Third World Quarterly, Vol 16, No 1, 1995
Universalism, Eurocentrism, and ideological bias in development studies: from modernisation to neoliberalism JOHN BROHMAN In much of the development literature, neoliberalism is portrayed as an innovative new development strategy which was created to address the key contradictions of previously dominant development frameworks, such as the modernisation approach and other Keynesian models. Despite such claims, however, many of the most serious contradictions of modernisation theory seem to be reappearing in the neoliberal development framework. These shortcomings make neoliberalism susceptible to many of the same criticisms that have plagued modernisation theory and, eventually, contributed to its demise. This paper will concentrate on problems stemming from the common shortcomings between these two development frameworks. Formal models and neglect of the contextuality of development In order to understand and explain processes of development, we need to become more sensitive to the complexities of various development experiences and to forge more appropriate conceptual tools within development theory for interpreting such experiences. From the more traditional modernisation paradigm to the newer neoliberal framework, mainstream development theory has been almost entirely rooted in the historical and social experiences of a few Western industrialised societies. However, as Bruton notes: `Knowledge about the development process in a particular environment at a particular time does not exist in transferable form, rather it is the product of the development process itself.’ 1 An ongoing tension exists within development theory between the desire to formulate universally valid principles and formal models (based on a stylised version of the development history of the West) and the need to understand the great variety of actual experiences and potential alternatives for development in different societies. Given their Western social science background, many development theorists across a range of disciplines have been preconditioned to look for parallels between the development history of the West and contemporary development in non-Western societies; as a result, the actual development experiences of different societies have been simpli® ed and distorted.2 Because of this, many analyses have been conceptually incapable of addressing the root causes of critical development problems in these societies. No formalistic development orthodoxy, whether that of economic John Brohman is Assistant Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada. 0143-6597/95/010121±20 Ó 1995 Third World Quarterly