'Development' is colonialism in disguise

This piece is highly critical of development in the modernist sense, i.e. unlimited growth. But it also questions its universalism in "technofix, managerial, or market-fix solutions," indicative of one size fits all approaches. Instead they envision a pluriverse of approaches.

"An adequate strategy will enact an ethic grounded on the relational interdependence of everything that exists. It will embrace diversity and pluriversality; autonomy and sufficiency; solidarity and reciprocity; commons and care; the integration with Nature and Nature’s rights; simplicity and sufficiency; rights and responsibilities; ecological sustainability; and non-violence and peace. An adequate strategy will tilt towards the marginal, the exploited, and the oppressed. Transformations and transitions will give time to integrating the multiplicity of dimensions: political, economic, social, cultural, ethical, and spiritual."

This behooves us to question our attachments to the notions of development and universalism, to distinguish which definitions of them are conducive to the above agenda and which are still within the frame of the problem. Also recall Stein's criticism of growth to goodness models. Growth or development in itself is not necessarily better.