IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v37y2025i2d10.1057_s41287-024-00674-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Study of Development Humiliating or Emancipatory? The Case Against Universalising ‘Development’

Author

Listed:
  • Pritish Behuria

    (University of Manchester)

Abstract

There are increasing calls to universalise the study of development to include the study of countries outside Asia, Africa and Latin America. This paper argues that there are reasons to be sceptical of such calls. This paper highlights that a surprising alliance has emerged between neoclassical economists (especially those who have long rallied against the need for a separate field of ‘development’ economics) and post-development scholars (who argue that the study of ‘development’ denigrates the Global South) in making the case to universalise the study of development. Global Development proponents tap into popular decolonisation narratives, which focus on the humiliating nature of ‘development’ and ignore any ‘emancipatory’ potential development may have. By only focussing on the humiliating aspects of ‘development’, the case for universalising development binds post-development scholarship and neoclassical economists in a common universalist focus on development challenges. This marginalises scholarship concerned with reducing inter-country inequalities in structural transformation and combatting dependencies between industrialised and non-industrialised countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Pritish Behuria, 2025. "Is the Study of Development Humiliating or Emancipatory? The Case Against Universalising ‘Development’," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 37(2), pages 344-355, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:37:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-024-00674-5
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-024-00674-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-024-00674-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-024-00674-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:37:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-024-00674-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.