







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 1 

 

 

Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and 

Experiences from the Field of Christian Relief, 

Development, and Advocacy 

 

Nina Kurlberg and Roland Hoksbergen 
 

 
 

Power and its outworking within international 

development has for decades been a much-debated 

topic (see, for example, Elliott 1987; Lister 2000; 

Gaventa 2006; Hammett 2019). The primary focus of 

discussions, particularly those centred around practice, 

has been on power asymmetries within the sector; that 

is, between donors and organisations located in the 

“Global North,” and “local” communities and partner 

organisations in the “Global South” (Elliott 1987; Lister 

2000).
1

 More specifically, significant attention has been 

paid to power differentials within “partnerships,” as well 

as on the lack of representation of those from the 

Global South in positions of decision-making power 

within organisations based in the Global North (Lister 

2000; Brinkerhoff 2002; Abrahamsen 2004). The 

development sector’s colonial roots have frequently 

been invoked in these conversations, said to be behind 

the supremacy of Western knowledge and power that 

persists in development practice today, and one of the 

reasons why some have referred to development as a 

neo-colonial endeavour (see, for example, Escobar 

1995; Kothari 2006). 

While colonialism has indeed featured in 

conversations on power within international 

development, then, in recent years the term 

“decolonisation” has gained considerable traction. 

Spurred by the growth and implications of the Black 

Lives Matter movement and disproportionate impact of 

COVID-19 globally, decolonisation has become a term 

that encompasses concerns related to power, while 

 
1

 The terms “Global North” and “Global South” are contentious within the sector. One of the arguments against their 

use is that they encompass hugely diverse countries and regions of the world, and as such, have a generalising tendency 

and obscure more than they elucidate; another is that inherent within the terms is a hierarchical structure and the 

implication that those in the Global South are in some senses “second-class” in comparison to those in the Global North 

(Ainsworth and Byatnal 2022). Nevertheless, these remain the terms most widely used to refer to regions of the world 

that primarily differ on economic grounds and will therefore be used in this introduction. 
2

 The term “Global Majority” is one that first emerged in the UK “to reject the debilitating implications of being racialised 

as minorities,” and is understood to be “a more accurate descriptor of those labelled as ‘ethnic minorities’ or ‘diverse 

minority communities’” (Campbell-Stephens 2021, 4). 

bringing the lens of race to the forefront of discussions. 

Calls for the sector to decolonise have focused in 

particular on the ways in which its colonial legacy 

continues to impact issues related to, amongst other 

things, decision-making power, representation, 

organisational culture, and language. Organisational 

responses to critiques in these areas have comprised a 

range of initiatives, such as more intentionally including 

those of Global Majority
2

 heritage in board and staff 

positions of influence in the Global North; increasing 

support for organisational efforts to decentralise so that 

decision-making moves closer to communities in the 

Global South; and renewing emphasis on internal 

dynamics in need of addressing, along the lines of anti-

racist work. Some have also sought to increase 

awareness of the importance of the language used in the 

sector, because words that are part of its established 

vocabulary, such as “development,” “donors,” and 

“beneficiaries,” are said to perpetuate narratives of 

superiority and inferiority that enable neo-colonial 

practices and systems of thought to persist, unnoticed 

and unchecked (see, for example, Rist 2007 on 

“development”). 

In addition to calls for specific concrete changes to 

organisational practice, advocates of decolonisation 

within international development have also highlighted 

the systemic dynamics in need of addressing. Some 

point to the colonial logics underpinning the structures 

of power within the sector; for example, the logic of 

superiority associated with “Whiteness,” which 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 2 

 

perpetuates a systemic form of racism that often 

remains hidden and thus unaddressed (Kothari 2006). 

Whiteness here refers to cultural practices, beliefs, and 

behaviours associated with those racialized as “White,” 

that while commonly perceived as neutral and 

therefore, “unmarked and unnamed” (Frankenberg 

1993, 1), operate as the standard against which all other 

cultural practices, beliefs and behaviours are measured. 

