University of Groningen

Development and International RelationsHönke, Jana; Lederer, Markus

Published in:Handbook of International Relations

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionFinal author's version (accepted by publisher, after peer review)

Publication date:2013

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Hönke, J., & Lederer, M. (2013). Development and International Relations. In Handbook of InternationalRelations SAGE Publications Inc.. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book234093/toc

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 08-06-2022

1

Development and International Relations

Jana Hönke, Markus Lederer

Chapter published in Carlsnaes/Risse/Simmons (eds.) 2013. Handbook of International

Relations, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

INTRODUCTION*

The study of development has long remained “one of the last bastions of modernism in the

social sciences” (Rapley, 2007: 185) and many of the practices of development agencies, the

World Bank, and others are still conducted within the theoretical framework set up after the

end of the Second World War. Yet empirical evidence of persisting global inequality, and

skepticism about the idea of modernity as growth – as it is, for example, represented in the

world community’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – in light of environmental

degradation and serious post-colonial criticism, have put these visions into question both in

theory and in practice. In the following, our first aim is to show the strong diversity of

development theorizing and to understand the traditions that have developed.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline did not take sufficient account of development for

a long time and had little substantive to say about states at the political as well as economic

peripheries of the international system and even less about poverty as well as inequality

within them (Neuman, 1998; Jones, 2005: 993). This trend reflected the tendency that

“development has been consigned to the realm of low politics, except when the international

order, as it has been constructed, is threatened” (Dickson, 1998: 367). IR has at times even

denounced alternative approaches dealing with new issues, such as poverty, race or the

environment, as non-IR (Smith, 2007: 6). Such issues were taken up in other departments,

such as development studies, area studies, or comparative politics, where they tended to be

compartmentalized in particular issue areas. Our second aim is to show that development

practice and development thinking have, however, always been part of international politics,

even though IR did not account for it. It is only recently that IR’s own diversity has reflected

more and more the various critical, postcolonial, and poststructuralist tendencies of

development. The discipline has changed over the last 15 years and has become less state-

centric. Former ‘low politics’ issues have become more central in the study of international

and transnational relations.

One of the reasons for this change is the rise of the BRICs economies (Brazil, Russia, India

and China) that is shifting geopolitical realities and the practice of development. In particular,

after the financial crisis of 2008/2009 the original core countries of the West are perceived to

be in decline. Indications for the rise of the emerging economies are (i) the end of the G-7/G-

8 and the establishment of the G-20 as the major forum for geopolitical and geo-economic

discussions; (ii) the stalling of the Doha Round for World Trade, when in 2009 negotiations

2

collapsed due to India’s veto against US and EU agricultural policies combined with issues of

a strong growth of South-South trade and an increase of South-South development aid; and

(iii) the realignment of quota shares in favor of emerging economies in the IMF and World

Bank in 2010.

Our review is structured in two parts: The first part provides a genealogy of theorizing

development. We start with a brief overview of the historical “forefathers” of development and

then turn to three classic approaches: Modernization, Dependencia, Neoclassics. This is

followed by an overview of the various streams of the so-called “Post-Washington”

consensus that more or less reflects the current mainstream. We then proceed by focusing

on newer developments that no longer view growth or even development per se as a positive

concept, including, inter alia, works by post-Marxist and post-colonial authors. The second

part analyzes three cross-cutting themes that discuss critical trends in development in

practice: Poverty and inequality, security and development as well as the environment and

development.

THEORIZING DEVELOPMENT

History of Development Thinking

The beginnings of development thinking are difficult to define. Yet one can distinguish

between theories of development as an immanent process and theories that conceptualize

development as intentional policy program. In understanding development as an immanent

process, pre-modern theories deal with human progress and processes of change and the

destructions such processes entail. Based on a linear understanding of historical change,

such theories try to explain progressive change perceived as inherent in human history.

Taking the idea of development as intentional policy program, development has been

perceived as an intentional process of improvement, an improvement that in most theories

relates to economic growth (Cowen and Shenton, 1996).

The idea of development can be traced back to the Enlightenment, to evolutionary theories in

biology and sociology of the 19th century, and to colonial economics and the history of the

empire. These currents replaced the previously dominant conception of history as being a

series of repetitive cycles with the idea of a linear historical development. John Locke’s

writings and especially Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (1776) represent the

emergence of a liberal doctrine, linking the idea of progress to economic growth in order to

solve Hobbes’s problem of order. Ideas about teleological progress also appeared in other

disciplines: The founding father of modern sociology Auguste Compte believed that human

knowledge progressed through three subsequent stages of thinking. Under Darwin’s theory

of evolution and social Darwinism, the idea of development as progress became what

passed as common sense in mid-19th century Britain and beyond. Karl Marx’s early theory of

economic development represents another case of thinking about human development

3

progressing through subsequent stages of economic production. Colonial economics are,

finally, another source of development thinking that precedes post-war development studies.

However, the term only referred to developing the exploitation of natural resources to

effectively supply raw materials to the colonizing center and was not about industrializing the

colonies (Pieterse, 2009: 5-6). Until World War II, development as a term did not appear in

these discussions (Arndt, 1981). However, during the period of rapid industrialization in 19th

century Great Britain, development was used with a very different meaning by some authors.

It referred to dealing with the problems and shortcomings of industrialization: poverty, revolts,

uprooted peasants, and social tensions, and thus with the destructive effects of progress on

the community and on social values (Cowen and Shenton, 1996: 7,57).

Development as Growth: The Classics

The narrow use of the concept of development as economic growth – defined as an increase

in real income per person – only came into use in the 20th century, when the first systematic

ideas about how decolonizing countries could repeat the path of the industrialized and

economically rich West sprung up. Much of this debate – at least in the North – was

influenced by the rapidly achieved results of rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War

II (Leys, 1996: 8). Furthermore, the rise of the US from a latecomer to the most industrialized

country and the New Deal were taken as successful examples. Finally, the strong influence

of Keynes on economic doctrine also inspired the focus of the early development theories on

the role of demand and the possibilities states have to initiate it. In the South, however, the

term development was closely linked with gaining political and economic independence.

The first development theories thought of the “Third World” as a more or less monolithic

block with common features, problems and opportunities. Such a holistic perspective not only

led to a very general diagnosis, but also to undifferentiated policy recommendations. The

question of why some areas/regions/states did better than others was for the most part not

raised, partly due to the fact that it was not yet empirically obvious that divergence in

developing countries themselves would arise (Kohli, 2004: 5). The following three “classics” –

Modernization, Dependencia and Neoclassics – all have a teleological assumption about a

linear progress of development (Leys, 1996). These theories also share a common

understanding of science according to which researchers not only explain the reasons for

underdevelopment, but also advise policy-makers on how to advance development (Preston,

1996).

The Modernists

Modernization theory builds on the literature from the 1940s that analyzed how a “big push”

could bring forward any backward region, be it in the North or the South (of particular

importance is Rosenstein-Rodan, 1943). The theory identifies the reasons for development

within the “traditional” structures of a society, and its main argument is that a modern form of

4

social organization and a complete transformation of a society can be achieved if developing

countries were to follow in the same footsteps developed countries had taken. The primary

instrument to initiate such a transformation is capital accumulation, originating either from

domestic or international savings. Rostow (1960), for example, famously identified five

stages of societal development ranging from the traditional society to the age of high mass

consumption, which he believed were universally applicable. Investments and an infusion of

new ideas initiated by the country’s elites can lead traditional societies to “take-off”. The

approach is deeply connected to progressive readings of history as a constant move towards

Enlightenment and its followers stress the importance of rationalization, technology and

education. Modern ideas and values would be taken up by the elites in the developing world

if they were properly transferred. The Modernists, therefore, relied on a positivist

epistemology and hoped to formulate a scientific perspective of development as the

“Mandarins of the Future” (Gilman, 2003).

Modernization theory is the first development theory that explicitly tries to explain why

developing countries are economically underdeveloped (good overviews can be found in

Huntington, 1971; Gilman, 2003). The concept was part of the ideological battle of the Cold

War over how Europe and Japan could be rebuilt after World War II and whether capitalism

or socialism would bring about development and poverty reduction in the global South faster

and better. The beginnings of the theory can be identified in the discussion about the role of

the Bretton Woods institutions (Helleiner, 2010), in the Truman doctrine and the 1951

initiated UN program for development (Slater, 1993). Modernization theory can therefore be

understood as the “American response” to the problem of underdevelopment (Leys, 1996:

111). For good reasons, Rostow’s book’s title included the term “A Non-Communist

Manifesto” (Rostow, 1960) and can be described as a manual on how to fight the Cold War

in the global South. Besides Rostow, authors like Gabriel Almond, Myron Weiner, Karl

Deutsch, Albert Otto Hirschman, Bert Hoselitz and Daniel Lerner have contributed to the

theoretical development, among others (Gilman, 2003: 2).

Modernization theory has been criticized on several counts: First, the stress on capital

accumulation is seen as too narrow, as sometimes even accelerating growth rates can lead

to instability (Olson, 1963). Second, the theory is highly teleological, as it has a strong

evolutionist tendency and strong hopes for progress. Furthermore, the theory is criticized for

being ahistorical: it perceives the development of all states to be alike, although this is

certainly neither true for Western Europe (Tilly, 1975) nor for developing countries (Cardoso

and Faletto, 1979). Third, not much attention was paid to social issues. Finally, conservative

authors strongly warned that the policy advice of the Modernists – to provide massive foreign

aid in order to push the take-off phase – was against the interests of the US (Banfield, 1962;

Morgenthau, 1962).

The impact of the Modernization school was initially much stronger on the academic

discourse than on the practice of development institutions like US Aid or the World Bank

(Leys, 1996). It was only in the late 1960s and 1970s that Modernization theory had triggered

down to the policy level. Ever since, its evolutionary paradigm has been an important and

sometimes still dominant approach in development agencies as well as in planning ministries

5

all over the world. This is of no surprise, as it neither questions the North’s attempt to use

foreign aid as a tool of development, nor does it rule out the fact that the South will eventually

catch up (Rist, 2002: 109). Many of these aspects were taken up again in the neoclassical

approaches at the end of the 1970s and in the 1980s (see below). Another revival occurred

in the approaches to “modernize”, for example, the post-communist transition countries after

the end of the Cold War (Fukuyama, 1992).

