ABSTRACT
The emphasis on continuities between North and South is not entirely new. Various policymakers, academics and NGOs have acknowledged the presence of “Third World enclaves” within the First World. In the past, however, this has not led to theoretical reconceptualizations of North and South. On the contrary, development theory has continued to produce and reproduce (hierarchized) dichotomies such as North/ South, First World/Third World, developed/underdeveloped and modern/traditional. Indeed, one could argue that development theory on the one hand creates the South as inferior “other,” while at the same time owing its existence to the construction of these hierarchical dichotomies. As Deborah Johnston points out:
So far, theories of development (both conventional and more “radical”) have attempted to uncover the truth about underdevelopment-what it is, why it is, and what may be done to remedy it. But in their analyses, they presuppose the very distinction they seek to examine. They accept as natural and necessary the distinction between First and Third Worlds, between core and periphery, between developed and underdeveloped.
