qpr-1-2013-foreword.pdf | Page 150

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