Dependencia

The core idea of Dependencia is that Western Imperialism did not bring about economic

progress and industrialization but rather the “development of underdevelopment” (Baran,

1957). It is the rise of the metropolitan industrialized center which led to a structural lock-in of

exploration and unequal exchange with the agrarian periphery (Dos Santos, 1970; Amin,

1976). Unequal exchange refers to the huge profits of capitalist consumers and workers,

which are obtained at the expense of producers and consumers in developing countries due

to the latter’s structural weakness within the international system (Emmanuel, 1972). This

leads to a transfer of resources, wealth, ideas, and people from the developing to the

developed world reifying the dependency of the periphery. Particularly in international trade,

the Singer-Prebisch thesis postulates deteriorating terms of trade for the South. The latter

implies that developing countries depend on exporting primary, principally agricultural,

products, whose prices are bound to decline in relation to the price of manufactured goods of

the North. Therefore, over time the South will gain less and less for its exports (Prebisch,

1950; for a good analysis of the terms of trade over almost two centuries, see Ocampo and

Parra-Lancourt, 2010). Contrary to the Modernists, Dependencia authors perceive foreign

investments in the periphery and the integration of developing countries into the international

trading system as a means of exploitation and not one of initiating growth. Especially in Latin

America, the incorporation of local societies into the international system led to the

underdevelopment of the most productive sectors and has been a cause for the economic

backwardness of the region from the sixteenth century until today (Frank, 1967). Contrary to

Marx, Dependencia did not value capitalism as a necessary step of “progress”, but rather

focused on the imperialist tendency of the capitalist core to look for new markets and exploit

them (for a Marxist critique, see Warren, 1980).

Whereas the Modernist school stressed the endogenous factors of development,

Dependencia stressed the external factors: the history of colonization and the dominance of

the North as being structurally responsible for the underdevelopment of the South (a good

overview is provided by Palma, 1978; Caporaso, 1980). Dependencia developed out of the

embitterment that arose from the failure of most newly independent countries to experience

anything like the “take-off” the Modernists had envisioned. Furthermore, with the rise of the

Soviet Union as an economic power, the perceived decline of US hegemony after the end of

the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, and the first signs of stagflation in the

industrialized world, a general skepticism grew towards the Western development path. The

goal of development as growth was not questioned. However, the idea that the South could

6

repeat the Northern trajectory was put into question. Many, although not all, of the major

figures of Dependencia came from the Global South (Samir Amin, Fernando H. Cardoso,

Teotonio Dos Santos, Enzo Faletto, Raúl Prebisch) or had settled down in the South (André

Gunder Frank). The theory had, however, many followers in Marxist and neo-Marxist circles

in the US and in Europe, in particular within the student movements (for the US, for example,

see Baran and Sweezy, 1966).

Dependencia has been much more diverse than the Modernist school. Various authors have,

for example, highlighted that internal factors must also be taken into account as an

“internalization of imperialism” can be witnessed (Evans, 1979). This was also emphasized

by Cardoso and Faletto who argued that with a stronger involvement of the US in Latin

America, multi-national companies, the public sector, and some larger domestic

entrepreneurs became part of a capitalist alliance (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979). There was,

however, not much epistemological differentiation and similar to Modernization theory, a

positivistic approach dominated.

The practical corollary of Dependencia’s theorizing was the advice to dissociate Southern

countries from the international economic system and to search for South-South cooperation,

at least until a similar level of economic development as in the North is achieved (Sunkel,

1969; Furtado, 1970; Cardoso, 1973; Senghaas, 1977). Dependencia, thus, took up the

ideas of authors like Friedrich List or Alexander Hamilton, who argued for state-led

industrialization and the protection of nascent industries. The practical corollary to the infant

industry argument was the strategy of Import Substituting Industrialization (ISI). This became

the theoretical cornerstone of the United Nations Economic Council for Latin America and the

Caribbean (better known by its acronym, ECLAC, or CEPAL in Spanish). ISI led to the

protection of local industries and markets as well as strong protectionist measures against

exports. The strategy was supported by extensive government programs and became one of

the main reasons for high budget deficits in most developing countries in the 1970s and

1980s (Brutton, 1998).

During the late 1970s and more so in the 1980s a strong disillusionment arose with

Dependencia (for a good overview, see Menzel, 1992): One of the main critiques is that it

overestimated the role of North-South trade and that the theory’s claim of exogenous

reasons for underdevelopment did not hold up to empirical testing (Larrain, 1989).

Furthermore, it was never specified which class would bring about progress if not the

Bourgeoisie. Dependencia also failed to take account of the role of state classes which,

through their rent-seeking behavior, posed important barriers to economic development

(Elsenhans, 1981). The practical implications have also been criticized, as wherever

attempts were made to dissociate from the international economic system, they led to very

problematic results (for a discussion of Latin America, see Edwards, Esquivel et al., 2007).

For most practitioners of development, the economic rise of the Asian Tigers finally proved

Dependencia’s reliance on non-integration wrong (see statist approaches below). The

general consensus that emerged was that the Asian Tigers also initially pursued state-led

development, but shifted from ISI to export-led strategies at the right time (Rhys, 2008).

7

It would, however, be premature to argue that the argumentation of Dependencia is without

further influence: First of all, the mainstream took notice and the development institutions

focused more on social issues as a response (e.g. the “basic needs approach” of the World

Bank in the 1970s). Mainstream academia gave it attention until the beginning of the 1980s –

a prominent example being a special issue of International Organization, which focused on

Dependencia in 1978 (Caporaso, 1978). Second, various development approaches in

developing countries themselves frame themselves still in a Dependencia discourse (see

below). Third, World Systems Theory brought a more holistic and global perspective on

development in the 1970s (Wallerstein, 1975). Wallerstein’s point of departure – partially

going back to Frank – is that a global economic system began to emerge in the fifteenth

century separating the world in three spheres: the periphery, the semi-periphery and the

core. In the countries of the core, capital is accumulated, technological as well as

sociological progress develops, and political power is situated. On the contrary, the periphery

exports primary goods and raw materials at worsening terms of trade and people thus

become more and more impoverished. Most mobility can be found in the semi-periphery and

countries in this cluster sometimes move up to the core or down to the periphery. His theory

has a strong structural bias, yet provided inspiration for later post-Marxist theories of

inequality in the international system.

Neoclassics and the Washington Consensus

Following such prominent thinkers like Friedrich von Hayek or Milton Friedman, a

neoclassical revolution in economics had profound effects on development thinking. At the

end of the 1970s, neoclassical economics delegitimized positions that favored a strong role

of the state, arguing that state failure is just as likely as market failure. According to these

theories, political elites do not regulate markets for the “common” good but for personal

gains, e.g. to become reelected. Thus, the best way to initiate growth is not state intervention

but to reduce the role of the government. Such reasoning found not only strong believers in

the industrialized North (e.g. in the deregulation policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald

Reagan) but also in the theory and practice of development, as authors like P.T. Bauer,

Deepak Lal, Bela Balassa, Ian Little, and Anne Krueger argued for a deliberate retreat of the

state in the global South (for a good overview, see Rapley, 2007: chapter 3).

Similar to Modernization theory, the Neoclassics located the reasons for underdevelopment

within the developing world. They stressed that by focusing on macroeconomic stability and

good governance, growth would become possible and end rent-seeking behavior (a

prominent example being Krueger, 1974). In particular, inflation would have to be curtailed by

reducing state controls and by liberalizing trade, investment, and other financial flows. Import

Substituting Industrialization was strongly condemned as it did not allow Southern countries

to explore their comparative advantage (Little, Scitovsky et al., 1979). Developing countries

should instead strengthen their export to escape poverty. Monetary policies should try to

reign in inflation, whereas the strong role of fiscal policy should be reduced.

8

Never before did a single approach dominate the practice of development so strongly. The

theory fell on futile ground, as state responses to the oil crisis, massive problems with Import

Substituting Industrialization, and a deteriorating macroeconomic situation with extremely

high rates of inflation were all too visible. This led to the initiation of the structural adjustment

programs (SAPs) by the Bretton Woods institutions in the middle of the 1980s designed to

reduce interventionist policies and fiscal imbalances of a country. Stabilizing the

macroeconomic situation should initiate growth, lead to private sector development, and

foster Southern countries’ integration into the international trading system. At its highpoint,

these recommendations were summed up as the “Washington Consensus” (Williamson,

1990). In some countries of the South, the neoliberal approach was pushed by the elites

themselves, particularly in highly authoritarian regimes like Chile under Pinochet, who was

advised by Milton Friedman and his “Chicago boys” (Fischer, 2009). But also Ghana, Mexico

or India adopted many of the recommended policies from the Bretton Woods institutions.

For critics, the neoclassical approach led to the debt crisis of the 1980s and the “lost decade

of development” (Singh, 1992). They pointed out that the policy recommendations of the

Washington Consensus were characterized by too much uniformity and did not do justice to

the high variation found in the developing world (Toye, 1993). In particular, the SAPs were

not adapted to the circumstances in most Sub-Saharan African countries and caused at least

as much harm as good (Noorkabash and Paloni, 1999). The focus on more market and less

government neglected the fact that for some private flows, public investments in

infrastructure, safety, and business development must come first (Rapley, 2001).

Furthermore, the neoclassical doctrine failed to provide a theory for institutions except for the

claim that they were set up for rent-seeking purposes by elites. The theory was, thus, much

more normative than its followers acknowledged. With hindsight, one can argue that the

underlying diagnosis of many neoliberal thinkers was right regarding the classical

development theories’ lack of understanding of the role of the state. For much of the

developing world, state failure, or rather interest groups that capture government, was – and

potentially still is – one of the strongest barriers against development (see, for example,

Bates, 1981: for an analysis of how the urban sector in developing countries is squeezing out

the rural one). However, the treatment that the Neoclassics recommended did not very often

bring about growth, as there was a strong misjudgment about how markets depend on

appropriate institutions (see below).

Current development thinking in various aspects is still embedded in the neoclassical, today

often negatively connoted the “neoliberal” approach. In the academic debate, the rational

choice and public choice literature are a case in point (for a good overview, see Leys, 1996:

chapter 4) and is for many, in particular the IMF, the last bastion of the neoclassic (Stiglitz,

2002). The Poverty Reductions Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which are one of the cornerstones

of current development practice, are also perceived as a continuation of the SAPs discussed

above. Nevertheless, the mainstream has moved to a “Post-Washington Consensus”, which

lays much more emphasis on governance issues, pro-poor growth, and social safety nets.

9

Development and Growth: The Contemporary Mainstream

Criticism about neoliberal development thinking and official development practices

culminated at the end of the 1980s and led to various “Post-Washington” approaches. These

did not entail a complete rejection of neoclassical positions or the market per se, but rather

an attempt to modify development practices so that they would fit a more diverse set of

problems. The 1990s and the early 2000s, thus, did not see the coming about of one single

new paradigm within the mainstream, but a proliferation of theoretical developments. This

reflects the highly differentiated reality of “developing countries”, which are split more and

more between a bottom billion living in misery (Collier, 2007) and emerging economies, in

particular Brazil, India and China, that are not only characterized by high growth rates but

also by strong geopolitical ambitions. A certain theoretical consensus, however, has

emerged, that in order to understand development one has to focus more on the state and

institutions.

Statist approaches

A first line of criticism of the neoclassical approaches stresses that the state has been

neglected in international politics in general (Skocpol, 1985) and, in explaining successful

economic development, in late-late industrializing countries in particular. The role of

bureaucracy has especially been explored by Johnson whose ground-breaking study of the

MITI, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Johnson, 1982), has been

highly influential. Many authors focused on East and South-East Asia, arguing that effective

and to a large extent highly repressive states precede successful industrialized economies

(Amsden, 1989; Haggard, 1990; Evans, 1995; Wade, 2004). The statist approaches have

also led to a new focus on the importance of the “developmental state”, something that

Rosenstein-Rodan had perceived in the 1940s and Gunnar Myrdal had already advocated in

the 1960s (Myrdal, 1968). The economic crisis of 1997 only temporarily challenged the

appeal of the developmental state with the criticism of “crony capitalism” (Kang, 2002), but

overall the consensus is that the state can, and even has to, foster economic development,

for example through promoting the rule of law, education or health services (World Bank,

1997). Much more controversial today is whether the experiences of East Asia can be

replicated, for example, in the African context (Rapley, 2007).

Neoinstitutionalist approaches

Neoinstitutionalist approaches analyze the role of non-market institutions on economic

behavior. In contrast to “old institutionalism” (e.g. Gustav Schmoller in Germany and Emile

Durkheim in France) and the statist perspectives described above, Neoinstitutionalism builds

10

much stronger on rationalist assumptions, starts with individual logics to describe social

outcomes, and focuses almost exclusively on transaction costs as the barrier to

development. Prominent early representatives of the approach are Douglass C. North,

Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson (for a good overview, regarding development theory,

see the contributions in Harriss, Hunter et al., 1995; Shirley, 2008; Booth, 2011). In the

1990s, these authors were taken up by various historical, rational choice, and sociological

approaches (Hall and Taylor, 1996).

In neoinstitutionalist approaches, the fundamental issues for initiating growth are the

characteristics of institutions present in a country (Rodrik, Subramanian et al., 2004;

Acemoglu and Robinson, 2008). The same can be said for the level of development

assistance a country receives (Doucouliagos and Paldam, 2009). Neoinstitutionalism,

therefore, transcends the debate of market failure vs. state failure, focusing instead on

institutional designs that reduces uncertainty (Toye, 1995). In particular, property rights and

the rule of law are stressed as perquisites that allow countries to foster technological

progress and to accumulate more investments, which in turn lead to higher growth rates

(Klasen, 2008; Tebaldi and Ramesh, 2010). Better institutions are also correlated with less

inequality (Chong and Gradstein, 2007). Corruption, ineffective governments and political

instability lead to increased income inequality and more poverty (Tebaldi and Ramesh,

2010). More recently, the focus on formal institutions has been complemented by analyses of

informal institutions and culture showing that growth also needs trust and reciprocity (Greif,

2006).

One important question that the neoinstitutionalist literature is debating is how far one has to

go back in time to explain the stickiness and path-dependency of institutions. What role, for

example, do early settlers play in the colonies as they organize wealth transfer in some areas

(primarily Latin America and Africa) and much less so in others (North America and

Australia), where checks and balances could be established resembling the mother country

that allowed the prospering of private enterprises (Acemoglu, Johnson et al., 2001; for a

different perspective, see Mahoney, 2010).

Another particularly interesting spin-off of the neoinstitutionalist debate is whether democracy

and democratization are good for development. Some argue that it is more than a correlation

that industrialization took place when the United Kingdom became a democracy (North,

1990) and that the relationship between democracy and strong growth rates also holds true

for modern societies (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2006; Persson and Tabellini, 2007). Others

have, however, stated that modern growth was initiated under an autocratic system, in

particular at the very beginning (Clark, 2007). The latter goes back to Huntington who in the

1960s argued very prominently that modern societies also need to undergo a period of

authoritarian ruling in order to kick-start growth (Huntington, 1968). The developing

consensus suggests that democratic liberalization is not correlated with economic growth,

whereas democratic consolidation is (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993).

The focus on institutions clearly dominates current mainstream thinking about development

(World Bank, 2002). It is evident that there is no single best practice of which institutional

11

design is optimal for development (Rodrik, 2007). A consensus is, however, developing that

countries need to find their own institutional path and no single best practice can be

prescribed from above as this would result in “kicking away the ladder” of development

(Chang, 2002).

Human development

Contemporary conceptualizations state that development is more than growth as the diverse

non-economic needs and interests of people also have to be included. Development is thus

about people-centered politics and the capacities that enable this (UNDP, 1990; Haq, 1995).

The approach goes back to the theoretical work of Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in

economics in 1998, who might be characterized as the most important contemporary

development theorist. What initiated Sen’s fame as a development intellectual was his finding

that there has never been a famine in a democratic country and that, thus, hunger is not due

to food scarcity per se but due to poor food distribution (Sen, 1982). He stressed the

importance of developing individual capabilities in order to achieve “substantive human

freedoms” like being able to avoid starvation or premature mortality. But also the

achievement of being literate and enjoying political participation constitute development

(Sen, 1999).

The practical importance of Sen’s work cannot be overrated. He played, for example, a

crucial role in devising the Human Development Index of the UNDP and in further developing

it as an authoritative measure for development that includes not only income or growth

patterns, but also life expectancy and literacy rates, and since 2010, new measures of

inequality.

Development and (global) governance

The notion of governance has been prominently used in development theory and practice

since the 1990s. Having many different meanings, however, one needs to distinguish a

normatively loaded, state-centric notion of ‘good governance’ from the more analytical uses

of the term on which we focus below. In this latter sense, governance has been defined in IR

as a system of rules performing the functions usually associated with government, but no

longer necessarily through hierarchical steering by government, but through non-hierarchical

modes of governance by non-state actors with and without government (Rosenau and

Czempiel, 1992). Others emphasize that beyond rule setting, governance refers to the

intentional provision of collective goods (Risse and Lehmkuhl, 2010). The concept has

provided an analytical framework for studying actor constellations and modes of managing

collective issues by state and non-state actors.

12

Where does this interest in governance in development studies come from? Since the 1980s,

development practitioners have turned to the private sector and to social organizations for

implementing development programs. In the academic world, methodological nationalism –

taking the unit of the state for granted and as starting point for the analysis of political

processes – has evoked criticism from different corners since the 1990s (Agnew, 1994;

Brenner, 1999). In this context, governance was introduced to integrate ‘new’ actors so far

overlooked into the analysis of governing, such as companies, NGOs, private and public-

private mechanisms of transnational regulation, as well as non-state actors at the local level,

such as traditional authorities or social groups. In IR, this translated into research on global

governance and new spheres of authority at the transnational level (Rosenau and Czempiel,

1992; Held and McGrew, 2002) and debates about global public goods provision in the

absence of a (world) state (Reinicke, 1998; Kaul, 2003). In various subfields, public-private

partnerships and new forms of transnational regulation are explored and the effectiveness

and legitimacy of such privatized forms of governance discussed (e.g. Haufler, 2001; Avant,

Finnemore et al., 2010)

There are a number of limitations to this new turn in development research. It tends to focus

on potentially positive contributions to governance, i.e. to collective goods provision, while

neglecting the negative effects and dynamics of these new forms of governance. Top-down

approaches to governance often do not pay attention to local norms and bottom-up dynamics

within local contexts in Africa, Latin America and Asia (Hönke and Börzel, fc.). Governance

for development has, in addition, largely remained a technocratic perspective neglecting

(structural) power effects and inequality (Barnett and Duvall, 2006). Finally, in many studies

its heuristic value for understanding politics is limited, because the author’s notion of

governance rests on assumptions rooted in the Western-liberal conception of the state,

namely that where there are distinct public, state actors and private, non-state actors, as well

as separate political and the economic spheres.

Some literature can be identified that has started to overcome these biases. Governance

has, for instance, been used as a lens through which to study transnational and local, formal

and informal configurations of systems of rule and collective goods provision in Africa, Latin

America and Asia (Draude, 2007; Blundo and Le Meur, 2009). Abandoning the bias towards

‘positive’, liberal-democratic norms (Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001) and collective goods

provision, others use the notion of governance for reintegrating indirect and coercive modes

of governance, including violence, and focus on issues of inequality, exclusion and conflict

within and between different local, and between local and transnational governance

arrangements (Menkhaus, 2007; Hönke, 2010). Research is also slowly starting to pay

attention to the ineffectiveness and unintended effects of the (global) governance of

development in local contexts (e.g. Mosse and Lewis, 2005; Daase and Friesendorf, 2010).

