thesis in development studies

Browser does not support script.

• About the Department

Dissertations

The dv410 dissertation is a major component of the msc programme and an important part of the learning and development process involved in postgraduate education., research design and dissertation in international development.

The DV410 dissertation is a major component of the MSc programme and an important part of the learning and development process involved in postgraduate education. The objective of DV410  is to provide students with an overview of the resources available to them to research and write a 10,000 dissertation that is topical, original, scholarly, and substantial. DV410 will provide curated dissertation pathways through LSE LIFE and Methods courses, information sessions, ID-specific disciplinary teaching, topical seminars and dissertation worksops in ST. With this in mind, students will be able to design their own training pathway and set their own learning objectives in relation to their specific needs for their dissertation. From the Autumn Term (AT) through to Summer Term (ST), students will discuss and develop their ideas in consultation with their mentor or other members of the ID department staff and have access to a range of learning resources (via DV410 Moodle page) to support and develop their individual projects from within the department and across the LSE. 

Prizewinning dissertations

The archive of prizewinning dissertations showcases the best MSc dissertations from previous years. These offer a useful guide to current students on how to prepare and write a high calibre dissertation.

2023-GA (PDF) The Impact of "Beca 18" on Secondary Educational Attainment: Experimental Evidence from a Peruvian Scholarship Program Alexandra Gutiérrez Traverso Joint winner of Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Joint Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Management   

2023-WB (PDF) Democracy Aid Effectiveness and Authoritarian Survival: Democracy Protests as Windows of Opportunity Ben Wolfrum Joint winner of Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Management 

2023-ML (PDF) The Gendered Impact of Educational Devolution: Evidence from India’s Panchayat System Luke Martens Joint Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Management 

2023-MC (PDF) From Chains to Change: Gendered Problems and Blockchain Solutions in Jordan’s Refugee Camps Carys Milbourn Winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2023-ZF (PDF) Transit Migration and Biopolitics of Movement: How Italy Uses Mobility as a Biopolitical Technology of Control to Reproduce Its Position of Transit Country Francesco Zinni Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2023-BR (PDF) A scoping review of the implementation of infectious disease early warning systems (IDEWS) for building health system climate change resilience Rachael Barrett Winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Health and International Development

2023-RC (PDF) Caring for Asylum Seekers with Chronic Conditions: A Case Study in New Mexico’s Borderlands Caylyn Rich Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Health and International Development

Flushing Out Barriers: Identigying the Relationship Between School Sanitation and School Enrolment Jorin Wolff Winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Studies

2023-BL (PDF) Competing for Land: A Spatial Investigation of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions, Their Target Context, and the Dynamics of Deforestation in Africa Luc Bitterli Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Studies

2022-OW (PDF) The Politics of Political Conditionality: How theEU Is Failing the Western Balkans Pim W.R.Oudejans Joint winner of Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Management 

2022-GN (PDF) An Empirical Study of the Impact of Kenya’sFree Secondary Education Policy on Women’sEducation Nora Geiszl Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Management 

2022-JC  (PDF) Giving with one hand, taking with the other:the contradictory political economy of socialgrants in South Africa Jack Calland Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Studies

2022-GL (PDF) State Versus Market: The Case of Tobacco Consumption in Eastern European and Former Soviet Transition Economies Letizia Gazzaniga Joint winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Health and International Development

2022-ER (PDF) Reproductive injustice across forced migration trajectories: Evidence from female asylum-seekers fleeing Central America’s Northern Triangle Emily Rice Joint winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Health and International Development

2022-LICB  (PDF) The effects of Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) on child nutrition following an adverseweather shock: the case of Indonesia Liliana Itamar Carillo Barba Winner Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Health and International Development 2022-SC (PDF) Fiscal Responses to Conditional Debt Relief:the impact of multilateral debt cancellation on taxation patterns Sara Cucaro  Joint winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2022-RM  (PDF) Navigating humanitarian space(s) to provideprotection and assistance to internally displacedpersons: applying the concept of ahumanitarian ‘micro-space’ to the caseof Rukban in Syria Miranda Russell  Joint winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2021-CC  (PDF) International Remittances and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating Resilient Remittance Flows from Italy during 2020 Carla Curreli Joint winner of Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance and Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Management 

2021-NB  (PDF) Reluctant respondents: Early settlement by developing countries during WTO disputes Nicholas Baxtar Joint winner of Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Management (Specialism: Applied Development)

2021-CD  (PDF) One Belt, Many Roads? A Comparison of Power Dynamics in Chinese Infrastructure Financing of Kenya and Angola Conor Dunwoody  Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Development Studies

2021-NN  (PDF) Tool for peace or tool for power? Interrogating Turkish ‘water diplomacy’ in the case of Northern Cyprus Nina Newhouse Winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Development Studies

2021-CW  (PDF) Exploring Legal Aid Provision for LGBTIQ+Asylum Seekers in the American Southwest from 2012-2021 Claire Wever Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2021-BP  (PDF) Instrumentalising Threat; An Expansion of Biopolitical Control Over Exiles in Calais During the COVID-19 Pandemic Bethany Plant Joint winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2021-HS  (PDF) A New “Green Grab”? A Multi-Scalar Analysis of Exclusion in the Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP) Project, Kenya Helen Sticklet Joint winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2021-GM  (PDF) Fuelling policy: The Role of Public Health Policy-Support Tools in Reducing Household Air Pollution as a Risk-Factor for Non-Communicable Diseases in LMICs Georgina Morris Winner of Prize for Best Dissertation MSc Health and International Development 

2021-LC  (PDF) How do women garment workers employ practices of everyday resistance to challenge the patriarchal gender order of Sri Lankan society? Lois Cooper Joint winner of Prize for Best Overall Performance MSc Health and International Development 

2020-LK  (PDF) Can international remittances mitigate negative effects of economic shocks on education? – The case of Nigeria Lara Kasperkovitz Best Overall Performance Best Dissertation Prize International Development and Humanitarian Emergengies 

“Fallen through the Cracks” The Network for Childhood Pneumonia and Challenges in Global Health Governance  Eva Sigel Best Overall Performance Health and International Development 

2020-AB  (PDF) Fighting the ‘Forgotten’ Disease: LiST-Based Analysis of Pneumonia Prevention Interventions to Reduce Under-Five Mortality in High-Burden Countries Alexandra Bland Best Dissertation Prize  Health and International Development   

2020-TP  (PDF) Techno-optimism and misalignment: Investigating national policy discourses on the impact of ICT in educational settings in Sub-Saharan Africa Tao Platt Best Overall Performance Development Studies 

2020-HS  (PDF)  “We want land, all the rest is humbug”: land inheritance reform and intrahousehold dynamics in India Holly Scott Best Dissertation Prize Development Studies   

2020-PE  (PDF)  Decent Work for All? Waste Pickers’ Collective Action Frames after Formalisation in Bogotá, Colombia  Philip Edge Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management

2020-LC  (PDF)  Variation in Bilateral Investment Treaties: What Leads to More ‘Flexibility for Development’? Lindsey Cox Best Dissertation Prize Development Management

2019-GR (PDF) Political Economy of Industrial Policy: Analysinglongitudinal and crossnationalvariations in industrial policy in Brazil andArgentina Grace Reeve Best Overall Performance Development Studies 

2019-MM (PDF) The Securitisation of Development Projects: The Indian State’s Response to the Maoist Insurgency Monica Moses Best Dissertation Prize Development Studies 

2019-KM (PDF) At the End of Emergency: An Exploration of Factors Influencing Decision-making Surrounding Medical Humanitarian Exit Kaitlyn Macneil Best Overall Performance Prize Health and International Development

2019-KA (PDF) The Haitian Nutritional Paradox: Driving factors of the Double Burden of Malnutrition Khandys Agnant Best Dissertation Prize Health and International Development   

2019-NL (PDF) Women in the Rwandan Parliament: Exploring Descriptive and Substantive Representation Nicole London Best Dissertation Prize Development Management 

2019-CB (PDF) Post-conflict reintegration: the long-termeffects of abduction and displacement on theAcholi population of northern Uganda Charlotte Brown Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management 

2019-NLeo (PDF) Making Fashion Sense: Can InternationalLabour Standards Improve Accountabilityin Globalised Fast Fashion? Nicole Leo Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management 

2019-AS (PDF) Who Controls Whom? Evaluating theinvolvement of Development FinanceInstitutions (DFIs) in Build Own-Operate (BOO)Energy Projects in relation to Market Structures& Accountability Chains: The case of theBujagali Hydropower Project (BHPP) in Uganda Aya Salah Mostafa Ali Best Dissertation Prize African Development 

2019-NG (PDF) Addressing barriers to treatment-seekingbehaviour during the Ebola outbreak in SierraLeone: An International Response Perspective Natasha Glendening India Best Overall Performance Prize African Development 

2019-SYJ (PDF) The Traditional Global Care Chain and the Global Refugee Care Chain: A Comparative Analysis Sana Yasmine Johnson Best Dissertation Prize Best Overall Performance Prize International Development and Humanitarian Emergengies 

2018-JR (PDF) Nudging, Teaching, or Coercing?: A Review of Conditionality Compliance Mechanisms on School Attendance Under Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Jonathan Rothwell Best Dissertation Prize African Development 

2018-LD (PDF) A Feminist Perspective On Burundi's Land Reform Ladd Serwat Best Overall Performance African Development 

2018-KL (PDF) Decentralisation: Road to Development or Bridge to Nowhere? Estimating the Effect of Devolution on Infrastructure Spending in Kenya Kurtis Lockhart  Best Dissertation Prize and Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management 

2018-OS (PDF) From Accountability to Quality: Evaluating the Role of the State in Monitoring Low-Cost Private Schools in Uganda and Kenya Oceane Suquet Mayling Birney Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management 

2018-LN (PDF) Water to War: An Analysis of Drought, Water Scarcity and Social Mobilization in Syria Lian Najjar Best Dissertation Prize International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2018-IS  (PDF) “As devastating as any war”?: Discursive trends and policy-making in aid to Central America’s Northern Triangle Isabella Shraiman  Best Overall Performance  International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies

2017-AR (PDF) Humanitarian Reform and the Localisation Agenda:Insights from Social Movement and Organisational Theory Alice Robinson Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

2017-ACY (PDF) The Hidden Costs of a SuccessfulDevelopmental State:Prosperity and Paucity in Singapore Agnes Chew Yunquian Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Managament 

2017-HK  (PDF) Premature Deindustrialization and Stalled Development, the Fate of Countries Failing Structural Transformation? Helen Kirsch Winner of the Best Dissertation in Programme Development Studies

2017-HZ  (PDF) ‘Bare Sexuality’ and its Effects onUnderstanding and Responding to IntimatePartner Sexual Violence in Goma, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo (DRC) Heather Zimmerman Winner of the Best Dissertation in Programme International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

2017-KT  (PDF) Is Good Governance a Magic Bullet?Examining Good Governance Programmes in Myanmar Khine Thu Winner of the Best Dissertation in Programme Development Managament 

2017-NL  (PDF) Persistent Patronage? The DownstreamElectoral Effects of Administrative Unit Creationin Uganda Nicholas Lyon  Winner of the Best Dissertation in Programme African Development 

2016-MV  (PDF) Contract farming under competition: exploring the drivers of side selling among sugarcane farmers in Mumias             Milou Vanmulken  Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation                                                      Dev elopment Management                

2016-JS  (PDF) Resource Wealth and Democracy: Challenging the  Assumptions of the Redistributive Model              Janosz Schäfer  Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Studies                

2016-LK   (PDF) Shiny Happy People: A study of the effects income relative to a reference group exerts on life satisfaction             Lajos Kossuth Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance                                     Development Studies  

2015-MP (PDF) "Corruption by design" and the management of infrastructure in Brazil: Reflections on the Programa de Aceleração ao Crescimento - PAC.             Maria da Graça Ferraz de Almeida Prado                                                          Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation                                          Development Managment                                                                                  

2015-IE (PDF) Breaking Out Of the Middle-Income Trap: Assessing the Role of Structural Transformation.                                                                               Ipek Ergin                                                                                                   Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

2015-AML (PDF) Labour Migration, Social Movements and Regional Integration: A Comparative Study of the Role of Labour Movements in the Social Transformation of the Economic Community of West African States and the Southern African Development Community.             Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen                                                                                Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation                                   Development Management

2015-MM (PDF) Who Bears the Burden of Bribery? Evidence from Public Service Delivery in Kenya                     Michael Mbate                                                                                                   Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation and Best Overall Performance Development Management

