Environment and Planning A 2000, volume 32, pages 1033 ^ 1050 DOI:10.1068/a3251 Development, post-, anti-, and populist: a critical review Piers Blaikie School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England; e-mail:
[email protected] Received 2 April 1999; in revised form 9 September 1999 Abstract. The notion and practice of development have been severely critiqued from both modernist and postmodernist perspectives, yet the global development industry flourishes. The latter have afforded important insights, but also suffer from unexamined ideological agendas, a disinclination to undertake detailed research into development processes and policy, a preoccupation with texts and representations by the development industry, and from perpetuating an indulgent and agenda-less academic cul-de-sac. Instead, the postmodern critique of development could lead to a more politically astute and practical reconstruction of certain aspects of `development', particularly in the neopopulist mode of developmentalism. Three powerful development paradigms are identified, and the ways in which they are constructed, promoted, and adapted are discussed in the light of conflicting modernist and postmodern accounts. Postmodern engagement with development There has been a profound sense of disappointment and reappraisal in the global development project since the 1960s, yet the project continues. This has come about after a long history of modernist critiques, which have judged the results of develop- ment in their own terms (it failed to deliver what it promised), as well as the more recent postmodern turn which social science has taken, which has sought to portray development as a metanarrative ripe for deconstruction, and to interrogate its intellec- tual and epistemological foundations, but, I argue, has led development debate into some confusing and exposed terrains.