Sociology of Development Honours: Development Theory Course

Home , Development studies, Development theory

Department of Sociology & Industrial Sociology Prince Alfred Street, Makhanda, 6139, South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 46 603 8361/7544 www.ru.ac.za/sociology

SOCIOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES HONOURS

2021: Term 1

DEVELOPMENT THEORY

LECTURERS

Prof. Monty J. Roodt ([email protected]) Mr Thoko Sipungu ([email protected]) Ms Tarryn Alexander ([email protected])

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the honours course on Development Theory!

Section 1 of the course, taught by Professor Monty Roodt, will consist of four seminars over two weeks. It will cover an introduction to the concept of development, and the history of the main development theories. We will not cover feminist theories of development as there is a separate course covering this important topic, run by Professor Michael Drewett.

Section 2 will be taught by Mr Thoko Sipungu. This section hopes to provide theoretical and practical understandings of development through an examination of the capabilities and right- based paradigms to development insofar as they relate and apply to disability.

Section 3 will be taught by Ms Tarryn Alexander. Section three introduces post-development theory and its critique of the power relations and orientalist thinking which permeates Eurocentric development discourses. In the final week we look at the notion of “the developmental state” in the context of South Africa.

There will be an essay for each of the three sections which comprise the course mark.

SECTION 1: DEVELOPMENT THEORIES

This section will start with an introduction to the concept of development and how it has evolved over the decades from the colonial period, through what has become known as the “first development decade” in the period after the Second World War, into the period of neoliberalism and globalisation where the environmental/food and the world capitalist crises have prompted calls for the entire development enterprise to be abandoned.

Alan Thomas usefully distinguishes three main senses or contemporary meanings of the term ‘development’:

 as a vision, description, or measure of the state of being of a desirable society  as a historical process of social change in which societies are transformed over long periods  as consisting of deliberate efforts aimed at improvement on the part of various agencies, including governments, all kinds of organisations and social movements (cited in Bernstein, 2006: 45).

Bernstein (2006: 45) continues: “Underlying this lucid and concise characterisation are the dramatic and contradictory histories of the formation of the modern world, of how people located differentially in the times and places of its processes have tried to make sense of them, and of the effects of those understandings for more or less coherent political projects and other forms of collective action (combining ‘vision’ and ‘deliberate efforts aimed at improvement’)”.

After this introduction, the course moves on to an analysis of the three conventional post-Second World War development paradigms. As Kothari points out, this heralds what for many development courses is the starting point of “development studies” – the post-World War II reconstruction of Europe and Japan under the auspices of the Marshall Plan and the subsequent ascendency of “modernisation theory” as the capitalist orthodoxy within the context of the competing paradigms of the “Cold War”. Here a critical examination of dual economy theory and Rostow’s stages of economic growth will take precedent.

The failure of modernisation theory to stimulate development along first world lines or to decrease the gross inequality between so-called first and third world countries gave rise initially to the unequal-exchange and import-substitution theories of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) under the leadership of Raul Prebisch, but these were soon eclipsed by the more radical analysis of the South American structuralists (mainly historians), dependency theorists (Andre Gunder Frank) and world-systems theorists (Emmanuel Wallerstein), who attempted to link the continued “underdevelopment” of the ex-colonies to the fact that these countries were locked into a structural position within the world capitalist system of on‐going exploitation stemming from their colonial past.

While the world systems theory provided an important critical analysis of international inequality and post‐colonial exploitation, many development practitioners felt that these theories were big on critique but low on practical pointers for a way out of the ‘development impasse’. The result was the emergence of a development paradigm known as “Basic Needs” or “Redistribution with Growth”, which combined a trenchant critique of modernisation theory with a set of alternative strategies for development. These strategies involved greater state involvement in the development process and redirection of development efforts from capital-intensive urban industrialisation to labour-intensive rural agriculture and agro-industry, combined with active citizen participation in the development process.

The failure of the basic needs approach has been blamed as much on the lack of political will, both from international players and from local political elites, as it has on the resurgence of the modernisation orthodoxy, this time in an updated form more suited to a globalizing world, known as neo‐liberalism. The neo‐liberal framework, implemented in the developing world under the auspices of the international financial institutions, namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank through its structural adjustment programmes, is predicated on the reduction of state spending, export orientation and the opening of national borders to international trade and investment.

