Post‐Development: Premature Burials and Haunting Ghosts
Author:
- Aram ZiaiAZAram Ziai
Top Cited Papers
- 19 June 2015
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Development and Change
- Vol. 46 (4) , 833-854
Abstract
While the Post‐Development school in development theory tried to bury the concept of ‘development’, this attempt turned out to be unsuccessful. A closer investigation reveals that different post‐development texts reproduce the polysemy of ‘development’ in their criticism of it, attacking different phenomena subsumed under this heading. Development theory, on the other hand, was also premature in declaring post‐development obsolete fifteen years ago. By examining the works of two prominent authors, this contribution shows that the critics of post‐development have adopted central arguments of that approach. It concludes by identifying some points of convergence between post‐development and its (progressive) critics in development theory.Keywords
Funding Information
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (ZI 759/8-1)
This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit:
- The discourse of “development” and why the concept should be abandonedDevelopment in Practice, 2013
- Spaces of postdevelopmentProgress in Human Geography, 2007
- The (im)possibility of development studiesEconomy and Society, 2007
- Development versus enjoyment of life: a post-development critique of the developmentalist worldviewDevelopment in Practice, 2007
- Post-development, Foucault and the colonisation metaphorThird World Quarterly, 2002
- Development: The devil we know?Third World Quarterly, 2001
- Beyond Developmentalism: The Turn to Cultural AnthropologyNew Political Economy, 2001
- Development, Post-, Anti-, and Populist: A Critical ReviewEnvironment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2000
- ‘Beneath the pavement only soil’: The poverty of post‐developmentThe Journal of Development Studies, 1998
- An opportunity lost: Escobar's deconstruction of developmentThe Journal of Development Studies, 1997