Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/

Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sacand promising paths

Gillian Hart
Prog Hum Geogr 2001 25: 649
DOI: 10.1191/030913201682689002

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/25/4/649

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/25/4/649.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2001

What is This?

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

Progress in Human Geography 25,4 (2001) pp. 649–658

Development critiques in the 1990s:

culs de sac and promising paths
Gillian Hart
Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-4740, USA

I Introduction

The final decade of the last millennium opened with the demise not only of soviet-style
socialism and of apartheid. In addition, shock troops of the neoliberal right and the
cultural left confidently declared the Death of Development. This was no mere impasse,
as some had suggested in the 1980s. Development was definitively dead, and sending
out noxious fumes that could only be dissipated either by market rationality or by New
Social Movements.
With the dawning of Y2K, Development is back on the agenda with a vengeance. A
flourishing industry centered on social capital and social development has arisen in the
World Bank, the UNDP and other multilateral institutions, as well as in Tony Blair’s
Department for International Development. Questions of development are also back in
the guise of ‘globalization’ and the rise of oppositional movements that are both
reminiscent of the 1960s and yet startlingly new.
A revealing article on recent anti-capitalist protests in The Economist expressed grave
concern that a motley assortment of protestors and NGOs, ranging from the League for
a Revolutionary Communist International to Oxfam, are ‘extorting admissions of fault
from law-abiding companies and changes in policy from democratically elected
governments’ (The Economist, 23 September 2000: 87). What is more, The Economist
complains, the IMF and particularly the World Bank are bowing to these pressures; the
latest World Development Report, for example, blathers on about poverty as encom-
passing not only lack of food, shelter and other material necessities, but also power-
lessness, voicelessness, vulnerability and fear. (The article omits mention of the
resignation of economist Ravi Kanbur from the World Bank when, at the prompting of
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, he was ordered to rewrite the report with a
stronger pro-growth message.) Whether ‘the developing countries’ will benefit from
pervasive soft-headedness is very much in doubt: ‘Empowerment, supposing the idea

© Arnold 2001 0309–1325(01)PH348PR

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

650 Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths

is taken seriously, may distract governments and the Bank alike from the simpler pro-
growth tasks that they already appear to find impossibly difficult.’ The article goes on
to explain how the protests are being driven by a group of predominantly western
malcontents who are articulating widespread popular concern about the hard edges of
globalization: ‘fears, genuine if muddled, about leaving the poor behind, harming the
environment, caring about profits more than people, unleashing dubious genetically
modified foods, and the rest.’ It concludes with a warning that, if the protestors’
appetite for power is stimulated rather than assuaged by their continuing success,
global capitalism is in grave danger.
In addition to inciting wry amusement, this article captures vividly the multilayered
struggles that have arisen, phoenix-like, from the ashes of market triumphalist claims
of the Death of Development. It also exemplifies a distinction that seems to me very
useful: between ‘big D’ Development defined as a post-second world war project of
intervention in the ‘third world’ that emerged in the context of decolonization and the
cold war, and ‘little d’ development or the development of capitalism as a geographi-
cally uneven, profoundly contradictory set of historical processes.
The D/d distinction has affinities with Cowen and Shenton’s (1996) distinction
between development as an intentional practice and an immanent process. In their
deeply historicized account, Cowen and Shenton contend that development
understood as intentional intervention was present at the very birth of industrial
capitalism to confront the depredations wrought by ‘progress’. They also observe that
what I have called Development is part of a much longer lineage of what they aptly call
trusteeship. Yet Cowen and Shenton are strangely silent on Karl Polanyi’s (1944)
monumental contributions along broadly similar lines in the form of what he called
capitalism’s ‘double movement’. The unleashing of markets for labor, land and money,
Polanyi maintained, wreaks profound havoc and generates countertendencies and
demands for intervention and social protection. Far from the countermovement repre-
senting some sort of external intervention in an inexorably unfolding teleology, these
opposing tendencies are contained within capitalism. By the same token, the conditions
for global capital accumulation must be actively created and constantly reworked. Key
questions (on which Polanyi was somewhat agnostic) concern the social and political
forces through which the countermovement is constituted in any particular historical-
spatial conjuncture, and how these opposing tendencies play out – or are fought out –
within and across multiple, interconnected social and spatial arenas.
In teaching a course on ‘Development in Theory and History’, I start off juxtaposing
Deepak Lal’s neoliberal polemic (Lal, 1985) with an equally polemical
anti-Development diatribe by Wolfgang Sachs (1992). Apart from their brevity
and passion, what makes the two together so useful as a pedagogical device is that the
full force of their combined ferocity is directed at precisely the same target:
Development understood as a postwar international project. From a Polanyian
perspective, both neoliberal and post-Development critiques can be seen as expressions
of the opposing forces contained within capitalism. While profoundly a-historical,
both can be situated within a much longer history of assertions of – and reactions
to – ‘progress’ (Cowen and Shenton, 1996). Both deploy similarly crude conceptions
of power (Cooper and Packard, 1997) and, in their mutual antipathy to the state,
both conjure up (a problematically conceived) civil society and both invoke certain
sorts of populisms (Watts, 1993). They are emblematic, in short, of how Development

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

 Gillian Hart 651

critiques coming from opposite directions converged in the early 1990s.

Over the past decade there has emerged a related convergence, partly in response to
neoliberal and post-Development critiques. Problematic conceptions of civil society still
figure prominently in this new convergence, but so too do equally problematic
invocations of ‘the local’. These notions in turn play into deeply disabling discourses of
globalization, and constitute the intellectual and political cul de sac that I refer to in the
title. Notably missing from these formulations – yet urgently needed – is attention to
the multiply inflected capitalisms that have gone into the making of globalization.
Critical human geography is, I suggest, singularly well equipped to contribute to such
understandings – an argument that I shall spell out more fully in future essays.
My task here is to trace how Development critiques played out over the 1990s. In
section II below, I probe how the neoliberal ‘Washington Consensus’ that appeared so
firmly entrenched at the beginning of the decade gave way to a ‘post-Washington
Consensus’. In particular, I focus on the re-emergence of trusteeship as a central mission
of the World Bank, and show how notions of social capital and ‘the local’ figure in this
project. In section III, I turn to a brief overview of recent post-Development literature
and critical reactions to it in the latter 1990s, calling attention to ethnographically
grounded critiques, and arguing that a focus on Development that abstracts from
broader questions of political economy leads inexorably to a dead end.

II The unraveling of the Washington Consensus? Development redux

At the start of the 1990s neoliberal orthodoxy appeared as an impregnable fortress,

cemented in place by the Washington Consensus that emerged over the 1980s among
‘the economically influential bits of Washington, meaning the US government and
international financial institutions’ (Williamson, 1993: 1329). In an earlier piece on
structural adjustment in Latin America, Williamson (1989) made clear ‘what
Washington means by policy reform’: fiscal austerity and control over inflation; trade
and capital account liberalization; and privatization and deregulation of product and
factor markets. Any challenge to this ‘common core of wisdom embraced by all serious
economists’ could only come from cranks, Williamson declared, going on to note that
‘The proof may not be quite as conclusive as the proof that the Earth is not flat, but it is
sufficiently well established to give sensible people better things to do with their time
than to challenge its veracity’ (Williamson, 1993: 1330).
Geographer Charles Gore (2000) perceptively maintains that the propagation of the
Washington Consensus (hereafter WC) in the 1980s represented a Kuhnian paradigm
shift in spatial and temporal frames of reference. Until then, both explanations and
evaluations of Development had been cast in a national frame of reference, and
informed by an implicit or explicit historicism. The WC entailed the partial globaliza-
tion of policy analysis, combining ‘normative economic internationalism with a
methodologically nationalist form of explanation which attributed what was
happening within countries to national factors and policies’ (Gore, 2000: 792). It also
represented a shift from historicism to a-historical performance assessment. There are
parallels here with Neil Smith’s claim that the paradigm of modernization gave way in
the 1980s to ‘the geographical [and, one might add, a-historical] euphemism of global-
ization’ (Smith, 1997: 174).

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

652 Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths

These spatio-temporal frames of meaning are key to grasping how forces emanating
from East Asia provided the battering ram that punctured large and embarrassing holes
in the WC during the 1990s. The assault actually came in two waves: a battle over the
interpretation of East Asian ‘miracles’ in the early 1990s, and the eruption of what came
to be known as ‘the Asian crisis’ in the second half of 1997. That the meaning of rapid
and comparatively equitable growth in East Asia loomed so large over Washington had
to do both with how key figures in the World Bank had used it to legitimate neoliberal
orthodoxy in the 1980s (Balassa, 1981; Kreuger, 1981) and with the escalating share of
East Asia in the global economy. The cement in the WC had barely hardened when Alice
Amsden (1989) lobbed a powerful missile in the form of claims that South Korean state
functionaries has systematically violated some of the most sacred tenets of neoliberal
orthodoxy. Wade (1990), Castells (1992), Evans (1995) and others followed up, invoking
Chalmers Johnson’s (1982) notion of the ‘developmental state’, along with Weber (and
in Evans’ case, Polanyi) to assert the powerful role of the state in East Asian accumula-
tion. Yet, as Gore (1996) has argued, the construction of East Asian debates in terms of
‘states versus markets’ reinforces methodological nationalism as an explanatory
framework, while failing to recognize how East Asian state strategies ‘are based on an
explanatory framework which analyses national patterns and processes within a global
context, and a nationalist normative framework which seeks national economic
development through rapid industrialization’ (Gore, 1996: 78).
It was in the context of growing tension between the USA and Japan over the dereg-
ulation of financial markets that the battle over the interpretation of East Asian
‘miracles’ moved into top gear, culminating in the World Bank’s publication of The East
Asian miracle in 1993. In his fascinating account, Robert Wade (1996) documents how
powerful Japanese policy-makers challenged the WC and financed the Bank study; the
process by which the study was written inside the Bank; and the awkward, heavily
vetted text that emerged in which the Bank conceded to state intervention in East Asian
economies, but held firmly to a ‘market-friendly’ interpretation. Although the report
quickly elicited a roar of protest, (e.g., Amsden, 1994; Lall, 1994), the WC emerged intact
– although with its defences weakened. Wade illuminates both the practices of
meaning-making through which key figures within the Bank fended off the challenge
to neoliberal orthodoxy, and the larger configurations of power within which the
Japanese challenge unfolded. The story of The East Asian miracle, he argues, shows the
determining force of US values and interests in the functioning of the Bank. Yet this
influence does not come mainly from direct influence by US government officials. In
addition to a preponderance of North Americans within the Bank, it operates through
the Bank’s reliance on world financial markets, and ‘the self-reinforcing congruence
between the values of the owners and managers of financial capital and those of the US
state’ (Wade, 1996: 35). The WC, in other words, stretches north to encompass Wall
Street.
Wall Street was, of course, directly implicated in the financial meltdown following
the devaluation of the Thai baht in mid-19987. In a particularly prescient article, Lance
Taylor (1997) warned that pressures for radical financial deregulation were producing
potentially incendiary conditions in many parts of the world. A few months later, what
has come to be called ‘the Asian crisis’ spread like wildfire through Thailand, Korea,
Indonesia and Malaysia. Brandishing the weapons of the WC, IMF officials leapt into
action – palpably worsening the situation. While the Bretton Woods institutions have

