




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 203–207, July 2020 

 
BOOK REVIEW 
  

In Search of Post-development Futures 
 

Anirban Dasgupta  
 
Ashish Kothari, Ariel Salleh, Alberto Acosta, Arturo Escobar, and Fedrico 
Demaria, eds. 2019. Pluriverse: A Post-development Dictionary. New Delhi: 
AuthorsUpFront and Tulika Books. ISBN: 978-8-193-73298-4, pp. 384, 

₹950 (PB).  

While writing this review in Delhi 
during a seemingly endless lockdown, 
I am struck with some keen 
realizations. Such a ―natural disaster‖ 
at a global scale is unprecedented in 
my lifetime. However, as we affirm 
our humility with respect to nature 
and try to become more mindful of 
human transgressions against the non-
human, some of us are equally hopeful 
that science will ultimately conquer 
the virus. Such are the fears and hopes 
that dominate my mind as I engage 
with the ambitious volume under 
review. 

Pluriverse follows an engaging academic 
tradition of post-development writing 
that began in the 1980s and acquired 

                                                        
 Faculty of Economics, South Asian University; Akbar Bhawan, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, 
Delhi 110021, India; dasgupta@econ.sau.ac.in. 

Copyright © Dasgupta 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.255  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.255


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [204] 

considerable intellectual heft throughout the 1990s. Post-development 
literature, in essence, sought to challenge several of the claims that called 
for pursuing industrial development in the ―third world‖ in the period 
following the Second World War. Post-development scholars, in fact, 
largely viewed unbridled development projects and plans as being both 
ecologically unsustainable and economically unjust. 

Pluriverse has a three-part structure, beginning with scholars located on 
different continents reflecting on the crisis of development in the 
contemporary world. This is followed by a set of critical write-ups on 
mainstream ―reformist‖ ideas that acknowledge some shortcomings in the 
current development agenda and proffer suggestions to fix them. The final, 
and longest, section compiles the various transformative and radical ways to 
reimagine the functioning of the world once development in its current 
avatar is dethroned.  

The volume comprises a diverse set of contributions that range from 
relatively well-known schools of thought like agroecology, buen vivir, and 
degrowth to the relatively lesser known writings on eco-anarchism, Jain 
ecology, and sea ontologies. The editors, however, are careful to emphasize 
that the origins of these visions spring from diverse world views such as 
indigenous cultures, social movements, and ancient philosophical and 
religious traditions. Importantly, they point out that although these 
perspectives are marked by differences, they can also be understood as 
―complementary notions and practices‖.  

Before going into detail about the content, it is important to alert the reader 
about the form in which the hundred plus entries have been written up. 
The average entry is only two-and-a-half pages long, and the reader is 
required to distil the crux of the argument from such brief summaries. 
Setting aside the unavoidable variation in the quality of the writing across 
the volume, it is safe to say that even the best pieces often fall short of 
communicating their key concepts. One cannot help recalling the longer 
and more substantive entries in the earlier Development Dictionary (Sachs 
1992), where the contributors had ample space to introduce and elaborate 
upon their subjects, and provided an annotated bibliography for further 
reading. The undue compression of the contributions is less than ideal for 
intellectually curious readers who would have gained from more detail and 
elaboration. It is possible that each contributor was given limited space 
because the editors were keen to accommodate as many perspectives as 
possible.  

The development perspectives presented in the first section illustrate the 
issue I have indicated above. The six pieces by authors based in the six 



[205] Anirban Dasgupta 

continents (not including Antarctica) are highly uneven in their coverage 
and treatment. While Nnimmo Bassey, Maristella Svampa, and Kirk 
Hoffman write about contemporary development processes and their 
critiques of the same by focussing on ―developing‖ regions of Africa, Latin 
America, and the island nations in Oceania, respectively, the two-and-a-half 
page remit does not allow them to even scratch the surface of the task at 
hand. Interestingly, the two scholars based in the Global North, Philip 
McMichael and Jose Maria Tortosa, do not write on North America or 
Europe specifically but comment more generally on chosen aspects of 
global development. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I wonder why the 
northern scholars do not have anything particular to report on the 
development in their own geographical contexts. Are development and its 
shortcomings only visible in the Global South? It can be said, of course, 
that authors should not be limited to their continent of origin. If so, it still 
appears incongruous that it is the scholars based in the Global North who 
have the privilege to comment on development projects across the world. 