Harmful systemic-level dynamics connected to 

Whiteness include that of “White Saviourism” (Cole 

2012), which is embedded in the logic of superiority 

noted above and in essence, works to centre those of 

White European heritage as the key actors in the sector 

(Khan, Dickson and Sondarjee 2023). 

What is particularly important to draw attention to 

in relation to these systemic-level conversations on 

decolonisation is the logic of “coloniality,” first 

introduced by Aníbal Quijano (2000) although rooted 

in the “decolonial theory” of Frantz Fanon (1961), 

amongst others (see, for example, Césaire 1972; Dussel 

1985). For Quijano, while colonialism refers to “the 

historical, economic, and legal process by which 

Europe appropriated the American continent”—in 

other words, to something concrete and tangible—

coloniality refers to the “ongoing cultural structure” 

through which the notion of the civilized West and 

barbarous non-West is reinforced and perpetuated 

(Fregoso Bailón and De Lissovoy 2019, 358-359). 

Thus, the logic of coloniality sustains colonialism by 

ensuring the continuance of its practices yet “without 

formal colonies” (Kho 2023, 52). Importantly, these 

practices have not only entailed the continued 

systematic marginalisation and repression of other ways 

of living and being, but also of other ways of knowing, 

imposing the colonisers’ “patterns of producing 

knowledge and meaning” on the dominated to the 

extent that these have become universalised (Quijano 

2007, 169). In summary, then, coloniality is the term 

used to describe the ongoing impact of colonial 

relations on all contemporary societal systems—whether 

political, economic, social, or epistemological—which 

although hidden, is real and pervasive (Duvisac 2022, 

2; Tom 2022, 566). 

Against this backdrop, “decoloniality” can be 

understood as “a call for completing the unfinished 

business of decolonisation in the present century,” in 

order to restructure global relations and bring into 

being a “new era” free from the dominance of the 

Global North (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2020, 191). The 

precise nature of this era must remain undefined, since 

decoloniality is neither “static,” nor “a lineal point of 

arrival” (Mignolo and Walsh 2018, 17); rather, it “seeks 

to make visible, open up, and advance radically distinct 

perspectives and positionalities that displace Western 

rationality as the only framework and possibility of 

existence, analysis, and thought” (ibid., emphasis 

added). As Quijano puts it, “[n]othing is less rational, 

finally, than the pretension that the specific cosmic 

vision of a particular ethnie should be taken as universal 

rationality, even if such an ethnie is called Western 

Europe because this is actually…to impose a 

provincialism as universalism” (Quijano 2007, 177). 

This is important, and the response to such universality 

has been captured within the concept of 

“pluriversality,” which focuses on the relationality 

between different ways of living, being and knowing, 

calling attention to their points of “connection” and 

“correlation” in order to enable dialogue (Mignolo and 

Walsh 2018, 1-2). As Walter Mignolo and Catherine 

Walsh explain, the pluriversal “connects and brings 

together in relation…local histories, subjectivities, 

knowledges, narratives, and struggles against the 

modern/colonial order and for an otherwise” (Mignolo 

and Walsh 2018, 3). According to Mignolo and Walsh, 

one important way of opening up the possibility of such 

dialogue is to more intentionally seek to make these 

“histories, subjectivities, knowledges and struggles” 

visible, something we will return to below. 

To summarise thus far, contemporary debates on 

decolonisation connect to long-running discussions on 

power in international development. Key themes that 

the lens of decolonisation and decolonial theory bring 

to the discussion include the importance of recognising 

and acknowledging the positionality that societal actors, 

whether institutions, organisations, or individuals, carry 

with them into the spaces they inhabit; the necessity of 

systemic approaches that look beyond what is 

immediately apparent; and, connected to this, the 

significance of epistemology—that is, how things are 

known within international development. Decolonial 

thought has been growing in influence and importance 

as an area of focus within the sector. In relation to 

humanitarianism in Europe specifically, Olivia 

Umurerwa Rutazibwa notes that a decolonial approach 

 

challenges Eurocentric analyses, foregrounding 

the experiences and knowledges of the intended 

targets of humanitarian aid. It poses questions 

not so much about the political will, operational 

implementation and technical capabilities of 

humanitarians as about the perpetuation of 

colonial power relations in seemingly benevolent 

activities. 

Decoloniality asks: where do we start the 

story? Who has the microphone and who 

usually doesn’t? What do we consider expertise? 

What are the implications of Eurocentric bias in 

knowledge production? Do our practices and 

knowledge systems contribute to the struggle 

against colonial power relations? (Rutazibwa 

2019, 66) 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 3 

 

These are all pertinent questions, and ones that various 

contributors within this special issue unpack. An 

important critique in relation to the movement for 

decolonisation within international development, 

however, concerns the danger that it becomes another 

programme driven by the Global North, or by 

Whiteness, that is then imposed on all others. Thus, in 

relation to practice within the sector, it is important to 

be cognisant of where calls for decolonisation originate, 

and also of who is driving and leading any responses 

that are set in motion. 

In terms of Christian relief, development, and 

advocacy organisations specifically, as several 

contributors note in their articles, colonialism and 

coloniality actively work against the values many such 

organisations uphold and seek to live out, such as 

justice, equality, reconciliation, and love, to name a few. 

Christian theologies of power also bring a challenge to 

the status quo within the sector. As I (Nina) argue 

elsewhere, where colonising power—interpersonal and 

systemic—is in operation within organisations, 

powerholders must, through the power of God’s Spirit, 

“yield their power and move to the margins to listen 

intently to and amplify those voices and perspectives 

less often heard, allowing them to change the shape and 

nature of the organization” (Kurlberg 2021, 72). The 

theological rationale for this is the self-giving love of 

Christ, also enabled by the power of the Spirit (ibid. 

2021, 68). According to such theologies, engagement in 

decolonising initiatives is therefore vital for Christian 

organisations. 

Worth mentioning in relation to faith-based 

organisations more generally is the work of the UK-

based Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local 

Communities (JLI) on decolonisation. The JLI has 

since 2020 sought to mobilise discussion amongst 

academics and practitioners engaged with a range of 

faith communities specifically on the intersection 

between faith and decolonisation. Initiatives have 

included hosting a panel discussion on 

“Decolonisation, Development and Faith” at the 

annual Development Studies Association (DSA) 

conference in the UK, and a panel at the American 

Academy of Religion’s (AAR) annual conference on 

the same theme. In addition to bringing together 

academics and practitioners with an interest in 

decolonisation and faith, the JLI is also engaged in 

research specifically on decolonisation and 

localisation.
3

 

 

Overview of the journal 
The articles in CRDA journal’s special issue on 

decolonisation provide a window into a variety of 

 
3

 https://jliflc.com. 

Christian organisations and individuals that have 

embarked on their own journeys to decolonise their 

thought and practice. The purpose of the issue is not to 

advocate for one specific approach to decolonisation, 

but rather, to present the paths that different 

organisations have taken, as well as reflections from a 

range of individuals on this topic. Our decision to 

compile a special issue addressing decolonisation was 

largely due to the increasing focus on the topic within 

the relief, development, and advocacy sector, both in 

the UK, where Nina resides, and in the US, where 

Roland resides. As we have spent time engaging with 

contributors over the past eighteen months and keeping 

abreast of the conversations taking place, our sense is 

that this topic not only needs continued emphasis, but 

greater nuance as well, something we hope comes 

across through the articles in this volume. Our aim in 

compiling this journal issue and bringing these different 

authors together, is to contribute to the discussion and 

provide food for thought and inspiration for academics 

and practitioners, particularly those working in faith-

based relief, development, and advocacy organisations. 

We are deeply grateful to each of our contributors, who 

shared so openly and, in many cases, vulnerably. 

As we hope will have become clear from our 

introductory remarks, if our aim is decolonisation, 

positionality is particularly important. We have 

therefore sought to make explicit the social and cultural 

location of authors where possible, albeit to varying 

degrees and in a variety of ways. Our assumption is that 

this has a bearing on their work. Catherine Walsh 

expresses this in a poignant way; emphasising the need 

to move from “a posture of ‘studying about’ to ‘thinking 

with,’” she notes that this requires scholars to commit 

to “the making visible of his or her presence in this 

thinking” (Mignolo and Walsh 2018, 28). With this in 

mind, I (Nina) live, know, and write as a second-

generation British Asian woman. My grandparents fled 

from Hyderabad Sindh, in what is now Pakistan, to the 

UK and Kenya during the partition of India in 1947, a 

fact I was acutely aware of during my childhood. I have 

studied theology and social science at both European 

and Asian academic institutions, and thus I know that I 

am implicated in coloniality at the same time as I am 

disadvantaged by it. For more than fifteen years now, 

my studies, publications and professional work have 

largely focused on issues related to equality, diversity, 

inclusion, and decolonisation. I (Roland) am very 

conscious of my own privilege as a White US 

American, though I fear not as much as I should be. I 

grew up in a family and church that taught me to care 

for others, but my deeper understandings of the themes 

discussed in this special issue likely began when I 

worked for a year in Guatemala after the 1976 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 4 

 

earthquake. Marrying a young woman from the house 

where I lived and becoming part of a Latin American 

family did much to open my eyes, as did spending years 

in Central America later on. My three plus decades as 

a professor of international development helped me 

grow in my ability to listen and to make me increasingly 

aware of the importance of “handing over the stick,” a 

practice well-known in community development, but 

powerfully relevant for every area of our lives.   

At this juncture, and before introducing the articles 

in this special issue, it is important to draw attention to 

some of the challenges that decolonisation as unpacked 

above presents to an academic journal such as this. As 

a well-established societal sphere of activity, academia is 

implicated in coloniality. It is guided by established 

systems and patterns of knowing and communicating, 

including rules regarding what ought and ought not to 

be done, and a degree of consensus on what makes an 

academic article “robust” or of “good quality,” that are 

embedded within colonial relations. As editors for an 

academic journal, we have admittedly centered the 

academy, along with its established rules concerning 

what constitutes “good scholarship.” Nevertheless, one 

of the initial steps we have taken to decolonise our 

practice has been to bring a diverse range of authors and 

approaches to the topic, and to allow their authentic 

voices to emerge. Readers might therefore notice that 

while we have formatted articles according to CRDA’s 
standard grammatical structure, we have not 

standardised language and spellings across the whole of 

this special issue, and we have sought to preserve the 

original tone of articles. We have also sought to make 

visible author positionality within each contribution, as 

already noted above. 

Finally, a third initial step we have taken is to 

prioritise the concrete experiences of organisations and 

individuals within the sector. This resonates with 

Walsh’s emphasis on the importance of beginning with 

“praxis” in relation to decoloniality. Walsh notes that 

“[to] begin with praxis and the praxistical activity of 

thinking-doing, is to turn academia and Western 

modern thought upside down” (Mignolo and Walsh 

2018, 19). “Thinking-doing” in this context places 

emphasis on praxis while also capturing the 

interconnectedness and inseparability of theory and 

praxis, concepts which are often separated within 

Western thought or pitted against each other (ibid., 7). 

The contributions in this special issue that begin with 

praxis in relation to organisations highlight the 

complexity of the contexts in which organisations find 

themselves. Aspects that are often the focus of 

organisational efforts to decolonise—whether specific 

relationships, activities, or processes—exist within much 

larger systems, with which they are intertwined. This 

interrelatedness means that reconfiguring power in one 

sphere of organisational activity will necessarily 

reconfigure power in another sphere of activity. 

Reflecting on practice through decoloniality thus sheds 

light on multiple and varied sets of power differentials 

that need addressing in multiple and varied spheres of 

activity. An important insight that these contributions 

therefore bring to decolonial theories relates to the 

need for attention to dynamics at multiple layers, or 

levels of analysis. 

This special issue comprises seven full-length 

articles, two discussion pieces, and three book reviews, 

encompassing diverse “internal” and “external” 

organisational and individual perspectives. 

Contributors are based in Ecuador, Guatemala, India, 

Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the 

UK, the US and Zimbabwe—almost as many countries 

as there are articles. Many authors are those whose 

work, education and lived experience spans the Global 

North and Global South, and academic and practice-

based spaces. 

The first three full-length contributions chart 

organisational pathways to decolonising practice. As 

noted above, many organisations have been wrestling 

with questions related to power and partnership for a 

long time, and actively engaging in organisational 

initiatives to adjust their practice and ways of working, 

although the language of decolonisation has often not 

been used. One contribution in this section has a 

historical focus, another is centred around 

organisational-level initiatives carried out during a more 

recent time period, and a final article homes in on 

localisation as a specific area of organisational practice 

that can enable decolonisation. Bringing a historical 

perspective to the special issue, Alain Epp Weaver and 

Emma Smith Cain introduce Mennonite Central 

Committee (MCC) as a case study of one organisation’s 

decades-long journey to decolonise its practice. Epp 

Weaver and Smith Cain share insights from MCC’s 

history, charting some of the major changes it 

underwent from its establishment in 1920, to the 

present day, carefully articulating the challenges, 

complexities and opportunities MCC has encountered 

over the past one hundred plus years. These changes 

have been guided by theological reflection on 

missiological concepts and questions. In the next 

contribution, Bikita Mahdi and Thobekile Ncube focus 

on a more recent time period, 2017-2023, exploring 

various initiatives through which the faith-based 

organisation Tearfund has sought to outwork 

decolonisation within its corporate culture, 

organisational structures, and ways of working. The 

theological motivation underlying this work came to the 

fore during the organisation’s Jubilee year in 2017, a 

significant moment in its organisational journey, which 

led to a focus on restoring relationships impacted by 

colonialism and/or racism. As well as intentionally 

working on organisational culture, power has been a 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 5 

 

key focus area, with emphasis placed on “shifting” or 

“recalibrating” power. We then return to MCC to learn 

from five staff members from two NGOs, ANADESA 

and MCC, who have reflected collectively to author a 

case study set in Guatemala, based on almost twenty 

years’ work among Indigenous Tz’utujil communities. 

The authors argue that responding to colonial legacies 

has been enabled by the implementation of a 

localisation model that they view as a form of 

“reparations.” Based on flexibility and mutual learning, 

this way of working has helped create an environment 

in which decolonisation processes can occur within and 

between these two organisations.  

The two full-length contributions that follow are 

based on insights from recent research processes 

carried out by two faith-based international non-

governmental organisations; the first is a theological 

research process that was in and of itself guided by a 

decolonial spirit, and the second addresses the topic of 

reparations. In their contribution, Clark Buys and 

Maria Andrade introduce a theological research 

process carried out by Tearfund on the topic of 

economic and environmental sustainability. The 

research process, which intentionally sought to engage 

in regional “missional listening” and draw on 

perspectives from the Global South, is discussed by 

Buys and Andrade from the perspective of Latin 

American decolonial theory. As well as introducing the 

resultant “Abundant Community Theology,” the 

authors highlight both the value and challenges of 

Tearfund’s approach. Ann-Marie Agyeman and 

Anupama Ranawana then explore “reparations,” which 

they view as a theological imperative and key aspect of 

decolonising development. Their argument is that anti-

racism work can be seen as a form of reparations. Using 

the findings from a piece of research carried out by 

Christian Aid in 2021 on race, ethnicity, and poverty, 

they explore how organisations can practically engage in 

this work. 

The final two full-length contributions focus on 

specific aspects of organisational practice based on the 

authors’ experiences. The first is a research piece on 

decolonising data collection, and the second is an essay 

that draws out several organisational factors that enable 

decolonisation. In the first, Rebecca Samuel Shah 

explores the practice of organisations based in the 

Global North in relation to knowledge production and 

data extraction. Drawing on her own research in the 

slums of Chennai and Bangalore during the COVID-

19 pandemic, Shah makes a case for decolonising data 

collection. In the second article, Toluwanimi Jaiyebo-

Okoro argues that although many organisations 

highlight their support for decolonisation, current ways 

of working within the sector do not always enable 

organisations to actualise this. Jaiyebo-Okoro thus 

outlines four critical enabling factors (CEFs) for 

decolonisation relevant for Christian Development 

Organisations (CDOs): lament, epistemic justice, 

diverse and inclusive representation, and the embrace 

of non-neutrality. This list is not exhaustive, but instead 

represents a starting point for organisations keen to 

decolonise their practice. 

This special issue also includes two shorter 

discussion pieces, the first of which is an essay by Al 

Tizon, who argues that poverty is ultimately the 

consequence of the pursuit of wealth. Focusing in on 

the concepts of “Empire” and “Mammon,” Tizon 

touches on the relationship between colonialism and 

capitalism. His argument finds congruence with the 

work of Quijano (2000), who brings the lens of race to 

this relationship, arguing that racial hierarchies are 

embedded within capitalism (Quijano 2000, 536-537). 

Tizon argues that Mammon and Empire go together, 

and that when the church confronts Mammon, empire 

is also confronted. In order to destabilise the “imperial 

spirit,” less capital-based ways of doing development are 

needed. In the second discussion piece, Tracy Kuperus 

engages with Robtel Neajai Pailey’s thought on 

decolonisation within international development, 

focusing in particular on Pailey’s critique of the “White 

gaze” of development, and more generally, on the 

importance of acknowledging race within development 

practice. This connects to wider discussions on the 

influence of “Whiteness” within this sphere of activity. 

Kuperus concludes with suggestions for how Christians 

working in the field of development might avoid its 

White gaze. 

Finally, the editors have included reviews of three 

recently published books: Graham Adams’ Holy 

Anarchy, reviewed by Jo Cribbin; Anupama 

Ranawana’s A Liberation for the Earth: Climate, Race 

and Cross, reviewed by Kuki Rokhum; and Al Tizon’s 

Christ Among the Classes: The Rich, the Poor and the 

Mission of the Church, reviewed by Cynthia Moody. 

Note that two of these are written by Tizon and 

Ranawana, who have also authored articles for this issue 

of CRDA. 

The common ground underpinning the entirety of 

this special issue of the journal is the view that all 

humanity stands in equality before God. The authors 

represented here know the world we collectively 

inherited fails miserably to honor this basic idea. They 

call us to lament the pain and injustice of this world and 

to work together to imagine and open the possibility for 

an “otherwise.” 

 

 

References 
 

Abrahamsen, Rita. 2004. “The power of partnerships 

in global governance.” Third World Quarterly 25 

(8): 1453-1467. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(1), Summer 2023  
 

Kurlberg and Hoksbergen, Decolonising Practice: Pathways, Insights, and Experiences 6 

 

Ainsworth, David and Amruta Byatnal. 2022. 

“Localization? I hate the word. Decolonization? I 

hate that even more.” Devex. November 21, 2022. 

https://www.devex.com/news/localization-i-hate-

the-word-decolonization-i-hate-that-even-more-

104340.  

Bailón, Fregoso and De Lissovoy. 2019. “Against 

coloniality: Toward an epistemically insurgent 

curriculum.” Policy Futures in Education 17 (3): 

355-369. 

Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M. 2002. Partnership for 
International Development: Rhetoric or Results? 

Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 

Campbell-Stephens, Rosemary M. 2021. Educational 

Leadership and the Global Majority: Decolonising 
Narratives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Césaire, Aimé. 1972 [1955]. “Between Colonizer and 

Colonized.” In Discourse on Colonialism, 

translated by Joan Pinkham. New York: Monthly 

Review Press, 20-25. 

Cole, Teju. 2012. “The White-Savior Industrial 

Complex.” The Atlantic. March 21. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2

012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-

complex/254843/.  