Requirements for Section 1

You do not do a degree, you read for a degree. This is especially true for post-graduate courses. You are expected to read widely as possible and participate in the Zoom meetings with a three to five-page type-written preparation for every seminar (except the first seminar where I will

introduce the course). These seminar preparations will serve as the basis for your active participation in the seminars and as the raw material for your essay. Having listened to other people’s presentations and participated in the discussion, you will have the opportunity to revise your paper before writing the essay. I will select people randomly to present on the topic under discussion, so you need to have your initial three-page preparation done for each seminar.

Times: Mondays – 11 am to 1 pm

Thursdays – 11 am to 1 pm

Essay Topic for Section 1

Critically evaluate the concept of development taking into consideration the different theories of development studied in Section 1.

The essay must be one and a half spacing Times New Roman font and between 7 – 8 pages long, and properly referenced with appropriate subheadings and title. Please consult Handout No 1 for the university’s policy on plagiarism and the department’s policy on referencing. Please do not send it to me as a PDF document or in Google Docs, Microsoft Word only.

Submission Date: Monday, March 28

Seminar Topics and Readings

Week 1: Monday

Introduction to Development and Development Studies

 Introduction to the concept of development  Henry Bernstein’s characterisation of development as dramatic and contradictory histories of the formation of the modern world  A broader concept of development.

Seminar/Assignment Topic

What do you understand the term “development” to mean given the change in its initial focus on economic growth to a broader understanding that includes social, cultural, gender, environmental and political aspects?

Readings

Barder, O. (2010) Development and complexity. London: Centre for Global Development. (On RUConnected)

Bernstein, H. (2006). Studying development/development studies. London: Routledge.

Kothari, U. & Minogue, M. (eds.) (2002). Development theory and practice: Critical perspectives. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. Available at: https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1GwZCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=kot hari+uma&ots=YEJeUmgijR&sig=Bkswfaxl_oruvWbKkIJZchswGjY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage &q=kothari%20uma&f=false

Kothari, U. (2005). A radical history of development studies: Individuals, institutions and ideologies. Cape Town: David Philip; London, New York: Zed Books. Available at: https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WvdiDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT45&dq=Fro m+Colonial+Administration+to+Development+Studies:+a+Postcolonial+Critique+of+the+Histo ry+of+Development+Studies&ots=IKNrz4r_Qv&sig=p0ijdgWv45jZsGjpEEWr8UmmwNQ&re dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=From%20Colonial%20Administration%20to%20Development%20Stu dies%3A%20a%20Postcolonial%20Critique%20of%20the%20History%20of%20Development %20Studies&f=false

Sachs, W. (ed.) (1992). The development dictionary. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press. Chapter 1. Available at: https://books.google.co.za/books?id=2bi_kf7QAq4C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=on epage&q&f=false

SOAS (2021) Understanding sustainable development. London: London University. (On RUConnected)

Sumner, A., (2008) What is ‘development’? In: A. Sumner & M. Tribe (eds.) International development studies: Theories and methods in research and practice. London: SAGE. (On RuConnected).

Week 1: Thursday

Modernisation Theory

• Modernisation as a model of progress • Post-second-world-war reconstruction: Marshall Plan • Dual‐economy theory: Lewis, Hobart‐Houghton • Rostow’s stages of economic growth • Modernisation theory and neo-liberalism/structural adjustment • Critiques of modernisation theory and neo-liberalism

Seminar/Assignment Topic

Why are modernisation theories also called ‘trickle‐down’ theories and what were the main reasons for the failure of the modernisation paradigm in most of the developing world? What are the main similarities and differences between modernisation theory and neoliberalism?

Readings

Bernstein, H. (1971, 2007). Modernisation theory and the sociological study of development. Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2). pp 141-160. (On RUConnected)

Jacobs, J (2020). Rostow's stages of growth development model: The economist’s 5 stages of economic growth are oft-criticized. California: ThoughCo. (On RUConnected)

Reyes, G. (2001) Four main theories of development: Modernisation, dependency, world-system, and globalization. Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas | 04 (2001.2). (On RUConnected)

Week 2: Monday

Radical Theory

• Raul Prebisch and the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Latin America • Dependency Theory: Andre Gunder Frank • World Systems Theory: Emmanuel Wallerstein

Seminar/Assignment Topic

Building on the work of the ECLA and a group of Latin American structuralists, Andre Gunder Frank called for a radical break from the world capitalist system as a solution to neo-colonial exploitation. How viable are these paradigms within a globalised world capitalist economy?

Readings

Frank, A.G. (1966) The development of underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review. (On RUConnected) Also available at: http://www.bresserpereira.org.br/terceiros/cursos/2010/1970.the_development_of_underdevelop ment.pdf

Martínez Vela, C. (2001) World systems theory – ESD.83 – Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (On RUConnected)

Romanuik, S. (2017). Dependency theory. In: The SAGE encyclopaedia of war: Social science perspective. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. (On RUConnected). Also available at: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/DependencyTheoryTheSAGEEncyclopediaofWar.pdf

Lauderdale, P. & Oliverio, A. (2014). The world system according to Andre Gunder Frank: Hegemony and domination. Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol. x, pp. 184-193. (On RUConnected)

Reyes, G. (2001). Four main theories of development: modernisation, dependency, word-system, and globalization. Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas | 04 (2001.2). (On RUConnected)

Week 2: Thursday

The Basic Needs and People-Centred Approach

• Basic Needs critique of modernisation • Basic Needs/Redistribution with growth • People-Centred Approach/ participatory development

Seminar Question

Evaluate the basic needs/people-centred development critique of modernisation theory, the alternative strategy proposed, and the problems experienced worldwide with its implementation.

Readings

Ghai, D. (1978). Basic needs and its critics. The IDS Bulletin Vol. (9) 4, pp 16-18. (On RUConnected)

Korten, D. (2016) The new economy: A living earth system model. The Democracy Collaborative — Next System Project. (On RUConnected)

Overseas Development Institute. (1978). Basic needs: Briefing paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. (On RUConnected)

Streeten, P. (1981) First things first — Meeting basic human needs in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (On RUConnected).

Additional Readings for Section 1 (when you are allowed back on campus)

Barratt Brown, M. (1995). Africa’s choices. London: Penguin. [Chapter 3]

Coetzee, J.K. et al. (eds.) (2001). Development: Theory, policy and practice. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa. [Chapter 5]

Cowen, M.P. & Shenton. R. W. (1996). Doctrines of development. London: Routledge. [Chapter 1]

Doyal, L. (1991). A theory of human need. Basingstoke, Hants: Macmillan Education.

Galli, R. et al. (1992). Rethinking the Third World. New York: Crane Russak. [Chapter 1]

Graaff, J. (2003). Poverty and development. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

Haynes, J. (2008). Development studies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

International Labour Office (ILO). (1977). Employment, growth, and basic needs: A one‐world problem: the international ‘basic‐needs strategy’ against chronic poverty. New York: Praeger.

Johnson, G. (2009). Arresting development – The power of knowledge for social change. Abingdon: Routledge.

Keita, L (ed) (2011) Philosophy and African development: theory and practice. Dakar: CODESRIA.

Komla, T. (2012). Re‐thinking development in Africa: An oral history approach from Botoku, rural Ghana. Reference & Research Book News. June 2012, Vol. 27 Issue 3.

Leeson, P. & Minogue, M. (1988). Perspectives on development: Cross‐disciplinary themes in development studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Leipziger, D. (1982). Basic needs and development. Cambridge, Mass: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

McMichael, P. (2008). Development and social change – A global perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mbeki, M. (2011). Advocates for change ‐ How to overcome Africa's challenges. Johannesburg: Picador South Africa.

Peet, R. & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development. New York: Guilford Press.

Pieterse, J. (2001). Development theory: Deconstructions/reconstructions. London: SAGE.

Preston, P. (1995). Development theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Polanyi. K. (1944). The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press. [Chapters 1–10]

Sandbrook, R. (1982). The politics of basic needs. London: Heineman.

Skarstein, R. (1999). Development theory: A guide to some unfashionable perspectives. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Somjee, A.H. (1991). Development theory. London: Macmillan.

Stewart, F et al. (2019) Advancing human development: theory and practice.

Swanepoel, H. & de Beer, F. (eds.) (1997). Introduction to development studies. Johannesburg: International Thomson (Southern Africa).

