Development: The devil we know?

Abstract

Post-development theories have been accused of not having a future programme, and a number of authors has concluded that we are better off pursuing development as we know it. But the lack of instrumentality is not in itself a weighty argument against the analysis. At its best, 'post-development' offers an explanation of why so many development projects seem to fail. Two contributions are emphasised here: that transformation through development is linked to the agencies of elites, and that technical constraints imposed on developers shape the way in which they construct the problem. There is a need for extending the analysis, however. Including how development interventions are transformed in encounters with target populations gives a less rigid picture of the power of development, and can expose some of the problematic premises on which development interventions are based. In this way, post-development can offer a contribution to the practitioners of development.