Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 2, pp 175–191, 2000

After post-development
JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

ABSTRACT Along with ‘anti-development ’ and ‘beyond development’, post-de-

velopment is a radical reaction to the dilemmas of development. Post-develop-
ment focuses on the underlying premises and motives of development; what sets
it apart from other critical approaches is that it rejects development. The
question is whether this is a tenable and fruitful position. Taken up Ž rst in this
article are major overt positions of post-development—the problematisatio n of
poverty, the portrayal of development as Westernisation, and the critique of
modernism and science. The argument then turns to discourse analysis of
development; it is argued that, in post-development , discourse analysis from a
methodology turns into an ideology. Next the difference between alternative
development and ‘alternatives to development’ is examined. The reasons why
this difference is made out to be so large are, in my interpretation , anti-manage-
rialism and dichotomic thinking. The article closes with a discussion of the
politics of post-development and a critical assessment.

The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion
and disappointment, failures and crime have been the steady companions of
development and they tell a common story: it did not work. Moreover, the historical
conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development
has become outdated. (Sachs, 1992: 1)

Along with ‘anti-development’ and ‘beyond development’, post-developmen t is

a radical reaction to the dilemmas of development. Perplexity and extreme
dissatisfactio n with business-as-usua l and standard development rhetoric and
practice, and disillusionmen t with alternative development are keynotes of this
perspective. Development is rejected because it is the ‘new religion of the West’
(Rist, 1990a), it is the imposition of science as power (Nandy, 1988), it does not
work (Kothari, 1988), it means cultural Westernisation and homogenisatio n
(Constantino , 1985) and it brings environmental destruction. It is rejected not
merely on account of its results but because of its intentions , its world-view and
mindset. The economic mindset implies a reductionist view of existence. Thus,
according to Sachs, ‘it is not the failure of development which has to be feared,
but its success’ (1992: 3).
Post-developmen t starts from a basic assessment: that attaining a middle-class
lifestyle for the majority of the world population is impossible (Dasgupta, 1985).
In time this has led to a position of total rejection of development. In the words
of Gustavo Esteva:

Jan Nederveen Pieterse is at the Institue of Social Studies, PO Box 29776, The Hague 2502 LT, The Netherlands.

ISSN 0143-659 7 print; 1360-2241 online/00/020175-1 7 Ó 2000 Third World Quarterly 175
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

If you live in Mexico City today, you are either rich or numb if you fail to notice
that development stinks … The time has come to recognize development itself as
the malignant myth whose pursuit threatens these among whom I live in Mexico …
the ‘three development decades’ were a huge, irresponsible experiment that, in the
experience of a world-majority, failed miserably. (1985: 78)
Post-developmen t overlaps with Western critiques of modernity and techno-sci-
entiŽ c progress, such as critical theory, post-structuralis m and ecological move-
ments. It parallels alternative development and cultural critiques of development.
It is to development what ‘deep ecology’ is to environmental management. There
are different strands to this way of looking at development. Anti-development is
rejectionism inspired by anger with development business-as-usual . Beyond
development (‘au dela de développment’) combines this aversion with looking
over the fence. In post-development these two are combined with a Foucauldian
methodology and theoretical framework of discourse analysis and a politics
inspired by poststructuralism . These positions are not all consistent and besides,
as a recent approach, post-developmen t thinking is not theoretically developed.
The overlap among these sensibilitie s is sufŽ cient to group them together here
under the heading of post-development .
Development is the management of a promise—and what if the promise does
not deliver? For those living in Chiapas or other oppressed and poor areas, the
chances are that development is a bad joke. The question is what is done with
this assessment. Post-developmen t is not alone in looking at the shadow of
development; all critical approaches to development deal with its dark side.
Dependency theory raises the question of global inequality. Alternative develop-
ment focuses on the lack of popular participation . Human development addresses
the need to invest in people. Post-developmen t focuses on the underlying
premises and motives of development; what sets it apart from other critical
approaches is that it rejects development. The question is whether this is a
tenable and fruitful position.
In the 1980s critiques of development crystallised around the journal Develop-
ment: Seeds for Change. They have been taken up by, among others, intellectu-
als in Latin America (Esteva, 1992; Escobar, 1995, 1996), India (see Dallmayr,
1996 on the ‘Delhi school’), Pakistan (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997), Malaysia
(Just World Trust, 1995), France (Latouche, 1993), Switzerland (Rist, 1997),
Germany (Sachs, 1992), Belgium (Verhelst, 1990), England (Seabrook, 1994),
Ireland (Tucker, 1999), Japan (Lummis, 1991). They have become prominent
since they coalesce with ecological critiques and ecofeminism (Mies, 1986,
Shiva, 1988b) and through bestsellers such as Sachs’s Development Dictionary.
Discussed Ž rst in this article are some of the overt positions of post-
development—the problematisatio n of poverty, the portrayal of development as
Westernisation and the critique of modernism and science. The argument then
turns to the methodologica l dimension of discourse analysis of development.
Next the difference between alternative development and ‘alternatives to devel-
opment’ is examined. The reasons why this difference is made out to be so large
are, in my interpretation , anti-managerialism and dichotomic thinking. The
exposition closes with a discussion of the politics of post-developmen t and a
critical assessment.
176
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

Problematising poverty
An insight that runs through post-developmen t is that poverty is not to be taken
for granted. In the words of Vandana Shiva:

Culturally perceived poverty need not be real material poverty: subsistence econom-
ies which serve basic needs through self-provisioning are not poor in the sense of
being deprived. Yet the ideology of development declares them so because they
don’t participate overwhelmingly in the market economy, and do not consume
commodities provided for and distributed through the market. (1988b: 10)

Poverty is in the eye of the beholder. Sachs (1989) distinguishe s between

frugality, as in subsistence economies; destitution, which can arise when subsist-
ence economies are weakened through the interference of growth strategies; and
scarcity, which arises when the logic of growth and accumulation has taken over
and commodity-based need becomes the overriding logic. In this early work,
Sachs’s policy recommendation is to implement growth strategies with caution
and to build on frugal life styles. This matches the recommendations made all
along by ‘ecological developers’ such as the agronomist René Dumont (1965,
1974), to follow growth strategies in parallel with appropriate technology and
maximum use of local resources. But the rejection of either growth or develop-
ment does not follow.
‘Poverty’ is not simply a deŽ cit, for that would assume simply adopting the
commodity-based perspective of the North; ‘poverty’ can also be a resource.
Attributing agency to the poor is a common principle in alternative approaches
such as ‘conscientisation ’ à la Paulo Freire, human-scale development (Max-
Neef, 1982, 1991; Chambers, 1983), participator y action research and the
actor-orientated approach. According to Rahnema, while poverty is real enough,
it is also a culturally and historically variable notion. ‘The way planners,
development actomaniacs and politicians living off global poverty alleviation
campaigns are presenting their case, gives the uninformed public a distorted
impression of how the world’s impoverished are living their deprivations. Not
only are these people presented as incapable of doing anything intelligent by
themselves, but also as preventing the modern do-gooders from helping them.’
(1992: 169) This is a different issue: it concerns the representation of poverty.
By way of counterpoint , Rahnema draws attention to ‘vernacular universes’ that
provide hope and strength; to the spiritual dimension (‘Most contemporary
grassroots movements have a strong spiritual dimension’, p 171); and to
‘convivial poverty’, ‘that is, voluntary or moral poverty’ (p 171). This suggests
afŽ nity with the lineage of the Franciscans, liberation theology and Gandhian
politics.
In this view, it is the economics of development that is truly pauperising.
While these consideration s may be valid up to a point, a consequence is that
poverty alleviation and elimination—for what these efforts are worth—slip off
the map. Another problem is that less market participation does not necessarily
imply more social participation —lest we homogenise and romanticise poverty,
and equate it with purity (and the indigenous and local with the original and
authentic). The step from a statistical universe to a moral universe is
177
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

worth taking, but a moral universe also involves action, and which action
follows?

Development 5 Westernisation

The debate over the word ‘development’ is not merely a question of words.
Whether one likes it or not, one can’t make development different from what it has
been. Development has been and still is the Westernisation of the world (Latouche,
1993: 160).

According to Escobar (1992), the problem with ‘development’ is that it is

external, based on the model of the industrialise d world, and what is needed
instead are ‘more endogenous discourses’. The assertion of ‘endogenous devel-
opment’ calls to mind dependency theory and the ‘foreign bad, local good’
position (Kiely, 1999). According to Rajni Kothari, ‘where colonialism left off,
development took over’ (1988: 143).1 This view is as old as the critique of
modernisation theory. It calls to mind the momentum and pathos of decolonisa-
tion, the arguments against cultural imperialism, CocaColonisation , McDonaldi-
sation and the familiar cultural homogenisatio n thesis, according to which
Western media, advertising and consumerism induce cultural uniformity.
All this may be satisfying as the sound of a familiar tune, but it is also
one-sided and old-hat. In effect, it denies the agency of the Third World. It
denies the extent to which the South also owns development. Several recent
development perspectives—such as dependency theory, alternative development
and human development—have originated to a considerable extent in the South.
Furthermore, what about ‘Easternisation’, as in the East Asian model, touted by
the World Bank as a development miracle? What about Japanisation , as in the
‘Japanese challenge’, the in uence of Japanese management techniques and
Toyotism (Kaplinsky, 1994)? At any rate, ‘Westernisation’ is a catch-all concept
that ignores diverse historical currents. Latouche and others use the bulky
category ‘the West’ which, given the sharp historical differences between
Europe and North America is not really meaningful. This argument also
overlooks more complex assessments of globalisation (eg Nederveen Pieterse,
1995). A more appropriate analytics is polycentrism. Here the rejoinder to
Eurocentrism is not Third Worldism but a recognition that multiple centres, also
in the South, now shape development discourse (e.g. Amin, 1989; Nederveen
Pieterse 1991).

Critique of modernism
Part of the anti-Western sentiment is anti-modernism. It is true that development
suffers from a condition of ‘psychologica l modernism’ and has erected monu-
ments to modernism—vast infrastructures and big dams—placing technological
progress over human development. But states in the South have used science as
an instrument of power, creating ‘laboratory states’ (Vishvanathan, 1988), as in
Rajiv Gandhi’s high-tech modernisation drive in India and Indonesia’s exper-
iment in aircraft technology. In Latin America, the work of the cientiŽ cos is not
178
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

yet complete. Brazil’s commitment to high modernism is on display in Brasilia

(Berman, 1988). Islamabad in Pakistan is another grid-planned capital city
without heart or character. The 1998 nuclear tests in South Asia are another
rendezvous of science and raison d’état (Subrahmanyam, 1998). For Gilbert Rist
(1990) development thinking represents the ‘new religion of the West’, but
indeed the worship of progress is not conŽ ned to the West.
Aversion to modernism also exists in the West; rationalism is one face of the
Enlightenment and romanticism is another. There are many afŽ nities and
overlaps between critical theory and the countercultur e in the West (Roszak,
1973; Berman, 1984) and anti-modernism in the South. Schumacher (‘small is
beautiful’) found inspiration in Buddhist economics (Wood, 1984) and Fritjof
Capra in Eastern mysticism, while Ashis Nandy’s outlook has also been shaped
by Freud, the Frankfurt School and Californian psychology.
Part of the critique of modernism is the critique of science. A leitmotif, also
in ecological thinking, is to view science as power. ‘Science’ here means
Cartesianism, Enlightenment thinking and positivism , an instrument in achieving
mastery over nature. The critique of Enlightenment science runs through the
work of Vandana Shiva (1991). But this is not a simple argument. For one thing,
science has been renewing itself, for example in quantum physics and chaos
theory, and undergoing paradigm shifts leading to ‘new science’. In addition
there are countertrends within science, such as the methodologica l anarchism of
Feyerabend and the work of Latour (1993). In social science, positivism is no
longer the dominant temperament; increasingly the received wisdom in social
science is constructivism . In economics positivism prevails, but is also under
attack. Thus, for Hazel Henderson economics is not science but politics in
disguise (1996). A clear distinctio n should be made between a critique of science
and anti-science. Acknowledging the limitations of science, the role of power/
knowledge and the uses made of scientiŽ c knowledge does not necessarily mean
being anti-science. The critique of science is now a deŽ ning feature of new
social movements North and South (Beck, 1992). Ecological movements use
scientiŽ c methods of monitoring energy use, pollution and climate changes.
‘Green accounting’ and ‘greening the GDP ’ use scientiŽ c apparatuses, but for
different ends than previously.2 Anti-development at times sounds like twentieth-
century Luddism, with more rhetoric than analysis and a certain lack of
consistency (e.g. Alvares, 1992).3 Also from a Third World point of view there
are other options besides anti-science (cf. Goonatilake, 1999).
It is more appropriate to view modernism as a complex historical trend, which
is in part at odds with simple modernisation . Thus, the dialectics of modernity
are part of modernity, which has given rise to critical and re exive modernity
(Beck, 1992). Ironically, the aversion to modernism is also an expression of high
modernism, advanced modernity and postmodernis m (Lee, 1994; cf. Nederveen
Pieterse, 1999).

Development as discourse
According to Escobar, the ‘discourse of Development’, like the Orientalism
analysed by Edward Said, has been a ‘mechanism for the production and
179
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

management of the Third World … organizing the production of truth about the
Third World’ (1992b: 413–414). A standard Escobar quote is: ‘development can
best be described as an apparatus that links forms of knowledge about the Third
World with the deployment of forms of power and intervention , resulting in the
mapping and production of Third World societies’ (1996: 213).
Discourse analysis forms part of the ‘linguisti c turn’ in social science. It
involves the careful scrutiny of language and text as a framework of presuppo-
sitions and structures of thought, penetrating further than ideology critique.
Prominent in literary criticism, discourse analysis has been applied extensively
in cultural studies, feminism, black studies, and now in the social sciences
generally. Discourse analysis contributes to understandin g colonialism as an
epistemologica l regime (Mitchell, 1988), it can serve to analyse the ‘develop-
ment machine’ (Ferguson, 1990) and development project talk (Apthorpe &
Gasper, 1996; Rew, 1997) and has become a critical genre in development
studies (Crush, 1996; Grillo & Stirrat 1997). Discourse analysis applied to
development is the methodologica l basis of post-development , which in itself it
is not speciŽ c to post-development ; what is distinctiv e for post-developmen t is
that, from being merely a methodology , discourse analysis has been turned into
an ideological platform.
Thus, Escobar concurs with Gustavo Esteva that development is a ‘Franken-
stein-type dream’, an ‘alien model of exploitation’ and besides re ects urban
bias (1992: 419). ‘The dream of Development is over’ and what is needed is
‘Not more Development but a different regime of truth and perception, (pp
412–414). Escobar refers to a ‘group of scholars engaging in the most radical
critique of Development’ viewed as the ‘ideological expression of postwar
capital expansion’. In this view, World Bank studies and documents ‘all repeat
the same story’. ‘Development colonized reality, it became reality’. It ‘may be
now a past era … The dream of Development is over’ (p 419). To ‘establish a
discontinuity , a new discursive practice’ it is appropriate to ‘undertake an
archaeology of Development’ (pp 414–415). To effect change means to effect a
‘change in the order of discourse’, to open up the ‘possibilit y to think reality
differently’. The grassroots orientation disrupts the link between development,
capital and science and thus destabilises the ‘grid of the Development apparatus’
(p 424).
Escobar’s perspective provides a broad and uneven mélange, with exaggerated
claims sustained by weak examples. It is broad in combining vocabularies—
poststructuralism , social movement theory and development—but uneven in that
the argument centres on anti-development without giving any clear delineation
between anti-developmen t and alternative development. It is exaggerated in that
his position hinges on a discursive trick, a rhetorical ploy of equating develop-
ment with ‘Development’. This in itself militates against discourse analysis,
caricatures and homogenises development, and conceals divergencies within
development. Escobar’s perspective on actual development is  imsy and based
on confused examples, with more rhetoric than logic. For instance, the claim that
the World Bank stories are ‘all the same’ ignores the tremendous discontinuitie s
in the Bank’s discourse over time (e.g. redistributio n with growth in the 1970s,
structural adjustment in the 1980s, and poverty alleviation and social liberalism
180
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

in the 1990s). And while Escobar and Esteva associate ‘Development’ with
urban bias, World Bank and structural adjustment policies in the 1980s have
been precisely aimed at correcting ‘urban parasitism’, which for some time had
been a standard criticism of nationalist development policies (a classic source is
Lipton, 1977).

Alternatives to development
Many concerns of post-development are not new, they are shared by other
critical approaches to development. Post-developmen t parallels dependency
theory in seeking autonomy from external dependency, but now taken further to
development as a power/knowledge regime. Post-developmen t faith in the
endogenous resembles dependency theory and alternative development, as in the
emphasis on self-reliance. While dependency thinking privileges the nation-state,
post-development , like alternative development, privileges local and grassroots
autonomy. Alternative development occupies an in-between position: it shares
with post-developmen t the radical critiques of mainstream development but it
retains belief in and accordingly redeŽ nes development. The record of develop-
ment is mixed but does include achievements (as noted in human development) ,
so what is the point of rejecting it in toto? In many ways the line between
alternative and post-development is quite thin, again except for the rejection of
development.
Scanning ‘the present landscape of Development alternatives’ looking for ‘a
new reality’, Escobar is ‘not interested in Development alternatives, but rather
in alternatives to Development’. Alternative development is rejected because
‘most of the efforts are also products of the same worldview which has produced
the mainstream concept of science, liberation and development’ (Nandy, 1989:
270). Latouche (1993: 161) goes further:

The most dangerous solicitations, the sirens with the most insidious song, are not
those of the ‘true blue’ and ‘hard’ development, but rather those of what is
called ‘alternative’ development. This term can in effect encompass any hope or
ideal that one might wish to project into the harsh realities of existence. The fact
that it presents a friendly exterior makes ‘alternative’ development all the more
dangerous.

This echoes Esteva’s fulminating against those who want to cover the stench of
“Development” with “Alternative Development” as a deodorant’ (1985: 78).
Latouche examines ‘three principal planks of alternative development: food
self-sufŽ ciency; basic needs; and appropriate technologies’ and Ž nds each of
them wanting (p 161). In fact these are part of ‘another development’ in the
1970s and are no longer speciŽ c to alternative development in the 1990s, if only
because they have entered mainstream development discourse. Latouche main-
tains that ‘The oppositio n between “alternative development” and alternative to
development is radical, irreconcilable and one of essence, both in the abstract
and in theoretical analysis … Under the heading of “alternative development”,
a wide range of “anti-productivist ” and anti-capitalist platforms are put forward,
181
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

all of which aim at eliminating the sore spots of underdevelopmen t and the
excesses of maldevelopment’ (p 159).
At this point other arguments come into the picture: anti-managerialism and
dichotomic thinking. These are not necessarily part of the explicitly stated
post-developmen t view, but they might explain the size of the gap between
alternative development and post-development .