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

 Gillian Hart 653

never been monolithic, dissent has generally been contained in a gentlemanly fashion.
As the financial crisis deepened, there were key defections from the WC. For example,
Jeffrey Sachs (until then, a prominent IMF consultant) alleged that ‘instead of dousing
the flames, the IMF screamed fire in the theater’ (Sachs, 1998: 19). At around the same
time Joseph Stiglitz (then senior vice president and chief economist at the World Bank)
delivered his famous ‘post-Washington consensus’ speech to the World Institute for
Development Economics Research (WIDER) in Helsinki in which he asserted that
financial market liberalization had contributed to instability, and called for a reversal of
neoliberal orthodoxy (Stiglitz, 1998).
Much of the recent excited talk about a post-Washington Consensus is greatly
exaggerated. Even though the fortress walls have been breached, there is still vigilant
policing – as is evident from the departures from the Bank of Stiglitz and Kanbur
(Henwood, 2000). In addition, the ideas that Stiglitz advocates remain within a
narrowly economistic and quite conservative framework of the ‘new institutional
economics’ (NIE). Yet there has clearly been a shift in the balance of power within the
Bank, with talk of a post-WC strengthening the hand of those who advocate ‘participa-
tory Development’ and intensifying (although not inaugurating) a Polanyian counter-
movement.
Ameliorative tendencies emanating from the Bank in the context of neoliberal
orthodoxy were evident in the latter part of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s in
the guise of ‘adjustment with a human face’, ‘good governance’, the ubiquitous
‘sustainable development’ and so forth. In all of these moves, civil society – conceived
in opposition to the state and the market – has figured prominently. Organized pressure
on the environmental front clearly played a role (Wade, 1997). Yet the incorporation of
environmentalism did not pose any fundamental threat to the WC. In terms of official
knowledge production it was encompassed easily (if clumsily) with the addition of
natural capital and social capital to the more orthodox man-made [sic] and human
capital (Serageldin, 1996), and what McAfee (1999) calls ‘Green Developmentalism’
continued unabated.
The destruction wrought by the ‘Asian crisis’ is, I suggest, far more threatening, and
has called forth a response reminiscent of the McNamara Bank in the 1970s. One
example is the unveiling of a ‘Comprehensive Development Framework’ by Bank
president James Wolfensohn in January 1999. The same year the Bank issued a report
revealingly entitled ‘Managing the Social Dimensions of Crises: Good Practices in
Social Policy’, reiterating on the one hand the importance of ‘prudent’ macro-economic
policies but also emphasizing the need to ‘protect the people who are worst off’ (World
Bank, 1999: 6). (The long-standing ‘African crisis’, needless to say, has failed to elicit
such concern.) Trusteeship, in short, is once more prominent on the official agenda,
draped once again in the language of Development – this time, with ‘the social’ as a
prominent accessory.
It is within this context that one needs to situate the meteoric rise of ‘social capital’ in
the late 1990s, propelled in large part by the Bank’s imprimatur. While the concept is (I
hope) destined to collapse under the weight of its own floppiness, its lease of life is far
from over. Rather than going into questions of what social capital is or where it came
from, I want to focus on how it is being used, and with what effects. Proponents of social
capital within the World Bank claim that it broadens conceptions of poverty; enables
new forms of practice; and facilitates conversations across disciplines (Woolcock, 1998;

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

654 Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths

Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). My own guess is that the room to manoeuvre opened up
by notions of social capital is extremely small. Many (if not most) economists regard the
notion of social capital with contempt. What the concept does is enable them to
accommodate ‘non-economists’ as non-threatening junior partners. In an incisive
critique, Ben Fine (1999) maintains that ‘social capital has provided the World Bank
with the analytical capacity to propose its new agenda without having to come to terms
in any serious or substantive way with the critical literature of the old consensus,
especially that around the developmental state’ (Fine, 1999: 12). While I concur with
much of Fine’s argument, I would argue that it is not just the Developmental state that
needs to be resurrected; as Fine himself has argued elsewhere, this literature is itself
quite circumscribed (Fine and Rustomjee, 1996). First, though, I want to turn to the post-
Development critique.

