The Future of Development Studies – Further Discussions Needed

By Anisa Muzaffar and Sana Kainat Moyeen

The recent workshop “Unity in Diversity? Reflecting on the Future of Development Studies provided a fascinating platform for debates that brought to life the four broad schools of thought underpinning contemporary Development Studies. The four broad schools of thought referenced here are drawn from a paper by Andy Sumner in the European Journal of Development Research, with the diagram  below visualising these respective schools. It was compelling to see how the discussions evolved within these four broad schools, revealing a rich tapestry of perspectives. Despite the diversity of opinions, the conversations underscored the critical importance of these debates in shaping the future of Development Studies discourse.

Framing of Development

Within the context of Development Studies framings, discussions at the workshop could be categorised into the top and bottom halves of the above diagram. The Classical and Post-development Development Studies share a transformatory approach, while the Aid-Fragility-Conflict and Global Development Studies have a shared theme of a more modest development. Along the lines of desirable development being more modest, Arief Anshory Yusuf (Padjadjaran University) argued against the obsession with Gross Domestic Product (GDP), highlighting how it confuses price with value and overlooks crucial activities essential for health and survival. He suggested that GDP is an inappropriate measure of progress and emphasised the importance intra- and inter-generational justice for sustainable development. On a principle note, he argued that there can be no agreement on what constitutes desirable development without questioning who decides what is ‘desirable’.

Emma Mawdsley (University of Cambridge) encouraged participants to consider the future of development through the lens of ultra-processed food (UPF). She explored the socio-political, economic, and ecological dimensions of UPF and their impact on development. Mawdsley advocated for a transformative approach, noting that reducing UPF in global diets requires systemic campaigns and actions.

Nita Mishra (University of Limerick) discussed a rights-based approach to development, aligning with the transformative Development Studies. She emphasized that concepts such as human rights, poverty, and well-being should be determined by communities based on their own contexts. She also emphasised that development must privilege indigenous and local knowledge in order to pursue wellbeing.

Meanwhile, Eyob Balcha Gebremariam from the University of Bristol underscored the point that development studies must consider the issue “epistemic (in)justice” where some kinds of knowledge are considered as less credible than others, to decentre coloniality in the discipline. He argued, using the case of the “FrançAfrique” Economic Zone in Central and West Africa, that the mainstream focus on structural transformation ignores coloniality and reinforces epistemic injustice. In his estimation, development studies, therefore, must engage with these issues in a meaningful way to engender just outcomes.

Fundamentally, the scholars on the  panel disagreed on whether development should be transformational or not, or indeed what is meant by transformation, who is being transformed and if this transformation is desirable in the first place. Gebremariam raised the important point that for countries experiencing imperial domination, conceptualising transformation is a luxury itself.

Universality of Development

In debating the scope of Development Studies, workshop discussions centered on whether development should focus on the Global South or adopt a more universal approach involving all countries. The Classical and Aid-Fragility-Conflict Development Studies schools, located in the left quadrants of the diagram, generally focus on the Global South. In contrast, the Post-development and Global Development Studies schools, located in the right quadrants, advocate for a universal approach that includes all countries, not just the Global South.

David Hulme (University of Manchester) argued for a more universal scope of Development Studies by reflecting on his personal experiences with the shifting focus  from past to present. He emphasized that the future of the discipline should move beyond old binaries and be shaped by global perspectives while remaining rooted in its historical origins. Pritish Behuria (University of Manchester) cautioned that a universalist approach might divert attention from the material hierarchies still shaping the global economy, advocating for Development Studies to adopt an emancipatory focus.

Alessandra Mezzadri (SOAS) suggested that analysing both perspectives can significantly contribute to understanding development as a complex, intentional process. She asserted that Global South theories of Development Studies are not inherently anti-universalist. As an economist, Ravi Kanbur (Cornell University) questioned whether development economics still exists as a distinct field. He suggested that investigating this could provide insights into the current state and future evolution of Development Studies.

Dominant Disciplines Influencing Development Discourse

The final area of observation relates to the dominant disciplines within the four schools of thought. The Classical and Aid-Fragility-Conflict Development Studies schools, located in the left quadrants of Diagram 1, are more aligned with economics and politics. Consequently, they focus on material political economy and institutional power. In contrast, the Post-development and Global Development Studies schools, situated in the right quadrants, align with sociology, anthropology, and geography, framing politics and power through epistemic notions and discourse.

Lyla Mehta, from the Institute of Development Studies opened the discussion by questioning the binary presented in the question “How should decolonisation be pursued? Is it epistemological or material, or both?”, arguing that material and epistemological decolonisation are inextricably bound. Kate Meagher presented the case that from the structuralist critical development studies viewpoint, decolonisation is nothing new, where decolonisation of knowledge has been central in the decolonisation of development structures. The post structuralist approaches to decoloniality on the other hand, she posited, can propagate vulnerabilities that perpetuate colonial domination. She argued that to reclaim critical Development studies and decolonise global development structures, a focus on indigenous knowledge is not enough, and more attention is needed on the theoretical and institutional innovation from the Global South that can challenge international neocolonial subordination.

Lata Narayanaswamy from the University of Leeds criticised that the term ‘development’ can perpetuate ahistorical perspectives, ‘us and them’ binaries that are antithetical in the creation of just futures. Given that the site of development tends to be the Global South, she posited that not enough attention is placed on indigenous marginalisation or settler colonial displacement in the Global North, where the same dynamics are being reproduced in the Global South as well. Narayanaswamy noted that the mechanisms of oppression then, are an entanglement of both the material and the discursive/epistemic power imbalances. This is reflected, she stated, in the difference in reactions to the deaths of the World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza, Palestine, who were mainly white and citizens of countries in the Global North, versus the reaction to the deaths of thousands of UNRWA workers, who are mostly local Palestinian aid workers. Devika Dutt (King’s College London) emphasised that decolonising Development Studies is both discursive and materialist. Discursive in that it provides the theoretical starting points that include a non-Eurocentric framework, and materialist in that it requires the dismantling of the concentration of power in economics localised in the capitalist centre. Karina Batthyany (Latin American Council of Social Sciences) reaffirmed that decolonising knowledge is not only an academic imperative but also an ethical and political call for global justice.

Conclusion

The “Unity in Diversity” workshop highlighted the rich diversity of perspectives within Development Studies and underscored the critical importance of these debates in shaping the future of the field. The deliberations during the Workshop demonstrated that the divides within the respective schools of thought in Development Studies are not just points of contention but foundations for deeper dialogue. These discussions can drive forward ideas and enhance our understanding of Development Studies, fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to development.

Anisa Muzaffar recently completed her PhD in Development Economics at King’s College London. Her research interests are in structural transformation, global value chains and production capabilities.

Sana Kainat Moyeen is a DPhil student of International Development at the University of Oxford. Her research examines the political subjectivities of climate related migrants in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the EADI Debating Development Blog or the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

Image: Taken from the workshop