Anti-managerialism
Development thinking is steeped in social engineering and the ambition to shape
economies and societies, which makes it an interventionis t and managerialist
discipline. It involves telling other people what to do—in the name of modern-
isation, nation building, progress, mobilisation, sustainable development, human
rights, poverty alleviation and even empowerment and participation (participa-
tory management). There is an anti-authoritaria n sensibilit y running through
post-development , an aversion to control and perhaps an anarchist streak.
Poststructuralis m also involves an ‘anti-political’ sensibility , as a late-modern
scepticism. If the public sphere is constructed through discourse and if any
discourse is another claim to truth and therefore a claim to power, what would
follow is political agnosticism. This also arises from the preoccupation with
autonomy, the problem or representation and the indignity of representing
‘others’.4
Douglas Lummis declares an end to development because it is inherently
anti-democratic (1991, 1994). Viewing development through the lens of
democratisation is pertinent enough, not least in relation to the Asian authori-
tarian developmental states. Nowadays development managerialism not only
involves states but also international Ž nancial institution s and the ‘new manage-
rialism’ of NGOs. All of these share a lack of humility, a keynote of the
development power/knowledge complex. In post-developmen t there is suspicion
of alternative development as an ‘alternative managerialism’—which may make
sense in view of the record of many NGOs (e.g. Sogge, 1996). So what to do?
Emery Roe’s response, in a discussion of sustainable development as a form of
alternative managerialism, is ‘Nothing’ (1995: 160).
However, as Corbridge (1994: 103) argues, ‘an unwillingness to speak for
others is every bit as foundational a claim as the suggestion that we can speak
for others in an unproblematic manner’ (quoted in Kiely, 1999: 23). Doing
‘nothing’ comes down to an endorsement of the status quo (a question that
reverts to the politics of post-developmen t below). Gilbert Rist in Geneva would
argue: I have no business telling people in Senegal what do, but people in
Switzerland, yes.5 This kind of thinking implies a compartmentalised world,
presumably split up along the lines of the Westphalian state system. This is
deeply conventional , ignores transnational collective action, the relationship
between social movements and international relations, the trend of post-national -
ism and the ramiŽ cations of globalisation . It completely goes against the idea of
global citizenship and ‘global civil society’. Had this been a general view, the
apartheid regime in South Africa would have lasted even longer. Under the
heading of ‘post’ thinking, this is actually profoundly conservative.
182
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

Dichotomous thinking
Post-developmen t thinking is fundamentally uneven. For all the concern with
discourse analysis, the actual use of language is sloppy and indulgent. Escobar
plays games of rhetoric: in referring to development as ‘Development’ and thus
suggesting its homogeneity and consistency, he essentialises ‘development’. The
same applies to Sachs and his call to do away with development: ‘in the very
call for banishment, Sachs implicitly suggests that it is possible to arrive at an
unequivocal deŽ nition’ (Crush, 1996: 3). Apparently this kind of essentialisin g
of ‘development’ is necessary in order to arrive at the radical repudiation of
development, and without this anti-developmen t pathos, the post-developmen t
perspective loses its foundation.
At times one has the impression that post-developmen t turns on a language
game rather than an analysis. Attending a conference entitled ‘Towards a
post-developmen t age’, Anisur Rahman reacted as follows: ‘I was struck by the
intensity with which the very notion of “development” was attacked … I
submitted that I found the word “development” to be a very powerful means of
expressing the conception of societal progress as the  owering of people’s
creativity. Must we abandon valuable words because they are abused? What to
do then with words like democracy, cooperation, socialism, all of which are
abused?’ (1993: 213–214)
There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, some of the claims
of post-developmen t are simply misleading and misrepresent the history of
development. Thus, Esteva and several others in the Development Dictionary
(1992) refer to Truman in the 1940s as beginning the development era. But this
is only one of the beginnings of the application of development to the South,
which started with colonial economics; besides development has an older
history—with the latecomers to industrialisatio n in Central and Eastern Europe,
and in Soviet economic planning.
Second, dichotomic thinking, pro and anti-development , underrates the dialec-
tics and the complexity of motives and motions in modernity and development.
Even though at given points particular constellations of thinking and policy seem
to present a solid whole and façade, there are inconsistencie s underneath and the
actual course of development theory and policy shows constant changes of
direction and numerous improvisations . Thus, some speak of ‘the chaotic history
of development theory’ (Trainer, 1989: 177) or ‘the fashion-consciou s institu-
tional language of development’ (Porter, 1995).
Third, post-development ’s attitude towards real, existing development is
narrow. The instances cited in post-developmen t literature mainly concern
Africa, Latin America and India; or re ections are general and no cases are
discussed (as with Nandy). The experience of NICs in East Asia is typically not
discussed: ‘the assertion that “development does not work” ignores the rise of
East Asia and the near doubling of life expectancy in much of the Third World’
(Kiely, 1999: 17).

Politics of post-development
If we strip away the exaggerated claims, the anti-positioning , what remains is an
183
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

uneven landscape. Eventually the question must be asked: what about the politics
of post-development ? Fine points of theory aside, what is to be done? Post-de-
velopment does make positive claims and is associated with afŽ rmative counter-
points such as indigenous knowledge and cultural diversity. It opts for Gandhian
frugality, not consumerism; for conviviality , à la Ivan Illich, for grassroots
movements and local struggles. But none of these is speciŽ c to post-developmen t
nor do they necessarily add up to the conclusion of rejecting development.
Forming a position in relation to post-developmen t might proceed as follows.
Let’s not quibble about details but take your points on board and work with
them. What do you have to offer? This varies considerably: Sachs (1992) is a
reasonable refresher course in critiques of development. Latouche’s arguments
are often perceptive and useful, though they can also be found in alternative
development sources (such as Rahman, 1993; Pradervand, 1989) and are mostly
limited to sub-Saharan Africa. A common-sense reaction may be: your points are
well taken, now what do we do? The response of Gilbert Rist is that alternatives
are not his affair.6 The general trend in several sources is to stop at critique.
What this means is an endorsement of the status quo and, in effect, more of the
same. This is the core weakness of post-developmen t (cf. Cowen & Shenton,
1996).
If we read critiques of development dirigisme, such as Deepak Lal’s critique
of state-centred development economics—which helped set the stage for the
neoconservativ e turn in development—side by side with post-developmen t
critiques of development power, such as Escobar’s critique of planning, the
parallels are striking.7 Both agree on state failure, though for entirely different
reasons. According to Lal, states fail because of rent-seeking; Escobar’s criti-
cisms arise from a radical democratic and anti-authoritaria n questionin g of social
engineering and the faith in progress. But arguably, the net political effect turns
out to be much the same. In other words, there is an elective afŽ nity between
neoliberalism and the development agnosticism of post-development .
Escobar offers one of the more forward post-developmen t positions but is also
contradictory. On the one hand he caricatures ‘Development’ and argues for
‘alternatives to Development’, and on the other he pleads for redeŽ ning develop-
ment. Other positions, such as Sachs’s, are both more limited and more
consistent—all past and no future. The Development Dictionary features cri-
tiques of the market, state, production, needs, etc, which are historically
informed but overstate their case and offer no alternatives, and thus ultimately
fall  at. What is needed, according to Escobar, is ‘Not more Development but
a different regime of truth and perception’ (1992b: 412–414). Escobar refers to
a ‘group of scholars engaging in the most radical critique of Development’
viewed as the ‘ideological expression of post-war capital expansion’. To ‘estab-
lish a discontinuity , a new discursive practice’ it is appropriate to ‘undertake an
archaeology of Development’ (414–415). To effect change means to effect a
‘change in the order of discourse’, to open up the ‘possibilit y to think reality
differently’. Recognising the nexus between knowledge and power in discourse,
Escobar proposes ‘the formation of nuclei around which new forms of power
and knowledge can converge’ (p. 424). Basic to his approach is the ‘nexus with
grassroots movements’. He evokes a ‘we’ that, following Esteva (1985), com-
184
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

prises ‘peasants, urban marginals, deprofessionalize d intellectuals’. What they

share is an ‘interest in culture, local knowledge’, ‘critique of science’ and
‘promotion of localized, pluralistic grassroots movements’. In another passage,
grassroots movements include: women, ecological movements, peasants, urban
marginals, civic movements, ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, popular
culture, youth movements, squatter movements, and Christian-based communi-
ties. Their common features, according to Escobar, are that they are ‘essentially
local’, pluralistic and distrust organised politics and the development establish-
ment.
As nodal points Escobar mentions three major discourses—democratisation ,
difference and anti-Development—which can serve as the ‘basis for radical
anti-capitalist struggles’. What is ‘needed is the expansion and articulation of
anti-imperialist , anti-capitalist , anti-productivist , anti-market struggles’ (1992:
431). Again, as in 1980s alternative development discourse, this is the aspiration
to construct a grand coalition of oppositio n forces, now combined with a
Foucauldian search ‘toward new power–knowledge regimes’ (p. 432). The desire
for a grand oppositiona l coalition involves the evocation of a ‘we’ that, in the
desire for discontinuity , claims to capture all social movements in the ‘Third
World’, now under the heading of anti-Development. ‘Many of today’s social
movements in the Third World are in one way or another mediated by
anti-Development discourses … although this often takes place in an implicit
manner’ (p. 431). In the West, social movements militate against com-
modiŽ cation, bureaucratisation and cultural massiŽ cation; in the Third World,
according to Escobar, they militate ‘against bureaucratization achieved by
Development institution s (eg peasants against rural development packages,
squatters against public housing programmes), commodiŽ cation, capitalist
rationality brought by Development technologies’ p. 431).
This is clearly a biased representation: social movements in the South are
much too diverse to be simply captured under a single heading. Many popular
organisation s are concerned with access to development programmes, with
inclusion and participation, while others are concerned with alternative develop-
ment and renegotiating development, with decentralisation , or alternative politi-
cal action. ‘Anti-development’ is much too simple and rhetorical a description
for the views of the ‘victims of development’. Indeed ‘victims of development’
is too simple and biased a label (cf. Woost, 1997). This view suffers from the
same problems as early alternative development arguments: it underestimates the
desire for and appeal of development and engages in ‘island politics’ or the
politics of marginality. Besides it is contradictory. In its reliance on deprofes-
sionalised intellectuals and distrust of experts, post-development rubs shoulders
with anti-intellectualism , while it also relies on and calls for ‘complex discursive
operations’. Post-development no longer focuses on class interests and is
post-Marxist in outlook, yet Escobar also reinvokes radical anti-capitalist strug-
gles. Like some forms of alternative development, post-developmen t involves
populism , but seasoned by an awareness of the articulation effect; yet its striving
for a new great articulation of anti-imperialism , anti-capitalism and other
movements is populist.
At the same time, the political horizon of post-developmen t is one of
185
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