Warren, D. et al. (eds.) (1995). The cultural dimension of development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Webster, A. (1990). Introduction to the sociology of development (second edition). London: Macmillan. [Chapter 2]

SECTION 2: DISABILITIES IN DEVELOPMENT – CAPABILITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACHES

According to a report published by the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2011, more than one billion people are disabled, with 80% of them living in the ‘developing world’. Furthermore, disabled people are disproportionately represented among the poor, have higher levels of unmet health and other needs, and are more than twice as likely as non-disabled people to be unemployed. Given that the vast majority of disabled people live in the ‘developing world’, it is timely to explore the linkages between disability and development studies. Recent research notes that despite the current focus of development studies on development policy, practice, and issues such as poverty and social exclusion, there has been little attempt, until recently, to consider disability within a development context. Cobbley (2015: 1) notes that the fields of disability and development are now gradually coming together, “with a growing acceptance that global development targets cannot be achieved unless disability is treated as a cross-cutting, priority issue, in much the same way as gender has been for many years now”. This section engages with development in relation to disability as the latter can be a practical and useful arena for merging both theory and practice in the study of development.

To fully understand the intersection of disability and development, we must first conceptualise and define the term ‘disability’. For example, what is the difference between disability and impairment? Is the correct terminology ‘people with disabilities’ or ‘disabled people’ and what is the difference? Therefore, in this section the established models in conceptualising, defining, and theorising disabilities, namely, the biomedical (individual) and the social model, will be discussed and interrogated. While I am aware that policy influencing organisations such as the WHO, the ICF, the World Bank, and country policy documents have defined disabilities, for this section, the focus is solely on debates emerging from the academic literature. Grappling with definitional issues serves to show that the understandings and meanings of disability are both evolving and contested throughout history and cultures.

Next, students engage with approaches to development, namely, the capabilities and the human rights-centred approach insofar as they apply to disability-inclusive development. These two approaches share commonalities: their direct focus is on the dignity and freedom of the person. The capabilities approach is a theoretical and empirical operationalisation of human development. The approach has been developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. In this section, we will apply their ideas to disability and development. Unlike traditional mechanisms and approaches to development, the capability approach recognises that income and commodities are merely means to an end. In contrast, the capability approach emphasises the importance of determining what an individual succeeds in doing with the commodities or goods at his/her command rather than the actual commodities or goods themselves. The primary reason is that individuals inherently differ from one another. Consequently, individuals differ in their ability to convert commodities and goods into capabilities and functioning.

The human rights-based approach to development (RBA) puts human rights at the heart of human development. In this way, the approach re-conceptualises traditional thinking about the nature of human development and the process by which it is realised. Central to the RBA is the concern with both the outcomes of development and the processes by which development is achieved.

Section Objectives

 Critical understanding of disability as a crucial issue in development  Understand and critically assess a range of disability concepts and models  An understanding of how both theoretical paradigms (capabilities and rights based) contribute to development thought and practice  Critically explain how said theoretical paradigms can contribute to development policy and practice about disabilities

Requirements for Section 2

As with previous section for the module, you will be expected to prepare a 2-3 page write up for each topic in order to share your views when called upon during the online seminars.

Times: Mondays – 11 am to 1 pm Thursdays – 11 am to 1 pm

An essay question for Section 3 will constitute a third of your total course mark.

Essay question: In no more than 2000 words, provide an in-depth critical argument about the strengths and weaknesses of capabilities and rights-based approaches in ensuring disability- inclusive development.

Due Date: Monday, 12 April

Please consult Handout No 1 for the University’s policy on plagiarism and the department’s policy on referencing. Please do not send it to me as a PDF document or in Google Docs, Microsoft Word only

Week 3: Conceptualising Disability

Barnes, C. & Oliver, M. (1993). Disability: A sociological phenomenon ignored by sociologists. University of Leeds. (On RUConnected)

Harriss-White, B. and Sridhar, D. (2006). Disability and development. In: D.A. Clark (ed.) The Elgar companion to development studies, pp. 126-130. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Chataika, T. (2019). Introduction: Critical connections and gaps in disability and development. In: T. Chataika (ed.) The Routledge handbook of disability in Southern Africa, pp. 3-13. New York: Routledge.

Crow, L. (1992). Renewing the social model of disability. University of Leeds. (On RUConnected)

Draper, E. A. (2018). Navigating the labels: Appropriate terminology for students with disabilities. General Music Today, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 30-32. (On RUConnected)

Oliver, M. (1990). The individual and social models of disability. Paper presented at Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians, 23 July. (On RUConnected)

Retief, M. and Letšosa, R. (2018). Models of disability: A brief overview. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, Vol. 74 (1), pp. 1-8. (On RUConnected)

Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. The disability studies reader, Vol. 2, pp. 197-204. (On RUConnected)

Write up exercise: Compare and contrast the social and the medical models in how they conceptualise disability?

Week 3: Capabilities Development Approach to Disability

Readings

Clark, D.A. (2006). Capability approach. In: D.A. Clark (ed.) The Elgar companion to development studies, pp. 32-42. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Nothover, P. (2002). Development as freedom. In: V. Desai & R.B Potter (eds.) The companion to development studies, pp. 73-78. New York: Routledge.

Barnes, C. & Sheldon, A. (2010). Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context. Disability and Society, Vol. 25 (7), pp. 771-782. (On RUConnected)

Burchardt, T. (2004). Capabilities and disability: The capabilities framework and the social model of disability. Disability & Society, Vol.19 (7), pp. 735‐751. (On RUConnected)

Dubois, J.L. & Trani, J.F. (2009). Extending the capability paradigm to address the complexity of disability. ALTER - European Journal of Disability Research, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 2-28. (On RUConnected)

Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 236-247. (On RUConnected)

Mutanga, O. (2019). Students with disabilities and the transition to work: A Capabilities Approach. Routledge. New York. [Chapter 5]

Week 4: Human Rights Approaches to Development Disability

Readings

Albert, B., 2004. The social model of disability, human rights and development. Disability Research Project Briefing Note.

Fortman, B.G. (2006). Human rights. In: D.A. Clark (ed.) The Elgar companion to development studies, pp. 260-266. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Uvin, P. (2004). Human rights and development. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. [Chapter 6: A rights-based approach to development]

Uvin, P. (2007). From the right to development to the rights-based approach: How ‘human rights’ entered development. Development in Practice, Vol. 17 (4-5), pp. 597-606.

Meekosha, H. & Soldatic, K. (2011). Human rights and the global South: The case of disability. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32 (8), pp. 1383-1397. (On RUConnected)

Stein, M. (2007). Disability human rights. California Law Review, Vol. 95, pp. 2-62. (Part III & IV). (On RUConnected)

Week 4: Capabilities Approach versus Human Rights Approach

Readings

Baylies, C. (2002). Disability and the notion of human development: Questions of rights and capabilities. Disability & Society, Vol. 17 (7), pp. 725-739. (On RUConnected)

Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 151-166. (On RUConnected)

Vizard, P., Fukuda‐Parr, S. & Elson, D. (2011). Introduction: The capability approach and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 1-22. (On RUConnected)

Write up exercise: Explain the similarities and differences between the capabilities approach, and the rights-based approach.

SECTION 3: POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE

This section is divided into two sections, which are considerably different but together act as a response to the previous sections of the module in two ways. Firstly, week five deals with a critique of the fundamental premises underlying development discourse. Here you will learn the arguments of post-development theorists, who largely believe that development fortifies a subject-object relationship between the previously colonising and colonised worlds, thus normalising the subjectivisation of post-independence states and people, constructing them as inherently incapable of progress on their own terms. Development studies, it is argued, seeks to integrate economies, cultures and knowledge systems into singular western-led models of development in a way which obscures the violent histories that led to global inequalities in the first place. Post-development theorists urge us to seek alternatives to ethnocentric ideas of development, which currently privilege privatisation, dependency structures and western individualism. According to Bassey (2019: 3) in Pluriverse: A post development reader,

The pursuit of ‘development’ has promoted butchery on the African continent. The notion that the path taken to development by others is what we must follow is essentially imperialist, used to justify colonialism, neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism. The fact that it still holds sway is a testament to the resilience of capitalist primitive accumulation ... Development suggests growth, expansion, enlargement, and spread, none of which captures the sense of justice or equity, or considers the ecological limits of a finite planet.

