Paper short abstract:

The notion of development is criticised as an expression of Western modernity and dominance. People’s visions of the future often resemble development goals. How do we deal with this contradiction? At intellectual level there might be perfect solutions, in practise there is just ‘muddling through’.

Paper long abstract:

In the intellectual debate, the notion of development is attacked from post-development and post-colonial critiques. Both positions blame Western modernity with its capitalism and reject Western economic, political and cultural dominance and the epistemic violence of modern science. Once we leave the ivory tower and ask for people’s visions of the future, we are confronted with mundane hopes for a good life. It is often about an improvement of livelihood including the ‘basic needs’ that are part of the development industry discourse but also about access to consumer goods. Looking at those who just escaped poverty, the so-called “middle classes”, we observe that they invest in consumer goods, education or in a business in the capitalist economy. Often people also claim freedom, democracy and a just society.

How do we deal with the contradiction between the well-founded intellectual critique of “development” and people’s everyday life desires? Shall we just leave it to the people? However, “the people” are not a homogenous collective but marked by all elements intersectional inequality including socio-economic, gender, political power, race/ethnicity etc. Not thinking about “development” leaves all changes in the hands of the most powerful. Even when we think we intervene at the right side and support the “poor”, we still face the challenge of unintended consequences. Thinking about development means accepting ambiguity, accepting limits of knowledge and of predictability. At intellectual level there might be perfect solutions, in practise there is often not more but even not less than “muddling through”.