DEVELOPMENT THEMES — FULL COURSE OVERVIEW
1. SUSTAINABILITY
Main authors: Kei Otsuki; Shannon (2021); Zoomers & Otsuki (2025); De la Cadena (2010); Nixon (2011);
Goldin; Shannon & Suransky.
Sustainability: Meeting present needs without compromising future generations, balancing social economic and
environmental goals (Brundtland, 1987). It is contested because projects branded as sustainable but may create
displacement and inequality.
Two-sided coin > it creates opportunities (green jobs), but also harms e.g. (land grabs and displacement)/
Core idea:
The idea of sustainability became central to development debates after the 1970s, when global reports
emphasized that economic growth has ecological limits. Today, sustainability often materializes through large
infrastructure projects (such as dams for hydropower or solar farms).
Contradictions:
Sustainability is presented as a universal good, yet its implementation often harms vulnerable communities.
Many projects require large tracts of land, which opens the door to “land grabs”—governments or investors
claim land as “empty” or “unused.” It requires changes in land governance to prevent reinforcing inequality.
Local communities, however, may have customary rights—traditional use without formal titles—making them
vulnerable to dispossession / project vs. reality (sustainability narratives conceal displacement and harm while
marketing inclusivity). Governance determines whether sustainability creates justice or inequality.
Otsuki’s critique:
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rarely question land acquisition or displacement.
They assume sustainability is inherently positive, ignoring who benefits and who loses.
Otsuki calls for politicization: we must ask who defines land as “available,” for what purpose, and
whose development is prioritized.
She introduces social cartography or counter-mapping, where communities map their own
territories to show presence and rights.
Land is not neutral—it is home, heritage, and livelihood.
Pluralization:
Development should include diverse voices, especially local and Indigenous perspectives, to challenge top-
down definitions of “sustainability.”
Example:
A government builds a “green” dam for renewable energy that displaces local farmers. While framed as
sustainable, such projects create new inequalities. Otsuki argues that sustainability must always be questioned
in terms of whose development and whose loss.
Sustainability became central after the Brundtland Report (1987) and Rio Summit (1992), but it is often
applied as a universal, technical concept — ignoring inequality and politics.
The key question is “Sustainability for whom?”: whose interests are served by “green” projects?
Sustainable projects often require land and water → development-induced displacement (DID) and new
inequalities.
Green grabbing: land or resource appropriation justified as “green” or sustainable (e.g., biofuels,
conservation).
Climate-induced land grabbing: climate projects (e.g. solar farms, carbon markets) displace vulnerable
groups while claiming to save the planet.
Climate justice: recognises historical inequalities in responsibility for climate change; demands fairness in
costs and benefits of climate policy.
Displacement chains (Shannon): infrastructure projects trigger sequences of evictions, not just one-time
relocations.
Politics of visibility (Shannon): what is visible as “progress” hides social suffering and dispossession.
, Social cartography / counter-mapping (Otsuki): communities make their own maps to claim recognition
and rights over their land.
Pluriverse / cosmopolitics (De la Cadena): recognises multiple ontologies — nature as political actor
(mountains, rivers, spirits).
Cohabitation: sustainability understood as coexistence with other beings, not domination over them.
Slow violence (Nixon): gradual, often invisible harm caused by environmental degradation or inequality.
Slow science (Goldin): participatory and decolonial research valuing care, inclusion, and time over efficiency.
Decolonising sustainability: challenges Eurocentric definitions of progress and expertise.
Case examples
Mozambique gas project: “green growth” project justified as energy transition but caused mass
displacement.
Manila airport reclamation (Philippines): framed as climate adaptation; destroyed coastal livelihoods.
Beira (Mozambique): flood-control infrastructure for “resilience” produced new displacement chains.
2. URBANIZATION
Main authors: Van Noorloos; Dittgen, Cochrane & Robinson (2024); Shannon (2021); Bailey & Mowri; Appel
(2012).
Urbanization: the growth and transformation of cities through migration. Planning and economic change. It often
creates contradictions.
Private markets cannot provide formal affordable housing for the poor so state subsidy is necessary!
Core idea:
Urbanization in the Global South often occurs through incremental housing (or popular urbanization): families
build homes gradually, extending as income allows. This reflects creativity and resilience but also reveals
exclusion, formal housing markets and state policies largely ignore the poor.
Critique of “slums”:
The language of “slums” stigmatizes residents and hides the social and economic value these neighborhoods
generate. Top-down housing projects in places like Brazil and Mexico City often failed because they were too
costly and disconnected from daily realities. Project vs. reality refers to the gap between official vision and
actual impacts.
Dittgen’s case of Johannesburg:
Describes the city as a “city of compromise”, urban transformations are not fully planned or controlled by
private developers. Instead, they result from ongoing negotiation and power struggles between municipal
actors, developers, and citizens. The city reflects conflict, competing visions, and political compromise.
Bailey & Mowri on mobility:
Access to transport is not only about whether buses or trains exist, but about motility > the ability of different
groups to use them. Intersectionality (gender, class, age) shapes urban mobility: e.g., women may face
harassment, and low-income groups may find transport unaffordable (safety for women = central)
Example:
Informal housing and transport inequalities reveal broader power relations in Global South cities. Incremental
housing shows how the poor are excluded from formal systems yet create bottom-up solutions. Transport
systems illustrate that infrastructure is not equally accessible. Urbanization, therefore, is not just
demographic growth > it is a struggle over rights, inclusion, and access.
Urbanization is not just demographic growth — it is a struggle over space, power, and rights. Urban
development is often driven by elites and global capital, creating fragmented and unequal cities.
Urbanization shapes mobility (safety interventions for women, urban planning ignores gendered
needs). Global financial flows shape urban change. Urbanization is part of an unequal global
development process, not just local planning.