The second section, aimed at debunking some of the ―buzzwords‖ in the 
mainstream development discourse, is particularly interesting. Despite the 
limited space available to the authors, some have managed to communicate 
the core of their criticism compellingly. Jeremy Gould, in his entry on 
―development aid‖, takes a fresh look at how development practices have 
become a much more forceful form of corporate funded aid. Larry Lohman 
is successful in lucidly explaining the advent of trading in ecosystem 
services, while making his key criticisms clear. Deepak Malghan writes 
engagingly on efficiency, one of the building blocks of technocratic 
development, before finishing off rather hurriedly and unsatisfactorily with 
the following statement: ―the efficiency revolution has run its course‖ (52). 
Other articles that deal with popular ideas like ―green economy‖ and ―smart 
cities‖, which are regularly peddled around in mainstream development as 
magic bullets, turn out to be similarly unsatisfactory as they are not allowed 
to run their full explanatory course due to a paucity of space. 

Clearly, the most compelling parts of the book, which also justify its title, 
are the reflections that make up the ―people’s pluriverse‖—the myriad 
imaginings of a post-development transformative future. The range of ideas 
presented in these entries is truly remarkable, moving between long-
standing lines of radical thought like deep ecology, liberation theology, and 
worker-led production to recent entrants in the post-development lexicon 
like minobimaatisiiwin and kametsa asaike, representing indigenous quests for a 
fulfilling and harmonious life. Given the large number of entries in this 
section, it is not only impossible to comment on each piece individually but 
also difficult to make statements that relate to the section as a whole.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [206] 

I particularly want to raise the issue that delving into conventional religions 
for post-development wisdom leaves me dissatisfied. This may be the result 
of my inability to engage with religious thought seriously given my 
materialist predisposition or the realization that ―doing good‖ to fellow 
humans and non-humans is taught in all religious texts, making it less about 
subscribing to a particular religion and more about the humanist 
undercurrent present in all major religions. But humanism as a universalist 
tenet par excellence may sit uncomfortably with post-developmentalism 
and, as such, there is no entry under humanism in the Pluriverse. Moreover, 
since all major religions have been deeply entrenched in social power 
hierarchies, often by justifying oppressive practices, it is problematic to talk 
about a given religion’s vision of a post-development egalitarian society 
without owning up to its own legacies of injustices.  

Another disturbing aspect of several entries in this section is the lack of 
critical perspective on the ideas presented. A case in point is the 
contribution on Gross National Happiness (GNH) in Bhutan. A minor rage 
in the international development community in recent years, it remains the 
official development framework in Bhutan and is used extensively while 
planning government interventions in different domains. While the concept 
of GNH is not trivial and deserves serious intellectual engagement, it is 
striking that the author avoids any mention of the various criticisms of the 
GNH and related development choices that exist prominently in the 
literature.  

Degrowth is another concept on which productive engagement with 
naysayers is avoided entirely. In particular, the debate on whether the 
framework of degrowth should entirely reject growth or if we are better off 
growing within limits went unaddressed. It is also critical to examine the 
applicability of degrowth for the Global South. Can poorer countries 
actually afford degrowth? It would have been a valuable addition to the 
volume if the authors engaged with some of these arguments. In these 
omissions, one senses a lack of interest in taking on the difficult task of 
critiquing the development mainstream. I am reminded of Wolfgang Sachs’ 
comment in the preface to the second edition of the Development Dictionary:  

Looking at the Development Dictionary today, it is striking that we had not really 
appreciated the extent to which the development idea has been charged with 
hopes for redress and self-affirmation. It certainly was an invention of the 
West, as we showed at length, but not just an imposition on the rest. On the 
contrary, as the desire for recognition and equity is framed in terms of the 
civilizational model of the powerful nations, the South has emerged as the 
staunchest defender of development. Countries in general do not aspire to 
become more ―Indian‖, more ―Brazilian‖ or for that matter more ―Islamic‖; 



[207] Anirban Dasgupta 

instead, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, they long to achieve 
industrial modernity. (2010, viii) 

Sachs’ insight succinctly captures the challenge of moving beyond the 
contemporary development paradigm, which cannot be overcome without a 
serious engagement with both development orthodoxies and the popular 
sentiments that sustain them. I am not suggesting that post-development 
literature as a whole has shied away from this responsibility, but this volume 
could surely have taken on such questions more directly. 

Post-development thinking has played an important role in questioning 
some of the fundamental elements of the global development project—
industrial accumulation and the accompanying unsustainable levels of 
consumption. Adopting such ideas would undoubtedly be key in 
formulating plans for a sustainable and just future. The problem, however, 
has always been in the inability of scholar-activists to construct feasible 
models for the future and envision pathways for attaining them. Going 
back to my initial thoughts in the time of the pandemic, post-development 
thought definitely helps me to place human beings within the larger natural 
system and makes me aware of the risk of imbalance in human–nature 
relations. But it does not provide a framework to generate and use scientific 
knowledge in a globally collaborative way to come up with solutions for the 
pandemic related crises that we face today.  

 

REFERENCE 

Sachs, Wolfgang, ed. 2010. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. 
Second Edition. London and New York: Zed Books 