Finally, some focus quite practically on “good enough governance” stressing that the ideals

of good governance and best practice cannot be achieved in a short-term perspective

(Grindle, 2007).

13

Beyond Development: The Critiques

Since the 1970s, doubts about the possibility of development have increasingly been

pronounced from different political and theoretical camps. Confronted with the neoliberal

orthodoxy and its failures observed since the 1980s, many identified an ‘impasse’ of

development (Schuurman, 1993). The end of the Cold War profoundly changed the

international relations between ‘North’ and ‘South’ (Clapham, 1996) and in the course of

political liberalization, critical voices emerged from these countries themselves. In particular,

the creation of the World Social Forum signifies a new quality of the transnationalization of

social protest, giving voice to the disempowered in global politics. Furthermore, the critiques

have been strongly influenced theoretically by the linguistic and cultural turn that has reached

the social sciences since the 1970s. New ontological, epistemological, and methodological

approaches have opened the field for new research questions and critical perspectives.

Critical stances towards development have proliferated: taken by authors drawing on neo-

Marxist and post-Marxist theories, postcolonial positions largely based on poststructuralist

theories and critical ethnography, by a more activist and theoretically eclectic group of anti-

development authors, and by feminist theories. Questioning the objectivity of scientific

measurements and criticizing the distorted presumptions of comparative analysis of

‘developing countries’, they provide a critique of development understood as a hegemonic

discourse that materializes in the particular institutions and forms of knowledge dominating

the international relations of the non-OECD world. These approaches address a number of

common issues discussed below: the nexus of power and knowledge in developmental

discourse, the problematic construction of identities, and the potentials for resistance and

agency.

Critical International Political Economy (IPE)

In contrast to realist and liberal theories of IR and development, neo-Marxist and post-

Marxist approaches in IPE radically question the conceptualisation of the nation state as

autonomous and central actor in IR, as well as the focus on domestic factors in development.

Instead of focusing on actors, the economic, social and ideological structures are central for

understanding underdevelopment. These theories emphasize the hierarchical and uneven

nature of economic globalisation, concentrating economic power in a few core states (for

overviews see Overbeek, 2000), and also contest the idea of state and civil society being

separate spheres that is so central to liberal state theory and governance approaches.

Firstly, in the light of neo-Gramscian theories – theories that emphasize the role of ideas and

social forces within historical materialism (Hall 1989) – the discourse of development is an

expression of the hegemony of a particular transnational class formation that has been able

to universalize and globalize development as capitalist economic growth (Cox, 1987).

Hegemony therefore depends not only on economic and military strength, but also on the

support of civil society; discursive strategies and intellectual knowledge production are

14

necessary enabling conditions for turning such strength into hegemony. Studies demonstrate

how the particularistic interests of US politicians and business linked up with their

counterparts in Europe and the ‘Third World’ after World War II (van der Pijl, 1998).

Secondly, theories of empire link the new, transnational modes of governance towards the

South to the globalised nature of capitalist production, not only making new, far-reaching

regulatory mechanisms necessary, but also giving rise to new forms of subversion and

resistance (Hardt and Negri, 2000). Finally, authors drawing on Nicos Poulantzas emphasize

the internationalisation of the state and the relative autonomy and importance of this state,

because and despite of transnational social forces. The state is not understood as an

autonomous and neutral steering mechanism acting in the interest of development for all, but

to the contrary, is conceptualised as the ‘material condensation of social forces’ that has

been internationalised since the 1970s (Poulantzas, 1980; for an application to the non-

OECD world see Müller, fc). Understanding the interpenetration of ‘civil’ and ‘political’ society

from this perspective seems particularly fruitful for a critical analysis of the current increase in

‘public-private co-governance’.

These theories have received two main critiques: Orthodox neo-Marxists claim they do not

take adequate account of the structural determination of politics by the capitalist system of

production. By contrast, post-positivist authors in the Marxist tradition argue that these

approaches do not go not far enough in leaving economic and statist determinism behind.

According to Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, for instance, class and class interests

cannot be taken as given and instead need to be understood as being produced through

practices of articulation (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). Post-Marxist authors in fact share this

interest in the construction of hegemonic knowledge and its effects with postmodern and

poststructuralist critiques.

The postcolonial critique and the unintended effects of development

Postcolonial theories emerged in literature and cultural studies in the 1980s and have since

made their way into various fields of the social sciences. Authors in IR have, however, only

just begun to explore their potential. Scholars draw on them to question dominant knowledge

production about ‘the South’ and to look at the new forms of exclusion and resistance by the

disempowered in international and transnational governance and development. Chapters on

this literature have recently been incorporated into introductory books to IR (Abrahamsen,

2002; Grovogui, 2007).

Shifting research questions from how development can be achieved, or why it fails, the lens

of postcolonial theory focuses on questioning its dominant cultural representations and

practices, and on the power and effects of such biased practices (see e.g.Loomba, 1998;

Kapoor, 2008). The term ‘postcolonial’ refers to a historical and a theoretical juncture:

Historically, it refers to the legacy of colonial rule, notably in maintaining hierarchical and

biased forms of knowledge about the postcolony. Theoretically, postcolonial theories

deconstruct the objectivity claims of Western expert knowledge and analyze indirect forms of

power inherent in modern development discourse. Historians have produced alternative

15

representations of non-western historical narratives that both de-colonize the concepts used

for analysis and shift focus from the role of Western interveners and elites to local narratives

and the history of the disempowered (Scott, 1998; Conrad and Randeria, 2002). Others

emphasize the mutual constitution and entanglement of ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’

histories (Stoler and Cooper, 1997) and describe multiple, ‘subaltern modernities’ (Coronil,

1997). Reconstructing the establishment of the West/the rest divide, Edward Said’s study of

“Orientalism” (1978) is one of the founding books of postcolonial studies providing a

fundamental critique of Western constructions of non-western societies. Others demonstrate

how a positive ‘occidental’, Western identity has been constructed against the negative

images of Africa and Latin America (Mignolo, 1995).

A second topic postcolonial studies raises for development and IR is to make visible and

discuss potentials for subaltern agency. The concept of the subaltern was introduced by

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and the Subaltern Studies Group. It is a term that refers to

people who are not part of any hegemonic class and who are politically unorganized (Guha

and Spivak, 1988). The group studied the history and the repertoires of action of such

marginalized people in South Asia; other scholars have adapted the approach to Latin

America. The concept of ‘epistemic violence’ has been path-breaking in this regard: the

subaltern speech and political practice are not being heard or seen because of the power of

the hegemonic liberal discourse to define what is being recognized as political (Spivak,

1988). James Scott (1985) in turn opened analytical space for seeing “ the weapons of the

weak” that often remain unnoticed in IR and political studies.

Understanding postcolonial as a transhistorical term, these theories raise important

questions for a variety of situations of political domination by external actors during and after

colonial rule, such as in the contemporary field of development (Hall, 1996; see also Edkins,

2002). Postcolonial writers have been mainly criticized for their focus on culture and

textuality. Some argue that their post-modern language stands contrary to political aspiration

to create space for the agency of the disempowered. Others claim they generalized too much

about development, and, furthermore, were not engaged enough in problem solving

(Corbridge 2007). In particular for (critical) political economists, they greatly neglected the

role of political and economic structures (Ahmad, 1992).

Related to postcolonial and poststructuralist approaches, the anthropology of development

contributes in-depth empirical case studies of the encounter of international development

policies with local contexts. The strength of this work lies in pointing to at least three

problematic, unintended effects of development aid: de-politicization, the power effects of

participatory development, and the strengthening of unaccountable, autocratic political

structures at the local level. Concerning de-politicization, James Ferguson in The Anti-

Politics Machine (1990) describes the power, ambiguous effects, and limits of development

projects. Framed in a technocratic, a-political way, development interventions remove the

debate about what development should be and how to get there from the political realm of

debate into the sphere of expert knowledge and technocratic management (see also Murray

Li, 2007). Moreover, this literature critically analyses the concepts of ownership and

participatory development in international development. Privileging social cooperation and

16

harmony, they silence complaints about the growing inequality in the distribution of the

means of power, production and distribution of goods (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Finally,

development projects reproduce local hierarchies and power relations. Projects often

strengthen local elites who appropriate aid in various ways and foster exploitation of those at

the bottom of the local hierarchy (Mosse, 2005). ´

Overall, these studies have drawn attention to the fact that, whilst many development

projects are ineffective in attaining their self-defined goals, they have systematic effects on

local social, political, and economic structures. Capable of ‘switching codes’ (Rottenburg,

2009) between different discourses, agents at different levels are able to actively appropriate

and recreate development programs. Taking the co-existence of a plurality of powerful

discourses and social fields within arenas of intervention seriously, scholars of IR need to

account for heterogeneous, contradictory practices and effects of development projects, and

global governance interventions more generally (e.g. Hönke, 2010).

Anti-development

The term anti-development refers to a group of theoretically eclectic authors who are

sometimes grouped together with the above authors under the label of post-development,

who each share some distinct characteristics. They share a critique of development as being

unsustainable, undemocratic and repressive, and they all concentrate on suggestions for

alternative ways of living beyond development (for an overview see Ziai, 2007). Arturo

Escobar (1995) begins his famous critique of the current development model by showing

how Africa, Latin America and Asia became defined as ‘underdeveloped’ and thus in need of

development in the post-Second World War era. He proposes strategies against and beyond

development drawing on anti-colonial activists, such as writers Amilcar Cabral and Aimé

Césaire, and Mahatma Ghandi. He also returns to the idea of ‘delinking’ from the

Dependencia School.

