• Aram ZiaiEmail author


The “development” of “underdeveloped” regions has given rise not only to a huge apparatus of experts and administrators but also to semantic confusion. The latter can only be disentangled if we take into account the critical and linguistic turn in development studies pioneered by the Post-development School.


  1. Apffel-Marglin, Frédérique, and Stephen Marglin, eds. 1990. Dominating knowledge: Development, culture and resistance. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Brand, Ulrich, and Markus Wissen. 2013. Crisis and continuity of capitalist society-nature relationships: The imperial mode of living and the limits to environmental governance. Review of International Political Economy 20 (4): 687–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, Frederick. 1997. Modernising bureaucrats, backward Africans, and the development concept. In International development and the social sciences: Essays on the history and politics of knowledge, ed. Frederick Cooper and Randall Packard, 64–92. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Esteva, Gustavo. 1992. Development. In The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power, ed. Wolfgang Sachs, 6–25. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, James. [1990] 1994. The anti-politics machine: ‘Development’, depoliticisation and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1999. Expectations of modernity. Myths and meanings of urban life on the Zambian copperbelt. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gasper, Des. 1996. Essentialism. In and about development discourse. In Arguing development policy: Frames and discourses, ed. Raymond Apthorpe and Des Gasper, 149–176. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  9. Li, Tania Murray. 2007. The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matthews, Sally. 2017. Colonised minds? Post-development theory and the desirability of development in Africa. Third World Quarterly 38 (12): 2650–2663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nandy, Ashis, ed. 1988. Science, hegemony and violence: A requiem for modernity. Tokyo: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nederveen Pieterse, J. 2010. Development theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Rahnema, Majid. 1997. Introduction. In The post-development reader, ed. Majid Rahnema and Victoria Bawtree, ix–xix. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  14. Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. Planet dialectics. Explorations in environment and development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2010. Preface to the new edition. In The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power, ed. Wolfgang Sachs, 2nd ed., vi–xiv. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  16. Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development and freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  17. United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, A/RES/70/1.Google Scholar
  18. World Bank. 1994. Resettlement and development. The bankwide review of projects involving involuntary resettlement 1986–1993. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  19. Ziai, Aram. 2016. Development discourse and global history. From colonialism to the sustainable development goals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2017. ‘I am not a postdevelopmentalist, but…’: The influence of post-development on development studies. Third World Quarterly 38 (12): 2719–2734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Development Policy and Postcolonial StudiesUniversity of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations