By Alessandra Mezzadri
Development: Contested Categories
Since its inception after World War II, Development Studies has been deeply intertwined with the socio-economic transformation of formerly colonized countries. Initially, the discipline was tasked with addressing the question of how these newly independent nations could be integrated into the world system. This integration was closely linked to the process of modernization, a goal shared by many of these nascent governments. However, the object and subjects of development have always been contested.
The term ‘Third World’, which once epitomized postcolonial countries committed to the non-aligned movement during the Cold War, has lost its significance since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In more recent years, the term “developing countries” has also come under heavy criticism, even from institutions like the World Bank. The increasing heterogeneity between regions, and the convergence of developmental indicators like growth, inequality, and mortality rates, has made these categories seem increasingly vague. Furthermore, as structuralism, Dependency theory, post-development and decolonial critiques suggest, these distinctions often obscure the historical links between development and underdevelopment, reinforcing eurocentric notions of modernity centered on ‘whiteness’.
Even the ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ distinctions have been critiqued for their oversimplification of complex, intersectional inequalities. And today, as argued by Robtel Pailey, one can find aspects of the Global North within the Global South and vice versa. Notably, despite these critiques, these terms may continue to hold significant weight in intellectual, political, and policy debates, as they remain tied to geopolitical realities and postcolonial demands for social justice.
Contested Social Perimeters
Recently, the very definition of development – its reach and scope – has come under intense scrutiny. The debate questions the social perimeter of development: what should its boundaries be? Traditionally, development has been considered an ‘international’ issue, highlighting differences between former imperial powers and their former colonies. However, recent global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have drawn attention to the increasingly interconnected nature of global challenges. Johan Oldekop etal. argue that the pandemic revealed the global nature of challenges, as epitomised by global value chains (GVCs), digitalization, debt, and climate change. Based on this, they advocate a shift toward the new paradigm of ‘global’ development.
In contrast, scholars like Jorg Wiegratz and colleagues argue that shifting the focus from ‘international’ to ‘global’ development risks diluting the historical and structural divide between the Global North and South. They fear that this approach could erase the importance of the Global South’s development struggles, deeply rooted in colonial histories. As in any good debate, both camps have a point. But do we have to choose necessarily?
An Intentional and Immanent Process
The tension between ‘international’ and ‘global’ development is considerably tempered once we go back to early definitional debates. As argued by Michael Cowen and Robert W. Shenton , development is both an intentional and immanent process. As an intentional process, it refers to the deliberate socio-economic transformations shaped by the policies and interventions of the global aid regime. These have historically focused on the ‘catching up’ of the Global South, often deepening the global divide further instead. Scholars from postcolonial and decolonial traditions have long criticized the continuities between the colonial and development eras, pointing out that development projects perpetuate hierarchies in the world system. From the lens of intentional development, the ‘international’ aspect of the process remains central to capture the unevenness of power relations worldwide.
Development as an immanent process, instead, refers to capitalist transformations, which have always been global in nature, entangling the histories of both the Global North and South. From the beginnings of colonialism to the present day, capitalist development has been marked by exploitation and extraction across the globe, with consequences that exceed the boundaries of any single nation-state. Thus, development as an immanent process reveals the global interconnectedness of economies and societies, calling for a perspective that transcends national borders, and strengthening the case for a ‘global’ development paradigm. Ultimately, we may not have to choose between the two frameworks of ‘international’ and ‘global’ development, as each captures key aspects of the overall process.
Universalizing vs. Globalizing: What Development for Which Global South?
One of the central critiques against the notion of global development is its perceived universalism, supposedly erasing Global South histories and experiences. However, ‘universalizing’ and ‘globalizing’ are not synonyms. Universalism assumes one-size-fits-all approaches, obviously an undesirable approach to development. Yet, Development Studies as a discipline badly needs globalizing, that is moving beyond its Eurocentrism whilst maintaining an understanding of the power unevenness between the Global North and Global South. This globalizing perspective calls for a reimagining of development not rooted in universalist assumptions, but rather reflecting the complexities of local realities and intersectional inequalities globally.
Moreover, Global South theorising is not inherently anti-universal. First, it includes extremely diverse approaches – let us think about the significant differences between dependency theory, the postcolonial and/or decolonial critique, for instance. Secondly, many of these theoretical approaches are not monolithical but greatly contested within their own respective traditions (an example here). Indeed, there is no ‘one theory from the Global South’. Finally, some, like the decolonial critique, offer an alternative anti-eurocentric form of universalism, centring colonial and racial relations as the foundation of modernity. Overall, a political economy approach to these debates offers us the possibility to centre the distinction between Global North and Global South, yet within a framework stressing the global nature of capital and its differential subsumption of regions, commodities, and people within its greatly discriminatory law of value, and based on multiple trajectories of exploitation and plunder.
Futures of Development Against Both Global and International Inequality
In the end, the discipline of Development Studies needs to address both the global and international facets of development and fight all the inequalities they generate. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that both global and international inequalities persist, with the Global North exerting power over the Global South in areas like vaccine access and economic recovery. These inequalities cannot be addressed by focusing solely on either ‘global’ or ‘international’ development; both perspectives are necessary to understand the complexity of our global socio-economic system.
Ultimately, let us question the very objectives of development, not merely its possible labels, and redirect them towards social justice demands and the big planetary challenges of our times. Plural futures of/for Development Studies lie ahead; in doing and promoting radical research, policy, and practice, aimed at challenging global and international injustice, everywhere.
Alessandra Mezzadri is Reader in Global Development & Political Economy at the Department of Development Studies at SOAS, London. This blog post is based on her article ‘Plural Futures of/for Development? The Case for Global and International Development, and Against All Inequalities Everywhere’ in the European Journal of Development Research (EJDR)
Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay