disclose a number of publication in development studies in
1990s.

The discussion related to development studies seemed to swing from theory to paradigm. For
instance, Marxist, neo-Marxist and modernist theorist asserted that state as an essential
development actor. On the contrary, now a day, the argument shifted to whether state should take
part in development process or not. This kind of discussion appeared because of association of
development studies in paradigmatic distortion.

Shifting of Paradigm
Post War Paradigm
There were three developmental characteristics was regarded after the end of the Second World
War that includes: (1) Including Third World and its inhabitants as homogenous entities; (2)
Unconditional belief in the idea of progress, and in the makeability in the society; (3) State is an
essential element for analytical frame of reference and political and scientific confidence to
understand development.
First two characters named ‘developmentalism’ which focused on Third World that are
teleological and unilinear and such can possess two contradictory development theories i.e.
Marxist development theories and modernization. The third character indicates states’ initiative
in development process. After the World War II, this Western concept was later on spread to the
Third World.

Criticism of the Post War Paradigm (Paradigm Lost)

The concept of homogeneity of the Third World was pointed out by the critiques. It was an
extension of criticism of dependency theory which cannot explain the diverse development
pattern of the Third World countries. The role of OPEC in 1970s, economic boom of Asian
Tigers in contrast of continuation of extreme poverty of Africa, reborn of military dictatorship in
Latin American countries, all these phenomena questioned homogeneity of the Third World and
dependency paradigm.
In the 1990s, the idea of belief in progress was replaced by growth of different versions of post-
modern (non)development thinking and the idea of risk society. In the 1980s, it was realized that
development was not really happening as it should be. The gap between rich and poor countries
continued to be extend, the economic growth was gaining by paying the price of environmental
pollution, ending of Soviet Union removed socialist-supported development concept from both
academic and political agendas.

Postmodern Thinking of Development

The early version of postmodern thinking was introduced by Wolfgang Sachs in 1992. He
asserted that, grassroots approaches should also be included in development thinking. He also
stated development concept is invalid, because: (1) Belief in technology led, will eventually lead
to ecological catastrophes; (2) Concept of development was just an ideological weapon of East-
West clash which is now no more. So, there is no need to search for ideological allies from South
as the US is the role model; (3) Despite the commitment of development discussion, the gap
between North and South are not diminishing rather growing further; (4) Development is causing
reduction of diversity which is one sided. But, all these points except the last one, is not rational
to get rid of development concept. However, Sachs’s statement revealed a new way of looking
the world where non-western culture can also survive despite development.
The later versions of postmodernist also reflected the idea of erasing the idea of development and
progress. The Western concept of development caused environmental pollution, making native
people cutting ties with root culture and expose them as victims of global through manipulating
media, then urge to consume wrong things for irrational reason with money that they don’t
possess. This is the characteristics of exploitive capitalism behind the curtain of development.
The loss of ‘belief in progress’ concept including fin de sielcle characteristics are incorporated in
the concept of ‘risk society’ and ‘apocalypse’. In 1993, by embodying fin de siècle pessimism,
Samual Huntington insisted to the West to forego its universal delusion and not to interfere
regional conflicts of others. If they don’t abide by cultural relativism in international politics,
clash among the civilizations might arise. Hobsbawn (1994) stated that individual materialism is
the result of fin de siècle moral crisis which may led to erosion of human solidarity and nation-
states will become virtually defenseless. According to Robert Kaplan (1994), regional criminal
anarchy will reach global levels in the long run and end of the Cold War is just the beginning of
international relation dominated by chaos. Ulrich Beck (1986) term ‘Risk Society’ as generalized
feeling of fin de siècle pessimism that is useless to plan, go ahead, because of the growing impact
of unintended consequences of technological progress. As a result, concept like emancipation as
well as progress will be virtually terminated.

So, by the end of the twentieth century, modernity concept was being invaded by post-modernist,
fin de siècle, apocalypse authors and the notion of risk society.

End of The Belief in The Role of State

After the short time dominance of post-modernism, a new fin de siècle concept named
‘Globalization’ appeared. The nation-states construction in the West and the emergence of the
social science was a simultaneous process. State plays a central role at least at paradigmatic level
within development studies as being a part of social science. Globalization has changed the
concept. In political sense, international political organizations occasionally interfere in
particular nation’s matter. By this way, they put down to the past rules of sovereignty of the
nation state and operate institutional violence within their territory. The national state is also
being excavated from below by local government. Economically, the role of nation state as an
actor is being vanishing because of massive privatization through deregulation. In cultural view,
national identity of individual or group is diminishing quickly and cosmopolitanism is taking
place. In addition, identification on the basis of ethnic, regional and religion is also flourishing.