2015-KK (PDF) Export Processing Zones as Productive Policy: Enclave Promotion or Developmental Asset? The Case of Ghana. Kilian Koffi Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation African Development

2015-GM (PDF) Forgive and Forget? Reconciliation and Memory in Post-Biafra Nigeria. Gemma Mehmed Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

2015-AS (PDF) From Sinners to Saviours: How Non-State Armed Groups use service delivery to achieve domestic legitimacy. Anthony Sequeira Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation and Best Overall Performance International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

2014-NS (PDF) Anti-Corruption Agencies: Why Do Some Succeed and Most Fail? A Quantitative Political Settlement Analysis. Nicolai Schulz Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

2014-MP (PDF) International Capital Flows and Sudden Stops: a global or a domestic issue? Momchil Petkov Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

2014-TC (PDF) Democracy to Decline: do democratic changes jeopardize economic growth? Thomas Coleman Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

2014-AK (PDF) Intercultural Bilingual Education: the role of participation in improving the quality of education among indigenous communities in Chiapas, Mexico. Anni Kasari Excellent Dissertation and Best Overall Performance Development Management

2014-EL (PDF) Treaty Shopping in International Investment Arbitration: how often has it occurred and how has it been perceived by tribunals? Eunjung Lee Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Management

2013-SB (PDF) Refining Oil - A Way Out of the Resource Curse? Simon Baur Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

2013-NI (PDF) The Rise of ‘Murky Protectionism’: Changing Patterns of Trade-Related Industrial Policies in Developing Countries: A case study of Indonesia. Nicholas Intscher Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation and Best Overall Performance Development Studies

2013-JF (PDF) Why Settle for Less? An Analysis of Settlement in WTO Disputes. Jillian Feirson Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

2013-LH (PDF) Corporate Social Responsibility in Mining: The effects of external pressures and corporate leadership. Leah Henderson Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

2013-BM (PDF) Estimating incumbency advantages in African politics: Regression discontinuity evidence from Zambian parliamentary and local government elections. Bobbie Macdonald Excellent Dissertation and Best Overall Performance Development Studies

WP145 (PDF) Is History Repeating Itself? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representation of Women in Climate Change Campaigns. Catherine Flanagan Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP144 (PDF) Disentangling the fall of a 'Dominant-Hegemonic Party Rule'. The case of Paraguay and its transition to a competitive electoral democracy. Dominica Zavala Zubizarreta Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP143 (PDF) Enabling Productive Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries: Critical issues in policy design. Noor Iqbal Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP142 (PDF) Beyond 'fear of death': Strategies of coping with violence and insecurity - A case study of villages in Afghanistan. Angela Jorns Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

WP141 (PDF) What accounts for opposition party strength? Exploring party-society linkages in Zambia and Ghana. Anna Katharina Wolkenhauer Joint Winner, Best Overall Performance Development Studies

WP140 (PDF) Between Fear and Compassion: How Refugee Concerns Shape Responses to Humanitarian Emergencies - The case of Germany and Kosovo. Sebastian Sahla Joint Winner, Best Overall Performance Development Management

WP139 (PDF) Worlds Apart? Health-seeking behaviour and strategic healthcare planning in Sierra Leone. Thea Tomison Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP138 (PDF) War by Other Means? An Analysis of the Contested Terrain of Transitional Justice Under the 'Victor's Peace' in Sri Lanka. Richard Gowing Best Overall Performance and Best Dissertation International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

WP137 (PDF) Social Welfare Policy - a Panacea for Peace? A Political Economy Analysis of the Role of Social Welfare Policy in Nepal's Conflict and Peace-building Process. Annie Julia Raavad Joint Winner, Best Overall Performance and Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP136 (PDF) Women and the Soft Sell: The Importance of Gender in Health Product Purchasing Decisions. Adam Alagiah Joint Winner, Best Overall Performance Development Management

WP135 (PDF) Human vs. State Security: How can Security Sector Reforms contribute to State-Building? The case of the Afghan Police Reform. Florian Weigand Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP134 (PDF) Evaluating the Impact of Decentralisation on Educational Outcomes: The Peruvian Case. Siegrid Holler-Neyra Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Management

WP133 (PDF) Democracy and Public Good Provision: A Study of Spending Patterns in Health and Rural Development in Selected Indian States. Sreelakshmi Ramachandran Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP132 (PDF) Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer to Developing Countries: a Reassessment of the Current Debate Marco Valenza Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP131 (PDF) Traditional or Transformational Development? A critical assessment of the potential contribution of resilience to water services in post-conflict Sub-Saharan Africa. Christopher Martin Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies (IDHE)

WP128  (PDF) The demographic dividend in India: Gift or curse? A State level analysis on differeing age structure and its implications for India's economic growth prospects. Vasundhra Thakurd Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP127  (PDF) When Passion Dries Out, Reason Takes Control: A Temporal Study of Rebels' Motivation in Fighting Civil Wars. Thomas Tranekaer Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP126  (PDF) Micro-credit - More Lifebuoy than Ladder? Understanding the role of micro-credit in coping with risk in the context of the Andhra Pradesh crisis. Anita Kumar Best Overall Performance and Best Dissertation Development Management

WP124 (PDF) Welfare Policies in Latin America: the transformation of workers into poor people. Anna Popova Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP123  (PDF) How Wide a Net? Targeting Volume and Composition in Capital Inflow Controls. Lucas Issacharoff Best Overall Performance and Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP117 (PDF) Shadow Education: Quantitative and Qualitative analysis of the impact of the educational reform (implementation of centralized standardised testing). Nataliya Borodchuk Best Overall Performance and Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP115 (PDF) Can School Decentralization Improve Learning? Autonomy, participation and student achievement in rural Pakistan. Anila Channa Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP114 (PDF) Good Estimation or Good Luck? Growth Accelerations revisited. Guo Xu Best Overall Performance and Best Dissertation Development Studies

WP113 (PDF) Furthering Financial Literacy: Experimental evidence from a financial literacy program for Microfinance Clients in Bhopal, India. Anna Custers Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP112 (PDF) Consumption, Development and the Private Sector: A critical analysis of base of the pyramid (BoP) ventures. David Jackman Winner of the Prize for Best Disseration Development Management

WP106 (PDF) Reading Tea Leaves: The Impacy of Mainstreaming Fair Trade. Lindsey Bornhofft Moore Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP104 (PDF) Institutions Collide: A Study of "Caste-Based" Collective Criminality and Female Infanticide in India, 1789-1871. Maria Brun Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Studies

WP102 (PDF) Democratic Pragmatism or Green Radicalism? A critical review of the relationship between Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Policymaking for Mining. Abbi Buxton Joint Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP100 (PDF) Market-Led Agrarian Reform: A Beneficiary perspective of Cédula da Terra. Veronika Penciakova Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Studies

WP98 (PDF) No Business like Slum Business? The Political Economy of the Continued Existence of Slums: A case study of Nairobi. Florence Dafe Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

WP97 (PDF) Power and Choice in International Trade: How power imbalances constrain the South's choices on free trade agreements, with a case study of Uruguay. Lily Ryan-Collins Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Dissertation Development Management

WP96 (PDF) Health Worker Motivation and the Role of Performance Based Finance Systems Africa: A Qualitative Study on Health Worker Motivation and the Rwandan Performance Based finance initiative in District Hospitals. Friederike Paul Joint Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Dissertation Development Management

WP95 (PDF) Crisis in the Countryside: Farmer Suicides and the Political Economy of Agrarian Distress in India. Bala Posani Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Management

WP94 (PDF) From Rebels to Politicians. Explaining Rebel-to Party Transformations after Civil War: The case of Nepal. Dominik Klapdor Winner of the Prize for Excellent Dissertation Development Management

WP92 (PDF) Guarding the State or Protecting the Economy? The Economic factors of Pakistan's Military coups. Amina Ibrahim Winner of the Prize for Best Dissertation Development Studies

WP91 (PDF) Man is the remedy of man: Constructions of Masculinity and Health-Related Behaviours among Young men in Dakar, Senegal. Sarah Helen Mathewson Winner of the Prize for Best Overall Performance Development Studies

Graduate programmes

Browsing Theses and Dissertations (Development Studies) by Title

• UnisaIR Home
• College of Human Sciences
• School of Social Sciences
• Department of Development Studies
• Theses and Dissertations (Development Studies)

Or enter first few letters:

Sort by: title issue date submit date Order: ascending descending Results: 5 10 20 40 60 80 100

Now showing items 1-20 of 255

• Accounting for sustainable development in water services : a case of Lephalale Local Municipality in the Limpopo province, South Africa  Makgatho, Selina Magugudi ( 2022-09 ) Local government, in terms of its constitutional obligation is liable for service provision. But in the provision of service there is a need for accountability. This will assist municipalities to track improvement derived ...
• Achieving equity and gender equality in Uganda’s tertiary education and development  Odaga, Geoffrey ( 2019-12 ) Grounded in feminist epistemology, the study focused on the concepts of location, social position, gender and Affirmative Action to assess the social phenomenon of inequality in the distribution of public university ...
• Adoption of information and communication technology for the development of the incubated rural farming cooperatives in Limpopo province, South Africa  Seroka, Michael Phaane ( 2022-11 ) Information and communication technology (ICT) is ubiquitous and has penetrated various economies and farming included. The advent of ICT has expanded the farming sector evidenced by a whole range of value chains that can ...
• Advancing the rights of rural women with disabilities in Zimbabwe: challenges and opportunities for the twenty first century  Dziva, Cowen ( 2018-02 ) Disability studies largely ignored or neglected the experiences of rural women with disabilities (WWD) in the Global South. This qualitative study documents the challenges faced by Zimbabwean rural WWD in the enjoyment of ...
• Africa is not a country: perceptions of poverty by Christians in Germany  Dieckmann, Daniel ( 2021-06 ) This research examines the perception that Christians in Germany have of poverty in Africa and the extent to which this thinking corresponds to a holistic understanding of poverty. The study is examined in the context ...
• An afrocentric critique of the discourse of good governance and its limitations as a means of addressing development challenges in Nigeria  Adejumo-Ayibiowu, Oluwakemi Damola ( 2018-09-11 ) The current study is an African-centred critique of the idea of ‘good governance’; which since the 1990s, has been a prescription of the international development institutions for all development challenges facing developing ...
• Analysing the sustainable livelihoods of domestic female migrants in Dunoon, Cape Town in the Western Cape of South Africa  Tokoyo, Bertha ( 2023-01-11 ) There is proof that women continue to migrate from other countries to seek better ways of survival and to increase their sustainable livelihood. These women’s migration is linked to their provisional efforts and the ...
• Analysis of a model designed for land restitution in protected areas in South Africa  De Koning, Maria Adriana Imelda ( 2010-10 ) This thesis investigates the design of a model, methods and guidelines that may assist government agencies in South Africa to find a balance between the objective of biodiversity conservation and increased local economic ...
• An analysis of climate change resilience of vulnerable rural communities in Malawi  Mkungula, Yusuf Malsellino ( 2021-05 ) Climate change is increasingly becoming a global challenge and countries are feeling its impacts. Malawi is heavily affected by the impacts of climate change because her economy depends on agriculture which is extremely ...
• An analysis of Dubai's socio-economic development strategies and performance between 1998-2008  Thompson, Paul Anthony ( 2014-03-17 ) This study explores the socio-economic development path of the former Trucial State of Dubai, now an economic powerhouse within the Federal State of the United Arab Emirates. This thesis emanated out of the researcher’s ...
• Analysis of factors influencing provision of municipal services in the rural districts : the case study of Luwingu District Council of Zambia  Longa, Simon ( 2018-06 ) Provision of municipal services to urban residents particularly those residing in small towns across developing countries, is facing challenges. A small town or rural district of Luwingu in Zambia, is no exception. This ...
• Analysis of foreign aid effectiveness on economic development in Ethiopia  Tagese Helore Lamore ( 2022-08 ) In this study the effectiveness of foreign aid on economic development and poverty alleviation in Ethiopia during the period of 2011 to 2020 was analysed. On the one hand, government reports have indicated that the country ...
• Analysis of government agricultural food security pack programme: the case of Mpulungu District, Northern Province, Zambia  Royd, Tembo ( 2021-06 ) This study investigated the effects, capacity, and challenges of the food security pack programme in Mpulungu district, Northern Province, Zambia. The primary sources of data were farm household surveys, focus group ...
• Analysis of livelihoods and food security of poor urban households: the case of urban productive safety-net beneficiaries in Ethiopia  Tegegn Gebeyaw Wassie ( 2022-07 ) Social protection, including social assistance or safety nets, is considered a proven means of reducing poverty, promoting livelihood, improving food security and nutrition status of the poorest households. The Government ...
• An analysis of perceptions amongst farmers on the adoption of GM technology in Paarl, Western Cape - South Africa  Owusu, Festus ( 2020 ) In early 2003, a persistent drought threatened about 15 million people in the Southern African region (SADC) with starvation as farmers in this region were not able to produce enough food. A similar threat was experienced ...
• An analysis of public perception towards consuming genetically modified crops and the acceptance of modern agricultural biotechnology: a South African case study  Makaure, Cleopas ( 2019-01 ) South Africa is one of the biggest producers of genetically modified crops in the world. However, recent studies in South Africa show a low public willingness to consume genetically modified crops and accept modern ...
• An analysis of the actor-oriented approach as tool in international development cooperation  Bosman, Willem ( 2009-08-25 ) No abstract available
• An analysis of the benefits of the growth in tourism to the local communities in the Panorama region, Mpumalanga Province  Monakhisi, Ngwako Philemon ( 2009-08-25 ) In recent decades tourism has asserted its importance as the biggest employer and foreign exchange earner in both the developing and developed countries. Consequently, there has been increasing attention to tourism ...
• Analysis of the compatibility of customary land tenure with food security: a case of Binga District, Zimbabwe  Dube, Mathew Unique ( 2021-11-30 ) The study focused on the analysis of the compatibility of customary land tenure with food security in Binga District, in the northwest of Zimbabwe. The practices in customary land tenure that lead to food insecurity ...
• An analysis of the effects of parent emigration on the social security of children left behind: the case of Highfield, Harare in Zimbabwe  Masaila, Fesiline ( 2022-02 ) This study examined the perspectives of caregivers on how parental emigration impacts the social security of children left behind in Highfield, Zimbabwe. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with caregivers, as well as ...

