IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v42y2021i12p2974-2992.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reading development failure: experts and experiments at the bottom of the pyramid in Cape Town

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Pollio

Abstract

Many have argued that the technocratic apparatus of development is sustained – and not undermined – by its fallacies. Building on previous failures, development experts envision new plans, new analytical tools and new modes of governance. One recent example is the bottom-of-the-pyramid approach (BOP), a development doctrine predicated on the failure of previous anti-poverty approaches and based on the creation of products, services and entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor. Critically bracketed as a hallmark of millennial neoliberalism in the Global South, BOP projects, like previous development schemes, fail too. Through the narration of two experiments that, in 2015, had failed to create profit at the bottom of the pyramid in Cape Town (South Africa), this paper focuses on how development expertise makes sense of and engages the lack of profitability at the BOP, showing that failure is an important entry point into the actually existing forms of neoliberal anti-poverty enterprises in the Global South. Using J. K. Gibson-Graham’s feminist economic geography framing, this article argues that neoliberal doctrines themselves sank these market experiments, whilst opening possibilities for development experts to engage alternative economic forms that stemmed from their failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Pollio, 2021. "Reading development failure: experts and experiments at the bottom of the pyramid in Cape Town," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(12), pages 2974-2992, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:42:y:2021:i:12:p:2974-2992
    DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2021.1983425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436597.2021.1983425
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436597.2021.1983425?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:ctwqxx:v:42:y:2021:i:12:p:2974-2992. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    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.