{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018150388936905792, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5423728813559325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Post-Development, Developmental State and Genealogy: condemned to develop?

Abstract This article investigates the fate of two trends in development studies—post-development and the ‘developmental state’—in order to question the critical purchase of the genealogical mode of critique in this discipline. These two trends enact a critique of the orthodox discourse of development that problematises its understanding of history, self-perception and practical implications and is akin to a genealogical form of critique. Yet the success of these trends in the discipline of development has been relatively minimal, compared to the insights it has generated in other academic disciplines. This outcome raises questions as to the problem-space of development and the structure of the arguments in this discipline. More specifically, the article argues that the prescriptive bent of this discipline imposes specific requirements on critical discourse, requirements that make it less amenable to this form of genealogical critique. The article concludes on the potential insights of this form of critique when filtered through the prescriptive bias of this field.