ABSTRACT
At the end of this exploration, it is time to review the path of the debate. Numerous questions concerning development and post-development have been addressed — and even more are left for further research. We have encountered post-development theory building on Heidegger, Cowen and Shenton, Castori-adis, and especially on the actor-oriented approach by Norman Long and the sociology of absences by Boaventura de Sousa Santos. We have learned about post-development practice in Mexico and the Philippines, about alternative NGOs in Senegal and resistance movements in India. In this final chapter, four points shall be dealt with that deserve further exploration: two of them concerning points of criticism which have been taken up by some of the contributions, two of them concerning points not sufficiently treated so far. First of all, the charge of representing development as a monolithic enterprise and neglecting the appropriation of development projects by local actors shall be treated. After that, the question of indigenous practices aimed at improvements in the standard of living needs to be discussed from the post-development perspective. Then, the theoretical foundation of post-structuralism and its methodological consequences are reflected — a slightly more detailed discussion seems appropriate here. And finally, gender relations should be noted as a blind spot in most post-development contributions.
