Introduction: Bringing social theory back into issues of development

It has long been noted that, over much of the last three decades, development studies has moved away from its previous connections with social theory. The ‘renewed readiness for self-criticism in the West’ of the late 1950s had challenged the idea that the ‘enormous proliferation of empirical work’ which emerged after the Second World War could be solely understood through ‘the knowledge of highly particularized investigations’ (Eley, 1983: 55; Nolte, 1975: 27). The resultant plethora of seminal texts theorizing the rise of the West and explaining its relationship with the rest of the world—marked by classics from Moore (1967), Parsons (1960), Skocpol (1979), Tilly (1978), Wallerstein (1974) and many others—have not, however, successfully migrated from the core reading of sociology and politics to the intellectual foundations of development studies. Instead, critical insights into the process and outcomes of ‘development’ are frequently limited to the technical difficulties of organizing an intervention. Little salience is given to matters of epistemology, power and general applicability. Furthermore, studies are often based on agency rather than structure. When problems arise, they are commonly reduced to the conduct of local actors with insufficient reference to the broader geo-political environment. This is frequently underpinned by a simplistic acceptance of an over-riding notion of progress, rendering all change a part of a teleological unfolding of modernity. The very linear character of development studies’ foundational premise means that both diachronic and synchronic comparison is rare. This also militates against the prospect of building on previous theoretical work in order to connect contextualized studies with broader, interdisciplinary debates. In order to address these limitations, this special issue brings questions of theory much more centrally into development debates. The papers together and individually offer theoretical reflections on how we can usefully employ social theory to understand development problems. At the same time, they offer empirical studies which reveal the implications of engaging social theories.

The special issue to follow emerges from the activities of the Social Theory and Development Histories Research Group which we convene within the Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM) at the University of Manchester. The aim of the research group is to think about various ways to approach the ‘cul de sac’ that Mittelman points to by fostering a sustained consideration of the significance of social theories to the study of development. More specifically, it explores how we can theorize social change and social relations in the context of development, use social theories and historical analyses to interrogate contemporary development narratives, methodology and practice and examine how inequalities are (re)produced and consolidated. This opening contribution will deal with some of the potential benefits of a fuller engagement with these features of social theory before going on to introduce the papers to follow.

A key challenge here is how may we define theory and to what end might it be put. As the papers to follow make clear, there are a great number of possible meanings that might be attributed to the word ‘theory’. While it is clear that ‘how one ought to use the word “theory” is to a great extent a political or practical-reason problem’, it is commonly thought of as a ‘process of systematically formulating and organizing ideas to understand a particular phenomenon’ (Abend, 2008: 176; Boss et al., 1993: 20). The purpose of this is, first, to connect the subject under analysis to a broader set of propositions. It is, in other words, an attempt to establish relationships between variables in order to draw conclusions that are independent from the limitations of time and space. A ‘theoretical contribution’ to our understanding of social development might thus be considered a firm and thoroughly outlined connection between the empirical investigation and the subject in general. Implicit in this is a rejection of Leopold von Ranke’s famous dictum, ‘sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen ist’ (we need only say how it really was) and the associated historist argument that ‘every human being, and every social system was unique and would have to be understood entirely on its own terms, without the help of generalizations’ (Malvasi and Nelson, 2004: xi; Munz, 1991: 257). In place of such idiography and a concern with ‘discovery’, the process of theorizing represents an inherent commitment to nomothesis, metaphysics and the linking of otherwise nominalizing empirical observations towards a broader narrative—an effort which both drives forward the establishment of the social sciences as discrete areas of enquiry divide and continues to define the basis of their intellectual activity (Hobden, 1996: 32).

Second, a theory might be considered ‘an organised body of concepts and principles intended to explain a particular phenomenon’ (Leedy and Omrod, 2005: 4). A key distinguishing feature of what we might call ‘academic’ analysis is to move beyond description and say why things are as they argued to be. It is not enough to say that variables coexist in time and space without attempting to establish the character of their relationship. Here, there is a reciprocal relationship between theory and data. Looking at the record of the West’s engagement with the rest of the world may, for instance, suggest a wide range of possible explanations for the current structure of global inequality. Patterns, if apparent, might support a particular generalized explanation or even provide a basis for the development of theory (as defined above) per se. Alternatively, existing theory may offer a means of approaching the empirical record in order to propose relationships between identifiable variables that might be connected to global inequality. In this sense, an account of causality emerges heuristically from an inductive gathering of evidence or from a deductive application of a broader conceptual framework.

Third, theory helps us to understand change. Again, the record of the past may be approached inductively as an inferential indication of the future. As Theda Skocpol famously asked, how ‘are we ever to arrive at new theoretical insights if we do not let historical patterns speak to us, rather than always viewing them through the blinders, or heavily tinted lenses, of pre-existing theories?’ (Skocpol, 1986: 190). Others theorize change through the application of thematic schema or, less fashionably today, models of periodization. W.G. Runciman’s three-volume treatise (1983, 1989 and 1997), for instance, adapts Weber’s tripartite classification of power as class, status and party to analyze and structure an encyclopaedic sweep of global history. While individual events might be contingent, haphazard and chaotic, the demands of generalizability and explanatory power in both approaches mean that theories of change must follow clearly explicated patterns. For some, word-historical transformations, such as the rise of the West, ‘represent the grand aggregation and multiplication of the actions of individuals and groups… responding to a multiplicity of biological, psychological and social needs… [and thus] it cannot automatically be assumed that later social forms will be associated with higher levels of human adaptedness’ (Sanderson, 1992: 118, 1995: 5, 397). For others, notions of development inevitably contain an implicit methodological linearity—that the evolution of human life is a universally immanent process of ever-greater complexity and differentiation grounded upon technological progression, ideological aptitude, the specialization of labour or some other marker of advance (Nisbet, 1969).

Any such analysis makes some form of comparison—the fourth aspect of theory-building—inevitable. Even the most linear, narrativist approach implies a diachronic relationship between the past and present. Similarly unavoidable is the synchronic relationship between contemporary, analogous cases. These may follow a method of agreement in which the researcher looks for patterns of invariance in order to find support for explanatory variables common to two or more examples (Ragin, 1987: 36). Alternatively, a method of different in which changes in outcome are correlated with variations in possible cause may provide a firm basis for drawing comparative observations. In the Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, for instance, Moore identifies three alternative routes to modernity and seeks to explain areas of similarity and contrast through comparison. As Skocpol has pointed out, within these routes Moore primarily relies on establishing causal commonalties (Skocpol, 1994). Across the three routes, however, he focuses on their contrasting developmental patterns to help validate each. The conclusion reached is that ‘modern’ states can be categorized as having followed ‘communist’, ‘capitalist–reactionary’ or ‘bourgeois’ courses of development (Moore, 1967). Such a macro-level analysis may also be complemented by micro-level approaches. These seek to compare across small slices of time and space and often focus on individuals and their response to social phenomena. Meso-level studies commonly aim to link the micro with the macro by looking at topics such as social movements, community mobilization and organizations (Creswell, 2003: 52).

Finally, an engagement with theory contributes to a growing body of work independent of empirical data and may develop our understanding of ideas, methods and discourses. Gabriel Abend argues that this involves asking ‘what the author of the text “really” meant, that is, what she wanted to say when she wrote a particular passage (or essay, book, oeuvre)’. Such a question may relate to a particular worldview, defined by Abend as ‘the nature of the location from which we look at the social world, the lexicon and syntax by means of which we talk about it, the nature of our conceptual scheme, the categories into which we group things, and the logical relations that there can be between concepts’ (2008: 179). The precise semantics of the narrative, its logical progression, the framing and limitations of its structure, focus and findings are all configured by an author’s assumptions and thus may be fruitfully subjected to examination and reinterpretation. A particularly useful line of investigation here is frequently the connection between meaning and context – in other words, the relationship between an author and his or her broader social environment (culture, contemporaries, legal regime and so on). This assists in judging the importance of the text, both in terms of its social significance and its contribution to the field. The focus here, then, is frequently not so much the development of theory per se, but more the analysis, assessment or application of existent theoretical approaches. In this sense, it may be possible to talk about a theoretical tradition derived from an individual author or group of authors.

This special issue intends to add to this tradition by focusing on the contributions that social theories can make to the study of development issues. The articles to follow are contributions from early-career researchers, each of whom has been working on original and important areas of social theory that they have yet to publish in any detail. This special issue provides an opportunity to showcase this innovative work and to demonstrate its relevance to our understandings of development. It is, in other words, a chance to present a cutting-edge collection of studies that tackle the hitherto under-emphasized objective of bringing social theory into the ways in which we think about development. As such, each offers a critical analysis of what various social theories can contribute to particular areas of development and together demonstrate how using social theory can lead to a better understanding of problems that pertain to developing societies. Each article explores the uses of a particular social theory across a variety of development concerns and geographical settings. Together, the articles address four key sets of questions: (a) what are the theoretical gaps in mainstream development thinking?; (b) how can, and should, we theorize development processes, conditions, and dynamics?; (c) how can various social theories contribute to examining and understanding a specific development problem?; and (d) how can the study of international development effectively combine empirical research with more critical theoretical understandings?

Nahee Kang’s article provides an important intervention into development research. She suggests that there is a lacuna in development created by an over-reliance on grand narratives and theories on the one hand and largely atheoretical detailed empirical work on the other. In this article, she argues that there is a critical and immediate need to contribute to the ‘middle range’ as ‘the very nature of the discipline demands that its researchers not simply seek to understand the world around them for the sake of advancing knowledge, but also to serve the policy actors who seek to better it’. Drawing on research on Germany and Japan, Kang explores the usefulness of comparative institutional analysis to contributing to middle-range theory and the study of modern capitalism and development.

Tanja Bastia’s article highlights the relevance of intersectionality to development theory, policy and practice. Indeed, while feminist theories since the 1970s have made significant contributions to development discourse and practice, she argues that how gender, ‘race’, ethnicity and class intersect has largely been under-theorized. The implications of this are that there is a limited understanding within development of how multiple, complex and changing identities, produce diverse forms of inequality. Through an examination of migration studies, she brings to the fore how an intersectionality approach, by drawing on critical race and feminist theories, can expand understandings of the interconnected and constitutive nature of multiple forms of oppression. Whilst acknowledging some weaknesses of the approach, Bastia demonstrates how a more rigorous engagement with intersectionality can contribute to key debates on power relations, social exclusion and inequalities that underpin development thought and practice.

The articles by Briony Jones and Kirsten Howarth provide insightful interventions into the fields of conflict analysis, post-war reconstruction and sustainable peace. Jones shows how applying Chantal Mouffe’s political philosophy can contribute to challenging problematic assumptions within development studies on the links between democratization, economic reform and sustainable peace. She suggests that Mouffe’s theoretical work expands the space of politics, enables a more nuanced comprehension of the ordering of post war societies and, significantly, highlights the on-going and central role of conflict. Importantly, Mouffe’s distinction between politics and the political provides a broader framework by which to understand agency, civil society and democratization and, as Jones shows, usefully moves beyond unhelpful modernization approaches often characterized around discourses of failed states. Ultimately, this theoretical approach enables an analysis of multiple forms of citizenry and of the various ways of ordering post war societies. Kirsten Howarth similarly explores understandings of post-conflict societies. Rather than demonstrating how a particular social theory can contribute to understandings of post-war peace-building, this article provides an important and timely critique of the dominance of discourses of liberal peace. Here, she shows how, rather than contributing to reconstruction and development, the ideology of liberalization that underpins discourses of liberal peace can reinforce inequalities and subsequently contribute to a resurgence in conflict. Drawing on research on post-war violence and crime and the effects of post-war interventions in Guatemala and El Salvador, Howarth convincingly argues that approaches based on ideas of liberal peace have failed to bring about sustained peace.

John McSweeney’s paper also suggests that it is not only that critical social theory has been marginal to development discourse and practice, but that particular understandings of theoretical ideas and positions have often been diluted, misinterpreted and inappropriately applied in development contexts. He argues that discussions of class have been marginalized within contemporary development studies and that this is in part due to a misuse of key Gramscian concepts of ‘hegemony’ and ‘counter hegemony’. He explores these ideas by reconsidering notions of civil society and the role of non-governmental organizations. He suggests that the privileging of the third sector as the space for emancipation has not only led to a problematic segregation of the state from its citizens, but importantly to the downplaying of the tensions between labour and capital. In conclusion he suggests that a more rigorous application of Gramsci’s ideas can contribute important insights on class alliances and social movements within development.

The following article by Roisin Read brings critical theory into discussions of development discourse and practice by drawing on the philosophy of language. By applying a grammatical reading of development, she shows how the construction and use of language can not only blur the theory/practice divide, but also highlight the political underpinnings and effects of development. In conclusion she argues that the problems of development are primarily issues of language. Understanding the political implications of everyday language, she suggests, can open up new ways of looking at development problems and create spaces within which to explore new development possibilities.

In the final article, Jessica Hawkins shows how Michael Mann’s framework of social power, most often associated with macro-historical sociology, can usefully be applied in the context of development and, more specifically, to understandings of state development in non-Western contexts. She demonstrates this through an analysis of Mann’s research on military actors and civil wars. Furthermore, she argues that Mann’s understanding of how actors organize social power in society provides a necessary historical dimension often absent in development theories and analyses.

Together, these seven articles bring together contributors and perspectives from a variety of disciplines and approaches including politics, geography and sociology in order to focus debate on new and important ways of theorizing development.