Empirical evidence as well as vast body of literature suggest that we are currently witnessing convergence in key developmental indicators. These include demographic indicators, such as fertility and mortality rates. At the same time the power patterns are shifting, most noticeably, from the West to the East. In this context, will development studies continue to be relevant? And consequently, what does it imply for the global governance structure, including international (developmental) organisations?
Fifty years ago much thinking about development was “overarching” in nature. The Big Push, Marxian interpretations, Dependencia theory, Basic Needs, the Washington Consensus, these labels provide a signpost to the evolution of development thinking. Will development thinking be similarly “overarching” in the coming fifty years? Certainly the issues are no less important—climate change, ethnic conflict, rising inequality, global financial coordination, etc. And yet it seems to us that the future of the development discourse will have to address a diverse reality (Brazil versus Burundi) and multiple objectives of development (per capita income, sustainability, human development, empowerment, happiness), with the result that no single discipline and certainly not economics will be able to span the discourse by itself.
There will continue to be a debate between “big ideas” in development versus development seen as “one experiment at a time.” But the greater diversity of country and region specific development circumstances does seem to suggest that the era of overarching frameworks or nostrums is over, because the development discourse itself has become wide and ambitious, with multiple locations.
This does not of course mean the end of development thought. It will be needed for careful and rigorous building of arguments and analysis of evidence along the many dimensions and the many locations of development. And it will increasingly come from developing countries themselves. While inter-linkages between different aspects of development will still need to be explored, grand overarching theses that encompass the whole of the development paradigm are unlikely to thrive, and development thinkers of tomorrow will need a new humility when faced with growing complexity of the development terrain. This does not make development thought and practice any less exciting than the last fifty years. Just different. And perhaps more so.
http://dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/2013/Cornell-Dyson-wp1313.pdf
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for sharing this paper. It is a very interesting read; I have in particular enjoyed the concluding section. I agree that the focus on inequalities will be much greater, instead of a macro-level (country) divide.
It is also a fascinating time to watch changes in the global architecture. Some organisations have already become largely irrelevant. They realize that and seek new ways to expand their mission, operations and stakeholder base.
Kind regards,
S.
Dear Sylvia Azabo
I am enthusiastic to suggest you read on 'Postdevelopment' theory.
Fine question. The young states that emerged from imperialism in the sixties and seventies are beginning to own their policy challenges. That means those states will not trigger another McNamara (and his nexus), see paper below. So, with the policy challenge moving to the young states, how will international universities respond? I think development studies will disappear in a decade or so. The young states will craft pointed courses responding to their local policy challenges, and moulded on case study (methodology and epistemology).
Here is the paper in McNamara’s nexus: Preprint Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in Africa: Harking the Holonomic
Note though, as policy moves to the young states, a vacuum has been created. The multilateral development entities do not want to be seen instructing policy. At the same time, the young states do not have academic structures illuminating policy. These are challenging days!
The future of development should be built on sustainability agenda adopted by the world leaders in September 2015. Shared prosperity cannot be achieved without striking a balance among economic prosperity, social equity and environmental sustainability. Any development discourse that fails to address 'leaving no one behind' agenda - rapid reduction in poverty, income inequality and exclusions as well as carbon emission - will remain incomplete. This may be difficult to achieve without a total rejuvenation of multilateralism and inclusive global governance architecture that takes the views of developing countries into consideration.
I agreed with Dr. Odusola that development should be align with the SDGs while the implementation of the various strategic approaches and interventions should be participatory and people oriented. The concept of design interventions at headquarters somewhere in Washington DC, England or elsewhere to sub-Saharan Africa or Asian problems will be solved should be see as unethical. People at community understand their problems and could see way forward but packaging at times may be issue. So if participatory approach is applied then it will be win win for everyone.
Hi Sylvia,
I don't have an answer for you, but the European Association for Development and Research Training Institutes (EADI) just published an new book called "
Building Development Studies for the New Millennium" - this seems quite aligned with your question and is probably worth checking out:
https://www.eadi.org/publications/building-development-studies-for-the-new-millennium/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Infectious Diseases
- Immunization
- Vaccination