Against development

What does development actually mean, and who benefits from it? This highly polemical paper argues that development, often illustrated as the present condition of western countries to which other countries should strive, is a falsity. As such, development rhetoric has strong missionary undertones which speaks to the conscience of Africans and urges them to confirm to those characteristics which facilitated European industrialisation. The author suggests that an adequate African alternative to development is to be found in the kinds of policies which aim essentially at making everyday life more predictable.

Is development even desirable in Africa? The claim that it is sought after because the continent lacks development, is circular in nature. Since dire political, social, and economic conditions describe the condition of non-development, doing away with them does not explain why Africa should develop, but rather restates the problem. The author argues that the practice of development aid merely highlights the industry's hidden agenda - their own political and strategic interests. The question which African countries have to address, the author states, is whether such interests are consistent with their own nation-building efforts.

Good news in Africa is no news elsewhere - the the exception of NEPAD (the New Partnership for African Development). The paper discusses at length the case of NEPAD as an initiative that goes out of its way to allay western fears that Africa may not be interested in development. The committment to development, and the demonstration of that committment, is far more important than substantive improvements in the domestic setting.

The author concludes that development should consist of policies designed to solve local problems with means that do not require more than the material and intellectual resources which people have at their disposal. [adapted from author]