Skip to content

Has development studies forgotten Latin America?

1 November 2010

Tom HewittTom Hewitt is a lecturer in IDD specialising in children’s rights and rights-based programming, development theory, distance learning, governance and politics of development, and science and technology policy.

Attending the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) conference in Toronto – over 3000 papers in 850 sessions over three days – shows that academic endeavour on and in the region is alive and well. Why then does Latin America have such a low profile in the UK’s development studies community?

Historic (colonial) ties of the UK with South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are part of the explanation. A more compelling contemporary reason lies in the narrowed focus of development research and policy on poverty reduction and the MDGs, particularly in Africa.

This is a shame. Latin America still has much to tell us about development – good and bad. This region was the home of structuralism and of the dependency school, of the first experiments in structural adjustment of the Washington Consensus, and even in part of short-lived post-development thinking. In short, Latin America has been a fertile source of influential ideas.

In 1993, Cristóbel Kay said “…the Latin American school’s greatest contribution to development theory has been to introduce a view from the South which exposed ethnocentrism and asserted the specific history of the South.”  Latin Americans still represent this independent voice and the current language about the continent’s development is illuminating.

Major themes running through the conference were ‘inequality’ and/or  ‘participation’. This is in contrast to the more common themes of poverty or governance to be found in recent development studies literature. Neither poverty nor governance is irrelevant in Latin America, but their analysis is more often than not made through a political and people-centred lens.

Latin America’s giant – Brazil – is at the forefront of emerging trends in development studies. Old labels of North-South, developed-developing, etc become meaningless as regional powers, such as Brazil, have sustained  economic growth rates combined with declining income inequality internally and, externally, play increasingly influential roles in international forums and in the aid business.

It is time to watch this space again.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. failedtheturingtest permalink
    2 November 2010 17:16

    I recently did some looking in to what different regional development banks invest in, and it was quite noticeable that while most of them invest in infrastructure and financial services, the Inter-American Development Bank invests heavily in social protection and education. Maybe this is also an indicator of the different approaches to development.

    But is the difference in philosophy just because of a difference in need? Does poverty take priority over politics (rightly or wrongly) when poverty is worse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: