Economism and critical silences in development studies: A theoretical critique of neoliberalism

Because of the recentness of neoliberalism's rise in popularity within development studies, it has only been in the last few years that it has been subject to close scrutiny in the development literature. Moreover, much of the criticism of the neoliberal approach has been focused on the immediate consequences of structural adjustment and other neoliberal policy instruments on Third World countries. However, there is also a theoretical critique that can be applied to neoliberalism which can help explain the root causes of many of its shortcomings as a development strategy. Given the close links between neoliberalism and neoclassical theory in general, much of this theoretical criticism concentrates on basic problems of the neoclassical framework. This paper particularly focuses on the problem of economism and the consequent neglect of three important areas of development studies: sociocultural and political relations, the intersubjective realm of meanings and values in development, and the environment and issues of sustainability. The narrowness of homo economicus and associated neoclassical assumptions The multifaceted and dynamic nature of development processes makes it necessary to take an interdisciplinary approach to the study of development, one that includes sociocultural, political, and environmental factors as well as those economic. However, neoliberalism and other mainstream development frameworks that draw their conceptual roots from neoclassical theory have virtually omitted non-economic factors of development from serious consideration.' As Hirschman notes, 'The discipline became professionally more narrow at precisely the moment when the problem of development demanded broader, more political, and social insights' 2 Characteristically, neoclassical theory treats people as atomistic individuals who are bound together only through market forces. People are reduced to isolated creatures of the marketplace, devoid of history, cultural traditions, political opinions and social relationships beyond simple market exchanges.3 The conventional assumption is that non-market relations and institutions-the broader environments within which economies operate-are universal, unchanging, and have no significant impact on economic activities.4 Economies take on an ahistorical, static nature and economic change becomes solely the result of exogenous changes in tastes and technology.5 Stripped of their social relations