Oxfam GB

What Is Development Studies?

Author(s): Andrew Sumner
Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 16, No. 6 (Nov., 2006), pp. 644-650
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4029921
Accessed: 20-09-2019 12:03 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxfam GB, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Development in Practice

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006 Taylor&FrancisGroup

What is Development Studies?

Andrew Sumner

This article is concerned with some initial reflections on the distinctive features of Development
Studies (DS). The aim is to trigger further debate, rather than attempt 'closure'. Discussion of
the nature of DS is timely because of the expansion of taught courses at various levels during
the previous decade; because of sustained critiques of DS in recent years; and because DS has
entered a period of introspection - illustrated by several journal special issues and events - to
identify its defining characteristics. The author argues that DS is a worthwhile endeavour (how
could a concern with reducing global poverty not be?), but the field of enquiry needs to think
about how it addresses heterogeneity in the 'Third World(s)' and how it opens space for
alternative 'voices'.

Introduction

This article presents some initial reflections on the distinctive features of Development Studies
(DS). I The aim is to trigger discussion rather than attempt 'closure'. Indeed, given the diversity
of the subject matter, any such 'ring fencing' or attempts at uniformity are likely to be doomed.
Discussion of the nature of DS is timely for three reasons. First, over the last 10-15 years
there has been an expansion of taught courses at various levels, certainly in the UK (Harriss
2005: 36).2 Second, DS has faced a series of sustained critiques in recent years, with accusations
that it is the source of many problems in developing countries (Corbridge 2005:1). Finally, and
arguably related to the above, DS has entered a period of introspection to identify its defining
characteristics, not only to address criticisms, but also to differentiate itself from Area Studies,
which is popular in the USA.3
This article focuses on the questions: What are the distinctive features of DS? And how is it
different from other areas of enquiry? The following sections review the history and genealogy
of DS and describe its distinctive features. The article goes on to offer a brief review of the
critiques of DS, and then closes with reflections on its future.

A brief history of DS

DS is a relatively young field of academic study. The term 'Development Studies' did not come
into use until after World War II (Einsiedel and Parmar 2004), and many DS journals date from
the early 1950s to the early 1970s.4
Many have argued that DS was born out of the decolonisation process in the 1950s and 1960s,
as newly independent states sought policy prescriptions to 'catch up' economically with

644 ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364 -9213 Online 060644-7 2006 Oxfam GB
DOI: 10.1080/09614520600958363 Routledge Publishing

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Development Studies?

industrialised nations (Bernstein 2005; Shaw 2004). If we accept that DS is largely a post-World
War II phenomenon, then the dominance of economic thinking in the 'early years' of DS is
virtually beyond question (Harriss 1999; Sylvester 1999). Contextual factors shaping DS at
this time were certainly economic. There was the influence of Marshall Plan ideas, and the
well-cited 1949 Truman Declaration of 'a bold new programme... [to] make the benefits of
industrial progress ... ... available for the improvement and growth of under-developed
areas' (cited in Esteva 1992: 6). It can even be argued that DS emerged from 'a lower-
ranking caste' within what Leijonhufvud labelled 'the Econ' - the economics profession.
The 'Devlops' - or Development Economists - were viewed with suspicion by the Econ for
'endangering the moral fibre' of the tribe by non-enforcement of the strict taboo against
association with Polscics, Sociogs, and other tribes (Leijonhufvud 2000: 5). It might,
however, also be argued that the genealogy of DS can be linked back to eighteenth-century
anthropology.5 However, economics was dominant in DS during the 1950s and 1960s, and
even today in the age of multi-dimensional development the relationship between DS and eco-
nomics remains controversial (Harriss 2002; Kanbur 2002; Loxley 2004). Indeed, economics
stands accused of imperialist tendencies, not only in DS but across the social sciences (Fine
2002). That said, it is worth emphasising that some of the fundamental changes over the last
20 years that have shaped the evolution of DS into multi-disciplinarity and away from purely
economic approaches have been led by development economists such as Amartya K. Sen,
Paul Streeten, and Ravi Kanbur, to name but a few.

What is DS?
So what are the distinctive features of DS? And how is it different from other areas of enquiry?
Several can be identified (drawing on DSA 2004, 2005; Harriss 2002; Loxley 2004).

The rationale for DS

DS has a normative point of departure - to improve people's lives - and thus a shared
commitment to the practical or policy relevance of teaching and research. There is also a
growing interest among DS teachers and thinkers in the importance of addressing local and
global inequality, particularly gender inequality - to which DS has been more responsive
than have some of its component disciplines. This is perhaps one reason why feminist
economists, anthropologists, geographers, political scientists, and so on have been drawn to DS.

The subject matter of DS

DS has a shared interest in 'less developed countries', or 'developing countries', or 'the South',
or 'post-colonial societies', formerly known as 'the Third World', and comparative analysis
therein.
Teaching and research in DS increasingly emphasises heterogeneity and diversity in the
subject matter of what was perceived as a homogeneous 'Third World' in the 1950s and
1960s - and today is certainly not so perceived (compare Ghana and South Korea in the
1950s and now, for example). Increasingly DS is also recognising context-specific matters
and moving away from universal laws (see discussion in Sumner 2005). The connecting
theme is, in general, post-colonial countries, or the 'Global South', and standards of living
within them. One might add the transition countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union, and perhaps DS even has something to say about OECD countries. How DS deals
with such a heterogeneous subject matter is an important area for future discussion.

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006 645

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Andrew Sumner

The boundaries of DS

DS has a shared interest in 'multi-disciplinarity sans frontie'res' as an approach to understanding

'multi-dimensional development', the basis of which is that the sum of the disciplines will be
greater than their components.
Teaching and research since the late 1970s, and in particular since the 1990 launch of the
annual UNDP Human Development Report, has emphasised the wide range of disciplinary per-
spectives to approaching development issues, theories, and epistemologies across economics,
sociology, politics, geography, and so on (see also Hulme and Toye 2005; Grindle and Hilder-
brand 1999; Tribe and Sumner 2005). How DS moves from 'additive' inter- or multi-discipli-
narity to 'integrative' trans-disciplinarity is an important area for future discussion (Molteberg
and Bergstrom 2002).
So, how is DS different from Area Studies, its closest competitor? Although Area Studies
shares some common basis with DS (multidisciplinary features, for example), the distinguish-
ing characteristic of DS is its comparative focus: DS is not related to specific global regions or
areas. The existence of a (contested) body of 'development theory' and the normative point of
departure of DS further differentiate it from Area Studies.

The critics of Development Studies

Recent years have seen numerous attacks on DS, of which three stand out.

* The first might be called a 'delivery' critique: that DS is irrelevant, since much of the 'Third
World' is no better off than in 1950s or even before.
* The second is the 'neo-colonial' or post-development critique: that DS is a neo-colonial dis-
course which frames, shapes, and controls the 'Third World'.
* The third is the 'depoliticisation critique': that DS is apolitical, or even that it is a vehicle for
depoliticisation, through the expansion of DS as a politically neutral technocratic appli-
6
cation.

The first critique relates closely to the neo-liberal critique and is based on the argument that DS
(read: Development Economics) is predicated on 'bad economics' (state-led development,
import substitution, infant-industry protection, etc.) and has led to bad consequences, as has
been argued by economists such as Milton Friedman, Anne Krueger, and Deepak Lal,
among others. The problem was the economics of DS.
The second critique relates to Michel Foucault's notions of knowledge and power in the
context of post-development. This posited DS as an imperialist discourse which sought to
impose a Western view of 'development' as modernity on the 'Third World' (a position sus-
tained by writers such as Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Esteva, and Wolfgang Sachs, among
many others). DS was in itself the problem.
The third relates to the extended power of the state and 'technification' of development as a
set of concepts and techniques to be applied through the planning state. This problem resonates
with Foucault's political technologies: political problems rephrased in politically neutral, tech-
nocratic language, while state functionaries or development professionals are typically the
experts' (as writers such as Robert Chambers, James Ferguson, and John Harriss have argued).
In reply to the 'effectiveness' critique, a large part of the 'Third World' - notably East Asia
and China - has seen some kind of positive transformation, albeit with doubts about the quali-
tative nature and extent or distribution of social progress. One might also note success (again
with caveats) in India and Vietnam, to name but two countries, and the improvements in
global data - UNDP's annual Human Development 'score-card'. Of course many other parts

646 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Development Studies?

of the world have not seen any great progress since the inception of DS in the 1950s; one might
single out much of sub-Saharan Africa, for example. However, that should not detract from the
significant changes that have taken place, particularly in Asia. What should be noted, however,
is that these contemporary successes have been brought about by countries that have followed
the opposite of orthodox development strategies. Indeed, it is orthodox economics that has
failed to deliver.
In reply to the 'neo-colonial discourse' critique, it should be recognised that DS is not a
homogeneous body of knowledge. Like any other body of knowledge, it is subject to a signifi-
cant degree of internal contestation. The post-development critique, for instance, cannot be
applied to much of what constitutes 'alternative' or non-orthodox development. It is impossible
to argue that Marxist and non-Marxist Structuralism and Dependency theory, for example, were
imperialist discourses, especially given the input of Latin American contributors to these lines
of thought. The critique does, though, beg a further question: why is DS perceived as a
peculiarly western European phenomenon? DS is well established as undergraduate and post-
graduate courses across certain parts of Europe, such as the UK and Scandinavia, as well as the
Commonwealth link - Australia, Canada, and New Zealand; but there is no equivalent in the
USA. There the issues are embedded in a range of disciplines and types of university that do not
even exist in Europe. In addition, many developing countries (much of East Africa, for
example) do have DS programmes - but perhaps these are colonial legacies? What is arguably
more important is that if DS is the training ground for aspiring aid-agency personnel, within and
outside government, then its paradigms will shape future policy and practice. It therefore
matters which texts and which authors are viewed as'authoritative'. Adebayo Olukoshi, the
Executive Secretary of CODESRIA, has drawn attention to the absence from World Bank or
UNDP reports of any intellectual input from Africans. As he says, Africans end up in the text-
boxes of books written by outsiders about Africa.7 DS need not be neo-colonial, but its geneal-
ogy and evolution are shaped by history and the context of its birth - the period of much
decolonisation.
In reply to the 'depoliticisation critique', it could be argued that the normative point of depar-
ture of DS is in itself a political statement on global poverty and inequality, although it is wort
repeating that DS is not a homogeneous body. While some strands of thought may be guilty, if
anything much of DS is now firmly focusing on the 'politics': take, for example, the Commis-
sion for Africa, or the analysis of the PRSP process. In addition, many of the non-government
actors are involved in advocacy as well as service delivery. Or look at the involvement of aca-
demics in Central American political movements: why was it that six Jesuit professors were
assassinated in El Salvador?

The future of DS
Development Studies is a worthwhile endeavour. How could a concern with reducing global
poverty not be such? However, the field of enquiry needs to think about how it addresses het-
erogeneity in the 'Third World(s)' and opens more space for alternative 'voices'. Many of the
questions raised above relate to the nature of the subject matter. At the inception of DS, the
'Third World' may have been a relatively homogeneous bloc, but it is no longer so. How DS
deals with this heterogeneity seems to be a crucial issue. Is one approach to think of grouping
similar countries together? There is already UNCTAD's cluster of 'Least Less Developed
Countries'. Other groups might be countries with high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, or countries
in a state of conflict or post-conflict.
A trend towards questioning universal laws in DS is emerging too (for example in the work
of Charles Kenny and David Williams, David Lindauer and Lant Pritchett, Martin Ravallion,

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006 647

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Andrew Sumner

Deepayan Basu Ray, and Howard White). Arguably what really matters is to analyse those
countries that have claimed some success in development. This might include China, India,
and Vietnam, for example. What would be interesting is to take the success as the point of
departure and work backwards to identify policies, local factors, caveats, replicability, and
transmission mechanisms. Much work says 'this is the policy, and this is its outcome', rather
than 'this is the successful outcome, and this is the policy that led to it'.
One avenue that has been relatively unexplored in DS is knowledge-policy linkages, in par-
ticular how policy is shaped by the political infrastructure. As Beeson and Islam (2005:197)
note:

The contest of ideas in economic policy making can evolve independently of their intellec-
tual merit and empirical credibility. Political interests shape and mediate the process
within which policy debate unfolds.

