Alliances observing the deadlock pdf#
The next step, I contend, is to create a truly global and transnational history of development, one that brings together the literature on late colonialism and decolonization with the new international history of the Cold War, and that offers a more diverse, refined, and historically-informed reading of international development.ĭownload PDF Development Studies and History More recently, some researchers have also begun to move away from the predominantly American-centered framework of earlier studies and to conceive of modernization as a global project. Others have sought to examine local development encounters and specific projects as they played out on the ground. The postwar periodization of development, for example, has been criticized by historians who challenge the conventional starting date by calling attention to the continuities between late colonialism and contemporary development policies and practices.
In part 2, I examine some of the more recent contributions that have presented an increasingly more nuanced picture of development. As they have shown, the offer of technical and financial assistance as part of a “new deal” for the underdeveloped areas of the world was invariably tied to the U.S.-led campaign to counteract communist influence in these regions during the Cold War. diplomatic history also began to investigate the history of modernization. Following on the heels of postdevelopment writers, scholars in the field of U.S. Poststructuralist analysts were the first to set out a genealogical framework, viewing development as a discursive regime formally inaugurated by the United States in 1949, when the “discovery” of mass poverty in the Third World came to preoccupy Western policy makers and political elites. In part 1, I examine what might be termed the “first wave” of writing the history of development that emerged in the 1990s during the neoliberal moment. In this two-part essay, I review some of the most important contributions that have been made over the past twenty years to this expanding field of historical scholarship. 2 In other words, to paraphrase Nick Cullather, they propose to use history as the methodology for studying and understanding development, rather than constructing development theories to explain history and to provide predictive models for the future. In face of such persistence and comeback, even across as significant a historical watershed as the end of the Cold War, historians and other social scientists in a variety of fields have embarked upon a different and novel approach, one which treats development as history. Yet today, more than two decades later, the central tenets of the development discourse continue to persist and permeate the minds of policy makers and analysts, seemingly impervious to criticism and meaningful reform. For a time, under the onslaught of such scrutiny, it looked as if the critics might be right, and that we might be witnessing development’s last rites and requiem. Indeed, since the late 1980s, the concept of development as applied to the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America has come under intense fire, not only from academics but also from within mainstream policy circles. Sachs and his fellow contributors were not alone in their desire to relegate the idea to the dustbin of history. It has been over twenty years since Wolfgang Sachs boldly proclaimed the “end of development” in his postdevelopment studies collection, The Development Dictionary. bid farewell to the defunct idea in order to clear our minds for fresh discoveries. It is time to dismantle this mental structure. But above all, the hopes and desires which made the idea fly, are now exhausted: development has grown obsolete. Moreover, the historical conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development has become outdated. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work. the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape.
0 kommentar(er)
