Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module, students will be able to: Brookes Attribute developed Other GAs developed, if applicable
1. Analyse the changing nature of competing theories of development and their relationship to practice Academic literacy  
2. Assess key issues in the contemporary international politics of development Academic literacy  
3. Evaluate the complex relationship between political economy and development Academic literacy  
4. Assess the relationship between theory and practice in development in the contemporary era of global change Academic literacy  
5. Read critically the literature on international development Research literacy  
6. Demonstrate an advanced knowledge and understanding of an issue area of particular interest within international development Research literacy  
7. Manage workloads effectively and set personal goals Critical self-awareness and personal literacy  
8. Demonstrate the skills of reflective independent learning Critical self-awareness and personal literacy  
9. Communicate arguments orally, via online discussion forums and on paper Critical self-awareness and personal literacy Digital and information literacy
10. Develop research skills with information technology Digital and information literacy Research literacy
11. Demonstrate a critical understanding of how International Relations as a discipline is often built on dominant cultural understandings of the world Active citizenship Academic literacy

 

Annotated bibliography: in very brief

  • Here’s what you can do in 100 – 150 words.
The full reference
(not included in word count)
Summary
What it is about?		 §  The author’s purpose, aim or question

§  Main argument, central idea, findings or conclusions

§  What sort of text is it? General? Specific?
Evaluation
What do I think about it?		 §  Who is it written for?

§  Particular strengths, from your point of view

§  Any weaknesses or limitations?
Reflection
How might I use it?		 §  Has the text helped you understanding something better? How useful is it? Will you use it? How?

 

The general criteria used to assess your coursework are described below:

  Relevance Knowledge and Understanding Analysis Presentation Use of Sources
High Distinction

 

80%+

 

 

 

 All the material introduced is valid and is well-blended into the overall structure of the work. The question is consistently addressed throughout. The limits of the knowledge base and the main issues of debate within the literature are acknowledged. Theoretical and empirical aspects are understood in their complexity and nuance. Key texts are used effectively. A clear, authoritative, and significantly original answer, reflecting on a comprehensive range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a high level of independent thought and critical analysis. Borderline publishable. Excellently written with a structure that enhances the development of the central arguments of the answer. Quotations and references are correctly used and a substantial variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Distinction

 

70%+

 All the material introduced is valid and is well-blended into the overall structure of the work. The question is consistently addressed throughout. The limits of the knowledge base and the main issues of debate within the literature are acknowledged. Theoretical and empirical aspects are understood in their complexity and nuance. Key texts are used effectively. A clear and authoritative answer reflecting on a comprehensive range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a high level of independent thought and critical analysis. Very well written with a structure that enhances the development of the central arguments of the answer. Quotations and references are correctly used and a substantial variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Merit

 

60%-69%

 The material introduced is valid.  The structure enables the question to be addressed directly. Substantial knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. Theoretical and empirical aspects are well understood and appropriately applied. Key texts are recognised. Shows an ability to incorporate a range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a good level of independent thought and critical analysis. Well written with some minor deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that supports the development of the central arguments of the answer. Quotations and references are correctly used and a good variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Pass

 

50%-59%

 Most of the material introduced is valid. The question is addressed but there is a lack of focus in places. Knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. Theoretical and empirical aspects are included, but not without some difficulties in understanding. Some key texts are recognised. A limited range of positions are covered but not without problems in incorporating these into the answer. Some evidence of independent thought and analysis. Competently written with some deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that generally allows the development of the central arguments. Quotations and references are correctly used with only minor problems. A variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Marginal Fail

 

40%-49%

 The material introduced bears some relevance to the question. However, there is a lack of focus and the question is only addressed in a superficial way. A limited knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. There are problems with the understanding of theoretical and empirical aspects. A limited number of key texts are recognised. A small number of positions are covered although these are not integrated into the answer. There is a lack of independent analysis and the answer is almost exclusively descriptive. Written with significant deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that allows, but does not support, the development of the central arguments of the answer. Significant problems with the use of quotations and references. A limited number of sources have been consulted and some are not appropriate or relevant.
Fail

 

0%-39%

 The material introduced bears little or no relevance to the question. The question is not directly addressed. There is little engagement with the debates in the literature and very few key texts are recognised. The answer rarely goes beyond simple paraphrasing of the opinions of others. No independent analysis at all. Poorly written with major deficiencies in clarity. Lacks a clear structure and any central arguments. Major problems with the use of quotations and references. Very few sources have been consulted and most are not appropriate or relevant.