III Post-Development and its discontents

The term ‘post-Development’ has come to encompass a wide array of writings, ranging
from those with explicitly Foucauldian ambitions to those that embody a visceral
reaction to modernity, but also including adherents of radical democracy, post-
Marxism, ecofeminism, and various other positions. While differentiated across
multiple axes, they are united by antagonism to Development as a normalizing, deeply
destructive discursive formation emanating from ‘the west’; by firm rejection of any
sort of reformist tendencies; and by faith in new social movements or what Esteva and
Prakash (1998) call ‘grassroots postmodernism’. The most widely cited texts published
in the first half of the 1990s (Escobar, 1995a; 1995b; Latouche, 1993; Sachs, 1992) have
been followed by others in which the broad contours of argument are essentially the
same (Esteva and Prakash, 1998; Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997; Sachs, 1999).
In addition to Watts (1993; 1995), useful critical review essays on post-Development
include Little and Painter (1995), Agrawal (1996) Lehmann (1997) and Corbridge (1998).
Gupta (1997), Everett (1998), Li (1999), Moore (1999) and Diawara (2000) provide
trenchant historically and ethnographically grounded critiques of the rather crude, top-
down conceptions of power running through much of the post-Development literature.
Related literature takes on romanticized post-Development notions of New Social
Movements, also in terms that hearken to a broadly Gramscian set of understandings
(Linkenbach, 1994; Rangan, 1996; Watts, 1997). I shall return to some of these studies in
a later essay, less for their critiques of post-Development – which seem to me to have
run their course – than for their capacity to illuminate multiple trajectories in the
context of globalization.
That critiques of post-Development have indeed reached a point of rapidly
diminishing returns is evident from a slew of recent literature that represents, in one
way or another, reactions to the nihilism of post-Development (Blaikie, 2000; Munck
and O’Hearn, 1999; Pieterse, 1998; 2000; Schuurman, 2000; Simon, 1998). One such
reaction has been an often frantic search for paradigms, typically in the form of lengthy
and increasingly repetitive treks across conceptual territory in which political economy
is either absent or a distant mirage on the horizon. Others have reacted by taking on
board poststructuralist understandings of power/knowledge/discourse, and steering
confidently into the realm of Development practice (Gardner and Lewis, 1996; 2000;

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

 Gillian Hart 655

Phillips and Edwards, 2000). This is, of course, precisely the ‘non-economic’ terrain that
has been occupied for some time by (often self-proclaimed populist) proponents of par-
ticipatory methods such as Robert Chambers (1994; 1997) and, more recently, where
growing numbers of social capital(ists) are setting up camp.
My use of spatial metaphors is quite deliberate, precisely because this terrain is so
often defined not only in terms of civil society, but also ‘the local’. As Mohan and Stokke
(2000) point out, romanticized notions of ‘the local’ represent the key point of
convergence between the revisionist neoliberalism that has taken shape over the 1990s,
and post-Marxist presumptions that underpin a large chunk of the post-Development
literature. Not only has this localism ‘tended to essentialise the local as discrete places
that host relatively homogeneous communities or, alternatively, constitute sites of
grassroots mobilisation and resistance’ (Mohan and Stokke, 2000: 264). In addition, they
note, ‘local participation, can be used for different purposes by different stakeholders –
including underplaying local inequalities and power relations, as well as national and
transnational economic and political forces – thereby overtly or inadvertently
cementing Eurocentric ‘solutions’ to development problems.
Uncritical invocations of ‘the local’ I suggest, also play directly into deeply disabling
discourses of globalization, reinforcing what I call the impact model. A number of
binaries map onto the global/local dichotomy that frames the impact model. In
addition to active/passive and dynamic/static, these include economics/culture,
general/specific, abstract/concrete and, very importantly, dichotomous understand-
ings of time and space in which time is accorded active primacy while space appears as
a passive container. This conflation of ‘the global’ with dynamic, technological-
economic forces restlessly roving the globe defines its inexorable – and inexorably
masculine – character. By the same token, ‘the local’ appears as a passive, implicitly
feminine recipient of global forces whose only option is to appear as alluring as
possible. This counterposition and gendering of time and space are thus key
components of discourses that naturalize neoliberalism, whether in its orthodox or
revisionist form. Such discourses also reinforce the role of ‘non-economists’ as
handmaidens.
This takes me back to the point that critical engagement with revisionist neoliberal-
ism currently in ascendance is not just a matter of reasserting the Developmental state.
The key issue, rather, is the need to confront questions of capitalist development – not
as unfolding teleology or immanent process, but in terms of the multiple, non-linear,
interconnected trajectories that are constitutive of what has come, euphemistically, to be
termed ‘globalization’. Refocusing on ‘small d’ development, and on non-reductionist
understandings of class and power, constitutes a vitally important terrain for intellec-
tual engagement in a world of profound injustice and material inequality, and will form
the focus of my next essay.