Search UnisaIR

All of unisair.

• Communities & Collections
• By Issue Date

This Collection

Discover CALS

See how our current work and research is bringing new thinking and new solutions to some of today's biggest challenges.

• Agriculture
• Applied Economics
• Climate Change
• Communication
• Environment
• Global Development
• Health + Nutrition

Graduate Field of Development Studies

Field-leading social scientists & development practitioners.

Our doctoral program in Development Studies (previously known as Development Sociology) focuses on ‘development,’ a central and contested concept that gained prominence after World War II, which implies progressive change towards improving economies and people’s well-being while conserving nature at local, regional, and global scales. Faculty and graduate students in the field of Development Studies study processes of social, cultural, ecological, economic, and political change, and the historical and contemporary forces that shape those dynamics. They also study the organizations and actors that engage in development-related processes and the practices, knowledge, and forms of expertise they bring to bear on their work.

An interdisciplinary field, Development Studies draws from a wide range of disciplines, including sociology, economics, political science, human geography, anthropology, history, Indigenous and postcolonial studies, and the natural and technical sciences. Our doctoral students study in a range of contexts, some working directly with communities around the globe, others exploring large data sets or studying institutions as they seek to understand the complexities behind development and its impacts on people and the planet.

The program offers preparation for research, for the application of social sciences in government positions, the non-profit sector, consulting, and think tanks, and for college teaching in development studies and related fields. For the Ph.D. degree, students are expected to demonstrate (1) a thorough knowledge of social theory in development studies, with special emphasis on theories in their major concentration, (2) knowledge of previous and current research pertinent to the concentration, and (3) knowledge of multiple research methods, including qualitative and quantitative, with special emphasis on research design, data collection, and analytical techniques relevant to study in the concentration. If students do not have a M.S. degree in Development Studies or a related discipline, they will complete a qualifying paper or M.S. thesis as part of their training.

Lecturer Sarah Giroux and graduate student Anthony Poon discuss research.

Ph.D. in Development Sociology

The Graduate Field of Development Studies offers a single Ph.D. degree track in Development Sociology. With an acceptance rate of 15%, our cohort of 45 Ph.D. candidates come from backgrounds including journalism, natural resources, environmental studies, sociology and more. 

The Department of Global Development works together with the  Cornell Graduate School  to process applications. Required documents must be submitted online via the Graduate School online application and requested test scores must be sent through the testing agency.

Application deadline

December 1; no spring admissions

Before You Begin

• Graduate study at Cornell is organized using a field structure. You can  familiarize yourself with this structure  to gain a better understanding of which faculty members might serve on your dissertation committee.
• The application will ask for your major concentration. The options are Population and Development, Rural and Environmental Sociology, and State, Economy, and Society.  Here you will find an overview of the concentrations  as well as a list of core and affiliate faculty associated with each concentration. You can also review the Student Handbook . 
• You are encouraged to familiarize yourself with faculty members’ research areas before applying, and to identify in your personal statement faculty members with whom you are interested in working.  In order to have a consistent and fair admission process, this year we decided to not have individual meetings or correspondence between field faculty and potential students. Instead, we encourage you to look at our  program website , including field  faculty  information, to make sure that your research interests align with faculty interests and expertise.
• We will not be arranging campus visits prior to the application deadline. Those applicants who are short-listed (usually around 10-12 applicants) will have opportunity to meet (virtually) with individual faculty and current graduate students. 

How to Apply

Submitted by the applicant via the  online application

• all  Graduate School Requirements , including the TOEFL Exam or IELTS Academic Exam for non-native English applicants
• Academic CV (upload PDF)
• Short writing sample (under 10 pages, upload PDF)

Submitted by recommenders via the  online application

• Three letters of recommendation must be on business letter and contain a signature of the letter writer, two of which must be from academic recommenders

Submitted by the testing agency to the Cornell Graduate School upon applicant’s request

• TOEFL Exam scores are required of applicants from countries where the native language is not English; see the  Cornell Graduate School website  for requirements and exceptions.

Contact Rachel Bezner Kerr , Director of the Development Studies Graduate Field at  rbeznerkerr [at] cornell.edu (rbeznerkerr[at]cornell[dot]edu) or Derar Lulu , Graduate Field Coordinator, at dl987 [at] cornell.edu (dl987[at]cornell[dot]edu) .

• What is the deadline to apply?  December 1, 2024.
• Should I reach out to faculty members before applying? We ask that students  do not reach out to faculty prior to applying in order to maintain an equitable admissions process. Shortlisted candidates will have the opportunity to interview with faculty as part of the admissions procedure. We do ask you to carefully review the field faculty list, and determine who might be best suited to work with you during the graduate program, based on your research interests and their area of expertise. You will be asked to list these faculty in your application.  Development Studies Faculty . 
• What are the English language requirements for admission? The English language proficiency requirements can be found on the Cornell Graduate School's website. Please refer to this link for detailed information:  English Language Proficiency Requirements .
• Is the GRE required for application? No, the GRE is not required for admission to our program.
• Can I submit a writing sample longer than 10 pages? No, please do not submit a writing sample longer than 10 pages. We require a writing sample of 10 pages or fewer. 
• What should the academic statement of purpose include? For guidance on writing your Academic Statement of Purpose (ASOP), please refer to the Cornell Graduate School's website:  Statements of Purpose . Remember to include detailed information about what you want to study and why the Development Studies program is the best fit for your intended research.
• Are there specific formatting requirements for the writing sample? Can I submit an extended abstract of a co-authored paper? There are no specific formatting requirements for the writing sample. You may submit any academic piece you would like to be reviewed. If submitting a co-authored paper, please specify which contributions were made by you.
• Can I apply to the program without a master’s degree? Yes, you can apply to the program without a master’s degree. A master’s degree is not required for admission. Note, however, that students who are admitted to the program without a Master’s degree in a relevant (thesis-based) degree program (e.g. development studies, geography, anthropology, sociology, political science) must choose (in consultation with their committee chair) to either write a publishable qualifying paper or earn a MS as part of the PhD program. 
• I have a master’s degree in another field. Will it count towards my degree? Having a master’s degree in a relevant field may allow you to be exempted from certain core required courses, but this decision is made by the Director of Graduate Studies in consultation with the instructor for the required course.
• What methodologies and software should I be familiar with for the program? Our program is an interdisciplinary social science degree, which does not focus exclusively on quantitative, qualitative or geospatial research. The type of research you do will depend on your individual interests. Students are, however, required to take a core curriculum that includes one quantitative and one qualitative methods course.
• How closely should the writing sample be related to my research proposal? It is entirely up to you, but ideally, you should submit the best writing sample that showcases your academic intellectuality and writing capabilities. Since this program has significant writing requirements, the sample should reflect your strengths in this area.
• What type of research experience do you look for in applicants? Does it need to be academic or professional? We do not require prior research experience, and applicants have joined with varying levels of experience. We do, however, highly value professional and field experience, especially if it has allowed you to develop transferable skills that are beneficial for conducting research in our program.
• How many students are admitted to the program each year? Admission numbers vary, but about 4-6 students are typically accepted per cohort.
• Can I work with faculty members from other departments on my committee? Yes, you may work with faculty members from other departments. There are field members who are in other departments outside of Global Development. You must have a special committee chair who is a member of the Development Studies field. You can also have faculty members from other graduate fields as minor members of your committee. It is important to consider faculty whose research aligns closely with your own, and who are members of relevant graduate fields. For faculty information, you can reference the list of field faculty members within Development Studies: Development Studies Faculty .

Those admitted to the Ph.D. program are guaranteed 5 years of funding. This includes tuition, health insurance, and a stipend.

Stipend information can be found on the Cornell Graduate School website . Additional information on financial aid for graduate students can be found here .

Application Fee Waiver

In cases of extreme financial need, the Graduate School will consider a request for a fee waiver.  If you think you are eligible for a waiver, please submit your application and the fee waiver request at the same time, right in the application form.  The Graduate School reviews waiver requests and notifications are sent within one to three business days.  Whenever possible, please submit your application with the fee waiver request at least three days before your application deadline.  If your request is denied, you will receive a notification asking you to revisit your application and pay the fee.  Please visit the Graduate School Application Fees  website  for additional information on fee waivers.

Cornell offers several fellowships for newly admitted students, including the CALS Excellence Award and the SUNY Diversity Fellowship.  These are determined by the department at the time of admission.

Teaching and Research Assistantships

• determined on a yearly basis
• include tuition, a stipend and student health insurance
• students are expected to work about 15 hours per week

Information on stipends for graduate students at Cornell can be found on the Graduate School website . Summer and conference travel grants are available for students to apply to. The Graduate School offers more information on  available fellowships for Cornell students .

Cornell Graduate School Travel Funding

The Graduate School is pleased to provide research degree students (M.A./M.S., Ph.D., J.S.D., D.M.A., M.F.A.) with financial support for travel that is linked to research and scholarship.  Eligible students are encouraged to apply for grant funding related to professional conferences, research travel, or summer language education. Ph.D. students are eligible for travel grants starting in their first semester until the end of the fourteenth semester of enrollment.

Visit the Graduate School Travel Funding Opportunities page to learn about the following: 

• Conference Grant 
• Research Travel Grant 
• Intercampus Travel Grant 
• Summer Foreign Language Grant 

Department Conference Travel Grants

• Graduate students will be eligible for up to two conference grants of $400 during their graduate career.  A student must be making an oral presentation at a conference in order to be eligible for an award.  Graduate students who wish to use conference grant funding from the Graduate School or any other source and conference grant funding from Global Development must demonstrate a financial need by presenting a budget to the graduate program coordinator for review and approval.
• Travelers should review  Cornell’s Travel website .

Mario Einaudi Center grants

• Funding opportunities for students

Dissertation Research Grant

• Andrew W. Mellon Environmental Research Grant, Cornell University

The Ronny Adhikarya Niche Award (RANA)

• The R-Adhikarya “Niche” Award (RANA) empowers students to pursue innovative thinking in their studies and careers. This $10,000 annual prize to a graduate student in Global Development recognizes young visionaries who dare to think differently. Matriculated Ph.D. students may apply for this opportunity in the Fall of even years. 

