Journal of International Relations and Development

Volume 2, No. 4 (December 1999)

 

Rethinking Development Theory:
Guest Editors' Introduction
By Björn Hettne, Anthony Payne and Fredrik Söderbaum _*

 

THERE HAVE IN OUR VIEW BEEN ENOUGH TESTIMONIES ABOUT THE CRISIS IN DEVELOPMENT, THEORETICAL IMPASSES, AND SUGGESTIONS OF WAYS 'BEYOND', INCLUDING THE REJECTION OF THE IDEA OF DEVELOPMENT. The starting point for further theorising is an acceptance that globalisation (in essence, that the national space no longer automatically captures either action or analysis) and post-modernism (in essence, that development is a meta-narrative that few take seriously) have delivered death-blows to classical development studies. Rather, the issue of underdevelopment and strategies away from it should be seen in the context of a comprehensive and critical historical social science which is not grounded in state-centrism in any fundamental sense. Obviously this body of theory will have a broader scope than 'development' per se and, in that sense, one should perhaps more properly speak about a theory of world order.

As a building block of such comprehensive and critical social science, we suggest a marriage between certain strands of development theory and certain strands of international political economy (IPE). This gives rise to a 'new' or 'critical' political economy of development (PED), since 'international' in an era of globalisation does not need highlighting. Furthermore, PED has also to accommodate the new emphasis on cultural studies. The significance of culture and identity in development has to do not only with the cultural factor in the process of development but also in conceiving and conceptualising development. Another new dimension is the relationship between development and conflict, which surely was noticed by some classical development theorists, but now appears as both more important and in new forms. Whereas the development-conflict relationship in the old paradigm was linked to processes of national accumulation and patterns of national development, the new paradigm takes cognisance of the fact that development today takes place in a transnational social space, over which most nation-states have limited control. This lack of control also concerns the monopoly of violence, traditionally associated with the Westphalian nation-state.

The purpose of this special issue is not, however, to try to define a new development theory, which may not be necessary and is certainly premature, but rather to identify trends for the future and suggest different ways by which the development problematic can be integrated into a unified and critical historical social science. In a nutshell, our goal is not only to rethink development theory, but (also) to transcend it. To this end, the issue consists of a collection of short think-pieces, rather than empirically driven case-studies. Although by no means all-inclusive, it covers some of the most fundamental issues facing social scientists (both theorists and policy-makers) today, such as North-South relations, global as well as regional and national governance and the various relationship between development and culture, conflict, sovereignty, democracy, the international financial system, gender relations and the environment. It also raises, even if it does not solve, some of the meta-theoretical, or philosophical, dimensions of this intellectual project.

In the first article, Björn Hettne and Fredrik Söderbaum argue that the combination of globalisation and the various challenges to the nation-state in combination with the new wars, and development-related conflicts imply a need for a 'new' social science - a global social theory - which is capable of guiding our orientation in this new, turbulent and increasingly complex world (where, as already indicated, our old theories and strategies for development have become obsolete). Critical IPE theory in conjunction with certain strands of development theory provides for them a base from which to start global social theorising, and which also should be complemented by cultural aspects as well as an understanding of the relationship between development and the new conflicts.

Anthony Payne also suggests that old thinking on matters of international development - that which deployed such terms as 'Third World', 'developing countries', 'core and periphery', even 'North' and 'South' - needs to be abandoned. It does not travel well, he insists, into a globalising world. However, the new global politics of development can be satisfactorily reframed, provided that we adopt an approach (set out in outline in his article) which takes globalisation seriously, recognises the continuity (albeit changing) realities of states and inter-state politics and reinterprets development as a universal problem. In this endeavour, attempts to classify states and societies in advance of research must be avoided.