Dussel, Enrique. 1985. Philosophy of Liberation, 

translated by Aquilina Martinez and Christine 

Morkovsky. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. 

Duvisac, Sara. 2022. “Decolonize! What Does It 

Mean?” OXFAM. July. 

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream

/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize-what-does-it-

mean-151222-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  

Elliott, Charles. 1987. “Some Aspects of Relations 

Between the North and South in the NGO 

Sector.” World Development 15 (Supplement 1): 

57-68. 

Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: 

The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. 

Princeton: Princeton University Press.  

Fanon, Franz. 1961. Wretched of the Earth, translated 

by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.  

Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race 
Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Gaventa, John. 2006. “Finding the Spaces for Change: 

A Power Analysis.” IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 23-33. 

Hammett, Daniel. 2019. “Whose Development? 

Power and Space in International Development.” 

Geography 104 (1): 12-18. 

Khan, Themrise, Kanakulya Dickson, and Maika 

Sondarjee (eds). 2023.White Saviorism in 

International Development. Quebec: Daraja Press. 

Kho, Tung-Yi. 2023. “Colonial Logics and the 

Journey from the Third World to the First, and 

Back Again.” In Talking About Global Inequality: 

Personal Experiences and Historical Perspectives. 
edited by Christiansen, Christian Olaf, Oliver 

Bugge Hunt, Priyanka Jha, Melanie Lindbjerg 

Machado-Guichon and Sofia Mercader, 47-54. 

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Kothari, Uma. 2006. “An Agenda for Thinking about 

‘Race’ in Development.” Progress in Development 
Studies 6 (1): 9-23. 

Kurlberg, Nina. 2021. “Embrace in the Margins: A 

Theological Framework for Inclusion.” In 

Theologies and Practices of Inclusion: Insights 
from a Faith-Based Relief, Development and 

Advocacy Organization, edited by Kurlberg, Nina 

and Madleina Daehnhardt. London: SCM Press. 

Lister, Sarah. 2000. “Power in partnership? An 

analysis of an NGO’s relationships with its 

partners.” Journal of International Development 
12: 227-239. 

Mignolo, Walter D. and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. 

On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. 

Durham: Duke University Press. 

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Sabelo J. 2020. “African 

Decolonization’s Past and Present Trajectories.” 

Current History 119 (817): 188-193. 

Tom, Nobesuthu. 2022. “Black Theology before the 

Decolonial Turn,” The Ecumenical Review 74 (4): 

561-575. 

Quijano, Aníbal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power and 

Eurocentrism in Latin America.” International 

Sociology 15 (2): 215-232. 

Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. “Coloniality and 

Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21:2-3: 

168-178. 

Rist, Gilbert. 2007. “Development as a buzzword.” 

Development in Practice 17 (4-5): 485-491. 

Rutazibwa, Olivia Umurerwa. 2019. “What’s There to 

Mourn? Decolonial Reflections on (the End of) 

Liberal Humanitarianism.” Journal of 

Humanitarian Affairs 1 (1), 65-67. 
 

 

Nina Kurlberg is postdoctoral research associate in 

Theological Education at the University of Durham, 

UK. She is serving as guest editor of this journal issue. 

 

Roland Hoksbergen is professor emeritus of 

Economics and International Development at Calvin 

University. He serves as co-editor of this journal. 

 

Author emails: 
nina.kurlberg@durham.ac.uk 

hoksro@calvin.edu  
 

https://www.devex.com/news/localization-i-hate-the-word-decolonization-i-hate-that-even-more-104340
https://www.devex.com/news/localization-i-hate-the-word-decolonization-i-hate-that-even-more-104340
https://www.devex.com/news/localization-i-hate-the-word-decolonization-i-hate-that-even-more-104340
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize-what-does-it-mean-151222-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize-what-does-it-mean-151222-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize-what-does-it-mean-151222-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
mailto:nina.kurlberg@durham.ac.uk
mailto:hoksro@calvin.edu