Economically, delinking from global capitalist production suggests localized modes of

production and exchange. Exploring what an alternative mode of living could look like,

authors argue for small-scale, subsistence-oriented modes of living and count on grass-roots

movements of ‘ordinary people’ (e.g. Esteva and Prakash, 1999). Examples range from small

farmers’ associations in India to the alternative structures being established by the Zapatistas

movement in Chiapas. Many attach an intrinsic value to local communities and local

knowledge: Direct democracy, local and culturally embedded knowledge and solidarity would

characterize non-technocratic, non-industrialized politics and economies after development.

The slogan “small is beautiful’ captures well what is key to much anti-development thinking

(Schumacher, 1973). The romanticized and essentialized view of the local community as

“noble savage” (Kiely, 1999) in some of these writings has been strongly criticized, as the

revalorization of ‘indigenous cultures’ and community can foster a neo-romantic,

conservative turn (e.g. Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997). Authors fail to discuss the hardship of

such livelihoods and the emancipatory and positive aspects modernity may bring about

(Corbridge, 1998), and overlook the power relations within local communities, which

17

effectively limit the chances of open, grass-roots democracy. However, distinguishing

between reactionary tendencies and emancipatory approaches, the latter valuably shifted

attention to local voices, arguing for grassroots democracy, communal norms and forms of

justice (see Ziai, 2007).

Critical feminist theories and development

Various feminist theorists have also challenged mainstream development (see chapter by

Sjoberg and Tickner in this volume). The liberal agenda of ‘Women in Development’ focuses

on integrating women into the official (labor) market. The major critique of this liberal

approach came first from neo-Marxist and feminist gender theories (for an overview see

Saunders, 2002). Marxist authors provided a materialist theory of patriarchy; the women and

gender agenda of the 1980s then shifted focus away from women as a natural reference

point to the construction of gender roles. By the late 1980s, theories emerged that based

their claims upon the particular experiences of Third World women, challenging the

universalistic ambitions of liberal feminism and development. The particular life and work

experience of poor, Third World women, they argued, made their needs and standpoints

different from other (western, white, feminist) women (Sen and Grown, 1988). Social

constructivist and poststructuralist positions have been instrumental in criticizing essentialist

tendencies in such positions on women in development. Pointing to the production of

different sexualities and gender roles, these theories have also opened new spaces for

agency: If the subject position of women were produced – by hegemonic traditional as well

as liberal feminist discourses and practice – they could be challenged. However, they also

emphasize the significance of gender discourse, class, race and ethnicity in structuring

individual subject positions and capabilities to change them (see Marchand and Parpart,

1995).

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

There are a number of contemporary trends and problematic issues in development, and

North-South relations more generally, that would merit being discussed here. However, we

see three issues as being particularly central for contemporary development debates: First,

the “classic” debate regarding poverty and inequality; second, the securitization of

development thinking and practice; and, finally, the attempt to reconcile nature with human

development. Whereas we deal with these themes separately, it is being increasingly

recognized that inequality and (non) development, climate change and security are

interwoven, and are a key challenge to international politics (Messner, 2009).

The Economy of Development: Poverty and Inequality

18

One of the major questions of development thinking has always been how can poverty and

inequality be reduced and what role can economic growth play in this endeavor. Poverty

reduction is the most important objective of all official development policies, as, for example,

the MDGs first stated goal is to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Poverty, however, has to be

perceived in a multidimensional way defined as a lack of resources. These include income

and consumption, but also nutrition, drinking water, access to schooling, health services and

possibilities of political participation (World Bank, 2000). Furthermore, one has to differentiate

between relative poverty, which is measured using a poverty line that rises in the mean, and

absolute poverty, which is measured using a poverty line with a constant value. In general,

the measurement of relative poverty is of more interest to middle-income and high-income

countries, whereas absolute poverty is of more interest to low-income countries and is, thus,

more the focus of development economics. Absolute poverty is considered to exist when a

person lives on less than US$ 1.25 a day at 2005 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) for

household consumption (Ravallion, Chen et al., 2009: 3). Absolute poverty has reduced quite

dramatically in the past thirty years. Whereas in 1981 52 percent of the population of the

developing world was living below the absolute poverty line, this dropped to 42 percent in

1990, and in 2005 the number was down to 25 percent (Chen and Ravallion, 2008).

Nevertheless, in 2010 more than 1.4 billion people still had to live on less than US$ 1.25 a

day and more than 1.75 billion people lived in poverty, according to the multidimensional

poverty index (including education, living standards and health) indicators (UNDP, 2010).

Two-thirds of these currently live in rural areas (Chen and Ravallion, 2007).

What is no longer disputed is that economic growth is a necessary prerequisite for poverty

reduction to happen and that the majority of states have experienced unprecedented growth

rates over the last couple of decades. However, there are strong regional inequalities within

the developing world due to strong growth rates in some countries. For example, China –

and to some extent India – has achieved the highest rate of poverty reduction in absolute

and relative terms, whereas progress in other regions, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, has

been marginal. There is also a consensus that inequalities within countries – in particular

inequalities in access and ownership of land – strongly correlate with low growth rates

(Deininger and Squire, 1998). Similarly, there is broad agreement on the importance of

gender disparities. On the one hand, they reflect global inequality patterns (Dollar and Gatti,

1999) and, on the other hand, gender inequality in education and employment clearly

contributes to low growth rates (Klasen, 1999).

There are also some important controversies about poverty. A first issue is the origin of

poverty, reflecting the debate between Modernists and Dependencia discussed above. For

some authors, the existing poverty traps (e.g. geographical factors, like being landlocked)

hinder poor countries to develop. These cannot simply be overcome by market-based

approaches that primarily stress macroeconomic factors (see, for example, the conclusions

of the Commission for Africa, 2005). Instead a “big push” from the outside – most likely in the

form of development aid – is necessary for an “end of poverty” (Sachs, 2005). Such

reasoning resembles the argumentation of the Modernization school and greatly influences

pro-poor growth strategies as they are expressed, for example, in the MDGs. This approach

19

has been strongly criticized in the literature as the existence of poverty traps has been

empirically questioned (Kraay and Raddatz, 2005; Easterly, 2006).

A second controversy is whether economic growth leads to more or less inequality within and

across countries and is, therefore, systematically biased against the poor (for an overview of

the debate, see Bourguignon, Ferreira et al., 2009). The liberal mainstream argues that

growth is positively correlated with the rise in income of poor people too (Dollar and Kraay,

2002). This is supported by population-weighted studies that show that, within the last 30

years, global income inequality has fallen due to the growth of India and China (Sala-i-Martin,

2006). Critics of this perspective claim that the potential benefits of high growth rates do not

materialize for the poor and lead to more inequality at least at the cross-country level (good

representatives of this perspective are Wade, 2001; Pogge, 2005). For example, although

most of the global growth in percentage terms has occurred in lower-income and poor

countries, on a cross-country level the absolute difference to the OECD-world has not

narrowed for most countries due to the gap that already exists. Thus, the “world’s largest

inequalities are not defined by race, class, or gender, but by national borders” (Goesling and

Baker, 2008: 184). In the majority of developing countries – excluding India and China – the

relative income gap between the rich and the poor is also rising. Furthermore, one also has

to consider the different access and distribution of (social) security as well as the political

representation at the global level (Hurrell/Woods 1999). Similarly, inequality has also been

rising in the health sector since the early 1990s, most likely due to the HIV epidemic in Sub-

Saharan Africa and the declining longevity in Eastern Europe and Russia (Goesling and

Baker, 2008). In contrast, educational inequality has fallen sharply with the introduction of

formal schooling in some of the poorest countries (ibid.). Inequality, thus, has to be analyzed

in various dimensions and spatial aspects (in particular the worsening situation of Sub-

Saharan Africa) have to be taken into account.

Overall, one can conclude that the current debate about poverty and inequality is far more

nuanced than it was twenty years ago, and some of the more ideological controversies are

no longer dominant. The interesting questions for the practice of development are what kind

of growth, which sequencing in reforms is necessary to achieve it, and what kind of

institutional context is helpful in jumpstarting growth, poverty reduction and more equality at

the same time (for a good overview of the debate, see Rodrik, 2007).

Development and Security

Since the early 1990s, a merging of development with security agendas has taken place in

the foreign policies of Western states. This security-development nexus has been promoted

in various forms, but has also been fiercely criticized. The attempts at integrating conflict

prevention into development – dominant in the 1990s – need to be distinguished from the

various uses of development for security policies, in particular since September 11 (9/11),

2001.

20

The ‘widening and deepening’ of security (Buzan and Hansen, 2009) began with the

promotion of the concepts of human security and of conflict prevention in the post-Cold War

context. New kinds of threats, such as environmental degradation, underdevelopment, and

human rights abuses were integrated into the definition of security. Focus shifted from the

security of states to securing individuals (for an overview, see Owen, 2010). Development

was first understood as being important for the prevention of conflict. In a moderate turn

towards prioritizing security, it was then argued that security needs to be established first,

before development can happen (Fukuyama, 2004). As a consequence, governments have

promoted holistic policies combining diplomacy, defense and development in addressing

weak state capacities and instability in otherwise marginalized regions. Tools of development

were adjusted to address matters of security sector reform and civil-military cooperation in

the realm of (state-building) interventions (Klingebiel and Roehder, 2004).

A more securitized justification of the development-security nexus emerged after 9/11 when

the ‘developmentalization of security’ of the conflict prevention agenda increasingly turned

into a ‘securitization of development’ (Kühn, 2008). Seeing ‘fragile states’ as a new security

threat, new cartographies of the periphery have since emerged, which represent deficient

statehood as dangerous, not only to their citizens, but most of all to Western states. This

called for an integrated, global approach to address these new risks emanating supposedly

from the ‘fragile states’ in ‘the South’ (Duffield, 2001). These tendencies are, in particular,

evident in the military interventions in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in the combination of

state-building and counterinsurgency objectives. At its worst, development has become a

mere annex to security policies in the field of anti-terror interventions (Bachmann, 2010). This

trend is not only visible in the ‘winning hearts and minds’ campaigns in the War on Terror, but

seems to be operating in many states perceived to be fragile but strategically important

(Bachmann and Hönke, 2010).