Paradigms Regain?
Whether postmodernist, post-development, globalization can really bring out a new paradigm to
explain development studies and to justify the criticism of post war paradigm, all are discussed
below:
Diversity vs Inequality
Alike development studies, gender studies faced the danger of essential zing the object.
Development studies has some similarities with gender studies. Because alike development
studies, gender studies share normative thinking excluding emancipation of larger group and it
also shares Marxist and neo-Marxist metatheories. According the Martin, classification and
differentiation of the target group should be in synchronization with the practical and theoretical
purposes of the research question and these social categories should be sensitive to time, place,
context and research purpose. Stanly and Wise (1990) also stated that, the fear academic and
political restriction, marginalization persuaded to replace woman study with gender study. The
authors also stated that, gender study is a de-politicalized version of feminism. So, like, gender
studies, development studies also have to avoid false generalization caused by essentialist
fallacies. But if we confined in nonessentialist forever, it might lead us to depoliticized and anti-
emancipation of infinite differences between or within Third World countries.

In short, development studies is a normative preoccupation which discourse about poor, marginal
and exploited people of South. For that matter, inequality of emancipation should be more
focused than diversity. It is absolute that globalization will bring a new version of inequality and
resistance. So, inequality should be the main focus of explaining development studies.

Progress Vs Risk Management

Anti-modernist, post and non-development authors suggested that, poor of the Third World
should forget about the need which is similar to the need of First World. Because it would lead
them to all adverse connotation of development. They also suggested that, to forget about the
notion of scarcity because it will force to imply capitalistic logics even though it is not required
to everyone. On the other hand, people of the Third World still wants to lead their life like First
World does. Grassroots groups and other social organization demand their participation in
development process and civil rights. The problem of the Third World won’t change by just
changing the subjective perspective of the people involved.

The idea of risk society is mostly related with South rather than North. Furdi (1996) stated that,
global risk is one of the side-effects or constitutive characteristics of post-Fordist globalization
phase. He also pointed out that, the augmentation of Western capitalism forced the colonial
people to go through those risks. Ever since the intervention of colonialism these indigenous
people concerned of the existence of risk society. Here, global risk includes both Global North
and South. He further stated that, risks are not equally spread. Certain category of people is more
or less risk prone than others in the context of geography and society. Or else, emancipatory
projects for Global underclasses will move away. Collective social action to deal with unequal
distribution of risk is on use because only technological development can change the society.

Risk management through self-restraint is not much of helpful for the poor of Third World than
the notion of progress.

The notion of progress is losing its acceptance subsequently in the twenty first century. In
contrast, any alternative notion yet to be constructed as the same level of concept of progress and
include in development studies.

State vs Civil Society

The nation state of the Third World has flopped to establish democracy and economic growth
where as local government, actors of civil society and representatives of national and
international capital abled to do so. Development ideas from economic, political and cultural
sciences also discouraging the central role of the nation state. On the other hand, Deepak Nayyar
(1997) stated that, nation state is important in context of political and strategic term. Martin
Shaw (1996) stated that, military strength still related to state and the parameter of world power
and in this age of globalization, the concept of undermining role of the nation state has fixated
too much on economic or cultural definition of nation state. Kothari stated that shifting from
politico-military to techno-financial is an indication of weakness of the state. Nayyer, Shaw and
Kothari all pointed out nation state is the result of spatial spread of trade and investment.
However, JanAart-Scholte (1995), discoursed globalization in the context of the collective
identity nature as it is vital in social relation. According to Scholte’s conclusion, globalization is
about complicating the construction of identities and leading to hybridization, not eradicating
nation. So, there is little reason to think that globalization will remove the notion, role of the of
the state.

Now most of the Third World country are in the transitional phase of democracy, where local
government and local autonomy notions are used as political tools. However, local governments
of Third World countries follow organized capitalism because of weak civil societies and
unconstructed political safety net. As a result, national states dispossessed the importance of
local government. Based on the idea of development studies, the idea of civil society, has already
politically implemented to support establishing the democracy in the former communist country
like Croatia, former war-torn country Guatemala, former non-democratic regime like South-
Africa. However, civil society as a new paradigm, still haven’t coordinated with its full
theoretical dimension. Nevertheless, it would be too early for development studies to substitute
the importance of the state with the civil society.

Conclusion
All things considered, development studies have been criticized for its normative and
interdisciplinary character. Some of its paradigm was lost and during mid-1980s, deadlock of
development studies was evidently visible. There was a doubt that whether development studies
will make it to next century in converses with the idea of globalization. But, it was able to cross
the millennium threshold somehow. The main challenge of development studies is to re-instate
its continued importance to study as well as to understand development, emancipation and
processes of marginalization by combining creatively new Zeitgeist without excluding normative
basis and not to confine in its old paradigms.

“The End”