There is an extremely narrow idea of development which pervades the global conscience. An extremely particularised modus which entails the seemingly linear process of industrialisation, modernisation, mass consumerism, and finally servicification. One that all nations should follow if they wish to ‘prosper’. This delusion, however, foregoes the socio-economic realities which underpin such a form of “development”^[1] both at home and in the wider world—namely in its avoidance of the chains of exploitation behind it.^[2] One could, on the basis of the plentiful literature, go on for hours in discussion or fill pages in writing about this phenomenon in all its facets, from the pure chattel slavery which underwrote early development, to production floor “enslavement” of the Marxian kind, to today’s self-legitimising concept of ‘Global Value Chains’. Such a broad discourse is not at all the premise of this short piece, however. My intention is simply to bring to fore the malleability, the subjective nature of the concept of development, and to introduce the idea of de-growth as a potential solution to our collective death drive.

Development as an Ideal

Very quickly then, an adequate definition of development must be provided—even if it is to be quickly critiqued. Development in the sense that it is widely packaged, encapsulates an ideal of modernisation as built upon both real scientific/material advancement—evidenced by the industrial rise of a handful of nations, later joined by a handful of others—and science fiction fantasy. But taking on a more neutral tone, we could define development as the evolution of the human condition exclusive of its effect on external factors (the environment, etc.), and regardless of whether it is ultimately positive or not.^[3]

One thing unique about this concept is its bipartisan support: discussion on degrowth with hardline free-market liberals and die-hard socialists has in the past elicited looks of shock and outright concern. On the one hand one cannot deny the necessity for impoverished peoples to life themselves out of their misery. Of young girls trekking miles each day to fetch water—and all the danger that entails. Of critical dependence on good harvest, and the famine that results from its failure. Of adequate shelter, of a constant flow of electricity in order to access the basic “luxuries” such to alleviate themselves from the dredge of subsistence living. To devote some of their enterprise, both for themselves and to the Development of course also includes social development. This is in itself is far more problematic than the material thread, as it takes as a starting point the fact that certain societies’ cultures and ways of life are definitively incompatible with any kind of forward evolution. This perpetuates the damaging process whereby many countries are locked in a futile effort to develop in the same way that others previously have, without acknowledging that this is simply not possible given all the qualitative which underlie it.^[4] At the same time, human beings being equivalent in their drive to sustain their own comfort, a lot of these ‘global south’ governments (especially in Africa) have used this to extract their own benefits from this system.^[5] Misuse of the scraps handed to it by the system, misappropriation of development aid and the like, in order to advance their own political power.

“The next Singapore or Dubai”

This discussion above is of course extremely complex, and I must plead forgiveness for any simplification I have tackled it with for brevity’s sake. Indeed, given that there is a objectively positive component of development as we have conceived of it, one which objectively advances the quality of human life and our collective ability to alleviate the myrrh of issues which face the world in this regard, I am not at all for the idea of dropping development as it is all together. Nor am I for an attempt to play God with the worlds resources in order to alleviate suffering and bring about equality. The point I want to make, is that the ‘development delusion’, the idea that there is a nailed-on way to go about things which brings about linear progression, simply avoids reality.

A film screening I attended earlier this year, ‘Made in Ethiopia’ was the name, show cased a small town in rural Ethiopia recently graced by a Chinese textiles factory. Bringing about lots of jobs and being in many senses a positive, it was in many others a source of negative upheaval. The usual story of land grabbing—backed by false promises and at the expense of poor farmers—and industrial revolution era employer-employee relationships were present. A scene which especially caught my attention, however, was a meeting between the mayor and his advisors in which they, with prints of their maps and decadent concept models and all, claiming that if they did such and such their town would become like Singapore and Dubai. This I something I have myself heard only too many times. The usual spiel from politicos and pseudo-intellectual commentators back home^[6] about how we should build this and that air and seaport, and how they will suddenly launch us into the world economy and bring prosperity (“make us like Dubai”). Whilst avoiding the more pressing issues of subsistence, a strong base of (staple) agriculture, of strong education and healthcare. This is especially ironic given the UAE’s violations in Sudan and how these are linked to its desires for food security.

Besides the obvious delusion here given the unique circumstances and endowments of both countries, the nail I would like to hit here is the ideal. That unbridled extravagance, fuel-guzzling glitz and glam alla Americana is what development is. That this is what we should all aspire towards. Now I don’t have to launch into a musing here about how the beauty of the forests and the mountains, the lakes and the seas, will forever outdo any ivory tower (Angkor Wat and Duomo included). That proves itself. What’s more pressing here is the fact of this ideal’s untenability and undesirability on a host of fronts. Unfortunately, on a social level it is all too present. On the lower levels it leads to grand disappointment as the first (or “great) generation of African leaders were to find out.^[7] At higher levels or the ‘frontier’ as they like to call it, it powers our tendency toward destruction. Altruistic ‘human development’ here becomes a rat-race of ‘dominate or be dominated’. Extraction doubles up with its implications for the “wretched of the earth”, and at ever more harm to the planet. At the same time given the fact that a lot of technological advancement occurs first in the military, and that it quite literally threatens our collective livelihood. Again, this is just the surface.

Applied Degrowth

Having concluded my tirade against “development”, I want to end here by presenting the idea of degrowth and how it could be applied to resolve some of these issues. First it is important to de-mystify the concept.

Degrowth is a broad field, an umbrella concept. On the one hand some of its proponents call for a rapid contraction of economic activity, an upheaval of the system in toto. Others to confine growth to ecological limits and to transform our ways of living (reduce working days, etc.) in order to achieve it. There is a rich and varied literature on degrowth most of which strongly present the reasoning behind it: that the planet will burn if we continue on our incessant growth path. However, one of the foremost critiques and this something I experienced myself, is that while this reasoning is well described and difficult to disagree with, there is a less of a discussion around practical applications. Combined with this is the unfortunate name, the “de-” suffix strongly indicating a negative phenomenon (i.e. decline).^[8] Indeed, degrowth is far more than just a contraction of numbers and as some of the literature highlights, the importance is in shifting our ideals, shedding our programming to mindlessly consume more and more.   

This is the point that I would like to make, in arguing for an application of degrowth, is not to challenge our innate desire to improve, but that we should decouple it from the ‘development delusion’ and ideal discussed above. At the ‘frontier’ climate issues are ever more apparent, and despite it being nudged off the agenda recently, work around it grows stronger. For the underdeveloped/developing or ‘Global South’, they of course bear the brunt of the physical impact. Degrowth as an idea then, especially as conceived by one of the classics, is important for both incorporate. As Latouche points out, the global south should be cautious of “rushing up the blind alley of growth economics”. That is if it physically could. While at the same time we should collectively acknowledge the fact that our growth drive is now almost entirely biased towards attaining wants (and at all costs) over needs. We shouldn’t stop progressing per se, advancement in technology. but we should be mindful of where we apply this progress. Billions spent on mass produced self-driving cars is a perilous waste of resources. No matter how many consultancy reports or opinion pieces produced on it.^[9] While at the same time applying new technologies (AI, Quantum, etc.) to healthcare, agriculture, and education (but not to write essays or to cheat through readings) are undoubted positives which we should advance.

In sum, we should reformulate our ideals of development and our idea of growth going forward. Ridding ourselves of the ‘development delusion’ is one step towards progressing rationally.

A Touch of Honesty

Having provided my argument against the development delusion and presented my case for degrowth (the philosophy of it especially), I am afraid I will have to end on a cynical note. Beyond the obvious simplifications in many a part of this paper—necessary to keep it within frame—there is the underlying assumption that we are able to simply pull out of the rush. Both on the micro level as individuals, and on the macro level as states. At the risk of sounding banal, I will reference the stoics, particularly Seneca who argues that whilst individually we should tread our own path and not get carried away in the wave that is society, we should also be mindful that we are part of it. Even if some individuals and states for that matter were willing to, they are part of a system that is geared towards it, and there is no rationality in shooting oneself in the foot. Even where leaders would wish to, would an electorate, if push came to shove really allow them to do so?  And at the same time, driving a lot of the issues I’ve mentioned is the desire for domination inherent in the world system and perhaps even in humankind as a whole. This is encapsulated in the increasingly invest in destructive military technology, since the dawn of history that is. As actors like the EU might say, ‘we would love to but, Russia and China’. Of course, hope is essential if one is to continue, especially at my “tender” age^[10], but having throughout my life watched both the macro level contradictions of the world, and (painfully) experienced the micro level contradictions of (hu)man, there is little to fuel it. One point that does give hope in this context, is that point I mentioned by Latouche, that those countries like my own which are yet to “develop” and are by all means blank canvases that may be able to tread their own path, and avoid being caught up in the wave. Yet would they ultimately be dragged in? Or worse, drag themselves in? My resolution has thus been to promote that which can be done on the individual level, of mindfulness as it were, whether that is something as simple as conscious recycling, conscious consumption, a bit of empathy and consideration shared on the day-to-day level. And of course, solace in the fact that results and wider outcomes are seldom of our own determination.

Notes

^[1] I prefer the more neutral term evolution.

^[2] A fact is regardless of how many provisions they put in place, how good an industrial policy plan they impose, a country like Chad is not going to suddenly turn into Taiwan. Case in point for the delusion (here) when Prof. Costas Lapavitsas, in discussion of resolving the Greek crisis, is bombarded with the ludicrous retort that Ireland is doing well.

^[3] i.e. that development could lead to a ‘devolved’ state, as evidenced by the state of the ‘developed’ world today in comparison to its heyday in decades past.

^[4] Indeed, not every country has a mass of colonies from which to pump out raw materials, not that they could today. Even before colonialism as it was experienced, better armed European powers were initiating unbalanced relationships with scattered polities, dangling in front of them the fruit of firepower which afforded the latter the centralising power which they oh so lacked. At the same time using this to secure further power and access to (human) resources. See ‘Africa in the World’ by Frederick Cooper (2014). 

^[5] Looking at the above note, there is a clear pattern.

^[6] Northern Somalia

^[7] See the Zambian space program for one of the more ludicrous examples https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/story-behind-zambian-space-program

^[8] Degrowth itself is a translation from ‘Décroissance’, as the concept as it is now originates in France in the 2000s. However, the realisation of the limits of growth and the need to keep our evolution in check with this dates much earlier to the works of Nicholas Georgescu Roegen and the Club of Rome with their famous report/book “The Limits to Growth”.

^[9] Some of the arguments are disgustingly shallow: “Hours on the road previously spent driving could be used to video call a friend, watch a funny movie, or even work.” – McKinsey & Co. (2023).

^[10] 21 years old at the time of writing.