The assumption of much DS work so far is that knowledge is not contestable, and that policy
makers operate as rational, politically neutral arbitrators of different 'evidence' (an assumption
long since deconstructed by Foucault). If this is challenged, the question then follows: Upon
which knowledge is policy formulated, and why do some knowledge(s) have a privileged pos-
ition? The limited number of existing case studies suggests that policy makers value research
undertaken by the international financial institutions more highly than any form of local
research or indigenous knowledge (Keeley and Scoones 1999; McGee and Brock 2001). This
has some resonance with the post-development critique of DS, although accepting the validity
of this point does not necessarily mean that all DS is a neo-colonial discourse.
What is the outlook for Development Studies? Good, it would seem. There has been
increased interest in teaching and research, perhaps partly due to the 2005 'year of develop-
ment' and the global focus on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Additionally,
there has been a large growth in development employment (and resources) in donor agencies
and in NGOs. What are the likely future directions? It depends on development practice: a posi-
tive outlook might be triggered by development successes such as poverty reduction and econ-
omic growth in India and China, and success in achieving some of the MDGs. However, failure
to provide answers to reduce global poverty might well have the opposite effect. We shall see
after Year Zero in 2015.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the insightful contributions of the anonymous referees, and joint
work with Michael Tribe, University of Bradford (Sumner and Tribe 2004; Tribe and Sumner 2005).

Notes

1. DS is also known as 'International Development Studies', 'Third World Studies', 'International

Development', 'Third World Development', 'World Development', 'Global Perspectives', and
'International Studies' and combinations of all of these. In this document it is referred to as 'DS' for
the sake of consistency rather than as a judgement that this is the 'right' name.
2. In the UK alone, there are 16 UK universities with dedicated departments, schools, or centres, and a
further 33 with significant capacity. The Development Studies Association (DSA) lists 150 courses
and an estimated 700 academic staff. For further details see www.devstud.org.uk/guides.htm
3. For examples of such introspection, see the special issues of World Development (30(12), 2002); the
Canadian Journal of Development Studies (25(1), 2004); European Journal of Development Research
(15(1), 2003); Edwards (2002).

648 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What is Development Studies?

4. Economic Development and Cultural Change (1952), Development (1957), Journal of Development
Studies (1965), Development and Change (1970), World Development (1973).
5. For example, one could note the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and anthropological (and
other) studies financed from British government (and colonies') funds. In the economic sphere there
were a number of very influential economic studies in East Africa (for example Peacock and Dosser
(1958) on National Income Accounting).
6. This section draws on Corbridge (2005), whose paper goes into far greater detail, in addition to reflect-
ing other critiques.
7. Comments made in his presentation at the 40th Anniversary Conference of the United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) 'Social Knowledge and International Policy Making:
Exploring the Linkages', Geneva, 20-21 April 2004.