However, despite these changes in policy, little is understood about if and how development

and security are actually related, or whether empirical evidence supports the assumption that

aid has a positive effect on reducing conflict, and vice versa. It has been argued that there is

no such relationship between poverty (non-development) and conflict (in-security) (Collier,

2003). Others point to the limits and unintended effects of the development-security agenda

in practice. One critique refers to the lack of actual implementation and spending on related

policies (Carment and Schnabel, 2003; Chandler, 2006). Linking security policies to the goal

of human development may have often been a labeling strategy in order to increase the

political salience and legitimacy of a particular issue (Suhrke, 1999). However, the new

holistic approaches combining security, development and diplomacy have been

institutionalized and are now increasingly structuring Western policies towards areas of

limited statehood (e.g. Patrick and Brown, 2007). Empirical studies on concrete cases of

state-building interventions emphasize that there are powerful blueprints for development

and state-building interventions, but these are based on flawed assumptions. One of these

points to a paradox within liberal state-building: on the one hand, it stresses ideas of self-

determination and democracy; on the other hand it focuses on state-building and stability,

giving rise to policies at odds with the principle of self-determination (Jahn, 2007). In the

21

name of development (and security) technocratic development interventions not only

depoliticize, they also actively reproduce inequalities within target societies as well as

asymmetric power relations in international relations (for an overview see Paris and Sisk,

2008; Chandler, 2009).

Another strand of research focuses on how issues of development get constructed as

security-relevant issues in the first place, and on how new perceptions of risks and security

techniques affect local populations. Understanding security as a discourse, authors use the

securitization theory (Buzan, Waever et al., 1998; Balzacq, 2010) and the Foucauldian

governmentality analysis (Duffield, 2001; Duffield, 2007) for this purpose. Securitization

theory focuses on how particular issues become security issues in the political arena through

speech acts, images and other interrelated practices. The analytics of government in the

Foucauldian tradition analyze the political rationality behind security governance and show

the (often indirect) power of modern knowledge and techniques informing security actors’

practices, and how these affect populations. These theories have emphasized that, while

everybody talks about the development-security nexus, different actors use this discourse for

implementing different practices. Post-security and discourse-theoretical studies demonstrate

in detailed empirical studies the disturbing effects of some of these uses, showing how the

policies enacted in its name have harmful effects, such as increasing insecurity and

(re)producing inequality (see Stern and Öjendal, 2010: 18-20). In managing risks perceived

as emanating from weak states in order to protect Western societies, stability is valued

higher than achieving equality and self-determination (Duffield, 2007).

Development and the Environment

Regarding the issue of development and the environment, three positions can be identified:

First, the pessimists argue that current lifestyles and the still dominant growth paradigm

cannot be sustained and will eventually lead to catastrophe (Lovelock, 2009). Such a

perspective reframes the Malthusian argument that there is an eventual incompatibility

between exponential growth and finite resources leading to “Limits to Growth” (Meadows,

Meadows et al., 1972). Current work on the different sizes of the ecological footprint of

diverse societies adds a North-South dimension to this general argumentation, particularly as

the carrying capacity of the Earth is said to be overused. One practical corollary of this

perspective is a complete delinking from the classical development paradigm (see above on

anti-development). The other is a plea for environmental authoritarianism (for an overview of

the debate, see Beeson, 2010).

Second, the optimists do not deny that environmental problems exist but their argument is

that societies can outgrow them (World Bank, 1992). The argument rests on the notion of the

environmental Kuznets curve, which is an inverted U-curve showing that whereas initial

growth patterns lead to high environmental degradation, high-income countries have lower

pollution rates (Grossman and Krueger, 1995) and lower rates of deforestation (Bhattarai and

Hammig, 2001). Although it is true that some local pollution and deforestation rates are being

22

reduced in richer countries, there is some leakage and overall CO2 emissions are directly

proportional to income and are thus much higher in the North than in the South (Arrow, Bolin

et al., 1995; Dasgupta, Laplante et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the practical implication of the

Kuznets curve argument – that economic development is at least partially not related to

environmental destruction – is becoming part of the mainstream of “liberal environmentalism”

(Bernstein, 2002).

Authors who argue for green growth take up the middle ground. They believe that eventually

sustainable development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” is possible (WCED (World Commission

on Environment and Development), 1987: 43). Many scholars, therefore, differentiate

themselves from ecological doomsday scenarios and argue for pragmatic problem solving

(Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2007) and a “Green New Deal” (Barbier, 2010). Although it is

still open how low-carbon-growth strategies – based on renewable energies and measured in

green accounting schemes – will look in detail, the first conceptual as well practical steps

have been taken (Weizsäcker, Hargroves et al., 2009; Stiglitz, Sen et al., 2010).

Finally, a consensus is developing that the North also has to follow different development

paths, e.g. by breaking its current consumption patterns (Dauvergne, 2008) or by reinventing

and ultimately overcoming capitalism (Speth, 2008). For the South, the practice of

development will also have to take into account adaptation strategies, as the first effects of

climate change are already materializing in many developing countries (IPCC, 2007). Water

shortages, changed precipitation patterns, and decreasing crop yields will most likely lead to

an increase in climate refugees, which in turn could lead to weaker governance structures in

already very weak states and thus to new conflict patterns.

CONCLUSION

Development is a highly contested field. Zygmund Baumann (1992) has described

(post)modern intellectuals as turning from legislators to either administrators or interpreters.

In development studies, this is reflected in the somewhat bifurcated structure of the field

which is divided between a practice-oriented mainstream and a critical, mostly interpretive

stream (Corbridge, 2007; Pieterse, 2009). Development studies, as well as IR, are still

primarily Western/Northern disciplines – Dependencia has been the exception to the rule.

Both disciplines have, nevertheless, opened up to a certain extent to the fact that modernity

has multiple forms, and for the “voices from below”. The new heterogeneity of the field

reflects the opening up of the social sciences to new voices and different ontologies. It also

reflects the skepticism towards large modernist schemes and the negative experiences that

have been made with development policies. To conclude, two – partly contradictory – trends

shall be stressed:

Firstly, various authors from the mainstream of IR, as well as from development studies, are

showing a new interest in the theory and practice of the state as important institution. With

23

the financial crisis and the strong involvement of governments in solving it, the pendulum

seems to be swinging back even more from markets to states (Pieterse, 2009; Wade, 2009).

One can, however, argue that this renaissance of statehood is contradicted by the

undisrupted transnationalization of economic, social, and political relations. It is, furthermore,

characterized by a lack of social coherence within states and although states may provide

stability, some show high degrees of repressiveness. Therefore, interest has grown in

institutions beyond the state as well as in making government representatives more

accountable.

Secondly, there is a new interest in the “local” and its interaction with the transnational and

international. Studies that take local practices as their starting point show that development

programs facilitate a hybrid range of practices. Instead of only focusing on ‘global’ programs

or norms, IR and development theorizing engage with theories that explain the powerful

negative effects of transnational discourses and organizational cultures. Another important

point is that the distribution of development, poverty, and inequality is mediated through

ethnicity, class and gender, producing and reproducing inequalities. These categories cut

across different geographical levels and demonstrate that studying such global issues in IR

needs to develop perspectives that overcome methodological nationalism and that integrate

insights from other disciplines. Furthermore, the emerging economies of the South (BRICS)

can no longer be perceived as pure rule-takers for they have become independent rule-

makers. Whether this will open up political space for the people of the South remains to be

seen.

In particular this latter trend might bring mainstream development theories and their critics,

as well as critical approaches to development and IR closer together and potentially lead to

dialogue. What nobody should expect, however, is that the dialogue will be coherent. If

successful, it will have to amply reflect the strong diversity in both fields as well as the

contestedness of their histories and central assumptions (see e.g. Grovogui, 2009).

24

Bibliography

Abrahamsen, Rita (2002) "Postcolonial Theory", in Martin Griffiths (ed.), International Relations Theory for the 21st century. An introduction. London, New York: Routledge. pp. 111-122.

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, et al. (2001) "The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation." American Economic Review, 91 (5): 1369-1401.

Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press.

Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson (2008) The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development. Commission on Growth and Development Working Paper No. 10. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Agnew (1994) "The Territorial Trap. The geographical assumptions of IRT." Review of International Political Economy, 1 (1): 53-80.

Ahmad, Aijaz (1992) In Theory. Classes, Nations, Literatures. London, New York. Amin, Samir (1976) Unequal Development. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Amsden, Alice (1989) Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press. Arndt, H. W. (1981) "Economic Development: A Semantic History." Economic

Development and Cultural Change, 29 (3): 457-466. Arrow, Kenneth, Bert Bolin, et al. (1995) "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the

environment." Science, 268: 520-521. Avant, Deborah D., Martha Finnemore, et al. (ed.) (2010) Who Governs the Globe?

Cambridge Studies in International Relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bachmann, Jan (2010) "“Kick Down the Door, Clean up the Mess, and Rebuild the House” – The Africa Command and transformation of the US military." Geopolitics, 15 (3): 564 - 585.

Bachmann, Jan and Jana Hönke (2010) "“Peace and Security“ as counterterrorism? Old and new liberal interventions and their social effects in Kenya." African Affairs, 109 (434): 97-114.

Balzacq, Thierry (ed.) (2010) Understanding Securitisation Theory. The Design and Evolution of Security Problems. PRIO New Security Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.

Banfield, Edward C. (1962) "American Foreign Aid Doctrines", in Robert A. Goldwin (ed.), Why Foreign Aid? Chicago, Il: Rand McNally. pp. 10-31.

Baran, Paul A. (1957) The political economy of growth. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Baran, Paul A. and Paul M. Sweezy (1966) Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. Harmondsworth: Pelican.

Barbier, Edward B. (2010) A global green new deal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; UNEP.

Barnett, Michael N. and Raymond Duvall (2006) Power in Global Governance. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Bates, Robert H. (1981) Markets and States in Tropical Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Beeson, M. (2010) "The coming of authoritarian environmentalism." Environmental Politics, 19 (2): 276-294.

