- Reevaluating development through a postcolonial lens - 29 September, 2025
Double-hemisphere world map. Source: The New York National Library (Free to use under the Unsplash License)
The concept of “development” has long been championed as a global goal that promises advancement, wealth, and equity for nations across the globe. Yet, beneath this seemingly neutral and noble objective lies a complex history intertwined with colonialism, exploitation, and the perpetuation of global inequalities. Postcolonial studies, as an interdisciplinary field, offer a critical lens to examine how these historical legacies continue to shape contemporary development practices and discourses. By questioning the underlying assumptions of mainstream development theories, postcolonial perspectives bring to light the enduring influence of colonial power dynamics in the economic and social landscapes of formerly colonized nations.
This article explores the intricate relationship between postcolonialism and the concept of development, arguing that understanding the past is essential for addressing the structural inequalities that persist today in the contemporary world, especially in the global south. By focusing on the dependency theory of the Egyptian economist Samir Amine and the concept of “center-periphery” model, this analysis highlights how former colonies remain economically and politically bound to their colonial histories, often to their detriment. The focus will also turn to Africa, a continent emblematic of postcolonial challenges, poor yet rich by its resources, to illustrate how resource exploitation and external dependencies have perpetuated underdevelopment despite natural wealth.
Through this exploration, the article aims to rethink development from a postcolonial lens by integrating insights from postcolonial studies, it becomes possible to envision development approaches that are more inclusive, historically informed, and attuned to the specific realities of marginalized nations. This reframing is not only vital for achieving equitable global progress but also for dismantling the systemic legacies that continue to hinder meaningful transformation.
The relation between development and postcolonialism
The relationship between development and postcolonialism is deeply rooted in the historical and political trajectories of former colonies. As a critical framework, postcolonialism seeks to unpack the legacy of colonialism and its continuing impact on the socio-economic and political structures of formerly colonized nations. In this context, development is often analyzed as both an instrument and a consequence of colonial power dynamics.
Colonial systems established extractive economies that prioritized the needs of imperial powers over local populations, often leading to structural inequalities that persist in the post-colonial era. As nations sought independence, they inherited these entrenched systems, making development both a challenge and an aspiration. Postcolonial critiques emphasized the need to rethink development as a concept that should be culturally specific, inclusive, and emancipatory, rather than a replication of Western paradigms. Scholars such as Frantz Fanon and Gayatri Spivak have written extensively and deeply on the psychological and cultural impact of colonialism on development.
Dependency Theory and decolonization’s impact on development
Dependency theory, introduced by scholars such as Raúl Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank, provides a crucial lens for understanding how decolonization shapes development. The theory claims that the global economic system is divided into a “core/center” of industrialized nations and a “periphery” of underdeveloped countries. This structure, which was established during the colonial period, creates a dependency relationship where peripheral nations rely on the core/center for technology, capital, and markets.
In the context of decolonization, dependency theory highlights how newly independent states often struggled to break free from the exploitative economic ties imposed by the colonial countries. Even as political sovereignty was achieved, economic subordination persisted, trapping these nations in cycles of underdevelopment. The emphasis on export-led growth, dictated by global markets, often undermined local industries and perpetuated inequalities. Recognizing this, dependency theorists advocate for self-reliance, diversification of economies, and regional integration as pathways to sustainable development.
“Periphery-Center” framework by Samir Amin
By examining the dynamics between developed and underdeveloped regions in greater detail, Samir Amin’s “Periphery-Center” concept expands upon dependence theory. According to Amine, the capitalist global system functions as a hierarchical divide in which industrialized nations constitute the center and govern the periphery. Mechanisms like unequal trade, foreign direct investments, and debt dependencies sustain this connection.
Amin’s study highlights how the global order’s structural disparities and institutional hurdles prevent growth in peripheral nations from following the same trajectory as that in the center. In order to decrease reliance on international markets and promote independent economic plans catered to the unique requirements of peripheral countries, he advocates for a delinking approach. Amin’s perspective is still crucial in discussions regarding sustainable and equitable development in a postcolonial world.
Do institutions drive prosperity & development?
Nobel prize laureates in economics, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, tackled the issue of development from another perspective. “Why Nations Fail?” is the fruit of the work of the three laureates of the Nobel prize, who mainly focused on the role of institutions in the prosperity and development of nations. Currently, the wealthiest 20% of nations are about 30% wealthier than the poorest 20% of nations. The income gap between the wealthiest and poorest nations also continues to exist. Despite their increased wealth, the poorest nations are not catching up to the most developed nations. Why? The laureates of this year have discovered compelling evidence supporting the idea that institutional differences within a society could be the cause of this ongoing disparity. The three economists studied how Europeans colonized different parts of the world and established political and economic structures that provide a significant explanation for the contemporary disparities in prosperity.
When Europeans colonized large parts of the world, the existing institutions sometimes changed dramatically, but not in the same way everywhere. In some colonies, the purpose was to exploit the indigenous population and extract natural resources to benefit the colonizers. In other cases, the colonizers built inclusive political and economic systems for the long-term benefit of European settlers.
Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson contend that the “reversal of fortune” observed in regions such as the Americas can be explained by variations in institutions that were established during the period of European colonization. South and Central America were comparatively richer than North America before colonialism. But after colonialism, the position in the economy was reversed. Europeans created inclusive institutions in North America that upheld the rule of law, safeguarded individual liberties, and promoted creativity. The foundation for industrial growth and economic success was established by these organizations.
On the other hand, European colonists established extractive institutions in South and Central America with the intention of oppressing and abusing the local populations to retain political and economic dominance. Following independence, these extractive mechanisms continued to exist, impeding progress and keeping these countries mired in poverty cycles.
The institutional structures’ enduring presence highlights their significant impact on prosperity. Whereas extractive institutions uphold inequality and economic stagnation, inclusive institutions promote long-term growth by facilitating investment, innovation, and stability. The data shows how institutional heritage influences development outcomes globally, extending beyond the Americas to other colonial regions.
Conclusion
The complex and unfair systems influencing global growth are clarified by the interaction of postcolonialism, dependency theory, and institutional frameworks. We are urged by postcolonial criticisms to reevaluate colonialism’s legacy and its ongoing impact on the socioeconomic conditions of the Global South. Dependency theory emphasizes the persistent economic subordination of formerly colonial countries and advocates for alternative development strategies based on independence and regional integration, especially through Samir Amin’s center-periphery paradigm. In the meantime, institutional research by economists such as Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson shows how the institutional legacies of the colonial past have a significant influence on the economic paths of nations. When taken as a whole, these viewpoints highlight how critical it is to dismantle inherited disparities and promote inclusive, historically informed, and context-specific development paradigms. In order to make equal progress in the Global South, it is crucial to eliminate structural reliance and implement development plans that take into account the particular circumstances of postcolonial countries.
Questions:
– How do global financial systems and trade policies perpetuate the core-periphery divide in contemporary times?
– How can inclusive institutions be fostered in regions with a legacy of extractive institutions?
Suggested further readings:
– THE ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, (2024), “They provided an explanation for why some countries
are rich and others poor”, available at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/popular-economicsciencesprize2024.pdf
– Rosalsky, G. (2024), “A Nobel prize for an explanation of why nations fail”, available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/10/14/g-s1-28210/a-nobel-prize-for-an-explanation-of-why-nations-fail