Acknowledgements
My deep appreciation to Aaron de Grassi for his intellectual participation and practical
assistance in the writing of this paper. In the final stages, Sasha Lilley also provided
valuable help. Thanks (with the usual disclaimers) for helpful readings to Cindi Katz,
Vishnu Padayachee, Allan Pred, David Szanton and Michael Watts.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014

656 Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths
References
Agrawal, A. 1996: Poststructuralist approaches to
development: Some critical reflections. Peace
and Change 21(4), 464–77.
Amsden, A. 1989: Asia’s next giant: South Korea
and late industrialization. New York: Oxford
University Press.
–––– 1994: Why isn’t the whole world experi-
menting with the East Asian model to develop?
Review of ‘The East Asian miracle’. World
Development 22(4), 627–33.
Balassa, B. 1981: The newly-industrialized countries
in the world economy. London: Pergamon Press.
Blaikie, P. 2000: Development, post-, anti-, and
populist: a critical review. Environment and
Planning A 32(6), 1033–50.
Castells, M. 1992: Four Asian tigers with a
dragon head: a comparative analysis of the
state, economy, and society in the Asian Pacific
Rim. In Appelbaum, R. and Henderson, J.,
editors, States and development in the Asian
Pacific Rim, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 33–70.
Chambers, R. 1994: The origins and practice of
participatory rural appraisal. World
Development 22(7), 953–69.
–––– 1997: Whose reality counts? Putting the last
first. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Cooper, F. and Packard, R., editors 1997:
International development and the social sciences:
essays on the history and politics of knowledge.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Corbridge, S. 1998: Beneath the pavement only
soil: the poverty of post-development. Journal
of Development Studies V34(6), 138–48.
Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. 1996: Doctrines of
development. London: Routledge.
Diawara, M. 2000: Globalization, development
politics and local knowledge. International
Sociology 15(2), 361–71.
Escobar, A. 1995a: Encountering development: the
making and unmaking of the third world.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––– 1995b: Imagining a post-development era.
In Crush, J., editor, The power of development,
London: Routledge, 211–27.
Esteva, G. and Prakash, M.S. 1998: Grassroots
post-modernism: remaking the soil of cultures.
London: Zed.
Evans, P. 1995: Embedded autonomy: states and
industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014
University Press.
Everett, M. 1998: The ghost in the machine:
agency in ‘poststructural’ critiques of
development. Anthropological Quarterly.
Fine, B. 1999: The developmental state is dead –
long live social capital? Development and Change
30(1), 1–19.
Fine, B. and Rustomjee, Z. 1996: The political
economy of South Africa. Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.
Gardner, K. and Lewis, D. 1996: Anthropology,
development and the post-modern challenge.
London: Pluto Press.
–––– 2000: Dominant paradigms overturned or
‘business as usual’? Development discourse
and the white paper on international
development. Critique of Anthropology 20(1),
15–29.
Gore, C. 1996: Methodological nationalism and
the misunderstanding of East Asian industrial-
ization. European Journal of Development
Research 8(1), 77–122.
–––– 2000: The rise and fall of the Washington
consensus as a paradigm for developing
countries. World Development 28(5), 789–804.
Gupta, A. 1997: Agrarian populism and the
development of a modern nation (India). In
Cooper, F. and Packard, R., editors,
International development and the social sciences:
essays on the history and politics of knowledge,
Berkeley: University of California Press,
320–344.
Henwood, D. 2000: Stiglitz and the limits of
reform. The Nation 2 October, 20–21.
Johnson, C. 1982: MITI and the Japanese miracle:
the growth of industrial policy, 1925–75. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Kreuger, A. 1981: Loans to assist the transition to
outward-looking policies. The World Economy
4(3), 271–82.
Lal, D. 1985: The misconceptions of ‘develop-
ment economics’. Finance and Development
22(2), 10–13.
Lall, S. 1994: The East Asian miracle – does the
bell toll for industrial strategy? World
Development 22(4), 645–54.
Latouche, S. 1993: In the wake of the affluent society:
an exploration of post-development. London: Zed.