References

Beeson, Mark and lyanatul Islam (2005) 'Neo-liberalism and East Asia: resisting The Washington
Consensus', Journal of Development Studies 41(2): 197-219.
Bernstein, Henry (2005) 'Development Studies and the Marxists', in Uma Kothari (ed.) A Radical
History of Development Studies, London: Zed Books.
Corbridge, Stuart (2005) 'Queueing, Complaining, and Photocopying: Notes on the (Im)possibility of
Development Studies', paper presented at the Development Studies Association Annual Conference,
Milton Keynes, 7-9 September.
DSA (Development Studies Association) (2004) 'A Unit of Assessment in the Research Assessment
Exercise 2008 for DS', available at www.devstud.org.uk/consultation.htm (retrieved 5 July 2006).
DSA (2005) Submission to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) relating to the Benchmarking of DS for
Undergraduate Provision in British Universities, available at www.devstud.org.uk/consultation/
benchmark.htm (retrieved 5 July 2006).
Edwards, Michael (2002) 'Is there a "future positive" for Development Studies?', Journal of
International Development 14(6): 737-41.
Einsiedel, Edna and Aradhana Parmar (2004) 'Undergraduate Development Studies Programs in
Canada: A New Generation of Scholars and Practitioners', paper prepared for the Canadian Consortium
of University Programs in International Development, Alberta: University of Calgary.
Esteva, Gustavo (1992) 'Development', in W. Sachs (ed.) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to
Knowledge and Power, London: Zed Books.
Fine, Ben (2002) 'Economics imperialism and the New Development Economics as Kuhnian paradigm
shift?', World Development 30 (12): 2057-70.
Grindle, Merilee and Mary Hilderbrand (1999) 'The Development Studies Sector in the UK:
Challenges for the New Millennium', report written for the Department of International Development,
Cambridge, MA: HIID.
Harriss, John (1999) 'The DSA at twenty-one: a critical celebration of Development Studies', Journal of
International Development 11 (4): 497-501.
Harriss, John (2002) 'The case for cross-disciplinary approaches in international development', World
Development 30 (3): 487-96.
Harriss, John (2005) 'Great promise, hubris and recovery', in Uma Kothari (ed.) A Radical History of
Development Studies, London: Zed Books.
Hulme, David and John Toye (2005) 'The Case for Cross-disciplinary Social Science Research on
Poverty, Inequality and Well-being', Global Poverty Research Group Working Paper Series No. 1,
Manchester: GPRG.
Kanbur, Ravi (2002) 'Economics, social science and development', World Development 30 (3): 477-86.
Keeley J. and I. Scoones (1999) Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: A Review, Institute of
Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper No 89, Brighton: IDS.
Leijonhufvud, Axel (2000) 'Life among the Econ', in J.S. Gans (ed.) Publishing Economics, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar (reprinted from Western Economic Journal 11(3): 327-37, 1973).

Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006 649

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Andrew Sumner

Loxley, John (2004) 'What is distinctive about international Development Studies?', Canadian Journal of
Development Studies 25 (1): 25-38.
McGee, R. and K. Brock (2001) From Poverty Assessment to Policy Change: Processes, Actors and
Data, Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper No 133, Brighton: IDS.
Molteberg, Elisabeth and Cassandra Bergstrom (2002) Our Common Discourse: Diversity and Para-
digms in Development Studies, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Agricul-
tural University of Norway (NORAGRIC) Working Paper Numbers 20 and 21: As: NORAGRIC.
Peacock, Alan T. and Douglas G.M. Dosser (1958) The National Income of Tanganyika 1942-1954,
Colonial Office Research Study No. 26, London: HMSO.
Shaw, Tim (2004) 'International DS in the era of globalization ... and unilateralism', Canadian Journal
of Development Studies 25 (1): 17-24.
Sumner, Andrew (2005) 'In Search of a Meta-Narrative: The MDGs and "the New York Consensus" (or
the Washington-Plus Consensus?)', paper presented at 'The MDGs: Ten years to go!', DSA Annual Con-
ference, Milton Keynes, 7-9 September.
Sumner, Andrew and Michael Tribe (2004) 'The Nature of Epistemology and Methodology in Devel-
opment Studies: What Do We Mean by "Rigour"?', paper prepared for 'Exploring the Frontiers in Devel-
opment Studies Epistemology and Methodology', ESRC DSA Postgraduate Workshop, Abbey Centre,
London, 14 December.
Sylvester, Christine (1999) 'Development Studies and Postcolonial Studies: disparate tales of the "Third
World"', Third World Quarterly 20 (4): 703-21.
Tribe, Michael and Andrew Sumner (2005) 'The Nature of Development Studies', paper prepared for
DSA Annual Conference, Church House, London, 6 November.

The author

Andrew Sumner is a Senior Lecturer at London South Bank University. Previously he worked at the Uni-
versity of East London, at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and for NGOs
in the UK and overseas. He is a member of the council of the Development Studies Association (DSA).
Contact details: Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, London South Bank University, 103 Borough
Road, London SEI OAA, UK. [email protected].

650 Development in Practice, Volume 16, Number 6, November 2006

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.100 on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:03:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms