ABSTRACT
During the last two decades, a novel and controversial approach in development theory has been discussed, but also been increasingly accepted in academic debate: the post-development (PD) school. Whereas earlier criticisms, such as the dependency school, had criticized development theory and policy usually with a view to devising better theories and policies of development (e.g. Hayter, 1971; Kay, this volume), the post-development school explicitly refused to do so, engaging in destructive instead of constructive criticism. In its first landmark publication, Gustavo Esteva (1992: 6) called development an “unburied corpse … from which every kind of pest has started to spread.” And Wolfgang Sachs (1992b: 1), in the introduction to the volume, proclaimed that “[t]he idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape” and found that “the time is ripe to write its obituary.” Post-development can thus be seen as a fundamental critique, one which intended to lay to rest ‘development’ and called for ‘alternatives to development’ instead of ‘alternative development’ (Escobar, 1995: 215). In this chapter, I explore what the authors meant by that and why they opposed the concept and practice of development so vehemently. First, I deal with the historical origins of the approach before engaging a number of its central arguments and the alternatives it proposes. At the end of this chapter, I also discuss some criticisms which have been raised in opposition to post-development and reflect on the importance of this school of thought.
