This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In reviewing the evolution of development studies, this article identifies three distinct traditions in teaching and research on development studies: international, national and global. Scholars and practitioners also make critical choices regarding focus, scale and expertise. The nature of explanation has shifted from understanding historical change, to assessing policy interventions at a demonstrable level of causality. The field is dividing into parallel dialogues that view development as national (domestic well-being), global (cross-border interdependencies), or foreign (poverty hotspots abroad). Development studies needs to bridge these dialogues, by encouraging the use of mesolevel data (between the nation-state and households), adopting greater geographic precision and offering thick explanations of social change.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruce Currie‐Alder (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: