From ‘Global’ to ‘Revolutionary’ Development

Abstract

This article argues that Horner and Hulme's call for moving towards ‘global development’ to do justice to changing 21st century development geographies neither contributes to advancing our understanding of contemporary development challenges nor helps articulate realistic responses to tackle them. A key problem is that they try to explain several general trends in the geography of development with reference to mainstream statistics without appropriate critical reflection or adequate theorization. Focusing specifically on the environmental and conservation aspects of development, this article contends that these omissions not only confuse the debate on the current state and geographies of development, they risk something more serious, namely the reinforcement of a generic development narrative which will intensify 21st century development challenges. The article concludes that what we need is not global development but revolutionary development.

Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of international development

“…While we can recognize that ‘climate change has always been inherently “global”’ as a process and in terms of its implications (Büscher, 2019), greenhouse gas emissions have reached unprecedented levels (IPCC, 2018) and climate-specific policy targets have shifted geographically. Mitigation and adaptation efforts are required within most countries if dangerous climate change is to be avoided (Anderson and Bows, 2011).…”

Grounding financialisation: Development, inclusion, and agency

“…But the often‐heralded “democratisation of finance” that it represents can be seen to work to extend the reach of capitalism and bind individuals, households, and communities more tightly into the global circuits and structures of capital. Many forms of financialisation give the appearance of breaking down barriers – to access, to finance, to development – but they do so within the confines of capitalist expansion and are fundamentally still captured within the structures of this system (Büscher, 2019). These processes themselves though are rarely uncontested, and the plethora of forms they assume reflect localised conditions, geographies (French et al, 2011), and forms of agency.…”

Better than nothing? a review and critique of child sponsorship

“…Research, Society and Development, v. 9, n.8, e26985574, 2020 (CC BY 4.0) | ISSN 2525-3409 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i8.5574 Escobar (2012) is optimistic, even hopeful, in offering that "a growing number of researchers, activists, and intellectuals outside of the academy are heeding the urge to provide alternative understandings of the world, including of development" (p. xi). He refers to these as "complex conversations" (p. xi) and, in my assessment, they are becoming audible in the conversations and debates across the field focused on rethinking and renaming international development (Büscher, 2019;Fischer, 2019;Horner & Hulme, 2019). In fact, Horner & Hulme (2019) advocate for a more holistic understanding by "[m]oving from international to global development [as] a recognition that we live in 'one world'-albeit with major inequalities-and not in a 'North' or 'South' or in First and Third Worlds" (p. 368).…”