Ray Kiely

The last refuge of the noble savage? A critical assessment of post‐development theory

The most ostensibly radical response to the crisis in development theory has been to reject outright the idea of development. Theories of post-development argue that all ideas of development imply the exercise of power over subject peoples in the so-called Third World. Some writers argue that the idea of development therefore constitutes a new form of colonialism. This article questions such views, by suggesting that not all theories of development can be tarred with the same brush. Post-development theory is guilty of homogenising the idea of development, thereby conflating all theories of development with the outmoded (and long discredited) theory of modernisation. Moreover, post-development theory is reluctant to suggest concrete political alternatives, arguing the post-structuralist position that to do so implies ‘capture’ by the development discourse. But this view similarly homogenises the development discourse, and leads to an alternative politics that uncritically celebrates resistance without analysing its differing political implications. When more concrete alternatives are suggested (as for example by ecofeminism), the result is an uncritical, romantic celebration of the local which can have reactionary political implications. Finally, an alternative, dialectical approach is suggested, which seeks to combine deconstruction with reconstruction, and which stresses the contradictory unity of development.

Globalisation and the Third World

This book examines the changing position of the Developing World within the world system. It focuses on particular issues which cut across communities, nations, regions and, in consequence, the world. These include migration, health and disease, the media, transnational corporations, religion, and political and economic institutions. The contributors draw on a wealth of illustrations and global examples to examine topics such as HIV/AIDS transmission, the mediatized Gulf War, consumption patterns, the Third World in the First, Orientalism and Islam, environmental and urban movements, liberation theology in Latin America and the impact of the media. This book provides a critical introduction to the Third World around the unifying theme of globalisation.

Poverty reduction through liberalisation? Neoliberalism and the myth of global convergence

This article critically examines the question of whether poverty has been reduced in recent years, and if so, whether this is a result of neoliberal and/or globalisation friendly policies. The first section problematises at least some claims made for poverty reduction and the second section questions any causal link between ‘pro-globalisation’ policies and poverty reduction. The third and final section considers in detail the nature of the contemporary global economy, and in examining the evidence concerning capital flows shows how, contrary to the claims made by neoliberals and some globalisation theorists, capital is not dispersing throughout the world. Moreover, even when the ‘correct policies’ are adopted, this is unlikely to happen. I then conclude by suggesting why ‘actually existing globalidation’ does not alleviate, and may indeed intensify, global inequalities.

GLOBALIZATION, POST-FORDISM AND THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT

This article examines the claims that we are living in a new, global, post-Fordist era. The claims of both globalization and post-Fordism are examined, as well as some of the implications for development. Both theses are questioned, and in particular it is argued that in some respects the two arguments contradict rather than complement each other. An alternative approach is put forward, focusing on the contemporary context for development in the global economy, critically using the notion of global commodity chains. It is argued that we are currently witnessing a variety of strategies of capital accumulation in the world economy, and insofar as generalizations can be made, we have witnessed the end of the Third World as a homogeneous block. While some formerly peripheral countries are now a constituent part of the world economy, others are marginal to its needs. These countries are not so much exploited as simply left out.

Globalization and Poverty, and the Poverty of Globalization Theory

This article intervenes in the ongoing ‘globalization debate’ by focusing on two apparently separate debates: on the links between trade liberalization, growth and poverty reduction; and on theories that give too much explanatory weight to the concept of globalization. These two separate debates have close parallels, and in both cases causality and outcome are conflated, with the result that globalization is given far too much causal significance. The article critically reviews the evidence for and against recent claims that global poverty has declined over the last 20 years. This is related to earlier debates in development studies between modernization and under-development theory. Although the article does not accept the earlier claims of the latter theory, it rejects modernization theory and suggests that much of the claims made for poverty reduction repeat the assumptions of this theory, albeit in a neoliberal form. This argument is used to consider the claims of ‘globalization theory’, which is contrasted with more critical theories of globalization. The author suggests that, like the claims made for poverty reduction and its causes, this theory conflates outcomes and causes and is essentially a new form of (neoliberal) modernization theory.

United States Hegemony and Globalisation: What Role for Theories of Imperialism?

This article examines the return of the subject of imperialism to the social sciences since 2001, focusing in particular on Marxist and Marxist-related attempts to reconstruct an analysis of the US-led international order based on this concept. It does so by first examining attempts to update Marxist and Marxian work to understand contemporary globalisation, and then points to both the weaknesses of these approaches and international events that have undermined these theories. The paper then examines the return of imperialism in some detail. While the international order can still be described as imperialist, the article is sceptical of many accounts of the ‘new imperialism’. This is partly because the utility of classical theories was questionable in the pre-1914 era, and are even more so now. Theorising imperialism in turns of surplus capital or a spatial fix ignores the direction of capital flows, both before the First World War, and in the current era. Moreover, as Marxist and Marxian theories of globalisation point out, the current era is one of greater openness and international integration than the pre-1914 era, and there is far greater cooperation between the core capitalist states, as well as sovereign states in the developing world. Contemporary imperialism is characterised by US hegemony but also greater global interdependence, and US military domination does not guarantee its economic domination. At the same time however, US hegemony is closely related to neo-liberalism and, despite as much as because of US intentions, these same policies undermine the prospects for development in the ‘South’. In this respect, US attempts to ‘Americanise’ the world are undermined by US hegemony and the imperialism of free trade.