resistance rather than emancipation. Made up of resistance à la Scott, it

participates in the ‘romance of resistance’ (Abu-Lughod, 1990). Its other
component is local struggles à la Foucault. I have argued elsewhere that, in
post-developmen t discourse, analysis is used not merely as an analytical instru-
ment but as an ideological tool (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000); this avenges itself
when it comes to politics. As many have argued (Said, 1986, Hoy, 1986),
Foucault’s imagination of power is an imagination without exit. Foucault
engages in a ‘monologue of power’ (Giri, 1998: 198). In the footsteps of this
logic, post-developmen t takes the critique of development to the point of retreat.
Retreat from business-as-usua l can be a creative position from which an
alternative practice may grow. Thus critical theory and its negation of the
negation, though pessimistic in outlook, has served as a point of reference and
inspiration , for instance to social movements of the 1960s. But the imaginary of
power that inspires post-developmen t leaves little room for forward politics.
The quasi-revolutionar y posturing in post-developmen t re ects both a hunger
for a new era and a nostalgia politics of romanticism, gloriŽ cation of the local,
the grassroots and the community with conservative overtones. Different adher-
ents of post-developmen t advocate different politics. Escobar opts for a ‘ro-
mance of resistance’. The politics of Gilbert Rist are those of a conventionall y
compartmentalised world. Rahnema opts for a Confucian version of Taoist
politics (discussed in Nederveen Pieterse, 1999). Ray Kiely adds another note:
‘When Rahnema (1997: 391) argues that the end of development “represents a
call to the ‘good people’ everywhere to think and work together”, we are left
with the vacuous politics of USA for Africa’s “We are the World”. Instead of
a politics which critically engages with material inequalities, we have a post-de-
velopment era where “people should be nicer to each other” ’. (1999: 24)
In the introduction to the Power of Development, Jonathan Crush offers this
deŽ nition: ‘This is the power of development: the power to transform old worlds,
the power to imagine new ones’. The context is a comment on a colonial text:
‘Africans become objects for the application of power rather than subjects
experiencing and responding to the exercise of that power’ (1996: 2). Crush
comes back once more to the power of development: ‘The power of develop-
ment is the power to generalize, homogenize, objectify’ (p. 22). There is a
disjunctur e between these statements. While the Ž rst is, or seems to be,
afŽ rmative, the other two are negative. Clearly something is lost in the process.
It is what Marx, and Schumpeter after him, called the process of ‘creative
destruction’. What happens in post-developmen t is that, of ‘creative destruction’,
only destruction remains. What remains of the power of development is only the
destructive power of social engineering. Gone is the recognition of the creativity
of developmental change (cf. Goulet, 1992). Instead, what post-developmen t
offers, besides critique, is another series of fashionable interpretations. Above all
it is a cultural critique of development and a cultural politics (Fagan, 1999). This
re ects on more than just development: ‘development’ here is a stand-in for
modernity and the real issue is the question of modernity.
It may be argued that the power of development is the power of ‘Thesis
Eleven’. According to Marx’s Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, ‘Philosophers have
only interpreted the world in various ways. The time has come to change it.’
186
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

Nowadays the ambition to ‘change the world’ meets with cynicism—because of

the questionabl e record of several development decades, doubts over social
engineering and rationalist planning as exercises in authoritarianism , and over
modernism and the utopian belief in the perfectability of society. Yet all
this does not alter the necessity to ‘change the world’, nor does it alter the
fact that development is about changing the world, with all the pitfalls that
involves, including the legacy of social engineering and Enlightenment
conŽ dence tricks.

Coda
Post-developmen t is caught in rhetorical gridlock. Using discourse analysis as an
ideological platform invites political impasse and quietism. In the end post-de-
velopment offers no politics besides the self-organisin g capacity of the poor,
which actually lets the development responsibilit y of states and international
institution s off the hook. Post-developmen t arrives at development agnosticism
by a different route but shares the abdication of development with neoliberalism .
Since most insights in post-developmen t sources are not speciŽ c to post-develop -
ment (and are often confused with alternative development) , what makes
post-developmen t distinctiv e is the rejection of development. Yet the rejection of
development does not arise from post-developmen t insights as a necessary
conclusion. In other words, one can share post-development ’s observations
without arriving at this conclusion: put another way, there is no compelling logic
to post-developmen t arguments.
Commonly distinguishe d reactions to modernity are neo-traditionalism , mod-
ernisation and postmodernism (e.g. McEvilley, 1995). Post-development belongs
to the era of the ‘post’—post-structuralism , postmodernism , post-colonialism ,
post-Marxism . It is premised on an awareness of endings, on ‘the end of
modernity’ and, in Vattimo’s (1988) words, the ‘crisis of the future’. Post-devel-
opment parallels postmodernism both in its acute intuition s and in being
directionless in the end, as a consequence of its refusal to, or lack of interest in,
translating critique into construction. At the same time it also Ž ts the proŽ le of
the neo-traditionalis t reaction to modernity. There are romantic and nostalgic
strands to post-developmen t and its reverence for community, Gemeinschaft and
the traditional, and there is an element of neo-Luddism in the attitude towards
science and technology. The overall programme is one of resistance rather than
transformation or emancipation.
Post-developmen t is based on a paradox. While it is clearly part of the broad
critical stream in development, it shows no regard for the progressive potential
and dialectics of modernity—for democratisation , soft-power technologies,
re exivity. Thus, it is not difŽ cult to see that the three nodal discourses identiŽ ed
by Escobar—democratisation, difference and anti-development —themselves
arise out of modernisation . Democratisation continues the democratic impetus of
the Enlightenment; difference is a function of the transport and communication
revolutions, the world becoming ‘smaller’ and societies multicultural; and
anti-developmen t elaborates the dialectics of the Enlightenment set forth by the
Frankfurt School. Generally, the rise of social movements and civil society
187
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

activism, North and South, is also an expression of the richness of overall

development, and cannot simply be captured under the label ‘anti’. Post-develop-
ment’s source of strength is a hermeneutics of suspicion, an anti-authoritaria n
sensibility , and hence a suspicion of alternative development as an ‘alternative
managerialism’. But since it fails to translate this sensibilit y into a constructive
position, what remains is whistling in the dark. What is the point of declaring
development a ‘hoax’ (Norberg-Hodge, 1995) without proposing an alternative?
Alternative development thinking primarily looks at development from the
point of view of the disempowered, from bottom-up, along a vertical axis. It
combines this with a perspective on the role of the state. In simple terms: a
strong civil society needs a strong state (Friedmann, 1992; Brohman, 1996).
Post-developmen t adopts a wider angle in looking at development through the
lens of the problematic of modernity. Yet, although its angle is wide, its optics
are not sophisticate d and the focus is unsharp. Its view of modernity is
one-dimensiona l and ignores different options for problematisin g modernity,
such as ‘reworking modernity’ (Pred & Watts, 1992), or exploring modernities
in the plural (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998a). Thus, re exive modernity is more
enabling as a position and re exive development is a corollary in relation to
development (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998b).
In my view post-developmen t and ‘alternatives to development’ are  awed
premises— awed not as sensibilitie s but as positions. The problem is not the
critiques, which one can sympthaize with easily enough and which are not
speciŽ c to post-development , but the companion rhetoric and posturing, which
intimate a politically correct position. ‘Alternatives to development’ is a mis-
nomer because no such alternatives are offered. There is no positive programme;
there is a critique but no construction . ‘Post-development ’ is misconceived
because it attributes to ‘development’ a single and narrow meaning, a consist-
ency that does not match either theory or policy, and thus replicates the rhetoric
of developmentalism , rather than penetrating and exposing its polysemic reali-
ties. It echoes the ‘myth of development’ rather than leaving it behind. Post-de-
velopment makes engaging contribution s to collective conversation and
re exivity about development and as such contributes to philosophie s of change,
but its contributio n to politics of change is meagre. While the shift towards
cultural sensibilitie s that accompanies this perspective is a welcome move, the
plea for ‘people’s culture’ (Constantino , 1985) or indigenous culture, can lead,
if not to ethno-chauvinis m and ‘reverse orientalism ’ (Kiely, 1999: 25), to
reiŽ cation of both culture and locality or people. It presents a conventional and
narrow view of globalisation , equated with homogenisation . At a philosophica l
level we may wonder whether there are alternatives to development for homo
sapiens, as the ‘unŽ nished animal’, ie to development writ large, also in the wide
sense of evolution.

Notes
1
Elsewhere Kothari addresses development in more afŽ rmative ways.
2
Modernism and science are discussed more extensively in Ndederveen Pieterse (1999a).

188
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

3
In an earlier work Alvares (1979) proposes appropriate technology as an alternative approach.
4
On representations of others, note the observation by Crush: ‘The current obsession with Western
representations of “the Other” is a Ž eld of rapidly diminishing return’ (1996: 22).
5
In correspondenc e with the author.
6
At a seminar at the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.
7
Both papers are reproduced side by side in Corbridge (1995)

References
Abu-Lughod , L (1990) The romance of resistance: tracing transformation of power through Bedouin women,
American Ethnologist, 17 (1).
Alvares, C (1979) Homo Faber (Bombay: Allied Publishers).
Alvares, C (1992) Science, Developmen t and Violence: The Revolt against Modernity, (Delhi: Oxford
University Press).
Amin, S (1989) Eurocentrism (London: Zed).
Apthorpe, R & Gasper, D (eds) (1996) Arguing Developmen t Policy: Frames and Discourses (London: Frank
Cass).
Beck, U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).
Berman, M (1988) All that is Solid melts into Air (New York: Penguin).
Berman, M (1984) The Reenchantmen t of the World (New York: Bantam).
Brohman, (1996) Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Developmen t (Oxford:
Blackwell).
Chambers, R (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First (London: Longman).
Constantino, R (1985) Synthetic Culture and Development (Quezon City Philippines: Foundation for National-
ist Studies).
Corbridge, S (1994) Post-marxism and post-colonialism: the needs and rights of distant strangers, in: D Booth
(ed), Rethinking Social Development pp 90–117 (London: Longman) .
Corbridge, S (ed) (1995) Developmen t Studies: A Reader (London: Edward Arnold).
Cowen, MP & Shenton, RW (1996) Doctrines of Development (London: Routledge).
Crush, J (ed) (1996) The Power of Developmen t (London: Routledge).
Dallmayr, F (1996) Global development ? Alternative voices from Delhi, Alternatives, 21(2), pp 259–282.
Dasgupta, S (1985) Towards a Post Developmen t Era (London: Mittal).
Dumont, R (1965) Lands Alive (New York: Monthly Review Press).
Dumont, R (1974) Utopia or Else … (London: André Deutsch).
Escobar, A (1985) Discourse and power in development : Michel Foucault and the relevance of his work to the
Third World, Alternatives, 10 pp 377–400.
Escobar, A (1992) Re ections on ‘Development ’: grassroots approache s and alternative politics in the Third
World, Futures, 24 pp 411–436.
Escobar, A (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press).
Escobar, A (1996) Imagining a post-developmen t era, in: J Crush (ed), The Power of Developmen t pp 211–227
(London: Routledge) .
Esteva, Gustavo (1985) Beware of participation, and Development : metaphor, myth, threat, Development:
Seeds of Change, 3, pp 77, 78–79.
Esteva, G (1992) Development , in: W Sachs (ed), The Developmen t Dictionary (London: Zed). pp 6–25.
Fagan, GH (1999) Cultural politics and (post) development paradigm(s) , in: R Munck & D O’Hearn (eds)
Critical Developmen t Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm pp 178–195 (London: Zed).
Ferguson, J (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticisation and Bureaucrati c Power in
Lesotho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Friedmann, John (1992) Empowerment : The Politics of Alternative Developmen t (Oxford: Blackwell).
Giri, AK (1998) Global Transformations: Postmodernit y and Beyond (Jaipur: Rawat Publications).
Goonatilake, S (1999) Toward a Global Science (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).
Goulet, D (1992) Development : creator and destroyer of values, World Development, 20 (3), pp 467–475.
Grillo, RD & Stirrat, RL (eds) (1997) Discourses of Developmen t (Oxford: Berg).
Henderson, H (1996) Building a Win–Win World (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler).
Hoy, DC (1986) Power, repression, progress: Foucault, Lukes, and the Frankfurt School, in: Hoy (ed),
Foucault: A Critical Reader pp 123–147 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Just World Trust (1995) Dominance of the West over the Rest (Penang: JUST).
Kaplinsky, R (1994) Easternisation: The Spread of Japanese Management Techniques to Developing Countries
(London: Frank Cass).
Kiely, R (1999) The last refuge of the noble savage? A critical account of post-development , European Journal
of Development Research, 11 (1), pp 30–55.

189
 JAN NEDERVEEN PIETERSE

Kothari, R (1988) Rethinking Development: In Search of Humane Alternatives (Delhi: Ajanta).

Latouche, S (1993) In the Wake of the Af uent Society: An Exploration of Post-Developmen t (London: Zed).
Latour, B (1993) We have Never been Modern (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Lee, RLM (1994) Modernization, postmodernism and the Third World, Current Sociology, 42 (2)
Lipton, M (1977) Why Poor People stay Poor: A Study of Urban Bias in World Developmen t (London:
Maurice Temple Smith).
Lummis, D (1991) Developmen t against democracy , Alternatives, 16, pp 31–66.
Lummis, D (1994) The end of developmen t AMPO Japan–Asia Quarterly Review 25 (3), pp. 36–40.
Max-Neef, MA (1982) Experiences in Barefoot Economics (Stockholm: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation).
Max-Neef, MA (1991) Human Scale Developmen t (New York: Apex Press).
McEvilley, T (1995) Here comes everybody , Africus: Johannesbur g Biennale, Exhibition Catalogue, Johannes-
burg, pp 53–57.
Mies, M (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of
Labour (London: Zed).
Mitchell, T (1988) Colonising Egypt, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Nandy, A (ed) (1988) Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press).
Nandy, A (1989) Shamans, savages and the wilderness: on the audibility of dissent and the future of
civilizations, Alternatives, 14, pp 263–277.
Nederveen Pieterse, J (1991) Dilemmas of developmen t discourse: the crisis of developmentalism and the
comparative method, Developmen t and Change, 22 (1), pp 5–29.
Nederveen Pieterse, J (1995) Globalization as hybridization, in: M Featherstone, S Lash & R Robertson (eds),
Global Modernities pp 45–68. (London: Sage).
Nederveen Pieterse, J (1998a) Hybrid modernities: mélange modernities in Asia, Sociologica l Analysis, 1 (3),
pp. 75–86.
Nederveen Pieterse, J (1998b) My paradigm or yours? Alternative development , post development , re exive
development, Development & Change, 29 (2), pp 343–373.
Nederveen Pieterse, J (1999) Critical holism and the Tao of development , The European Journal of
Developmen t Research, 11(1), pp 75–100.
Nederveen Pieterse, J (2000 forthcoming) Trends in developmen t theory, in: R Palan (ed), Global Political
Economy (London: Routledge).
Norberg-Hodge, H (1995) ‘The developmen t hoax’, in Just World Trust, Dominance of the West over the rest
(Penang: JUST) pp 110–123.
Porter, D (1995) Scenes from childhood: the homesicknes s of developmen t discourses, in: J Crush (ed), The
Power of Development (London: Routledge) pp 63–86.
Pradervand, P (1989) Listening to Africa: Developing Africa from the Grassroots (New York: Praeger).
Pred, A & MJ Watts (1992) Reworking Modernity: Capitalisms and Symbolic Discontent (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press).
Rahman, MA (1993) People’s Self-Development : Perspectives on Participatory Action Research (London and
Dhaka: Zed and Dhaka University Press).
Rahnema, M (1992) Poverty, in: W Sachs (ed), The Developmen t Dictionary pp 158–176 (London: Zed).
Rahnema, M (1997) Towards post-development : searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigm,
in: Rahnema & Bawtree (eds), pp 377–404.
Rahnema, M & Bawtree, V (eds) (1997) The Post-Development Reader (London: Zed).
Rew, A (1997) The donors’ discourse: ofŽ cial social developmen t knowledge in the 1980s, in: RD Grillo &
R Stirrat (eds), Discourses of Developmen t pp 81–106 (Oxford: Berg).
Rist, G (1990a) Development as the new religion of the West, Quid Pro Quo, 1 (2), pp 5–8.
Rist, G (1990b) ‘Development ’ as part of the modern myth: the western socio-economi c dimension of
‘development ’, European Journal of Developmen t Alternatives, 2 (1), p 10.
Rist, G (1997) The History of Development: from Western Origins to Global Faith (London: Zed).
Roe, E (1995) Critical theory, sustainable developmen t and populism, Telos, 103, pp 149–162.
Roszak, T (1973) Where the Wasteland Ends (New York: Doubleday) .
Sachs, W (1989) On the archaeology of the developmen t idea unpublished paper, Pennsylvani a State
University.
Sachs, W (ed) (1992) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (London, Zed).
Said, EW (1986) Foucault and the imagination of power, in DC Hoy (ed) Foucault pp 149–156 (Oxford:
Blackwell).
Seabrook, J (1994) Victims of Development, Resistance and Alternatives (London: Verso).
Shiva, V (1988a) Reductionist science as epistemologica l violence, in Nandy (ed), Science, Hegemony and
Violence pp 232–256 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Shiva, V (1988b) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Developmen t (London: Zed).
Shiva, V (1991) Problems with the Enlightenment , in A Dobson (ed), The Green Reader (London: Zed).
Sogge, D (ed) (1996) Compassion and Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid (London: Pluto).

190
 AFTER POST-DEVELOPMENT

Subrahmanyam , K (1998) Nuclear India in global politics, World Affairs, 2 (3), pp 12–40.
Trainer, T (1989) Developed to Death: Rethinking Third World Developmen t (London: Green Print).
Tucker, V (1999) The myth of development : a critique of Eurocentric discourse, in R Munck and D O’Hearn
(eds) Critical Developmen t Theory: contributions to a new paradigm (London: Zed), pp 1–26.
Vattimo, G (1988) The End of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity).
Verhelst, TG (1990) No Life Without Roots: Culture and Development (London: Zed).
Visvanathan, S (1988) On the annals of the laboratory state, in Nandy (ed), Science, Hegemony and Violence
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Wood, B (1984) E F Schumacher : his life and thought (New York: Harper & Row).
Woost, M (1997) Alternative vocabularies of development ? ‘Community’ and ‘participation’ in developmen t
discourse in Sri Lanka, in RD Grillo & RL Stirrat (eds), Discourses of Developmen t pp 229–254. (Oxford:
Berg).

Religion State & Society

EDITOR
Dr Philip Walters, Keston Institute, Oxford, UK
Religion, State & Society is the only English-language academic publication devoted to issues of church, state
and society in the former Communist countries. The journal reflects the conviction that the experiences of
religious communities in their encounter with communism will be central to the evolution of the new Europe
and of the Western world in general in the next century. Tackling social, cultural, ethnic, political and
eclesiological problems is in future going to be a cooperative effort, in a way hitherto impossible, involving
religious communities of both East and West.
Religion, State & Society will continue to monitor the experiences of religious communities in communist and
former communist countries throughout the world, serving as a forum for debate on issues of global concern.
As well as authoritative and provocative articles, Religion, State & Society includes book reviews,
bibliographies and translations of important documents. The journal encourages debate within the pages of a
single issue and in the form of responses to articles which have appeared in earlier issues.
This journal is also available online.
Please connect to http://www.tandf.co.uk/online.html for further information.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES
2000 – Volume 28 (4 issues) Print ISSN 0963-7494
Institutional rate: US$434; £248 (includes free online access)

Please contact Customer Services at either:

Taylor & Francis Ltd, Rankine Road, Basingstoke, Hants RG24 8PR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1256 813000 Fax: +44 (0)1256 330245 E-mail: [email protected] www: http://www.tandf.co.uk
Taylor & Francis Inc, 47 Runway Road, Suite “G”, Levittown, PA 19057-4700, USA
Tel: 1-800 821 8312 Fax: +1 215 269 0363 E-mail: [email protected] www: http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

191