1. SUSTAINABILITY
Main authors: Kei Otsuki; Shannon (2021); Zoomers & Otsuki (2025); De la Cadena (2010); Nixon (2011);
Goldin; Shannon & Suransky.
Sustainability: Meeting present needs without compromising future generations, balancing social economic and
environmental goals (Brundtland, 1987). It is contested because projects branded as sustainable but may create
displacement and inequality.
Two-sided coin > it creates opportunities (green jobs), but also harms e.g. (land grabs and displacement)/
Core idea:
The idea of sustainability became central to development debates after the 1970s, when global reports
emphasized that economic growth has ecological limits. Today, sustainability often materializes through large
infrastructure projects (such as dams for hydropower or solar farms).
Contradictions:
Sustainability is presented as a universal good, yet its implementation often harms vulnerable communities.
Many projects require large tracts of land, which opens the door to “land grabs”—governments or investors
claim land as “empty” or “unused.” It requires changes in land governance to prevent reinforcing inequality.
Local communities, however, may have customary rights—traditional use without formal titles—making them
vulnerable to dispossession / project vs. reality (sustainability narratives conceal displacement and harm while
marketing inclusivity). Governance determines whether sustainability creates justice or inequality.
Otsuki’s critique:
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rarely question land acquisition or displacement.
They assume sustainability is inherently positive, ignoring who benefits and who loses.
Otsuki calls for politicization: we must ask who defines land as “available,” for what purpose, and
whose development is prioritized.
She introduces social cartography or counter-mapping, where communities map their own
territories to show presence and rights.
Land is not neutral—it is home, heritage, and livelihood.
Pluralization:
Development should include diverse voices, especially local and Indigenous perspectives, to challenge top-
down definitions of “sustainability.”
Example:
A government builds a “green” dam for renewable energy that displaces local farmers. While framed as
sustainable, such projects create new inequalities. Otsuki argues that sustainability must always be questioned
in terms of whose development and whose loss.
Sustainability became central after the Brundtland Report (1987) and Rio Summit (1992), but it is often
applied as a universal, technical concept — ignoring inequality and politics.
The key question is “Sustainability for whom?”: whose interests are served by “green” projects?
Sustainable projects often require land and water → development-induced displacement (DID) and new
inequalities.
Green grabbing: land or resource appropriation justified as “green” or sustainable (e.g., biofuels,
conservation).
Climate-induced land grabbing: climate projects (e.g. solar farms, carbon markets) displace vulnerable
groups while claiming to save the planet.
Climate justice: recognises historical inequalities in responsibility for climate change; demands fairness in
costs and benefits of climate policy.
Displacement chains (Shannon): infrastructure projects trigger sequences of evictions, not just one-time
relocations.
Politics of visibility (Shannon): what is visible as “progress” hides social suffering and dispossession.
, Social cartography / counter-mapping (Otsuki): communities make their own maps to claim recognition
and rights over their land.
Pluriverse / cosmopolitics (De la Cadena): recognises multiple ontologies — nature as political actor
(mountains, rivers, spirits).
Cohabitation: sustainability understood as coexistence with other beings, not domination over them.
Slow violence (Nixon): gradual, often invisible harm caused by environmental degradation or inequality.
Slow science (Goldin): participatory and decolonial research valuing care, inclusion, and time over efficiency.
Decolonising sustainability: challenges Eurocentric definitions of progress and expertise.
Case examples
Mozambique gas project: “green growth” project justified as energy transition but caused mass
displacement.
Manila airport reclamation (Philippines): framed as climate adaptation; destroyed coastal livelihoods.
Beira (Mozambique): flood-control infrastructure for “resilience” produced new displacement chains.
2. URBANIZATION
Main authors: Van Noorloos; Dittgen, Cochrane & Robinson (2024); Shannon (2021); Bailey & Mowri; Appel
(2012).
Urbanization: the growth and transformation of cities through migration. Planning and economic change. It often
creates contradictions.
Private markets cannot provide formal affordable housing for the poor so state subsidy is necessary!
Core idea:
Urbanization in the Global South often occurs through incremental housing (or popular urbanization): families
build homes gradually, extending as income allows. This reflects creativity and resilience but also reveals
exclusion, formal housing markets and state policies largely ignore the poor.
Critique of “slums”:
The language of “slums” stigmatizes residents and hides the social and economic value these neighborhoods
generate. Top-down housing projects in places like Brazil and Mexico City often failed because they were too
costly and disconnected from daily realities. Project vs. reality refers to the gap between official vision and
actual impacts.
Dittgen’s case of Johannesburg:
Describes the city as a “city of compromise”, urban transformations are not fully planned or controlled by
private developers. Instead, they result from ongoing negotiation and power struggles between municipal
actors, developers, and citizens. The city reflects conflict, competing visions, and political compromise.
Bailey & Mowri on mobility:
Access to transport is not only about whether buses or trains exist, but about motility > the ability of different
groups to use them. Intersectionality (gender, class, age) shapes urban mobility: e.g., women may face
harassment, and low-income groups may find transport unaffordable (safety for women = central)
Example:
Informal housing and transport inequalities reveal broader power relations in Global South cities. Incremental
housing shows how the poor are excluded from formal systems yet create bottom-up solutions. Transport
systems illustrate that infrastructure is not equally accessible. Urbanization, therefore, is not just
demographic growth > it is a struggle over rights, inclusion, and access.
Urbanization is not just demographic growth — it is a struggle over space, power, and rights. Urban
development is often driven by elites and global capital, creating fragmented and unequal cities.
Urbanization shapes mobility (safety interventions for women, urban planning ignores gendered
needs). Global financial flows shape urban change. Urbanization is part of an unequal global
development process, not just local planning.