The Post-Colonial Politics of Development

Recent years have seen a retreat from the relativist and/or romantic excesses of some branches of post-development theory, and a real effort to reconstruct as well as deconstruct the concept of development. Whether or not this is possible without falling back into a Eurocentric frame of analysis is a contentious point, and one taken up in Kapoor’s engaging work. Drawing on the work of Homi Bhabha, but also engaging with various critical theorists such as Habermas and post-Marxists such as Laclau and Mouffe, Kappor’s work does a very useful job in uniting social (and cultural) theory with development. Crucially, this involves the study of both micro and macro approaches to development. The former involves a critical engagement with development practice and different understandings of what is sometimes referred to as the participatory paradigm. The latter involves an engagement with the global political economy of development, and in particular the pros and cons of the theory (or concept) of dependency. This is done through an impressive critical interrogation of some of the key issues in the study of development (and indeed, international politics) today, such as governance, human rights and participation. Kapoor convincingly shows how much of the discourse of mainstream development is complicit with a neo-colonialism based on knowledge and power. All this is done well, even if the arguments are not entirely novel. But what separates this book from so much of the literature on post-colonial and postdevelopment approaches is the attempt to move the debate forward. Here Kapoor’s focus is on the promotion of a radical ‘self-reflexivity’ which does not silence the subaltern. This involves a critical engagement with the work of Spivak, but one that possibly fails to resolve some difficult (irresolvable?) issues. It may well be the case (as the most radical postdevelopment theorists remind us) that all forms of development do involve some tendency to speak for ‘the other’. But the same problem applies to those that reject development too, as some critics have pointed out (see Cowen and Shenton 1996, for example). Indeed, at their worst, such approaches endorse romantic populism or simply celebrate resistance. This can lead to an approach that starts by politicising the concept of development (by regarding it as a Eurocentric discourse) but ends by de-politicising so-called alternatives to it (by simply celebrating local cultures or what is regarded as resistance to the discourse of development). It is far from clear that all social movements do indeed reject development, and in any case it is also problematic to homogenise the idea of development in this way. These appear to be the issues that Kapoor attempts to steer us through, and he is to be commended on this basis. However, I think there are two issues which are not sufficiently clearly addressed: first, the inescapability of representation, of trusteeship, of speaking for others; second, an appreciation of the wider context in which resistance takes place. In the case of the former, one can fully accept this inescapability without falling into a relativist trap. Indeed, without some form of closure or representation, politics is an impossibility. But equally, there is a need to be sensitive to the different forms of closure, and this can inform development practice at a micro-level, but also the question of resistance by social movements to certain practices of closure, even as the very existence of such movements entails some commitments to closure (feminist movements would reject sexist ideologies for example, on the grounds that the closure involved in feminism is far less violent and exclusionary than the Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 45, No. 10, 1768–1773, November 2009

The world bank and “global poverty reduction”: Good policies or bad data?

Abstract This article investigates recent claims — made principally by the World Bank — that world poverty is declining, and that this decline is due to countries adopting “pro-globalisation” policies. It is argued that such claims are based on selective and very questionable evidence, as well as a technocratic approach to poverty reduction that ignores the issue of inequality. Through an assessment of the problems of measuring income-related poverty, it is argued that (i) there is insufficient reliable data for us to know what is happening in terms of poverty trends; (ii) the measurements used tend to have a bias towards recording a long-term reduction in global poverty; (iii) there is a linkage between poverty and inequality; (iv) inequality, both within and between countries, is a far more important issue than current poverty reduction discourses suggest; (v) insofar as there may be a decline in poverty, this is despite, rather than because of “pro-globalisation” policies. The article concludes by briefly suggesting that the world economy is not as benign a force as the World Bank suggests, and that capital concentration takes place through a process of “cumulative causation.”

Spatial hierarchy and/or contemporary geopolitics: what can and can't uneven and combined development explain?

This article reviews the current Marxist debate on imperialism through an examination of the concept of uneven and combined development. This has been used in two ways: first, to show that geopolitical competition between advanced capitalist states continues to be of primary importance in the international capitalist order; second, to show how global capital accumulation is an intrinsically uneven, unequal and cumulative process. The article argues that uneven and combined development is limited in its utility for explaining the former, but is of greater utility in the case of the latter. This is further briefly illustrated in the concluding section, which returns to a consideration of imperialism; first, through an examination of the rise of China and ‘decline’ of the United States in the context of the global economic crisis; and, second, through a demonstration of how a Marxist approach that accepts the primacy of cooperation between advanced capitalist states can still provide a critique of a liberal—and imperialist—international order.

Development theory and industrialisation: Beyond the impasse

Abstract This article examines debates about the industrialisation of parts of the periphery (in particular East Asia) in the context of the impasse in development theory. It is argued that neo-classical theory, regulation theory and the theory of the new international division of labour, all fail to adequately explain the rise of the newly industrialising countries, and indeed all share a methodology which reads off events in the “periphery” from the actions of metropolitan countries. An alternative approach is suggested, which combines analysis of the “global” and the “local.” This analysis suggests that there are competitive disadvantages for late developers in the global political economy, and in putting forward this view a brief critique of flexible specialisation is made. Finally, it is argued that these competitive disadvantages are dealt with in different ways by different nations in the periphery. The main factors shaping this process will be indigenous classes and state structures.