25

Bernstein, Steven (2002) "Liberal Environmentalism and Global Environmental Governance." Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3): 1-16.

Bhattarai, Madhusudan and Michael Hammig (2001) "Institutions and the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation: A Crosscountry Analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia." World Development, 29 (6): 995-1010.

Blundo, Giorgio and Pierre-Yves Le Meur (2009) The governance of daily life in Africa : ethnographic explorations of public and collective services. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Booth, David (2011) "Aid, Institutions and Governance: What Have We Learned?" Development Policy Review, 29 (1): 5-26.

Bourguignon, Francois, Francisco Ferreira, et al. (2009) "global income inequality", in Kenneth A. Reinert and Ramkishen S. Rajan (ed.), The Princeton Econcyclopedia of the World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 542-550.

Brenner, Neil (1999) "Beyond State-Centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies." Theory and Society, 28: 39-78.

Brutton, Henry J. (1998) "A Reconsideration of Import Substitution." Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (2): 903-936.

Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, Berry, Ole Waever, et al. (ed.) (1998) Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Caporaso, James A. (1978) "Introduction to the special issue of International Organization on dependence and dependency in the global system." International Organization, 31 (1): 1-12.

Caporaso, James A. (1980) "Dependency Theory: Continuities and Discontinuities in Development Studies." International Organization, 34 (4): 605-625.

Cardoso, Fernando H. (1973) "Associated-dependent development: Theoretical and practical implications", in Alfred Stepan (ed.), Authoritan Brazil: Origins, policies and future. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 142-178.

Cardoso, Fernando H. and Enzo Faletto (1979) Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press.

Carment, David and Albrecht Schnabel (2003) Conflict prevention. Path to peace or grand illusion? Tokyo; New York: United Nations University Press.

Chandler, David (2006) Empire in Denial. London: Pluto Press. Chandler, David (2009) Hollow Hegemony. Rethinking global politics, power and

resistance. London: Pluto Press. Chang, Ha-Joon (2002) Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical

Perspective. London: Anthem Press. Chen, Shaohua and Martin Ravallion (2007) "Absolute poverty measures for the

developing world, 1981-2004." PNAS, 104 (43): 16757-16762. Chen, Shaohua and Martin Ravallion (2008) The Developing World is Poorer than We

Thought, but No Less Successful in the Fight against Poverty. Policy Research Working Paper 4703. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Chong, Alterto and Mark Gradstein (2007) "Inequality and institutions." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (3): 454-465.

Clapham, Christopher (1996) Africa in the International System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, Gregory (2007) A Farewell to Alms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Collier, Paul (2007) The Bottom Billion. Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What

Can Be Done About It? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26

Collier, Paul (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap. Civil war and development policy. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Commission for Africa (2005) Our Common Interest. Report of the Commission for Africa.

Conrad, Sebastian and Shalini Randeria (ed.) (2002) Jenseits des Eurozentrismus: postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari (ed.) (2001) Participation: The new Tyranny? London: Zed Books

Corbridge, Stuart (1998) ""Beneath the Pavement only Soil": the poverty of post-development." Journal of Development Studies, 34 (6): 138-148.

Corbridge, Stuart (2007) "The (Im)Possibility of Development Studies." Economy and Society, 36 (2): 179-211.

Coronil, Fernando (1997) The magical state : nature, money, and modernity in Venezuela. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cowen, Michael and Robert W. Shenton (1996) Doctrines of Development. London; New York: Routledge.

Cox, Robert W. (1987) Production, power, and world order : social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.

Daase, Christopher and Cornelius Friesendorf (ed.) (2010) Rethinking Security Governance. The Problem of Unintended Consequences. London: Routledge.

Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, et al. (2002) "Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (1): 147-168.

Dauvergne, Peter (2008) The Shadows of Consumption. Consequences for the Global Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Deininger, Klaus and Lyn Squire (1998) "New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth." Journal of Development Economics, 57 (2): 259-287.

Dickson, Anna (1998) "Review: Development and IR." Review of International Political Economy, 5 (2): 362-368.

Dollar, David and Roberta Gatti (1999) Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women? Policy Research Report Gender and Development. Working Paper Series, No. 1. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Dollar, David and Aart Kraay (2002) "Growth is Good for the Poor." Journal of Economic Growth, 7: 195-225.

Dos Santos, Theotonio (1970) "The Structure of Dependence." The American Economic Review, 60 (2): 231-236.

Doucouliagos, Hristos and Martin Paldam (2009) "The Aid Effectiveness Literature: The Sad Result of 40 Years of Research." Journal of Economic Surveys, 23 (3): 433-461.

Draude, Anke (2007) How to Capture Non-Western Forms of Governance: In Favour of an Equivalence Functionalist Observation of Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

Duffield, Mark (2007) Development, Security and Unending War. Governing the World of People. Cambridge: Polity.

Duffield, Mark (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars. The Merging of Development and Security. London, New York: Zed Books.

Easterly, William (2006) "Reliving the 1950s: the big push, poverty traps and takeoffs in economic development." Journal of Economic Growth, 11: 289-318.

Edkins, Jenny (2002) Whose hunger? : concepts of famine, practices of aid. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

27

Edwards, Sebastian, Gerardo Esquivel, et al. (2007) "Introduction", in Sebastian Edwards, Gerardo Esquivel and Graciela Márquez (ed.), The Decline of Latin American Economies: Growth, Institutions and Crisis. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1-14.

Elsenhans, Hartmut (1981) Abhängiger Kapitalismus oder bürokratische Entwicklungsgesellschaft. Versuch über den Staat in der Dritten Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Emmanuel, Arghiri (1972) Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York, NY: New Left Books.

Escobar, Arturo (1995) Encountering Development. The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Esteva, Gustavo and Madhu Suri Prakash (1999) Grassroots Post-modernism: remaking the soil of cultures: Zed Books, Palgrave.

Evans, Peter (1979) Dependent development: The alliance of multinational, state, and local capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Evans, Peter (1995) Embedded Autonomy: State and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ferguson, James (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine. “Development”, depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (2001) "Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations." Annual Review of Political Science, 4: 391-416.

Fischer, Karin (2009) "The Influence of Neoliberals in Chile before, during, and after Pinochet", in Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe (ed.), The Road from Mont Pelerin. The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 305-346.

Frank, A. G. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Fukuyama, Francis (2004) "The Imperative of State-Building." Journal of Democracy, 15 (2): 17-31.

Furtado, Celso (1970) Economic development of Latin America: A survey from colonial times to the Cuban revolution. Cambrdige, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Gilman, Nils (2003) Mandarins of the Future. Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Goesling, Brian and David P. Baker (2008) "Three faces of international inequality." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26: 183-198.

Greif, A. (2006) Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grindle, Merilee S. (2007) "Good Enough Governance Revisited." Development Policy Review, 25 (5): 553-574.

Grossman, G. M. and Anne Krueger (1995) "Economic Growth and the Environment." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110: 353-370.

Grovogui, Siba N. (2007) "Postcolonialism", in Timothy Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (ed.), International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.

Grovogui, Siba N. (2009) "Counterpoints and the Imaginaries Behind Them." International Political Sociology, 3 (3): 327–350.

28

Guha, Ranajit and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988) Selected Subaltern Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haggard, Stephen (1990) Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Developing Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C. R. Taylor (1996) "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms." Political Studies, XLIV: 936-957.

Hall, Stuart (1996) "When was the 'Post-colonial'? Thinking at the Limits", in Ian Chambers and Lidia Curti (ed.), The Post-colonial Question. London, New York: Routledge. pp. 242-260.

Haq, Mahbub ul (1995) Reflections on Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Harriss, John, Janet Hunter, et al. (ed.) (1995) The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development. London: Routledge.

Haufler, Virginia (2001) A Public Role for the Private Sector: industry self-regulation in a global economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Held, David and Anthony McGrew (2002) Governing globalization: power, authority and global governance. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Helleiner, Eric (2010) "Global governance meets development. A brief history of an innovation in world politics", in Jennifer Clapp and Rorden Wilkinson (ed.), Global Governance, Poverty and Inequality. . New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 27-45.

Hönke, Jana (2010) Liberal Discourse and Hybrid Practise in Transnational Security Governance: Companies in Congo and South Africa in the 19th and 21st Centuries: Freie Universität Berlin.

Hönke, Jana and Tanja A. Börzel (fc.) "From Compliance to Practice. Companies’ security practices and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights." Business and Politics, submitted.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1968) Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1971) "The Change to Change." Comparative Politics, 3: 283-322. IPCC (2007) Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to

the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jahn, Beate (2007) "The Tragedy of Liberal Diplomacy: Democratization, Intervention,

Statebuilding (Part II)." Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1 (2): 211-229. Johnson, Chalmers (1982) MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industry Policy

1925-1975. Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press. Jones, Branwen Gruffydd (2005) "Africa and the Poverty of International Relations."

Third World Quarterly, 26 (6): 987-1003. Kang, David C. (2002) Crony Capitalism. Corruption and Development in South Korea and

the Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kapoor, Ilan (2008) The postcolonial politics of development. London; New York:

Routledge. Kaul, Inge (2003) Providing global public goods: managing globalization. New York:

Published for the United Nations Development Project by Oxford University Press.

Kiely, R. (1999) "The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A critical assessment of post-development theory." European Journal of Development Research (11): 30-55.

29

Klasen, Stephan (1999) Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence from Cross-Country Regressions. Policy Research Report on Gender and Development. Working Paper, No. 7. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Klasen, Stephan (2008) "Economic growth and povert reduction: measurement issues using income and non-income indicators." World Development, 36 (3): 420-445.

Klingebiel, Stephan and Rhoeder Roehder (2004) Development-Military Interfaces: New Challenges in Crises and Post-conflict Situations, . Bonn: GDI.

Kohli, Atul (2004) State-Directed Development. Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kraay, Aart and Claudio E. Raddatz (2005) Poverty Traps, Aid, and Growth. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3631. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Krueger, Anne (1974) "The Political Economy of the Rent Seeking Society." American Economic Review, 64: 291-303.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Larrain, Jorge (1989) Theories of Development: Capitalism, Colonialism and Dependency. Oxford: Polity Press.

Leys, Collin (1996) The Rise & Fall of Development Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Little, Ian M.D., Tibor Scitovsky, et al. (1979) Industry and Trade in Some Developing Countries. London: Oxford University Press.

Loomba, Ania (1998) Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London/New York: Routledge. Lovelock, James (2009) The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. New York, NY:

Basic Books. Mahoney, James (2010) Colonialism and Postcolonial Development. Spanish America in

Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, et al. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York:

Universe Books. Menkhaus, Kenneth John. (2007) "Governance without Government in Somalia: Spoilers,

State Building, and the Politics of Coping " International Security, 31 (3): 74-106. Menzel, Ulrich (1992) Das Ende der Dritten Welt und das Scheitern der großen Theorie.

Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Messner, Dirk (2009) "Klimawandel, Enwicklung und Sicherheit." Transit - Europäische

Revue, 36: 107-116. Mignolo, Walter (1995) The darker side of the Renaissance : literacy, territoriality, and

colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1962) "Preface to a Political Theory of Foreign Aid", in Robert A.

Goldwin (ed.), Why Foreign Aid. Chicago, Il: Rand McNally. pp. Mosse, David (2005) Cultivating Development. An ethnography of aid policy and practice

Pluto. Mosse, David and David Lewis (2005) The aid effect : giving and governing in

international development. London, Ann Arbor: Pluto. Müller, Markus-Michael (fc) Public Security in the Negotiated State. Policing in Latin

America and Beyond. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Murray Li, Tania (2007) The Will to Improve Governmentality, Development, and the

Practice of Politics. Durham: Duke Univ. Pr. [u.a.]. Myrdal, Gunnar (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. New York,

NY: Twentieth Century Fund. Neuman, S. (ed.) (1998) International Relations Theory and the Third World. New York:

St. Martin's Press.

30

Noorkabash, Farhad and Alberto Paloni (1999) "Structural Adjustment Programs and Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa: Restructuring or De-industrialization?" Journal of Developing Areas, 33 (549-580).

Nordhaus, Ted and Michael Shellenberger (2007) BreakThrough. From the Death of Environmentalism and the Politics of Possibility. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

North, Douglass C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ocampo, José Antonio and Mariángela Parra-Lancourt (2010) "The terms of trade for commodities since the mid-nineteenth century." Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 28 (1): 11-43.

Olson, Mancur (1963) "Rapid Growth as a Destabilizing Force." Journal of Economic History, 23 (4): 529-552.

Overbeek, Henk (2000) "Transnational Historical Materialism: theories of transnational class formation and world order", in Ronan Palan (ed.), Global Political Economy. Contemporary Theories. London: Routledge. pp. 168-183.

Owen, Taylor (2010) "Human Security: A contested Contempt", in J. Peter Burgess (ed.), Handbook of new security studies. Oxon: Routledge. pp.

Palma, Gabriel (1978) "Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment?" World Development, 6: 881-924.

Paris, Roland and Timothy D. Sisk (ed.) (2008) The Dilemmas of Statebuilding. Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations. Security and Governance Abingdon: Routledge.

Patrick, Stewart and Kaysie Brown (2007) Greater than the Sum of its Parts? Assessing "Whole of Government" Approaches to Fragile States. Wahsington D.C.: International Peace Academy.

Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini (2007) The growth effect of democracy: Is it heterogeneous and how can it be established? NBER Working Paper 13150. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Pieterse, Nederveen Jan (2009) Development Theory. Deconstructions/ Reconstructions. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Pogge, Thomas (2005) "World Poverty and Human Rights." Ethics and International Affairs, 19 (1): 1-7.

Poulantzas, Nicos (1980) State, Power, Socialism. London: Verso. Prebisch, Raúl (1950) The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal

Problems. New York: United Nations. Preston, Peter Wallace (1996) Development Theory. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers. Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi (1993) "Political Regimes and Economic

Growth." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7 (3): 51-69. Rahnema, Majid and Victoria Bawtree (ed.) (1997) The Post-development Reader.

London [a.o.] Zed Books [a.o.]. Rapley, John (2001) "Convergence: myths and realities." Progress in Development

Studies, 1 (4): 295-308. Rapley, John (2007) Understanding Development. Theory and Practice in the Third World.

Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner. Ravallion, Martin, Shaohua Chen, et al. (2009) "Dollar a Day Revisited." The World Bank

Economic Review: 1-22. Reinicke, Wolfgang H. (1998) Global public policy: governing without government?

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

31

Rhys, Jenkins (2008) "The Political Economy of Industrialization: A Comparison of Latin American and East Asian Newly Industrializing Countries." Development and Change, 22 (2): 197-231.

Risse, Thomas and Ursula Lehmkuhl (ed.) (2010) Governance Without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rist, Gilbert (2002) The History of Development from Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books.

Rodrik, Dani (2007) One Economics - Many Recipes. Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Rodrik, Dani, Arvind Subramanian, et al. (2004) "Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development." Journal of Economic Growth, 9: 131-165.

Rosenau, James N. and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (ed.) (1992) Governance without Government. Order and Change in World Politics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenstein-Rodan, Paul Narcyz (1943) "Problems of Industrialization of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe." Economic Journal, 53 (210/211): 202-211.

Rostow, Walt W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rottenburg, Richard (2009) Far-Fetched Facts. A Parable of Development Aid. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2005) The End of Poverty. Economic Possibilities of Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.

Said, Edward (1978) Orientalism. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier (2006) "The world distribution of income: Falling poverty

and...convergence, period." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121: 351-397. Saunders, Kriemild (2002) Feminist Post-Development Thought : rethinking modernity,

post-colonialism & representation. London: Zed. Schumacher, E. F. (1973) Small is beautiful : economics as if people mattered,by E. F.

Schumacher. New York: Harper and Row. Schuurman, Frans J. (1993) Beyond the Impasse : new directions in development theory.

London; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Zed Books. Scott, James C. (1985) Weapons of the weak : everyday forms of peasant resistance. New

Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, James C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: how certain schemes to improve the human

condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sen, Amartya (1982) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sen, Amartya (1999) Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Achor Books. Sen, Gita and Caren Grown (ed.) (1988) Development, crises, and alternative visions.

Third World women's perspectives. London: Earthscan Publications. Senghaas, Dieter (1977) Weltwirtschaftsordnung und Entwicklungspolitik. Plädoyer für

Dissoziation. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Shirley, Mary M. (2008) Institutions and Development: Advances in New Institutional

Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Singh, Ajit (1992) "The Lost Decade: The Economic Crisis of the Third World in the

1980s." Contention, 2: 58-80. Skocpol, Theda (1985) "Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current

Research", in Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol (ed.), Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-43.

32

Slater, David (1993) "The Geopolitical Imagination and the Enframing of Development Theory." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18 (4): 419-437.

Smith, Steve (2007) "Introduction: Diversity and disciplinarity in International Relations Theory", in Timothy Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (ed.), International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univeristy Press. pp. 1-12.

Speth, James Gustave (2008) The Bridge at the Edge of the World. Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Spivak, G. (1988) "Can the Subaltern Speak?", in Cary Nelosn and Lawrence Grossberg (ed.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. London: Macmillan. pp. 271-313.

Stern, Maria and Joakim Öjendal (2010) "Mapping the Security—Development Nexus: Conflict, Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence? ." Security Dialogue, 41 (1): 5.29.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York, NY: Norton & Company.

Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya Sen, et al. (2010) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

Stoler, Ann Laura and Frederick Cooper (1997) "Between Metropole and Colony. Rethinking a Research Agenda", in Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper (ed.), Tensions of Empire. Colonial Cultures in a bourgeois world. Berkeley, CA. pp. 1-56.

Suhrke, Astri (1999) "Human security and the interests of state." Security Dialogue, 30 (3): 265-276.

Sunkel, Osvaldo (1969) "National development policy and external dependence in Latin America." Journal of Development Studies (October): 23-48.

Tebaldi, Edinaldo and Mohan Ramesh (2010) "Institutions and Poverty." Journal of Development Studies, 46 (6): 1047-1066.

Tilly, Charles (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Toye, John (1993) Dilemmas of Development: reflections on the Counter-revolution in Development Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Toye, John (1995) "The New Institutional Economics and Its Implications for Development Theory", in John Harriss, Janet Hunter and Colin M. Lewis (ed.), The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development. London: Routledge. pp. 49-70.

UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. UNDP (2010) Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways

to Human Development. New York, NY: UNDP. van der Pijl, Kees (1998) "The Lockean Heartland in the International Political

Economy", in Kees van der Pijl (ed.), Transnational classes and international relations. London: Routledge. pp. 64-97.

Wade, Robert H. (2001) "The Rising Inequality of World Income Distribution." Finance and Development, 38 (4).

Wade, Robert H. (2004) Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wade, Robert H. (2009) "From global imbalances to global reorganisations." Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33: 539-562.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (ed.) (1975) World Inequality: Origins and Perspectives on the World System. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

33

Warren, Bill (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism. London: Verso. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common

Future: The Brundtland Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weizsäcker, Ernst-Ulrich von, Karlson Hargroves, et al. (2009) Factor Five: Transforming

the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity. London: Earthscan.

Williamson, John (ed.) (1990) Latin American adjustment: how much has happened. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

World Bank (1992) Development and the Environment. World Development Report 1992. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

World Bank (1997) World Development Report 1997 "The State in a Changing World". New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001. Attacking Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

World Bank (2002) Institutions for Markets: World Development Report 2001/2002. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Ziai, Aram (2007) "The Ambivalence of Post-development. Between reactionary populism and radical democracy", in Aram Ziai (ed.), Exploring Post-development. London: Routledge. pp. 111-128.

Ziai, Aram (2007) Exploring Post-development. London: Routledge.

* We would like to thank Jan Bachmann, Harald Fuhr, Markus-Michael Müller, Andreas Obser, and the editors of the handbook for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. A special thanks also goes to Pearl Wallace for language editing.