By Alfredo Saad-Filho
There is a growing debate in academic circles about the merits of shifting from traditional Development Studies to a broader concept of “Global Development”. While proponents argue that this shift would better reflect the interconnected nature of our world, I believe that such a move would be detrimental to our field, our understanding of global differences and inequalities, and our ability to understand the dynamics of development.
Development as a discipline
Firstly, it is crucial to recognise that Development Studies is not a discipline in itself but, rather, a rich and multifaceted field that examines the experiences, challenges, policies, and prospects for development from various perspectives. This diversity is one of the sources of strength to our profession. By abandoning the specificity of developing countries in favour of a more generalised “Global Development” approach, we risk delegitimising the field and reverting to siloed disciplines such as economics, geography, sociology, and political science. While these disciplines may use similar labels to discuss issues like employment, health, housing, or economic growth around the world, the features, causes and implications of these issues and phenomena, and the relevant analytical angles of approach, can vary dramatically. A shift towards a globally undifferentiated and, inevitably, more superficial approach from the point of view of developing countries would reduce significantly our ability to explain the systemic differences that structure the global system.
“Global Development” risks denying the significance of colonialism, slavery and imperialism
Secondly, we must consider the historical context that has shaped current development outcomes. The unequal development we observe today is deeply rooted in historical differences between metropolitan areas and regions that were subordinated to the West through military, commercial, or financial means. By abandoning the specificity of our field, we risk denying in practice, even if not overtly, the significance of colonialism, slavery, and imperialism. This would not only be a historical error; it could also imply complicity with the denialism often exhibited by Western political systems and institutions, including the international financial institutions (IFIs). These entities often suggest that the effects of colonialism and imperialism are no longer relevant and that, several decades after their independence, poor countries must take responsibility for their own predicament. However, we ought to question why it is white people and institutions based in the core countries that get to decide when history is relevant and when it is not: abolishing Development Studies as a separate field would be a misguided bid for neutrality in a context where there is no real middle ground.
Thirdly, while it is true that poverty exists everywhere and that global processes like pandemics, climate change, and international agreements affect all nations, their impacts are felt very differently in the rich and poor countries. Examining these differences reveals that the relationship between the Global North and the Global South remains central to understanding our world, and Development Studies focuses on the causes of these differences and their persistence. Historically, the spread of capitalism has led to the enrichment of a few countries, primarily in Western Europe, and some settler colonies, mostly built on genocide. Over time, other nations have experienced varying degrees of economic success, from the rapid industrialisation of South Korea and Singapore to the “middle-income traps” observed in Brazil, Malaysia and Thailand. These development trajectories seem to involve a combination of capitalist transformation, conducive policies, and specific circumstances – all of which are central to our field of study.
Development processes are both uneven and combined
Development processes are both uneven and combined. This understanding distinguishes heterodox approaches from neoclassical economics, which tends to predict convergence between firms, regions, and countries through competition, while divergence is explained by non-economic processes, especially ‘bad policies’ and ‘bad institutions’. In contrast, the neoclassical institutionalists focus on history, but in a one-sided way where the only history that matters is the spread of white Christians, their institutions, and their technologies. It can be difficult to explain, from this approach, why policy wisdom and good institutions have been so concentrated geographically for 250 years.
The alternative is to recognise that the emergence of capitalism, the industrial revolution, colonialism and imperialism drove a primary process of uneven and combined development that divided the world into an economically dynamic and closely integrated core, and a large non-capitalist periphery that was colonised, subordinated, and forced into adverse trade, financial, political, cultural and institutional relations with the core. The consequence was the emergence of different economic, social and political structures in the core and the periphery, which consolidated global divergence.
Once countries are capitalist, the combination of domestic policies, market access, technical change, and international competition generates a secondary process of uneven and combined development that is policy-dependent and explains the cycles of convergence and divergence among capitalist countries. The interaction between primary and secondary uneven and combined development suggests a tendency towards convergence among advanced capitalist countries, and a long-term divergence between them and peripheral countries isolated from trade, technology and financial flows. In periods of rapid accumulation, capitalist countries tend to converge more quickly, but developing countries may or may not converge, depending on policies and circumstances. These are core issues for the field of Development Studies.
We should not renounce our field of study. There is a specificity to the economic, social, and political structures in the Global South, as well as to the challenges to wellbeing, that must be addressed there, and ignoring history would limit our ability to understand change and its drivers. While it is true that neoliberalism has reshaped the geography of development, this has not led to global convergence but rather to new forms of differentiation between societies and economic structures. Given these considerations, the notion of “Global Development” does not seem to offer significant advantages for our profession. Instead, we must continue to focus on the unique challenges and historical contexts of developing countries to better understand and address global inequalities.
