There is no unique concept of ‘development’. It simply points out a state of things and a possibility of change, among other things. Wallerstein maintains that development has many dimensions and often simply means ‘more’ (Wallerstein, 1999: 117). Quijano (2000: 38) acknowledges that ‘development’ is a ‘risky’ term. Esteva (2000) considers it a fragile word with faint content, unable to make progress in specific social and economic environments and, much less, the sense of change. A concept applied and applicable to almost everything. Beyond the vagueness of the concept, we should wonder whether it is still possible to think of development as a social project. And, if so, what are the social actors that promote it? Is there any alternative in the context of global society? I propose to tie these questions to the ‘crisis’ of the neoliberal globalizing model, and to the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump about the US’s return to a protectionist model, focused on the development of the national state, promotion of nationalisms, and a revival of its declining industries.
Comments