The Evolution of Development Theory and Tourism - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 61

crisis as being the failure of development in the south, the postmodern cri-
tique and the rise of globalisation, which raised questions on how develop-
ment could take place with the state no longer being a major player.
Schuuramn (2000) indicated that, in the second half of the 1980s, there were
already signs indicating a shift towards theoretical renewal, including contri-
butions from the Regulation School as well as development within the
domain of gender and environment. Schuurman (2000) suggests that develop-
ment studies made it to the 21st century, but just barely. Out of the impasse
'every imaginable paradigmatic position with respect to the question of devel-
opment and underdevelopment was reviewed and awarded its own label,
which varied from “anti-modernist non-development” (Sachs) via “alternative
development and post-development” (Rahnema) to “reflexive development”'
(Nederveen Pieterse, 1998, cited in Schuurman, 2000: 8). Development para-
digms began to lose their hegemonic status and, at the threshold of the 21st
century, a loose set of partly descriptive, partly heuristic notions like civil
society, social capital, diversity and risk came to the forefront (Schuurman,
2000; see also Telfer, 2009). Schuuramn (2000) refers to this time in develop-
ment thought as being one of paradigmatic disorientation.
From the 'paradigmatic disorientation' a number of authors (e.g. Escobar,
1995; Sachs, 1996), critical of traditional development theory, argued the
need for a new conception or even rejection of development and their writ-
ings can be examined within post-development. Post-development as a label
represents a diversified approach and, as Escobar (2000: 11) states, the works
do not constitute a unified position or even a trend. Sidaway (2007: 348) even
suggests that to a 'considerable extent, post-development critiques represent
reformulations of skepticism about (and alternative conceptions of) develop-
ment that have been around for a long time'. Those in the post-development
camp raise criticisms aimed at the various paradigms of development that
have already been covered in this chapter. The commonalities in post-
development writing do, however, focus on critiques of Western notions and
assumptions of superiority and expertise that often accompany development
interventions and aid (Sidaway, 2007). The authors of the Development
Dictionary took aim at the conceptual foundations of the practices of develop-
ment professionals, criticising not only official declarations on development
but also grass-roots movements (Peet, 1999). In an often-quoted passage,
Sachs (1996: 1) stated the following:
The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape.
Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady
companions of development and they all tell a common story: it did not
work. Moreover, the historical conditions, which catapulted the idea into
prominence have vanished: development has become outdated. But above
all, the hopes and desires, which made the idea fly, are now exhausted:
development has grown obsolete.