The ambivalence of post‐development: between reactionary populism and radical democracy
Post-development theory emerged in the 1990s as a critique of development paradigms that had
dominated the post-World War II era. It challenged the idea that economic growth, industrialization,
and modernization were the only pathways to progress and sought to bring attention to the
negative social and environmental consequences of development.
However, the post-development discourse has been criticized for its ambivalence and lack of clarity
about the alternative pathways it proposes. On the one hand, some critics argue that post-
development can be used as a justification for reactionary populism and the rejection of modernity
and progress. On the other hand, others argue that post-development has the potential to support
radical democracy and alternative forms of development.
The reactionary interpretation of post-development sees it as a rejection of progress and modernity.
In this view, post-development is seen as a nostalgic and romantic longing for a simpler, pre-modern
way of life. This interpretation often ignores the social and environmental costs of development and
overlooks the fact that many communities have been excluded from the benefits of development.
The radical democratic interpretation of post-development, on the other hand, sees it as an
opportunity to challenge the dominant development paradigm and to promote alternative forms of
development that prioritize social and environmental justice. This interpretation emphasizes the
need for community participation, grassroots mobilization, and the democratization of development
decision-making.
In summary, the ambivalence of post-development lies in the fact that it can be interpreted in both
reactionary and radical democratic ways. While some see it as a rejection of progress and modernity,
others see it as an opportunity to challenge the dominant development paradigm and promote
alternative forms of development that prioritize social and environmental justice.
Post-development theory emerged in the 1990s as a critique of development paradigms that had
dominated the post-World War II era. It challenged the idea that economic growth, industrialization,
and modernization were the only pathways to progress and sought to bring attention to the
negative social and environmental consequences of development.
However, the post-development discourse has been criticized for its ambivalence and lack of clarity
about the alternative pathways it proposes. On the one hand, some critics argue that post-
development can be used as a justification for reactionary populism and the rejection of modernity
and progress. On the other hand, others argue that post-development has the potential to support
radical democracy and alternative forms of development.
The reactionary interpretation of post-development sees it as a rejection of progress and modernity.
In this view, post-development is seen as a nostalgic and romantic longing for a simpler, pre-modern
way of life. This interpretation often ignores the social and environmental costs of development and
overlooks the fact that many communities have been excluded from the benefits of development.
The radical democratic interpretation of post-development, on the other hand, sees it as an
opportunity to challenge the dominant development paradigm and to promote alternative forms of
development that prioritize social and environmental justice. This interpretation emphasizes the
need for community participation, grassroots mobilization, and the democratization of development
decision-making.
In summary, the ambivalence of post-development lies in the fact that it can be interpreted in both
reactionary and radical democratic ways. While some see it as a rejection of progress and modernity,
others see it as an opportunity to challenge the dominant development paradigm and promote
alternative forms of development that prioritize social and environmental justice.
