For as long as the terms “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations exist, development remains an interesting field of ongoing studies, theories and discussions in the world’s political discourse generally, and African in particular. For example, many voters in Africa align themselves with different political parties in the hope to see their countries and cities developing, also politicians trade with the subject of development, by promising their constituencies to bring investors from the West to develop their countries. The interest attached to the term “development” mostly in Africa demonstrates that it is not merely a concept, it is a reality that people are longing to achieve. However, the question is, what do we really mean when we say “development”? and what is the history of development theory?
This article attempts to outlining the historical evolvement of development theory, and the way in which development theory has served the global North’s interest. The assay will begin with the theory of modernisation after the Second World War, and the reaction to it from the South-dependency theory. After, the essay will tackle the neoliberal theory followed by the current mixture of theories about development concept.
Modernisation
Firstly, development concept has been given different meanings overtime. The concept of development has changed meanings over the past six decades, and every meaning or theory of development adopted was in relation to a time and its power dynamic and hegemony in the world (Pieterse 2010:8). In other words, each meaning of development concept projected the view of the most dominant opinion in the world-the Western opinion; it has barely projected the antagonistic view. Particularly, after the World War II the meaning ascribed to the concept of development was “modernisation”, being Eurocentric, it emphasised theoretically the desire by the West who was industrialised to help the Global South in becoming industrialised (Stewart 2019:6). In reality, modernisation was a war against African culture and ways of life, which successfully made a way for Africans to be turned into little British, little French and Little Portuguese. For instance, many Africans were encouraged to adopt foreign languages (e.g., French and English) and make them their official languages, and to replace their traditional identities and cultures with foreign ones. Moreover, African nations were forced to pay for their own destruction by borrowing money from Western financial institutions to fund the intended modernisation, which resulted in the debt crisis that has impoverished the continent and maintained the structure of neo-colonialism (Ndlovu, Ndlovu, Mkhubedu, Sentime, Maphosa, Mazibuko, du Plessis & Zulu 2017:84). Furthermore, the context in which the modernisation theory emerged was not neutral, it was mainly a competition between the two Eurocentric world’s ideologies (capitalism and communism), out of which it would be determined what ideology must rule the world economy. As a result, the countries of the South were not encouraged to define their own standard of development, they rather had to align themselves with, either the capitalists or communists and serve their interests (Stewart 2019:6).
Dependency theory
Secondly, every development theory always supports a specific ideology. Pieterse (2010:7) argues that “for a development theory to be significant, social forces must carry it. To be carried by social forces it must match their worldview and articulate their interests; it must serve an ideological function”. In the 1950s the modernisation theory came under attack from the South, as it was considered as an ideological western instrument of neo-colonialism in the South, from which emerged another approach to development theory namely, “dependency theory”. Essentially, dependency theory did not focus in providing a new guideline for development, it was rather a critic from the Third World against the failure of the western modernisation theory, it can be also said that it was mainly the meaning ascribed to the modernisation theory by the Third World (Stewart 2019:7). For example, Andre Gunder Frank cited in Stewart (2019:7) articulated that the modernisation theory was congruent with the exploitative structure of the world’s economy that makes rich nations the bloodsuckers of poor nations. According to dependency theory, the world is divided into two spheres of influence: the centre and periphery. The centre, which is the West exploits the periphery, which is Africa and other less developed nations, also the structure of less developed nations reflets the same picture of the centre and periphery that perpetuates the cycle of suffering for the masses.
Neoliberalism
Furthermore, from the 1980s different approaches to development concept have emerged, many of which are still discussed today. Neoliberalism, globalisation, and environmentalism can be listed among the contemporary development concepts (Stewart 2019:6). According to Pieterse (2010:2) the major development theories are also policies frameworks, thus, in the 1990s with the end of the cold war, the world politics shifted to align with capitalist ideology, hence, most of the western development concepts were at the same time viewed as development policies. The Third World nations were encouraged to restructure their economies, by opening their markets to multinational corporates and integrate the global economy as conditions for aids to be granted to them by the West. However, the restructuring of the Third World economies and the globalisation have served mostly the industrialized nations that have the capacities and means of production, the South has been serving mostly as consumers of products from the West in the global economy (Ndlovu et al 2017:84)
Current theories
Finally, today with the ascension of social media and technology which has brought a light on world’s issues and given a voice to many people whose opinions could not be heard before; we can say that development means different things to different people (Stewart 2019:9). There are different theories about development, theories such as: post-development, globalisation, environmentalism, and decoloniality, which are among different views or meanings attached to development concept. For example, those who are promoting the post-development theory consider that development has failed, and on that basis, they encourage people to abandon development and seek for individual good life and dignity (Stewart 2019:7). On the other hand, “Decolonial theory” sees the core of development concept as a product of the Western notion of life, culture and tradition, which is not always congruent with the cultures and social structures of the South, and which has served to the interest of the West (Stewart 2019:10). Moreover, the Decolonial theory argues that development theories conceived and formulated in the West should be regarded as limited and lacking the foundation and experience of the non-Western places. This argument has a foundation, in a sense that a culture can be considered as the means by which people interact with their environment in order to extract what they need from it and develop their societies. Therefore, any development strategy that is not formulated through the local culture and knowledge cannot achieve meaningful development for the intended people. In conclusion, it is clear that development means different things to different people. Whenever the West states what development should be, it is simply outlining its own interests, which in most cases is not the interest of other people, especially African people. Unfortunately, Africans have been uncritically embracing all meanings of development produced from the West, and the consequences are what we are experiencing in Africa today. It is now high time for African children to rise and ascribe their own meaning to the concept of development.