150
Connor F.J. Leckey
ly, development critique of postcolonialism also points to postcolonial
focus on particular constraints of power and knowledge, asking if these
are at the expense of a universal global vision. Development theorists
argue that while unique situations may readily occur, in order to create
an attainable global development strategy, it is important to recognise
key structures that link them together (Spivak 1998: 290).
Although important to take into consideration in order to foster a dialogue between the competing disciplines, this article rejects much of
development’s postcolonial critique as a rationale to omit postcolonial
theory from development strategy. As has been stated, development’s
biggest critique of postcolonial scholarship is its inclination to base its
criticisms on subjective and intuitive responses, instead of the traditional
development response based on empirical Eurocentric scientific knowledge (Grovogui 2013; Hopkins 1997; Todorov 1993). This is most likely
due to development theorists’ aspiration for a universal global development strategy - in their view a much more attainable goal (Spivak, 1998).
However, although a universal strategy may indeed be easier to implement, it does not mean that a universal strategy will deliver sustainable
or effective development. This article is convinced by the postcolonial
argument that it is a mistake to conceptualise development as a ‘one size
fits all’ strategy that can be implemented throughout the ‘third world’,
negating the importance of indigenous knowledge when implementing
development strategies (Escobar 1995).
Conclusion
The debate between postcolonial F