Lehmann, D. 1997: An opportunity lost:
Escobar ’s deconstruction of development.
Journal of Development Studies V33(Apr. N4),
568–78.
Li, T. 1999: Compromising power: development,
culture and rule in Indonesia. Cultural
Anthropology 14(3), 295–322.
Linkenbach, A. 1994: Ecological movements and
the critique of development: agents and inter-
preters. Thesis Eleven 36, 63–85.
Little, P.D. and Painter, M. 1995: Discourse,
politics, and the development process:
reflections on Escobar’s ‘anthropology and the
development encounter’. American Ethnologist
22(3), 602–609.
McAfee, K. 1999: Selling nature to save it?
Biodiversity and green developmentalism.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
17(2), 133–54.
Mohan, G. and Stokke, K. 2000: Participatory
development and empowerment: the dangers
of localism. Third World Quarterly 21(2), 247–68.
Moore, D. 1999: The crucible of cultural politics:
reworking ‘development’ in Zimbabwe’s
eastern highlands. American Ethnologist 26(3),
654–89.
Munck, R. and O’Hearn, D., editors 1999: Critical
development theory: contributions to a new
paradigm. London: Zed.
Phillips, S. and Edwards, R. 2000: Development,
impact assessment and the praise culture.
Critique of Anthropology 20(1), 47–66.
Pieterse, J.N. 1998: My paradigm or yours?
Alternative development, post-development,
reflexive development. Development and Change
29(2), 343–73.
–––– 2000: After post-development. Third World
Quarterly 21(2), 175–91.
Polanyi, K. 1944: The great transformation. New
York: Rinehart.
Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V., editors 1997: The
post-development reader. London: Zed.
Rangan, H. 1996: From Chipko to Uttaranchal:
development, environment, and social protest
in Garhwal. In Peet, R. and Watts, M., editors,
Liberation ecologies: environment, development,
and social movements. London: Routledge,
205–26.
Sachs, J. 1998: The IMF and the Asian flu. The
American Prospect 37, 16–21.
Sachs, W., editor 1992: The development dictionary:
a guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014
Gillian Hart 657
–––– 1999: Planet dialectics: explorations in
environment and development. London: Zed
Press.
Schuurman, F.J. 2000: Paradigms lost, paradigms
regained? Development studies in the twenty-
first century. Third World Quarterly 21(1), 7–20.
Serageldin, I. 1996: Sustainability and the wealth of
nations: first steps in an ongoing journey.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Simon, D. 1998: Rethinking (post)modernism,
postcolonialism, and posttraditionalism: south-
north perspectives. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space 16(2), 219–45.
Smith, N. 1997: The satanic geographies of glob-
alization. Public Culture 10(1), 169–89.
Stiglitz, J. 1998: More instruments and broader
goals: moving towards a post-Washington
consensus. Helsinki: WIDER Annual Lectures
no. 2.
Taylor, L. 1997: Editorial: the revival of the liberal
creed – the World Bank in a globalized
economy. World Development 25(2), 145–52.
Wade, R. 1990: Governing the market: economic
theory and the role of government in East Asian
industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
–––– 1996: Japan, the World Bank, and the art of
paradigm maintenance – the East Asian
miracle in political perspective. New Left Review
217, 3–36.
–––– 1997: Greening the bank: the struggle over
the environment, 1979–1995. In Kapur, D.,
editor, The World Bank: its first half century.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
611–734.
Watts, M. 1993: Development I: power,
knowledge, discursive practice. Progress in
Human Geography 17, 257–72.
–––– 1995: A new deal in emotions: theory and
practice and the crisis of development. In
Crush, J., editor, Power of development, London:
Routledge, 44–62.
–––– 1997: Black gold, white heat. In Pile, S. and
Keith, M., editors, Geographies of resistance,
London: Routledge, 33–67.
Williamson, J. 1993: Democracy and the
Washington consensus. World Development
21(8), 1329–36.
––––, editor 1989: Latin American adjustment: how
much has happened? Washington, DC: Institute
for International Economics.
Wolfensohn, J. 1999: A proposal for a comprehensive
development framework. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
658 Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths

Woolcock, M. 1998: Social capital and economic Observer 15(2), 225–49.

development: toward a theoretical synthesis
and policy framework. Theory and Society 27(2),
151–208.
Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. 2000: Social
capital: implications for development theory,
research, and policy. World Bank Research
World Bank 1993: The East Asian miracle. New
York: Oxford University Press.
–––– 1999: Managing the social dimensions of crises:
good practices in public policy. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on August 4, 2014