Any 'rethinking' of development theory has to integrate the cultural factor in the process of development. Maria Eriksson Baaz shows that even though the cultural turn of critical development studies can be applauded for its attempt to move away from the Eurocentrism characterising mainstream development theory, several of these critical development discourses emerge simply by negating dominant development thinking. Her argument is that this promotes certain types of representations, imagery and strategies and thereby actually reinforces the very same dichotomies they are trying to overcome. What is called for is instead a cultural analysis and a critique of Eurocentrism which recognises the hybridity of cultures, one which recognises that cultural identities are constructed within discourse and power.

Conventionally, sovereignty and development have been seen as two sides of the same coin. Georg Sørensen shows that the positive relationship between development and national sovereignty has been questioned in the new globalising world. In contrast to the 'end of sovereignty-thesis' as well as the conservative-realist view, which argues that not much has changed and the sovereign state remains largely as we know it, he shows that sovereignty changes over time in order to accommodate new circumstances. As a consequence, a qualitatively new relationship between sovereignty and development is emerging in some parts of the developed world, particularly illustrated by the emergence of multilevel governance. As regards the post-colonial world, however, Sørensen claims that sovereignty in its present form is no longer conducive to the pursuit of a rapid process of development. This may, therefore, be one of the main current challenges facing the global society and which a revived development theory has to take seriously.

'Rethinking' also needs to focus on democracy and democratisation. Jean Grugel argues that an analysis of democratisation in the South suggests the need to extend development theory towards a (re)emphasis on the state and national politics and the linkages between the state and the global order. Drawing on examples from Latin America, she identifies a disappointment with the performance of the new democracies in the South and explains this by reference both to the national (the particular historical, cultural and institutional legacies of countries within that region) and the global (the impact of the spread of ideas and policy-learning from the North to the South).

The functioning of the international financing system and the imperative of access to credit is undoubtedly of crucial importance for the discussion on development. Helge Hveen argues that there is now greater consensus than since the 1960s for some form of regulation of international finance, in particular the short-term flows. The author identifies four positions: radical liberalism, conservatism, reformist institutionalism and nationalist developmentalism, argues that various levels of regulatory authority - national, regional and global - are both necessary and realistic.

Drawing on a recent research project carried out on behalf of the government of Mozambique, Hans Abrahamsson discusses some analytical tools considered important in order to identify the room for manoeuvring for national governance and circumstances and social forces behind structural change. He opposes the two predominant positions towards globalisation, be it the more apolitical market-oriented or the parochial and fortress-oriented approach. Instead Abrahamsson points to the present dynamics in the international political economy and the fact that its prevailing 'contradictions' and 'coinciding elite interests' for global reforms could create an 'opportunity' for a progressive transformation of world order structures.

Georgina Waylen asserts that in a globalising world increasingly shaped by processes of restructuring, it is essential to have a gendered international political economy (GIPE). She finds the kernel of such a GIPE already in existence in the literature on gender and development, but argues that this literature must now expand its horizons to look beyond the traditional 'Third World'. Notwithstanding criticisms made of this literature, she believes that it is more useful in gendering IPE than much of the current work flowing out of feminist international relations theory.

Simon Bromley examines some of the principal connections between the environment and development and seeks to explore the character and limits of the liberal, market-based approach to reconciling environmental and developmental objectives. He argues that, while there is something to learn from this approach, it is inherently limited to a restricted notion of the appropriate scope of public action, both nationally and globally. A more developed account of the role of public action in protecting the environment is thus needed in order to complement the role of the market stressed by liberal commentators.

Mikael Baaz concludes the issue by stressing something which is all too often neglected, namely the need for a meta-theoretical foundation to this kind of theorising. He argues that apart from the ambition to bring together various disciplines, such as development theory and IPE, there is a need to address different ontological, epistemological and axiological questions. According to Baaz, social constructivism constitutes the best meta-theoretical foundation for a social science that is concerned with the PED and he even goes so far as to suggest that this can provide a solution to the notorious agent-structure problem.

All contributors endorse the need to push 'rethinking' in the same direction, even if they do not choose the same route and take up different positions on particular concepts and issues. It is the hope of the guest editors that they together show the possible content of a revived development theory, which in turn gives substance to a more unified social science.

October 1999