{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019176136363636364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002840909090909091, 'mean_word_length': 5.404545454545454, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development as … appeasement? From Peaceful Change to ideological combat

Abstract Before the outbreak of European war in 1939, figures in international development discourse struggled to disentangle it from the idea of ‘economic appeasement’. How and when development emerged is a complicated question but a more important issue is how it was employed to achieve political ends. The concept was implicated in appeasement policy, itself part of a broader discourse on ‘Peaceful Change’. Peaceful Change sought to sustain the liberal status quo and was marbled by colonial and raw materials issues. It offered to appease ‘revisionist’ powers through international economic development. Poorer (often colonial) areas were to be deliberately developed to support this vision. Adherents were found in Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia and New Zealand, many of which would support agendas of global development through global war and into cold war. Rejection of Peaceful Change did not mean these ideas were abandoned; rather they were turned into weapons to contain the revisionists and transmitted to centres working to sustain a liberal world order, particularly the United States. The detour of appeasement shows the mutability of concepts like development in differing historical circumstances and suggests attention to those contexts which inflect those concepts as much as search for origins.