Post-development theory offers an import window for critiquing our automatic allegiance to the idea of ‘development’. It decentres, questions and thus invigorates standing conceptions of development. But are alternatives to dominant development ideas in fact attractive and realistic in the fast-moving neoliberal world? Are post-development ideas fruitful in a society plagued by pressing issues of water, food and housing? What we will find is that both development and post- development are “amoeba-like concepts” with “no coherent, single” theory (Matthews, 2017: 11). Thus, there is the possibility to find a dialogue between the two, in order to work towards more radical, democratic and decolonial approaches that take the interconnectivity of humanity and the reversal of nature’s plunder as the starting point in the development and future of post-colonial societies.

In week 6, we will move beyond theory to interrogate the actual status of South Africa as a “developmental state”. In the 1970s, the world saw the unprecedented capitalist development of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Dubbed the “East Asian Tigers”, these fast growing, many previously ‘underdeveloped’ states, became the topic of fascination for development researchers and theorists, who attributed the notion of the ‘developmental state’ to describe “a state that has the capacity to exercise its authority to resolve and manage conflicts and direct the use of resources to promotes broad development objectives” (Northover, 2002: 77). This has led to advocates for developmental state policy for Africa, including South Africa. The ‘development state’ tends not to privilege human rights, equity, the environment or alternative endogenous definitions of development – rather opting for industrialization and “trickle down” economics through state intervention and coordination. There are those who argue that post-development theory downplays the progressive transformations that developmental states can achieve in the Global South.

With the ‘developmental state’ model, the definition of development is reduced to economic growth. However, this model proposes that the state play a strategic role in the economy and it is therefore a radical departure from the non-interventionist state proposed by neoliberal policies such as the Structural Adjustment Programmes. It is seen by many local state and development practitioners as the most pragmatic route to solving the health, education, and growth troubles of South Africa. There are those, on one hand, who see it as a pipe dream for South Africa and, on the other hand, those who see South Africa as a nascent developmental state. We will explore the definition, relevance and debates around the ‘developmental state’ in the context of South Africa.

Requirements for Section 3

As with previous sections for the module, you will be expected to prepare a 2-3 page write up for each topic in order to share your views when called upon during the online seminars.

An essay question for Section 3 will constitute a third of your total course mark.

Times: Mondays – 11 am to 1 pm

Thursdays – 11 am to 1 pm

Week 5: Post-Development Theory

Monday Seminar/Assignment Topic

What are key positions taken by post development theorists, and how may these shed light on the ideological implications of the notion of ‘development’?

Thursday Seminar/Assignment Topic

Discuss potential benefits and critiques of post-development theory in the context of South Africa?

Week 5: Introduction to Post-Development Thinking

 Introduction to the body of critique known as ‘post-development theory’  Problematising the ‘reductive’ worldview on which development discourse is purportedly based  Basic arguments for alternative directions to that of mainstream development which are more aligned with environmental, feminist and collectivist futures  The relationship between colonialism, race and development  Contrasting post-development theory and post-development practice with problems of inequality

Readings

Andreasson, S. (2007). Thinking beyond development: The future of post-development theory in Southern Africa. Paper presented at British International Studies Association. University of Cambridge, 17-19 December.

Caffentzis, G. & Federici, S. (2014). Commons against and beyond capitalism. Community Development Journal, Vol. 49 (51), pp.92-105.

Janzen, M.D. (2008). The women of Agabagaya: Education and post-development theory. Canadian Journal of Education. Vol. 31 (1), pp. 8-31.

Kothari, A. (2006). An agenda for thinking about ‘race’ in development. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 6 (91), pp. 9-23.

Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F. & Acosta, A. (eds.) (2019). Pluriverse: A post- development dictionary. India: Tulika Books.

Matthews, S. (2017). Colonised minds? Post-development theory and the desirability of development in Africa. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38 (12), pp. 2650-2663.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2012). Coloniality of power in Development Studies and the impact of global imperial designs on Africa. ARAS, Vol. 33 (2), pp. 48-73.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013). Perhaps decoloniality is the answer? Critical reflections on development from a decolonial epistemic perspective. Africanus, Vol. 43 (2), pp. 1-2.

Nirmal, P. and Rocheleau, D. (2019). Decolonising degrowth in the post-development convergence: Questions, experiences, and proposals from two Indigenous territories. Nature and Space, Vol 2 (3), pp. 465-492.

