Is the Study of Development Humiliating or Emancipatory? The Case Against Universalising ‘Development’

Abstract There are increasing calls to universalise the study of development to include the study of countries outside Asia, Africa and Latin America. This paper argues that there are reasons to be sceptical of such calls. This paper highlights that a surprising alliance has emerged between neoclassical economists (especially those who have long rallied against the need for a separate field of ‘development’ economics) and post-development scholars (who argue that the study of ‘development’ denigrates the Global South) in making the case to universalise the study of development. Global Development proponents tap into popular decolonisation narratives, which focus on the humiliating nature of ‘development’ and ignore any ‘emancipatory’ potential development may have. By only focussing on the humiliating aspects of ‘development’, the case for universalising development binds post-development scholarship and neoclassical economists in a common universalist focus on development challenges. This marginalises scholarship concerned with reducing inter-country inequalities in structural transformation and combatting dependencies between industrialised and non-industrialised countries.