Alfredo Saad Filho is Professor of International Political Economy, Queen’s University Belfast, UK, Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, and Visiting Professor, LUT University, Finland
Very interesting article! I agree entirely with you that the colonial history and white supremacist ethos of Development Studies must be pronounced in the arguments of sustaining the field. Further question will be to what extent this becomes acknowledged in various DS institutions and bodies representing the field. Furthermore, if the field remains, it becomes important to ask who the voices are, to whom and for what purpose are the voices speaking to and at?
If DS is to be sustained, there is need for a significant transformation of the body of the discipline, so that the people ‘who are in urgent need of development’ gets an active voice. Otherwise, continuing in the current paradigm despite acknowledgement of the colonial history and supremacist ethos risks the knowledgeable West speaking down to the Global South about what, how, and why of ‘development’. Also, to what extent can universities and funding bodies redefine research to make research collaborative and co-designed?
See https://blogs.york.ac.uk/igdc/2024/04/09/decolonising-development-research-navigating-positionality-and-power-dynamics-in-the-pursuit-of-equitable-partnerships/
The impact of the conflict between international powers on the resources of developing countries, particularly in Africa, is a critical area of focus when considering the future of development studies. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in historical, economic, and geopolitical contexts and carries significant implications for sustainable development, governance, and social equity.
### 1. **Resource Exploitation and Geopolitical Rivalry**
– Africa is endowed with abundant natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and rare earth elements, which are pivotal for the global economy and technological advancements. The competition among global powers, such as the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union, often results in heightened geopolitical rivalries over access and control of these resources.
– These rivalries sometimes exacerbate local conflicts, undermine state sovereignty, and fuel corruption, as international powers align with local elites or factions to secure their interests. This has profound implications for development, as resources are diverted away from public investment and equitable growth.
### 2. **Economic Dependency and Neo-Colonialism**
– The conflict between global powers can perpetuate economic dependency in African nations. Through mechanisms such as unequal trade agreements, exploitative investment practices, and debt diplomacy, developing countries often find themselves locked into relationships that prioritize external interests over domestic development.
– The emphasis on resource extraction rather than value addition within these countries undermines efforts to diversify economies, build local industries, and create sustainable employment opportunities.
### 3. **Environmental and Social Impacts**
– The extraction of resources often comes at a significant environmental cost, including deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity. These environmental challenges disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, compounding poverty and social inequality.
– Moreover, the scramble for resources frequently displaces communities, disrupts traditional livelihoods, and exacerbates social tensions, which can lead to long-term instability and hinder development efforts.
### 4. **Implications for Development Studies**
– Development studies must address the multifaceted impact of international power struggles on resource governance in Africa. This involves analyzing how these conflicts shape economic policies, social dynamics, and environmental sustainability in the region.
– There is a need for a stronger focus on global governance frameworks that promote fair resource sharing, corporate accountability, and sustainable practices.
– Development studies should also prioritize research on local empowerment, emphasizing the role of grassroots movements, civil society, and indigenous knowledge systems in resisting exploitative practices and advocating for equitable resource management.
### 5. **Future Directions**
– **Decolonizing Development Approaches**: Scholars and policymakers should challenge the existing paradigms that reinforce neo-colonial dynamics and advocate for models that prioritize the autonomy and agency of African nations.
– **Inclusive Policy Frameworks**: Development studies should explore policies that balance global resource demands with the needs and aspirations of local populations, ensuring that the benefits of resource wealth are equitably distributed.
– **Climate Change and Sustainability**: Given the vulnerability of African nations to climate change, future research must integrate sustainable resource management practices into broader development strategies, emphasizing renewable energy, conservation, and resilience building.
In conclusion, the conflict between international powers over resources has far-reaching implications for Africa and the broader Global South. Development studies must evolve to address these complexities, promoting frameworks that prioritize equity, sustainability, and local empowerment while holding global actors accountable for their roles in perpetuating resource-related conflicts.
Very interesting article…
In addition to the historical-theoretical analysis made by dr. Saad-Filho, I can think of an additional, and more empirical, argument to justify the preservation of Development Studies and of the specificity of developing countries. Milanovic and others have shown that international inequality (= between countries) constitutes the main component of global inequality (= between all people in the world). In other words, countries differ greatly in terms of their income per capita and this explains to a great extent the inequality in the world. This is illustrated nicely by Milanovic’ concept of the ‘citizenship premium’ (or penalty, depending), that expresses that for one’s wellbeing it matters a great deal in what country one is born. Anyone that is given the choice will prefer to be a Dutch citizen, not one from Burundi (to give just an example), because being Dutch makes it much less likely to fall in the poverty trap.