Patel, K. (2020). Race and a decolonial turn in development studies. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 41 (9), pp. 1463-1475.

Pieterse, J.N. (2000). After post-development. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 175-191.

Rahnema, M. & Bawtree, V. (1997). The post-development reader. London: Zed Books.

Rapley, J. (2004). Development studies and the post-development critique. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 4 (4), pp. 350-354.

Shrestha, N. (1995). Becoming a development category. In: J.S. Crush (ed.) Power of development, pp. 276-287. London: Routledge.

Simon, D. (2006). Separated by common ground? Bringing (post)development and (post)colonialism together. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 172 (1), pp. 10-21.

Ziai, A. (2007). Exploring post-development: Theory and practice, problems and perspectives. London: Routledge.

Ziai, A. (2017). ‘I am not a Post-Developmentalist, but…’ The influence of post-development on development studies. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38 (12), pp. 2719-2734.

Week 6: Developmental State

 The notion of the ‘developmental state’ – its origins, evolution and significance  A political economic view of South Africa’s developmental status  Understanding various debates regarding South Africa’s potential as a ‘developmental state’.

Monday Seminar/Assignment Topic

Define the origins and importance of the ‘developmental state’. What are key debates which define this concept today?

Thursday Seminar/Assignment Topic

Critically discuss South Africa’s potential to achieve the status of a ‘developmental state’ today? Illustrate your answer.

Readings

Ashman, S., Fine, B. & Newman, S. (2010). The developmental state and post-liberation South Africa. In: N. Misra-Dexter & J. February (eds). Testing democracy: Which way is South Africa going? Cape Town: ABC Press.

Bond, P. (2008). South Africa’s “developmental state” distraction. Mediations, Vol. 24 (1), pp. 9- 26.

De Wee, K. (2016). Is South Africa ready to be a developmental state? Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, Vol. 4 (3), pp. 488-502.

Frangie, S. (2011). Post-development, developmental state and genealogy: condemned to develop? Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32 (7), pp. 1183 – 1198.

Freund, B. (2019). Twentieth-century South Africa: A developmental history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumede, V. (n.d). South Africa as a developmental state in the making. Human Science Research Council, Cape Town. Available at: https://www.vusigumede.com/content/academic%20papers/JULY%202011/Developmental%20 State%20in%20South%20Africa%20(Updated%20for%20the%20website,%20July%202011).pd f

Hart, G. (2006). Post-apartheid developments in historical and comparative perspective. In: V. Padayachee (ed.) The development decade? Economic and social change in South Africa, 1994- 2004, pp.13-22. Cape Town, HRSRC Press.

Padayachee, V. (2006). Development discourses in post-apartheid South Africa. In: V. Padayachee (ed.) The development decade? Economic and social change in South Africa, 1994-2004, pp. 1- 10. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Routley, L. (2012). Developmental states: A review of the literature. Working paper 3. Effective States and Inclusive Development, University of Manchester. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a9a40f0b6497400069c/esid_wp_03_routley. pdf

Swilling, M., Musango, J. & Wakeford, J. (2016). Developmental states and sustainability transitions: Prospects of a just transition in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol 18 (5), pp. 650 -672.

Tshishonga, N. & de Vries, S.M. (2011). The potential of South Africa as a developmental state: A political economy critique. African Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 58-69.

Ukwandu, D.C. (2019). South Africa as a developmental sate – Is it a viable idea? African Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 11 (2), pp. 41-62.

Essay Question

What insights do post-development theorists offer development in the Global South, and what are the challenges which faces such a body of critique?

Define the origins and importance of the notion of a ‘developmental state’, giving insight into the South African context.

Due Date: Thursday, 29 April

Additional Resources

Website

Global South Development Magazine. Available at: https://www.gsdmagazine.org/ Provides a good picture of development work happening globally, including interviews, articles, and opinion pieces.

Reith Lecture by Ali Mazrui

Mazrui, A. (1979). The burden of underdevelopment: The African condition. [Online Audio]. Available at: BBC Radio 4 - The Reith Lectures, Ali Mazrui: The African Condition: 1979, The Burden of Underdevelopment. Professor Ali Mazrui examines the burden of Africa's underdevelopment and asks why the resource-rich region contains some of the poorest countries in the world.