 

Assignment(Annotated Bibliography)1500 words

Your annotated bibliography should consist of five readings from the detailed reading list(Essential/Supplementary) for weeks 2-6. You must do only five, and must do one from each week. You should try and give equal space to each piece (approx 300 words each).

If reviewing monographs you must refer to at least one chapter. Alternatively you may review a single chapter from an edited volume or a journal article.

 

You should try and give equal space to each piece (approx 300 words each).

Week 2: Modernization Theory and Structuralism

This week we focus on the two main theoretical approaches that dominated the debate on international development in the post-war era. First, modernization theory, which interpreted development as the move from the ‘traditional’ to the ‘modern’, will be discussed. We will also look at dependency and world-systems analysis, which offered a direct challenge to modernization theory in the 1960s and 1970s by viewing the world capitalist economy as an unequal system.

Week 2 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. Are obstacles to development in the Global South domestic or structural? 2. What was modernization theory and why did it become the first orthodoxy in post-war development thinking? 3. What are the key aspects of the structuralist critique of modernization theory? 4. How could we criticise the main elements of dependency theory? 5. Do modernization theory and/or structuralism have any relevance to the contemporary international development situation?

Understanding Development

  • Book
  • by Paul Hopper
  • 2018
  • Essential

Chapter 1, pp. 18-27. Available as print and e-book

Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment in Comparative Politics

  • Article
  • by J. Samuel Valenzuela; Arturo Valenzuela
  • 1978
  • Essential

The End of Peripheries? On the Enduring Relevance of Structuralism for Understanding Contemporary Global Development in Development and Change

  • Article
  • by Andrew M. Fischer
  • Essential

Week 2 Supplementary: Modernisation Theory

Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development. in Journal of Development Studies

  • Article
  • by Henry Bernstein
  • 1971

Neo-Modernization? IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory in European Journal of International Relations

  • Article
  • by David L. Blaney; Naeem Inayatullah
  • 2002

Week 3: The Neo-Liberal Turn

During the early 1980s a major shift in the development debate took place. The popularity of neo-classical economic thinking in key Northern countries resulted in the spread of neo-liberal ideology. This had a huge impact on the politics of international development. The free-market was now seen as the key factor in development policy-making. This week we critically consider the elements of neo-liberalism and how it informed the activities of key institutions.

Week 3 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What are the key elements of the neo-liberal approach to development? 2. Why did neo-liberalism become popular among elites in the 1980s? 3. How does neo-liberal economic theory inform the policy of the World Bank and IMF? 4. What criticisms have been made of the ‘Washington Consensus’?

Week 3 Supplementary

Paradigm and nexus: neoclassical economics and the growth imperative in the World Bank, 1948–2000 in Review of International Political Economy

  • Article
  • by Bentley B. Allan
  • 2019

‘Knowledge management’: a case study of the World Bank’s research department in Development in Practice

  • Article
  • by Robin Broad
  • 2007

Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

  • Article
  • by Ha-Joon Chang; Ilene Grabel
  • 2004

Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance, 1980-2000 in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

  • Article
  • by Joseph Nathan Cohen; Miguel Angel Centeno
  • 2006

Spreading the Wealth in Foreign Affairs

  • Article
  • by David Dollar; Aart Kraay
  • 2002

Development as Zombieconomics in the Age of Neoliberalism in Third World Quarterly

  • Article
  • by Ben Fine
  • 2009

Neo-Liberalism in Capital & Class

  • Article
  • by Andrew Gamble
  • 2001

Week 4: The Developmental State Debate

The development success story of the East-Asian Newly-Industrialising Countries (NICs) during the 1980s contrasted strongly with the experience of most of the developing world. A debate ensued as to how their success could be explained. The World Bank published a volume entitled The East Asian Miracle in 1993, which concluded that the explanation of the success lay in a market-friendly approach. Other adherents of the neo-liberal view argued that East-Asian NICs had been so successful because by relying on the private sector and free trade, they had been able to minimise government failure so common in other developing countries. An alternative view, often called the ‘developmental state’ approach, has suggested that the core of East-Asian success lies in enlightened policy activism of national governments. This week we consider this debate and the role of the state in development strategy.

Week 4 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. How does the role of the state in neo-liberal development thinking contrast with the experience of the East-Asian NICs? 2. Can we generalise about the experience of the East-Asian NICs? 3. Could the East-Asian model of the developmental state be emulated by other developing countries today?

Developmental States in Africa? A Review of Ongoing Debates and Buzzwords in Development Policy Review

  • Article
  • by Laura Routley
  • 2014
  • Essential

Twenty-first century developmental states? Argentina under the Kirchners in Third World Quarterly

  • Article
  • by Christopher Wylde
  • 2018
  • Essential

Week 4 Supplementary

The Lessons of East Asian Development: An Overview in Economic Development & Cultural Change

  • Article
  • by Bela Balassa
  • 1988

Postwar Development in the Asian NICs: Does the Neoliberal Model Fit Reality? in Economic Geography

Article

  • by John Brohman
  • 1996

The East Asian development experience: the miracle, the crisis and the future

  • Book
  • by Ha-Joon Chang
  • 2006

Chapter 1

‘Big Deal’ or big disappointment? The continuing evolution of the South Korean developmental state in The Pacific Review

  • Article
  • by Judith Cherry
  • 2005

The Ethiopian developmental state in Third World Quarterly

  • Article
  • by Christopher Clapham
  • 2018

Week 5: Post-Washington Consensus / Beijing Consensus

The dominance of neo-liberal thinking, or the ‘Washington Consensus’ as it became known came under increasing attack during the 1990s. This led to claims of a shift in thinking, most notably within the World Bank itself. This week we will consider the ‘Post-Washington Consensus’ and its claim to present ‘globalisation with a human face’. We will also consider the rise of China in recent years and the emerging debate in the literature about the possibility of an alternative to free-market capitalism or ‘Beijing Consensus’.

Week 5 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What are the main differences between the ‘Washington Consensus’ (WC) and the ‘Post-Washington Consensus’ (PWC)? 2. Does the PWC represent an improvement on the WC? 3. How unique is the model of development currently being pursued by China? 4. Is the so-called ‘Beijing Consensus’ applicable to other countries in the developing world?

Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus in Development and Change

  • Article
  • by Ziya Onis; Fikret Senses
  • 2005
  • Essential

The ‘China model’ and the global crisis: from Friedrich List to a Chinese mode of governance? in International Affairs

  • Article
  • by Shaun Breslin
  • 2011
  • Essential

Dissecting China’s Rise: Controversies over the China Model in China Perspectives

  • Article
  • by Xiaoshuo Hou
  • 2014
  • Essential

Week 5 Supplementary: Post-Washington Consensus

The Death of the Washington Consensus? in World Policy Journal

  • Article
  • by Robin Broad; John Cavanagh
  • 1999

Neither the Washington nor the post-Washington consensus: An introduction in Development policy in the twenty-first century: beyond the post-Washington consensus

  • Chapter
  • by Ben Fine
  • 2001

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Now Who Calls the Shots? in Review of African Political Economy

  • Article
  • by Alastair Fraser
  • 2005

Good Governance, R.I.P.: A Critique and an Alternative in Governance

  • Article
  • by Merilee S. Grindle
  • 2017

Whither the post-Washington Consensus? International financial institutions and development policy before and after the crisis in Review of International Political Economy

  • Article
  • by Ali Burak Güven
  • 2018

Week 6: Critical theory / Post-Development theory

In response to the rise of neo-liberal theory and policy, came a backlash from critical scholars. However, they remained very much on the margins of the academic debate. This week we will consider what appears to be a growing resurgence in critical approaches. We will also consider post-development theory, which offers a critique of the discourse of ‘development’ itself.

Week 6 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What insights do contemporary critical theorists offer us in understanding processes of development and underdevelopment? 2. Are you convinced by Robinson’s call for a reconceptualisation of ‘development’ in light of globalisation? 3. How useful is the post-development emphasis on particular circumstances and contexts rather than generalization? 4. What are the key criticisms levelled against post-development arguments?

Understanding Development

  • Book
  • by Paul Hopper
  • 2018
  • Essential

Chapter 2, pp. 46-52. Available as print and e-book

Remapping development in light of globalisation: From a territorial to a social cartography in Third World Quarterly

  • Article
  • by William I Robinson
  • 2002
  • Essential

Post-Development: Premature Burials and Haunting Ghosts in Development and Change

  • Article
  • by Aram Ziai
  • 2015
  • Essential

The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-Development Theory. in European Journal of Development Research

  • Article
  • by Ray Kiely
  • 1999
  • Essential

Week 6 Supplementary: Critical theory

Economism and critical silences in development studies: A theoretical critique of neoliberalism in Third World Quarterly

  • Article
  • by John Brohman
  • 1995

Neo-Liberalism: The World Bank, and the New Politics of Development in Development theory and practice: critical perspectives

  • Chapter
  • by Paul Cammack
  • 2002

Development Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization: Or Are There No Alternatives? in Review of Radical Political Economics

  • Article
  • by Dennis C. Canterbury
  • 2004

Bringing Development Back into Development Studies in Development and Change

  • Article
  • by Andrew M. Fischer
  • 2019