The Cornell Graduate School hosts a  database containing over 700 funding opportunities . Here is a list of common sources of funding for Development Studies students, based on the previous five years:

• UCLA funding Searchable Database 
• Fulbright-Hays Awards 
• Fulbright U.S. Student Program  (deadline: September) 
• Foreign Language Area Studies Fellowship (FLAS)  (deadline: Spring) 
• NSF Graduate Research Fellowship  (deadline: October) 
• U.S. Borlaug Fellows Graduate Research Grant  (deadline: February) 
• Boren Awards for International Study  (deadline: January)
• American Association of University Women fellowships  (deadline: November/December) 
• Wenner-Gren Foundation Dissertation Fieldwork Grants  (deadline: November and May) 
• Social Science Research Council Dissertation Proposal Development Fellowship  (deadline: October) 
• Social Science Research Council International Dissertation Research Fellowship  (deadline: November)
• Rural Sociological Society Dissertation Research Award (Dissertation Research Grant)  

Other funding sources:

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security  (deadline: January) 
• EPA Star  
• Lynn Reyer Award in Tribal Community Development (Dissertation Research Grant), Society for the Preservation of American Indian Culture  (deadline: March)  
• Southwest Communities and Natural Resources Fellowship, (Pre-dissertation Research Fellowship), Community Forestry and Environmental Research Partnerships, University of California, Berkeley  
• Ford Foundation Diversity Fellowships  (deadline: December) 

Faculty in the field rely on a wide range of domestic and international funding to support research and graduate students. Graduate students also successfully apply for a wide range of internal and external grants for their fieldwork, such as the Wenner Gren fellowship, National Science Foundation and Fulbright fellowships.   Students and faculty members are actively conducting research around the globe, both in the United States and elsewhere. Although some doctoral dissertations are based on field-collected data, other candidates rely on rich secondary-data resources, working closely with the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research (CISER) and the various libraries on campus. Faculty members also participate in other fields such as Natural Resources, City and Regional Planning, Anthropology, Crop and Soil Sciences, in the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, and in the area studies programs for Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Several of those programs have supported dissertation research overseas. The department is also home to the  Polson Institute for Global Development , which funds assorted working group research initiatives in the U.S. and abroad.  

Students in the field of Development Studies engage in theoretical and applied research, teaching, and outreach on the causes, dynamics, and consequences of social, cultural, political and economic change. The program offers preparation for academic careers in development studies, sociology, rural sociology, geography and related fields, and for applied careers in development studies, including development work in the United States and other countries. For the Ph.D. degree, students are expected to demonstrate (1) a thorough knowledge of social theory, with special emphasis on theories in their academic concentrations, (2) comprehensive knowledge of the body of work that is pertinent to their concentrations, and (3) knowledge of multiple research methods, with special emphasis on research design, data collection, and analytical techniques used in the discipline.

Learning Goals

By the time you graduate from our program, you should be able to analyze the world as a social scientist with expertise in development studies. This means that you will be able to synthesize a range of social science and related technical knowledge and apply it to today’s problems. You should be able to think critically and independently and generate research that makes a substantial contribution to the field.  We offer courses that foster foundational skills in both theory and method, and we provide courses that teach specialized skills in sub-areas that are central to Development Studies.  You should be able to use what you learn here to enter a career in academia, in the public or private sector, or in development practice.

Students in our field must be able to convey the results of their research in writing and through their spoken abilities. You will be given ample opportunity to prepare your research for presentation in coursework and eventually at conferences. It will be important to organize material for a clear and concise presentation and to adhere to time guidelines. When you are ready to present your work at professional meetings, we will encourage an in-house public presentation first, so that you can receive constructive feedback on the substance or your work and your presentation style.

It is critical that Development Studies scholars be aware of and able to adhere to ethical guidelines regarding the conduct and dissemination of their research, whether the research is an individual project or a collaborative one. Students in our program must take part in Institutional Review Board (IRB) training and any research involving human subjects must receive IRB approval before it is begun.

Proficiencies

A candidate for a Ph.D. in Development Studies is expected to demonstrate mastery of knowledge in theory and method and to be able to make original and significant contributions to the field upon completion of her/his degree. 

Proficiencies that are required to be demonstrated by the candidate: Make an original and substantial contribution to the discipline through the following:

• Demonstrate your understanding of the field of knowledge in our discipline
• Be able to identify new research opportunities 
• Be able to identify an important research question
• Think critically and creatively
• Synthesize knowledge and apply in important innovative research 

Acquire and communicate advanced research skills

• Synthesize existing knowledge
• Master existing quantitative and qualitative research methods 
• Master oral and written communication skills for conveying information clearly and effectively

A commitment to advancing scholarship

• Gain and maintain familiarity with core knowledge and advances in the field

Concentrations

Population & Development

Environment & development, state, economy, & society.

Focuses on theoretical, methodological and applied aspects of population and development in both developing countries and the United States from a social demography perspective emphasis on links between population, food and environmental sustainability, fertility, and population movements.

Emphasis on environmental equity and rural sustainability, social carrying capacity and the nexus between poverty and resource allocation, access and use, and devolution of power and responsibility.

State, Economy, & Society combines themes of political and economic sociology, within macro- and micro-comparative and historical approaches, emphasizes general training in the social change and development area to enhance students' credentials for general sociology programs, and views development as less the analysis of the Third World, and more the analysis of global and local processes with broad variation.

Upcoming information sessions

Interested in learning more about doing a PhD in Development Studies at Cornell? Please join one of our informal information sessions, led by the Director of Graduate Studies, to answer any question you might have about our interdisciplinary social science program.

Register for an upcoming information session: 

• October 4, 2024 9:00am ET
• November 1, 2024 9:00am ET
• November 22, 2024 at 9:00am ET

Our Experts

Department of Global Development

Director of Graduate Studies, Graduate Field of Development Studies

Director, Institute for African Development

Global Cornell

• (607) 255-3213
• rbeznerkerr [at] cornell.edu

Graduate Field Coordinator

• dl987 [at] cornell.edu

Explore your opportunities

A CALS education goes beyond the classroom and gives students frequent opportunities to apply what they learn in real-world settings.

• Learn more about the program
• Concentrations & Curriculum
• Current PhD Cohort
• PhD Field Faculty
• About the Department
• Recent PhD Graduates

We openly share valuable knowledge.

Sign up for more insights, discoveries and solutions.

MPhil in Development Studies

• Entry requirements
• Funding and Costs

College preference

• How to Apply

About the course

The two-year MPhil in Development Studies will provide you with a rigorous and critical introduction to development as a process of managed and unmanaged change in societies in the Global South. Our students go on to careers in development policy or practice or for further study in the field.

Course objectives

The course will introduce you to development studies as an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary subject. It covers the intellectual history of development, the paradigm shifts and internal conflicts within the discipline and the contemporary relevance of research to development policy and practice.

Course structure

The course comprises five elements: foundation courses, research methods, the core course, the thesis and two option courses.

In the first year, you will study two out of three foundation courses:

• History and Politics
• Social Anthropology

If you have no previous training in economics you must take this as one of your foundation courses; otherwise you must take the other two.

You will learn about research methods for the social sciences, comprising sessions on research design and qualitative and quantitative methods. Thesis workshops offer preparation for your research. Additional sessions will be held on aspects of fieldwork ethics and safety, library resources and software and computerised databases.

The core course, also taken in the first year, is an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary course with two component modules:

• Theories of Development
• Key Themes in Development

You will spend the summer following your first year working on a thesis. You will choose the topic, with the guidance of your supervisor, and, in most cases, spend some of the summer doing research and gathering data. 

In the second year, you will take your chosen option courses and continue work on your thesis. More information can be found in the course handbook on the department's course page.

Teaching and learning

Each course entails up to four hours of teaching per week, delivered through lectures, classes and workshops. Class sizes are small – between 5 and 30 students – encouraging active participation and enabling students to learn from each other. You prepare for sessions by reading a selection of recommended books, book chapters and articles.

As an MPhil student you will be able to attend the wide range of public seminars organised by the department and the individual research groups. Beyond the department, Oxford offers access to a large number of events including seminars and lectures by distinguished academics and policy-makers in related fields.

The course is full-time and requires attendance in Oxford. Full-time students are subject to the University's Residence requirements.

Resources to support your study

As a graduate student, you will have access to the University's wide range of world-class resources including libraries, museums, galleries, digital resources and IT services.

The Bodleian Libraries is the largest library system in the UK. It includes the main Bodleian Library and libraries across Oxford, including major research libraries and faculty, department and institute libraries. Together, the Libraries hold more than 13 million printed items, provide access to e-journals, and contain outstanding special collections including rare books and manuscripts, classical papyri, maps, music, art and printed ephemera.

The University's IT Services is available to all students to support with core university IT systems and tools, as well as many other services and facilities. IT Services also offers a range of IT learning courses for students, to support with learning and research.

In addition to the world-class resources of the Bodleian Library, the  Social Sciences Library , the largest freestanding social science library in the UK, with considerable print and digital strengths in development studies and a specialist librarian, is nearby.  As alumni of the University, students can sign up for lifetime access to key online journals.

The department provides hot-desking areas with desktops and printing, as well as wireless internet access. Technical support is available through the department, your college and the University’s  IT Services , which also offers training courses. Course materials are available online via Canvas, the University’s Virtual Learning Environment.

Department facilities

Teaching takes place in the department’s seminar rooms, and there is a common room area where students from all the department's courses can gather. Lunches in the cafeteria are available during term.

Supervision

You will have the opportunity to meet with a supervisor to assess progress and discuss academic issues. Supervisors are allocated based on your research interests, fit with the supervisor’s expertise, and staff availability. In your first year, you will identify someone to supervise your thesis, typically someone from the MPhil core staff. You will also have a college advisor whom you may consult on issues concerning your personal wellbeing.

The allocation of graduate supervision for this course is the responsibility of the Oxford Department of International Development. It is not always possible to accommodate the preferences of incoming graduate students to work with a particular member of staff. Under exceptional circumstances a supervisor may be found outside the Oxford Department of International Development.

Formal assessment will normally comprise a written examination at the beginning of the third term for each foundation course; a written examination at the end of the third term and a research design essay, submitted in the same term, for research methods; and two essays for the core course. You must pass all summative assessments to continue into Year 2. There is an opportunity to re-sit in September.

You will be formally assessed for your two option courses as well as the thesis submitted during the final term. Further information on the thesis can be found on the departmental website.

Graduate destinations

A number of MPhil students choose to continue to doctoral study after completing the course, expanding their MPhil thesis  into a DPhil thesis in ODID or elsewhere. Others have gone on to jobs in the United Nations, government, diplomacy, politics, NGOs, the media, art, business, finance, management, technology and development consultancies.

Changes to this course and your supervision

The University will seek to deliver this course in accordance with the description set out in this course page. However, there may be situations in which it is desirable or necessary for the University to make changes in course provision, either before or after registration. The safety of students, staff and visitors is paramount and major changes to delivery or services may have to be made if a pandemic, epidemic or local health emergency occurs. In addition, in certain circumstances, for example due to visa difficulties or because the health needs of students cannot be met, it may be necessary to make adjustments to course requirements for international study.

Where possible your academic supervisor will not change for the duration of your course. However, it may be necessary to assign a new academic supervisor during the course of study or before registration for reasons which might include illness, sabbatical leave, parental leave or change in employment.

For further information please see our page on changes to courses and the provisions of the student contract regarding changes to courses.

Entry requirements for entry in 2025-26

Proven and potential academic excellence.

The requirements described below are specific to this course and apply only in the year of entry that is shown. You can use our interactive tool to help you  evaluate whether your application is likely to be competitive .

Please be aware that any studentships that are linked to this course may have different or additional requirements and you should read any studentship information carefully before applying. 

Degree-level qualifications

As a minimum, applicants should hold or be predicted to achieve the following UK qualifications or their equivalent:

• a first-class or strong upper second-class undergraduate degree with honours  in a social science subject.

As one of the purposes of the course is to provide a basic education in the subject, in exceptional cases, students who have not specialised in a social science may be admitted to read for the MPhil in Development Studies. It should be recognised that for some students, the transition to a social studies approach to learning may be challenging.

Entrance to the course is very competitive and most successful applicants have a first-class degree or the equivalent.

For applicants with a bachelor's degree from the USA, the minimum overall GPA that is normally required to meet the undergraduate-level requirement is 3.6 out of 4.0. However, selection of candidates also depends on other factors in your application and most successful applicants have GPA scores of 3.7 or higher.

If your degree is not from the UK or another country specified above, visit our International Qualifications page for guidance on the qualifications and grades that would usually be considered to meet the University’s minimum entry requirements.

GRE General Test scores

No Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or GMAT scores are required for application.

Other qualifications, evidence of excellence and relevant experience

• Research or working experience in developing countries is desirable but is not essential.
• An ability to work both independently and in groups is essential.
• Publications are not expected or required for admission, but any can be listed on the CV.

Further guidance

• It is essential to apply as early as possible and to submit all required materials by the advertised deadlines. 
• A number of the department's master’s students apply to continue doctoral research both at the department and in other departments of the University. Entry requirements and deadlines will differ slightly in each department and details will be available on departmental websites.

English language proficiency

This course requires proficiency in English at the University's  higher level . If your first language is not English, you may need to provide evidence that you meet this requirement. The minimum scores required to meet the University's higher level are detailed in the table below.

*Previously known as the Cambridge Certificate of Advanced English or Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE) † Previously known as the Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English or Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE)

Your test must have been taken no more than two years before the start date of your course. Our Application Guide provides  further information about the English language test requirement .

Declaring extenuating circumstances

If your ability to meet the entry requirements has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (eg you were awarded an unclassified/ungraded degree) or any other exceptional personal circumstance (eg other illness or bereavement), please refer to the guidance on extenuating circumstances in the Application Guide for information about how to declare this so that your application can be considered appropriately.

You will need to register three referees who can give an informed view of your academic ability and suitability for the course. The  How to apply  section of this page provides details of the types of reference that are required in support of your application for this course and how these will be assessed.

Supporting documents

You will be required to supply supporting documents with your application. The  How to apply  section of this page provides details of the supporting documents that are required as part of your application for this course and how these will be assessed.

Performance at interview

Interviews are not normally held as part of the admissions process.  

Offer conditions for successful applications

If you receive an offer of a place at Oxford, your offer will outline any conditions that you need to satisfy and any actions you need to take, together with any associated deadlines. These may include academic conditions, such as achieving a specific final grade in your current degree course. These conditions will usually depend on your individual academic circumstances and may vary between applicants. Our ' After you apply ' pages provide more information about offers and conditions . 

In addition to any academic conditions which are set, you will also be required to meet the following requirements:

Financial Declaration

If you are offered a place, you will be required to complete a  Financial Declaration  in order to meet your financial condition of admission.

Disclosure of criminal convictions

In accordance with the University’s obligations towards students and staff, we will ask you to declare any  relevant, unspent criminal convictions  before you can take up a place at Oxford.

Other factors governing whether places can be offered

The following factors will also govern whether candidates can be offered places:

• the ability of the University to provide the appropriate supervision for your studies, as outlined under the 'Supervision' heading in the About section of this page;
• the ability of the University to provide appropriate support for your studies (eg through the provision of facilities, resources, teaching and/or research opportunities); and
• minimum and maximum limits to the numbers of students who may be admitted to the University's taught and research programmes.

International Development

Studying international development at Oxford means engaging with some of the most pressing issues of our time: from global governance and security to migration and human rights; from poverty and inequality to technological innovation and enterprise; from children and youth to environmental change and sustainability.

As part of a global epistemic community, the department aims to generate ideas that set agendas for scholars, governments, international agencies and civil society.

At Oxford you will take a unique, multi- and interdisciplinary approach to examine these and other complex issues affecting the countries of the developing world and the emerging economies. The approach encompasses economics, politics, international relations, anthropology, history, sociology, and law, and teaching is provided by world-class scholars in these fields.

Graduate courses at the Oxford Department of International Development (ODID) also offer small class sizes, personal supervision, training in methods, and the opportunity to research and write an original thesis and make an active contribution.

The department is a lively community that is recognised internationally as one of the top centres for research and teaching in development studies. It hosts some 70 distinguished academics and a number of externally funded research groups that are at the forefront of their specialist subject areas.

Students at ODID come from across the world. At Oxford, they are taught to develop as critical and independent thinkers and when they leave us they go on to forge varied and successful careers as scholars, practitioners and policy-makers in the field of international development and beyond.

View all courses   View taught courses View research courses

For entry in the 2025-26 academic year, the collegiate University expects to offer over 1,000 full or partial graduate scholarships across a wide range of graduate courses.

If you apply by the December deadline shown on this page and receive a course offer, your application will then be considered for Oxford scholarships. For the majority of Oxford scholarships, your application will automatically be assessed against the eligibility criteria, without needing to make a separate application. There are further Oxford scholarships available which have additional eligibility criteria and where you are required to submit a separate application. Most scholarships are awarded on the basis of academic merit and/or potential.

To ensure that you are considered for Oxford scholarships that require a separate application, for which you may be eligible,  use our fees, funding and scholarship search tool  to identify these opportunities and find out how to apply. Alongside Oxford scholarships, you should also consider other opportunities for which you may be eligible including  a range of external funding ,  loan schemes for postgraduate study  and any other scholarships which may also still be available after the December deadline as listed on  our fees, funding and scholarship search tool .

Details of college-specific funding opportunities can also be found on individual college websites:

Select from the list:

Please refer to the College preference section of this page to identify which of the colleges listed above accept students for this course.

For the majority of college scholarships, it doesn’t matter which college, if any, you state a preference for in your application. If another college is able to offer you a scholarship, your application can be moved to that college if you accept the scholarship. Some college scholarships may require you to state a preference for that college when you apply, so check the eligibility requirements carefully.

Further information about funding opportunities for this course can be found on the department's website.

Annual fees for entry in 2025-26

Information about course fees

Course fees are payable each year, for the duration of your fee liability (your fee liability is the length of time for which you are required to pay course fees). For courses lasting longer than one year, please be aware that fees will usually increase annually. For details, please see our guidance on changes to fees and charges .

Course fees cover your teaching as well as other academic services and facilities provided to support your studies. Unless specified in the additional information section below, course fees do not cover your accommodation, residential costs or other living costs. They also don’t cover any additional costs and charges that are outlined in the additional information below.

Where can I find further information about fees?

The Fees and Funding  section of this website provides further information about course fees , including information about fee status and eligibility  and your length of fee liability .

Additional information

There are no compulsory elements of this course that entail additional costs beyond fees and living costs. However, as part of your course requirements, you will need to choose a dissertation, a project or a thesis topic. Most students will choose a topic which will require them to do fieldwork for their thesis. This fieldwork will be conducted during the long vacation between the first and second year. Students should note that they will have to meet all costs of fieldwork themselves and these costs are likely to include travel and related costs such as visas, accommodation, subsistence, translation and research assistant services if required. These costs will vary according to the location and length of the fieldwork and the department estimates that these costs may range from £1,500 to £20,000 or more. Each MPhil student is able to apply for a fieldwork grant of £800. This is awarded once only usually at the end of Trinity Term of their first year, before they go to the field during the summer vacation. Further information will be provided in the course handbook. You may also be able to apply for small grants from your college to help you cover some of these expenses.

Living costs

In addition to your course fees and any additional course-specific costs, you will need to ensure that you have adequate funds to support your living costs for the duration of your course.

Living costs for full-time study

For the 2025-26 academic year, the range of likely living costs for a single, full-time student is between £1,425 and £2,035 for each month spent in Oxford. We provide the cost per month so you can multiply up by the number of months you expect to live in Oxford. Depending on your circumstances, you may also need to budget for the  costs of a student visa and immigration health surcharge and/or living costs for family members or other dependants that you plan to bring with you to Oxford (assuming that dependant visa eligibility criteria are met).

Further information about living costs

The current economic climate and high national rate of inflation make it very hard to estimate potential changes to the cost of living over the next few years. For study in Oxford beyond the 2025-26 academic year, it is suggested that you budget for potential increases in living expenses of around 4% each year – although this rate may vary depending on the national economic situation. For further information, please consult our more detailed information about living costs , which includes a breakdown of likely living costs in Oxford for items such as food, accommodation and study costs.

Students enrolled on this course will belong to both a department/faculty and a college. Please note that ‘college’ and ‘colleges’ refers to all 43 of the University’s colleges, including those designated as societies and permanent private halls (PPHs). 

If you apply for a place on this course you will have the option to express a preference for one of the colleges listed below, or you can ask us to find a college for you. Before deciding, we suggest that you read our brief  introduction to the college system at Oxford  and our  advice about expressing a college preference . 

If you are a current Oxford student and you would like to remain at your current Oxford college, you should check whether it is listed below. If it is, you should indicate this preference when you apply. If not, you should contact your college office to ask whether they would be willing to make an exception. Further information about staying at your current college can be found in our Application Guide. 

The following colleges accept students on the MPhil in Development Studies:

• Balliol College
• Blackfriars
• Brasenose College
• Campion Hall
• Exeter College
• Green Templeton College
• Harris Manchester College
• Jesus College
• Kellogg College
• Lady Margaret Hall
• Linacre College
• Lincoln College
• Magdalen College
• Pembroke College
• Regent's Park College
• Reuben College
• St Anne's College
• St Antony's College
• St Catherine's College
• St Cross College
• St Edmund Hall
• St Hilda's College
• Somerville College
• Trinity College
• Wolfson College
• Wycliffe Hall

Before you apply

Our guide to getting started provides general advice on how to prepare for and start your application. You can use our interactive tool to help you evaluate whether your application is likely to be competitive .

If it is important for you to have your application considered under a particular deadline – eg under the December deadline in order to be considered for Oxford scholarships – we recommend that you aim to complete and submit your application at least two weeks in advance . Check the deadlines on this page and the information about deadlines and when to apply in our Application Guide.

Application fee waivers

An application fee of £75 is payable for each application to this course. Application fee waivers are available for the following applicants who meet the eligibility criteria:

• applicants from low-income countries;
• refugees and displaced persons; 
• UK applicants from low-income backgrounds; and 
• applicants who applied for our Graduate Access Programmes in the past two years and met the eligibility criteria.

You are encouraged to  check whether you're eligible for an application fee waiver  before you apply.

Do I need to contact anyone before I apply?

You do not need to make contact with the department before you apply but you are encouraged to visit the relevant departmental webpages to read any further information about your chosen course.

New MPhil students will be informed about their supervisor during their induction sessions.

Completing your application

You should refer to the information below when completing the application form, paying attention to the specific requirements for the supporting documents .

For this course, the application form will include questions that collect information that would usually be included in a CV/résumé. You should not upload a separate document. If a separate CV/résumé is uploaded, it will be removed from your application .

If any document does not meet the specification, including the stipulated word count, your application may be considered incomplete and not assessed by the academic department. Expand each section to show further details.

Referees: Three overall, at least two must be academic

Whilst you must register three referees, the department may start the assessment of your application if two of the three references are submitted by the course deadline and your application is otherwise complete. Please note that you may still be required to ensure your third referee supplies a reference for consideration.

Official transcript(s)

Your transcripts should give detailed information of the individual grades received in your university-level qualifications to date. You should only upload official documents issued by your institution and any transcript not in English should be accompanied by a certified translation.

More information about the transcript requirement is available in the Application Guide.

Statement of purpose/personal statement: A minimum of 500 words to a maximum of 750 words

You will need to provide a statement of purpose, written in English.

You must state in what way you believe the MPhil might contribute to your career development plans. You must also indicate an awareness of the structure of the degree, for example by stating the foundation courses you might take in the first year, and the options which might be of interest to you in the second year. You should also indicate, very briefly, what your thesis topic might be.

The MPhil in Development Studies is a broad-ranging inter- and multi-disciplinary programme. We do not expect our students already to have covered the disciplinary and theoretical range offered, but a curious and receptive stance towards new ideas is key. Successful students are intellectually flexible and prepared to step outside their comfort zones in terms of approaches and perspectives. The programme is also distinguished by theoretical rigour alongside a substantial emphasis on original research. Your personal statement should demonstrate that you have the required aptitude for a demanding programme and that you are a good fit for it. It should also show how any relevant experience beyond your studies would enrich an intellectually diverse and exciting cohort.

If possible, please ensure that the word count is clearly displayed on the document.

This will be assessed for your reasons for applying, evidence of motivation for and understanding of the proposed area of study and the course applied to, as well as commitment to the subject and evidence of a defined set of research interests.

It will be normal for your ideas subsequently to change in some ways as you investigate the evidence and develop your project. You should nevertheless make the best effort you can to demonstrate the extent of your research question, sources and method at this moment.

Written work: Two essays, a new piece of work 1,000-1,500 words, academic essay/writing sample a maximum of 2,000 words 

Both essays must be written in English. 

You may include a bibliography or brief footnotes and these are not included in the word count.  

Essay one (maximum of 1,500 words)

Please write an essay on the topic:

Discuss a published work that has influenced your thinking about development, explaining how and why.

• Your essay should be between 1,000 and 1,500 words. Please display the word count at the end of your document.
• You can use any system of referencing that is appropriate.

Essay two (maximum of 2,000 words) 

This should be an academic essay or other writing sample from your most recent qualification. 

An extract from a longer piece of work is acceptable but it should be prefaced by a note which puts it in context. It is not essential that the writing sample relates closely to the proposed area of study. You should not submit policy papers and other non-academic pieces of writing. The Admissions Committee is keen to assess your academic research and writing skills, and policy papers do not demonstrate these skills.

Please note that multi-authored works are not acceptable.  If you undertook your undergraduate studies a long time ago, you might also consider writing a new piece of academic work for your second essay.

The essays will be assessed for your ability to construct and defend an argument, powers of analysis, and clarity of expression.

Start or continue your application

You can start or return to an application using the relevant link below. As you complete the form, please  refer to the requirements above  and  consult our Application Guide for advice .

Apply Continue application

After you've submitted your application

Your application (including the supporting documents outlined above) will be assessed against the entry requirements detailed on this course page. Whether or not you have secured funding will  not  be taken into consideration when your application is assessed. You can  find out more about our shortlisting and selection process  in our detailed guide to what happens next.

Find out how to manage your application after submission , using our Applicant Self-Service tool.

ADMISSION STATUS

Open to applications for entry in 2025-26

12:00 midday UK time on:

Tuesday 3 December 2024

Latest deadline for most Oxford scholarships Final application deadline for entry in 2025-26

*Three-year average (applications for entry in 2022-22 to 2023-24)

Further information and enquiries

This course is offered by the  Oxford Department of International Development (ODID)

• Course page  on the department's website
• Funding information  from the department
• Academic and research staff
• Departmental research
• Social Sciences Division
• Residence requirements for full-time courses
• Postgraduate applicant privacy policy

Course-related enquiries

Advice about contacting the department can be found in the How to apply section of this page

✉ [email protected] ☎ +44 (0)1865 281827

Application-process enquiries

Application guide

Other courses to consider

You may also wish to consider applying to other courses that are similar or related to this course:

View related courses

Advertisement

Development Studies: Enduring Debates and Possible Trajectories

• Open access
• Published: 05 May 2016
• Volume 51 , pages 1–31, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Peter Evans 1 &
• Barbara Stallings 1  

10k Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

How should we understand current debates in development studies? More specifically, how should we understand the way in which these debates have been seen through the eyes of scholars from a range of disciplines who have been associated with Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID)? Building on an analysis of the distribution of topics, disciplines, and regions covered by articles in SCID over the past 50 years, this essay coveys a vision of development studies as seen through the lens of SCID. The four articles that follow this one help us interrogate a series of substantive issues central to development studies and their interrelationships – democracy, inequality, and the effects of the international context. We also explore two topics not covered in the articles – the role of the state in the economy and broader aspects of the international context. We conclude by speculating on how these arenas of development studies might evolve in the future.

Similar content being viewed by others

Novel Perceptions on Development Studies: International Review and Consultations Toward a Renewed Vision

Development-Driven Tools or Parasitic Paradigms? A Critical Perspective of Western Theories of Development and Its Reforms

Introduction: reflecting on development studies in the new millennium.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Offering commentary on a half century of development studies is to invite accusations of hubris. We try to protect ourselves by drawing narrower boundaries around the scope of this introductory essay. While we broach questions of where development studies as a whole has been and where it is going, the bulk of our discussion focuses on development studies as seen through the lens of SCID and a symposium celebrating SCID’s 50th anniversary. We proceed through four stages from the more concrete to the more speculative.

The section that follows this introduction provides a snapshot of the evolving distribution of SCID articles in terms of the disciplinary affiliation of authors, the geographic focus of the empirical data, and the substantive topics that have attracted SCID authors. This analysis reveals both distributions that are consistent with what we would have expected and others that beg for explanation. Some shifts in the relative weight of different categories seem likely to reflect the distinctive place of SCID within the landscape of development studies; others are likely to reflect the overall intellectual profile of the field. We can offer guesses as to which set of dynamics is at work but, since our data are drawn only from SCID, we have no means of validating our speculations. It is safe to assume that most trends are driven by a combination of the general evolution of development studies and the specifics of SCID’s place in the field.

The shift in the geographic focus of SCID articles is probably a good example of a trend driven by a combination of general and specific dynamics. The predominance of articles with a regional focus on Latin America is probably a path dependent consequence of the Latin American interests of several SCID editors, but it also reflects the more general Latin American focus of development studies as practiced in North America. The rising interest in Asia, on the other hand, almost certainly reflects a general shift in the field of development studies. The striking shift in disciplinary representation from sociology to political science probably represents a more complicated change in the relationship between those two disciplines and the field of development studies.

The distribution of substantive topics and the changes over time are even more difficult to interpret, especially since identifying the dominant substantive focus of a given article is a somewhat arbitrary process to begin with. Nonetheless, the analysis of substantive topics provides a useful backdrop for the four articles that follow this one, setting their substantive foci in relief against the overall distribution of SCID articles. First, the emphasis on democracy in this issue is firmly validated by the fact that democracy has been a dominant substantive topic in SCID, especially over the last 30 years. Likewise, the international context has been one of the dominant topics throughout SCID’s five-decade history. In contrast, inequality has only recently become the main focus of articles in SCID, and even in the most recent period it is still not a highly ranked topic. Thus, this issue both reinforces traditional SCID concerns and raises the question as to whether increased interest in inequality exists in the field of development studies as a whole.

In the third section, we turn to reflections on the other articles in this anniversary issue. These four articles originated in a symposium we held at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs in October 2015 to celebrate SCID’s 50th anniversary. We invited prominent social scientists who had published in SCID over the years to present papers on topics that have been important during the journal’s history. They included Ken Roberts and Dani Rodrik on democracy, Frances Stewart on inequality, and Sarah Babb and Nitsan Chorev on the international context of development. Each of the four papers is an original assessment of a key area of development studies. In combination, they offer a provocative vision of where the evolution of the field has been and possible future trajectories in these key areas. In our discussion of the papers, we highlight the connections among the different substantive arenas and analytical perspectives on which they focus, but we had rich material to draw on in each of the individual papers.

The two papers on democracy are quite different, but complementary. Ken Roberts offers a broad review of where the literature on democracy in the Global South has been and where it might be going. While he is very cognizant of the ways in which democratic institutions have failed to fulfill the promise that might have been attributed to them in SCID’s early years, his assessment of both the returns from democratization and the possibility of expanding them is far from negative. Dani Rodrik is known as a powerful advocate for the value of democratic institutions (see, for example, his SCID article in 2000), but in his paper here he is apprehensive, arguing that the institutional forms of democracy are more and more likely to be filled with illiberal content, which robs it of its value for many citizens. Together, the two articles encapsulate major elements of on-going debates on the future of democracy.

The third article, by Frances Stewart, focuses on inequality – an issue absolutely central to current debates on development, but oddly underrepresented in the pages of SCID, at least as the main focus of attention. Stewart offers a provocative thesis that is summed up in what she calls the “central inequality paradox,” that is, “[t]he contradiction between what is, and is accepted to be, desirable, and actual policy-making.” While theorizing and empirical analysis of the consequences of inequality, both in economics and in other disciplines, has moved strongly to the position that less inequality would have a range of desirable effects, actual policy, especially at the global level, reinforces inequality. At the national level, the effects of policy on inequality are more varied, but by focusing on the importance of the international level, Stewart highlights the centrality of the last article by Sarah Babb and Nitsan Chorev on the shifting structure of the international order.

Like the other three authors, Babb and Chorev offer an original prism on a crucial but complex arena of development studies. They start from an ideal-typical division of international regimes as ranging from “tightly coupled” – characterized by tight interdependence among international organizations and standardization of well-defined norms – to “loosely coupled” – decentralized and lacking in a uniformly imposed policy paradigm. Using their ideal type, they construct a periodization of the international arena, which moves from loosely coupled in the immediate post World War II period to more tightly coupled in the last third of the 20th century and seems to be heading toward a loosely coupled phase again in the first part of the 21st century. Thinking about the international arena as varying between loosely and tightly coupled turns out to be a powerful heuristic device for thinking about ways in which the international context affects development.

The principal aim of our discussion of these articles is not to recapitulate their individual theses, but to use them to illustrate the usefulness of examining the interconnections across sub-fields for identifying the contributions of development studies as a whole to policy and theory. The connections between the study of democracy and inequality are obvious. On the one hand, as Roberts points out, the ability of democracy to diminish inequality (or its inability to do so) is one of the primary measures of its efficacy (or lack thereof). Rodrik’s illiberal democracy thesis has powerful implications for Stewart’s horizontal inequalities. Stewart’s central inequality paradox is a provocative challenge to existing understandings of the practices and organizational logic of international organizations. Babb and Chorev’s periodization of the international arena provides an overarching framework for theorizing changes in both democratization and inequality. In combination, the four articles demonstrate that thinking about development studies as a matrix of interlinked ideas and investigation adds value to understanding more specific practical and theoretical issues within the field.

Having offered our reflections on the four articles in this issue, it is incumbent on us to acknowledge that, as broad as they are, they can hardly encompass the whole field of development studies. While portraying the whole field is clearly beyond the reach of this essay, we try to build a few bridges from the topics covered in the four articles back to some other topics that are prominent in the overall distribution of SCID articles discussed in the first part of this essay. Thus, in the fourth section we expand our scope of inquiry to focus primarily on two interrelated bridging topics: the economic role of the state and a broader definition of the global arena.

Since the efficacy of the state as an economic actor is central to the ability of democratic regimes to deliver, looking at the economic role of the state provides a bridge between our discussion of democracy and the substantial SCID literature on economic development. At the same time, state action is the most immediate target of constraints on national development agendas imposed from the international arena, so looking at the economic role of the state provides a bridge between analysis of the national and international levels. Expanding consideration of the international arena to include the structures and agendas created by private capital and the order created by geopolitical competition among nation states enriches the periodization constructed by Babb and Chorev and helps explain Stewart’s central inequality paradox by adding powerful actors whose policy preferences are not necessarily either reflections of prevailing theoretical analysis or of pursuit of the commonweal.

We conclude our reflections on development studies as seen through the SCID lens by expanding the scope of our discussion yet further to include topics that seem like natural extensions of existing SCID foci, but remain lacunae, and topics suggested by recent changes in the global trajectory of development. This last section is in part an exercise in speculation on the directions that SCID might take in the future and in part a provocation to potential SCID contributors to fill in the holes in the view of development presented in SCID.

We hope that by the time the reader finishes the sequence of discussions in our article, she or he will be eager to read the four articles that follow in this issue. Even more important, we hope that having completed the four articles that follow, the reader will be convinced of two things: first, that the field of development studies is alive and well, rife with contributions relevant to both policy formation and the theoretical agendas of the various disciplines that come together to provide the intellectual foundations for the field; second, that the pages of SCID’s 50 volumes to date offer a rich menu of ideas and insights for those who would like to push the field forward.

SCID’s Trajectory over 50 Years

Over the last half century, SCID has published some of the best and most-cited articles relating to development in what used to be called the Third World and is now better known as the Global South. As indicated by its title, these articles have crossed disciplinary boundaries as well as geographical frontiers and have dealt with topics as varied as democratization in Latin America, state-led industrialization in East Asia, ethnic conflict in Africa and South Asia, and oil politics in the Middle East. Many of the most prominent and influential social scientists working on these topics have written in the pages of SCID.

SCID was founded in 1965 by Irving Louis Horowitz, a leading sociologist from Rutgers University. The journal was part of Transaction Publishers, also founded by Horowitz, which published social science books and a number of journals. Horowitz used his extensive connections to persuade many friends and colleagues to write for his new publication. While they might not have been as well known 50 years ago, today they read like a virtual Who’s Who, especially of Latin America – including former presidents, ministers, and heads of universities and institutes from around the region.

Horowitz edited the journal for 15 years. In 1979, he turned it over to one of his former students, Jay Weinstein, who was then a professor of sociology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A decade later, John D. Martz, a political scientist and Latin Americanist from Pennsylvania State, assumed the editorship; Martz died unexpectedly in 1998 after editing SCID for 10 years. Following a short hiatus, the journal moved to UC-Berkeley, where Ruth Collier (also a political scientist and Latin Americanist) was editor for five years.

Since 2005, SCID has been housed at Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, forming part of the Institute’s Graduate Program in Development. While Barbara Stallings acts as editor, the journal is run as a collective venture by 12–15 Brown faculty members and some colleagues from nearby institutions. Two graduate students assist them, providing initial reading and analysis of the manuscripts that are submitted and taking charge of the mechanics of the review process. Two years after SCID arrived at Brown, Horowitz sold all of the Transaction journals to the large German publisher, Springer. Springer’s ownership changed the operating style from a quite informal one to a much more professional one, including the electronic submission system that most journals use today.

A number of other changes have also taken place over the last several decades, particularly since SCID’s arrival at Brown. We have tried to broaden the journal in at least two ways. On the one hand, we sought to expand toward new parts of the developing world, especially Asia and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, we wanted to bring in more economists and anthropologists to complement the sociologists and political scientists who dominated SCID’s pages in its early years. We discuss below the extent to which we have succeeded in these endeavors.

Trends in Disciplines and Geography in SCID

As a way of trying to get a handle on what SCID has done over the last 50 years, and to think about whether these trends represent development studies more broadly, we reviewed the abstracts of the articles (of which there were slightly more than 800 by the end of 2015) and created a database. Footnote 1 Two parts of the database are fairly “hard” – the geographical focus of the articles and the disciplinary background of the author(s). The other set of data – the topics of the 800 articles – is far more subjective and thus provides a rough approximation at best of the issues considered in the journal.

We are interested in three questions with respect to these data. First, do they represent more general trends in development studies in the United States? Insofar as they may be representative of US trends, would there significant differences when seen from Europe or Asia? Second, what (if anything) do these trends tell us about broader changes in the disciplines and in subjects of interest to scholars of development? And, third, are we satisfied with the trends we observe, or are there experiences in the developing world that are not being adequately studied (at least in our journal)?

Information on the disciplinary affiliation of the authors is divided into five decade-long periods since SCID’s founding. Figure 1 shows there have been dramatic changes with respect to disciplines. In its first decades, SCID was mainly a publishing outlet for sociologists. Nearly 60 percent of the articles were written by scholars from that discipline in 1965–74 and 40 percent in 1975–84. In the following decades, however, sociology articles continued their decline to only 15 percent today. They were replaced by a sharp increase in publications by political scientists, which grew from 20 percent of the total in 1965–74 to more than 70 percent now. Economics articles also declined by half, from 18 percent to 9 percent. Anthropology never represented more than a handful of articles, but we published a special issue by anthropologists at the end of 2015.

Percentage share of discipline by decade, 1965–2015

How can we explain these trends? Certainly economists continue to analyze topics related to development, but they are increasingly less likely to publish in interdisciplinary journals. This trend is especially true for U.S.-based economists. Anthropologists, by contrast, have always preferred their own outlets. The most dramatic shift to be accounted for, then, is the displacement of sociology by political science. Other than the respective disciplines of the editors, the two trends probably have separate explanatory factors. The decrease in sociology articles may well reflect a decline in the perceived importance of development within sociology. This could reflect an unfortunate shift toward geographic parochialism in sociology, where the many segments of the discipline ignore the theoretical importance of doing cross-national comparative work. If conformity with contemporary methodological standards appears harder to achieve in work on development where quantitative data is more precarious and difficult to obtain, then sociology’s contribution to development studies may suffer as a result. If it is in fact occurring, such a shift may be pushing sociologists, like economists, to publish more in disciplinary journals. The increased numbers of political scientists publishing on development is likely due to new topics of relevance to the discipline in developing countries, ranging from democratization to political institutions to elections and polling. At the same time, the methodological constraints imposed by disciplinary journals in political science may push political scientists interested in development toward interdisciplinary journals like SCID. In short, we might speculate that similar methodological dynamics have divergent effects in sociology and political science.

Figure 2 provides information on the geographical focus of articles in the same time frame. It indicates that Latin America initially dominated in terms of regions, providing over half of all articles between 1965 and 1974. That share is now down to slightly less than 30 percent. Articles dealing with “the world” (mainly large-N comparative articles and more general theoretical contributions) also declined. The biggest increase, not surprisingly, was in articles referring to Asia. Much smaller increases were seen in pieces on (Eastern) Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. It is interesting that these trends were generally not monotonic. For example, articles about Latin America interrupted their fall in the 1995–2004 period; articles in the “world” category increased till 1985–94, then declined. Footnote 2

Percentage share of region by decade, 1965–2015

A separate, but related, issue has to do with the domicile of authors. Many of the pieces on Latin America in 1965–74 were written by social scientists who lived in the region. Prominent examples included George Beckford, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Julio Cotler, Orlando Fals-Borda, Celso Furtado, Gino Germani, Pablo Gonzalez-Casanova, Helio Jaguaribe, Elizabeth Jelin, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Camilo Torres-Restrepo, and Francisco Weffort. Gradually, over time, a shift took place toward more US-based academics with some important contributions from Western Europe. Most recently, with the advent of the internet, we are receiving manuscripts from many parts of the world not previously well represented, especially from Asia.

Again, how can we explain these trends? The continuous dominance of Latin America – although at a lower level than before – is not surprising, given the large role the region plays with respect to the United States. Clearly, this dominance would not be found in the UK or elsewhere in Europe or in Asia. Each country or region in the industrial world has especially close contacts, mainly based on historical relationships, with certain parts of the developing world. The fact that Latin Americanists served as editors from 1988 to 2005, and founding editor Horowitz had strong connections in the region, probably also contributed, at least indirectly, to the prominence of articles on Latin America. The stronger presence of Asia is to be expected with the greater role that Asia has played in the world – and the greater developmental success that it has enjoyed. The increased number of articles on Europe since 1985 is not surprising either. While articles on Europe in SCID’s first two decades were mainly on Western Europe or the ex-Soviet Union, the more recent ones have mainly focused on the newly-independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe.

Changes in Topics Covered in SCID

As indicated previously, our data on topics is much softer than that on disciplines and geography. The problem, of course, is that most articles can be characterized in more than one way in terms of topic. Moreover, the way in which topics are aggregated will also have a strong influence on apparent trends. Based on our coding, four large clusters of topics have dominated the journal. They are democracy/democratization, economic development, institutions, and the international context. Their relative importance has varied. For example, democracy articles became much more prominent as authoritarian regimes fell throughout the developing world in the 1980s and 1990s. A related concern with institutions has emerged recently, while the international context was most important in the 1965–84 period and somewhat less important since then. Beyond these four, inequality (and the welfare state) has also become more important. Thus the four papers, which were presented at the 50th anniversary symposium and that appear later in this issue, are representative of articles SCID has published over time. The major topic that we do not cover is economic development. Table 1 shows the breakdown by decades of the major topics.

At a more detailed level, there are some interesting trends. In the early decades, there was more analysis of specific groups – e.g., elites, labor, peasants, and the military. Agriculture was also important. In addition to inequality and the welfare state, other new topics appearing in recent decades include the environment, gender, ethnicity, and violence. These shifts in topics are related to the disciplinary trends – and perhaps to the geographical ones too. The analysis of groups is more typical of sociological analysis than of political science. The increased presence of topics pertaining to democracy almost certainly accompanied the rise of political science in the pages of SCID. The new topics – inequality, gender, ethnicity, and the environment – could, in principle, be of interest to both political science and sociology, but the political science version has been more prevalent in our journal. These topics of course, are of interest beyond the confines of the developing world.

International context

To get a better notion of the importance of different topics and how the profile changed over the 50 years of SCID’s history, we disaggregated the four large clusters. In SCID’s first two decades, 1965–84, the most prominent topic was the international context and its effect on the development process. Within that cluster, the largest number of articles focused on dependency theory. This was the approach that argued that development in Third World countries was hindered by their relationship with the international system, both economic and political. The latter was seen to extract resources from the former through various mechanisms, ranging from direct colonial rule to trade and unequal exchange to foreign direct investment to the “cooptation” of local elites who were trained in Europe or the United States. It was precisely in this period when dependency theory came onto the international agenda through the work of various authors, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, whose book Dependency and Development in Latin America ( 1979 ) was celebrated by a SCID symposium and special issue in 2009. This new approach was reflected in SCID’s pages not only in analysis of Latin America, but also of Africa. Moreover, early versions of world systems theory were also published in SCID, including articles by Immanuel Wallerstein as well as by several of his followers.

Other ways in which the international context of development was portrayed in SCID in these two decades was through articles on foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign aid. With respect to FDI, some of the analyses documented US investment in Latin America, but others took a broader cross regional perspective. More specific topics included practical concerns such as compensation for expropriation of foreign firms and ways in which host governments could get the maximum advantage from FDI. The role of foreign aid was also of interest to SCID authors, including several articles on the role of foundations in the aid process as well as bilateral aid agencies of the industrial countries.

From the mid-1980s to the present, the international context of development declined in relative importance in SCID’s pages, although it has always remained among the leading topics. Dependency analysis continued to be represented, including a large number of articles using dependency to discuss individual countries throughout the developing world (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, and Peru, but also Botswana, Iran, and Saudi Arabia). Gradually, however, the terminology shifted from dependency toward globalization – although a discerning reader might notice that many of the same topics were being discussed under a different rubric.

With the shift toward globalization, there was a move away from individual country analysis and toward country comparisons as well as analyses of cross-border economic and other flows. Examples of topics that were examined as part of the globalization process were labor, energy, finance, information, attitudes, and standards. An increasingly important topic was the international division of labor and global commodity chains and their impact on individual countries or regions. Nonetheless, continuity remained with the dependency approach as exemplified by the article by Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the dependency symposium, which was entitled “New Paths: Globalization in Comparative Perspective.” In addition to dependency and globalization, articles also continued to be published on FDI and foreign aid, including that by international institutions, as well as the occasional piece on foreign policy and international relations more generally.

Economic development

In SCID’s third decade, economic development displaced the international context as the most-discussed topic – although it had been important all along. Over the entire period, the majority of the articles in this category were on the general operation of the economy in individual countries throughout the developing world or on specific economic sectors. Among the many examples of sectoral studies were those on industry in Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Spain, Taiwan, Tanzania, and South Asia; electricity in Russia; trade in Jamaica and in Japan; agriculture in Tanzania and in Ethiopia; bananas in the Caribbean; finance in Chile and in Korea; oil in Taiwan; pharmaceuticals in Africa; autos in Iran and in Latin America; and computers across the world.

In addition to country case studies, more general analyses featured discussions of economic development models. These ranged from structuralism in early postwar Latin America to the developmental state in East Asia in the 1970s and 1980s to market-led economies in many parts of the developing world in the 1990s. A recent example was a set of articles published in 2002 on Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach. Closely related were articles on the economic development process in general and on economic policies, such as inflation and stabilization, privatization, trade, financial liberalization, property rights, and strategies to avoid the “middle-income trap.” Needless to say, this second group of articles was much more common in the last two decades as were a number of analyses of the role of the private sector in economic development and public-private partnerships. A surprising absence was articles on economic crises although this topic was addressed under other rubrics.

The role of the state in economic development has been of persistent interest, but the valence of the state’s role has shifted substantially. The movement of the field from an early approach that took for granted a state centered model of development to a more neoliberal market-driven model to a developmental state perspective is only partially reflected in the orientations of SCID authors, as we will discuss later.

While economic development gradually became more important for SCID authors, democracy witnessed a more abrupt rise. In the 1965–84 period, democracy was not a topic of particular interest, since this type of political regime was not very common in the developing world in that era. Thus, there were more articles on the military than democracy in the first decade. Given the emphasis on Latin America in those years, most of the articles were case studies of the few Latin American democracies. Nearly half the articles were about Chile, where Salvador Allende’s brief attempt to institute a “democratic road to socialism” stimulated enormous interest in Latin America and beyond.

Starting in the mid-1980s, but picking up steam in the early 1990s, the process of democratization (or re-democratization) took hold in many parts of the developing world. Not surprisingly, SCID authors – and particularly the growing number of political scientists – followed this trend. Most of the increasing number of articles were again case studies, but of a much wider group of countries than was found earlier. Latin America again led the list (Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua as well as the region as a whole), but others also appeared including Africa, East Asia, Eastern Europe, and Turkey. In addition to the case studies, a number of articles dealt with more general aspects of democracy. For example, articles were published on the role of policy elites in democratization and on the role of civil society – a topic that would become more important a bit later. The first articles on the measurement of concepts related to democracy appeared in this period, as did several historical examinations of democracy.

By 1995 and continuing to the present, an extremely rich menu of articles on many aspects of democracy was published, as this became the dominant topic in SCID. In the 1995–2004 decade, nearly a third of all articles were on democracy. They were very widely based, covering Africa, East Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The topics became much more specific in comparison with the general discussions of transition earlier on. New aspects included elections, public opinion, political parties, democratic consolidation, democratic legitimacy, decentralization, and civil society. A new approach began to look at the economic impact of democracy, while interest in measurement issues increased.

In the past decade, while democracy continued to be the most common topic in SCID, it fell to represent only about 15 percent of all articles. The topics covered continued to become more sophisticated. More articles dealt with the impact of democracy – both on economic growth and on welfare. A focus on leadership joined the work on political parties that had been emerging. Another new interest was on the quality of democracy, which was explored through articles on civil society, accountability, and institutions. Finally, not surprisingly, given the international economic situation during the decade, a new focus was on economic crisis and democracy.

Institutions

Institutions were not a very popular topic in SCID’s early decades. Only 3 to 6 percent of total articles seemed to fit this category between 1965 and 1994. Some of those articles had to do with government bureaucracies, including state-owned enterprises, while other analyzed private-sector institutions such as the Japanese factory or the kibbutzim in Israel.

In the last two decades, however, institutions have played a more prominent role in SCID, accounting for about 10 percent of the total. Moreover, the term “institutions,” with its various meanings, began to appear with frequency for the first time. For some social scientists, institutions are defined as norms or rules of the game, while for others, the term refers to specific organizations. There was no consistency in the usage of the term among SCID authors. Some articles that clearly used the latter definition included analysis of the police force in El Salvador, party institutions in Eastern Europe, forestry monitors in India, and participatory budgeting groups in Brazil. An article on institutions in Latin America focused on several organizations, including aviation authorities, stock exchanges, and post offices. Interestingly, a fairly large number of authors wrote about different aspects of the state in China, as this country began to make more frequent appearances in the journal.

Other articles took a more systemic view of institutions. A special issue, for example, focused on Michael Mann’s concept of infrastructural power, while topics like development as institutional change were also featured. Some authors in the recent decade have focused on the impact of institutions, such as institutions and the quality of governance (e.g., corruption, patronage, bribery) and the role of institutions in determining economic performance.

Methods and other topics

In addition to its main focus on the substantive analysis of problems relating to development, SCID has also published more than two-dozen articles on methodological issues that arise in studying development. The subject matter of the methodological pieces has ranged widely. A number dealt with problems of measurement (e.g., of achievement orientation, polyarchy, decentralization, and corruption), others with operationalization and conceptualization. Problems of cross-national research and international comparisons were discussed as were issues relating to field research including ethics. Research design, including the use of sub-national research units, has been addressed. Although they go somewhat further afield, several articles focused on epistemology, especially issues of causality, and on problems of the disciplines as they relate to research on development.

An important question is whether there are topics that have not received sufficient attention. Commissioning special issues provides us with a way to highlight such topics. The special issue on population and development that was published at the end of 2015 is a good example of both focusing on the role of population and bringing anthropology into our set of disciplines. But there are other examples. The first special issue after SCID moved to the Watson Institute focused on the environment, a topic that had scarcely been addressed in SCID previously. We also brought in a group of economists through a special issue on how to avoid the middle-income trap. As mentioned earlier, a multi-disciplinary group convened in 2009 to hold a conference and produce a special issue commemorating the 40th anniversary of the publication of the Cardoso and Faletto book, Dependency and Development in Latin America . This resulted in discussion of various ways in which the international context affects the development process. Other special issues have dealt with infrastructure power, labor rights, non-state social welfare provision, violence and order in cities, international migration and home-country politics, and intellectual property and access to medicine.

In summary, the five decades since SCID’s founding in 1965 have witnessed some major changes in the disciplines of the authors (fewer sociologists, more political scientists) and the geographical focus of the articles (less on Latin America and more on Asia). With respect to topics, there has been both continuity and change. New topics – such as gender, violence, and the environment – have appeared. But others, including the four we discussed above – the international context, economic development, democracy, and institutions – have been constants over the years, although their relative importance and the precise content have certainly evolved.

Democracy, Inequality, and the Influence of International Organizations: Papers from SCID’s 50th Anniversary Symposium

The four papers presented at SCID’s 50th anniversary symposium provide a panorama of past work on selected key issues in development studies. Read in combination, the four articles that emerged from the presentations do an exemplary job of reviewing a broad range of the content that has been central to SCID’s contributions to debates on development. Democracy, inequality, and the influence of international organizations, which are the foci of the four papers, are all core arenas of debate in the study of development. Even more important, the papers offer, especially in dialogue with one another, a provocative and original set of insights that should help stimulate SCID’s future contributors to explore innovative new ways of thinking about these issues and the comparative study of development more generally.

As discussed in the previous section and shown in Table 1 , democracy and democratization have been the focus of more SCID articles over the course of the last five decades than any other topic. Regular transfers of political power based on competitive elections, in which the overwhelming majority of the citizenry are enfranchised, have become the global normative standard for regime legitimacy. In his analysis of “high quality institutions” in SCID 15 years ago, Rodrik ( 2000 ) argued that democracy was a “meta institution,” which enabled the construction of a range of other institutions adapted to the circumstances of individual national societies. In his contribution to this issue, Rodrik has become less sanguine about democracy as a generic institutional form and more worried about variations in the form that may subvert its value. Before focusing on Rodrik’s concerns, however, we should consider Ken Roberts’ panoramic analysis of the evolution of the literature on democracy.

The Uncertain Promise of Democracy

Roberts’ recent contributions to SCID (2002, 2010), which focused on Latin America, were skeptical of the prospects for building robust democracies, both because of the weakening relation between economic cleavages and party mobilization (Roberts 2002 ) and because of the corrosive effects of economic crises driven by global neoliberalism (Roberts and Wibbels 2010 ). In this article, his focus is different. Following the evolution of the literature and echoing concerns similar to Rodrik’s, Roberts turns from the possibility of procedural democracy emerging in the Global South, or the probability of its survival, to the quality of democratic institutions and their consequences.

Roberts summarizes his basic premise in his conclusion, “Unlike 50 years ago, when scholarly debate centered on the viability and preconditions for democracy in the developing world, the debate has shifted decisively toward the study of its quality and significance.” Footnote 3 This constitutes, in his view, “a veritable intellectual sea change.” The shift was stimulated most obviously by the fact that democratic institutions, defined in modest procedural terms, have spread more widely and proved more robust than seemed possible when SCID was starting up. The problem is that their capacity to deliver transformative results appears to have been either less than theorists and politicians had imaged or to have been undercut by changing structural circumstances.

Schmitter ( 2014 : 78–79) summarized the prevailing view: “Democracy is easier to establish and sustain than previously thought, but also less consequential in its social and political effects.” Contrary to earlier pessimistic predictions, Roberts reports “few cases of outright breakdowns or authoritarian reversions in third wave democracies.” Nonetheless, democracy has survived at the expense of failing to foster “significant changes in power relations, property rights, policy entitlements, economic equality, and social status.”

Equally disturbing is the failure of democratic regimes to consolidate their ability to defend the basic political practices that undergird popular sovereignty. Roberts concurs with Dan Slater’s ( 2013 : 730–31) analysis that “third wave” democracies have “‘careened’ in an unsettled manner ‘between populist and oligarchic modes of politics,’” often engaging in “routine transgressions of basic democratic norms” and allowing democratic contestation to be dominated by “de facto autocratic authority.” In short, the survival of democratic procedures, minimally defined, has carried with it a diminishing share of the benefits traditionally considered to be an integral part of democracy rule.

This somewhat gloomy take-away does not, however, do justice to Roberts’ analysis of the literature. Without repudiating Schmitter, Roberts derives a more positive line of inquiry from his analysis of the evolution of the literature: “How can we construct a transition from electoral democracy to a more substantively meaningful form of democracy that produces both liberal basic rights and freedoms for all groups in the polity and supports the transformation of public institutions in the effort to make distribution of power and resources more equitable?”

Attacking this question requires looking at democratization as “an agency-centered political process…relatively autonomous of structural determination.” In short, not adopting a structural determinist position, like that of the early “bureaucratic authoritarianism” O’Donnell ( 1973 ), but opting instead for a more political process version of the emergence and development of democracy. This, in turn, shifts the focus of the democracy debate from structural prerequisites to the politically contingent establishment of institutions, particularly political parties and civil society organizations that might be deployed to constrain the state and private elites.

Analysts who have attacked the “democracy problem” from this vantage point have come up with more optimistic conclusions, especially but not exclusively those working on Latin America. For example, Huber and Stephens ( 2012 ) have used extensive historical and quantitative data to ground the argument that leftist and populist mass parties in Latin America have indeed managed to produce consequential redistributive effects.

For those who focus on institutional dynamics, simple procedural democracy can have positive repercussions, even when the substantive consequences of democracy are not realized. If the erosion of the ability of classic class cleavages to provide an effective basis for political mobilization makes it harder for modern mass parties to have a transformative impact, democratic politics has created space for “decentralized, communitarian constituencies” to play an active role in “deliberative, consultative, and decision-making roles in the selection of infrastructure and social service projects and the allocation of public resources.” Footnote 4 While decentralized participation often challenged the role of parties as intermediaries, it sometimes enabled dynamic synergies with national political agendas, facilitating, for example, “unprecedented access to national executive office for individuals from outside traditional ruling circles.”

While examples of the self-reinforcing effects of democracy are drawn most often from Latin America, researchers have made similar arguments based on institutional trajectories in Africa. Lindberg ( 2006 ), for example, argues that elections and other democratic practices help to strengthen civil liberties, stabilize regime institutions, and nourish democratic values. Likewise, researchers working on democratizing regimes in Asia, like Taiwan and Korea, point to similar connections between democratization and progressive social policies (e.g., Wong 2004 ; McGuire 2013 ). Based on his review of this literature, Roberts concludes that “the practice of relying on contested elections as the singular legitimate means for accessing public office is a critical foundation for deeper and more ‘consequential’ forms of popular sovereignty in the future.”

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

Dani Rodrik starts from exactly the sort of preoccupations that Roberts advocates, that is, focusing on the quality and consequences of democracy rather than simply on the emergence and persistence of regimes that meet the procedural criteria necessary to be labeled democracies. His concerns, however, are more precisely focused. The centerpiece is Fareed Zakaria’s proposition that the rise of “illiberal democracies” constitutes a disturbing trend in the evolution of democratic institutions. Two decades ago Zakaria ( 1997 : 22) argued, “Democratically elected regimes…are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms.” The research of Rodrik and a colleague (Mukand and Rodrik 2015 ) provided an empirical foundation and analytical explanation for Zakaria’s apprehension, which Rodrik expands on in his paper in this issue.

Rodrik’s analysis is consistent with the intellectual tradition of work on democracy, which Roberts reviews, in that it is concerned with the quality of democracy rather than the spread of procedural democracy or its ability to endure. He starts from the dramatic growth in the number of democracies since World War II (roughly quadrupling) and their recent overtaking of non-democracies among newly created political regimes (Mukand and Rodrik 2015 : Fig.  1 ). Then, again consistent with the literature reviewed by Roberts, he turns his focus to what he sees as a growing tendency toward democracy’s failure to deliver the full set of rights traditionally associated with the term.

The main difference between Rodrik and Roberts is Rodrik’s greater emphasis on the determinative power of the structural circumstances underlying contemporary transitions to democracy. Roberts suggests that explanations for the trajectory of democracy that emphasize political process have become more dominant and that consequently the origins of different configurations appear to some degree contingent and the product of voluntaristic strategic interaction. In Rodrik’s argument, the political and social structural circumstances that are generic to contemporary democratization lead logically to the prevalence of illiberal rather than liberal democracy. The argument is consistent with the empirical evidence and makes analytical sense. It leads to a more pessimistic projection of the possibilities for variation in democratic regimes than the more eclectic, process-centered characterization of the literature proposed by Roberts.

The heart of Rodrik’s argument lies in distinguishing political rights – essentially the right to participate in electoral competition whose outcomes are determinative of political power – from civil rights – essentially the right to be treated equally under the law with regard to freedom of speech and association, the provision of public order, human security, and the application of justice. Only when both political and civil rights are guaranteed can liberal democracy be said to exist. When political rights are preserved but civil rights systematically violated, the illiberal democracy that worries Zakaria is the result.

What makes the argument interesting is the next step, which is the postulated connection between the socio-political structures characteristic of new democracies (primarily democracies in the Global South) and a systematic impetus to abandon civil rights while maintaining political rights that makes illiberal democracy the dominant political choice in these countries. The argument is straightforward. For analytical purposes, Rodrik projects national political settlements as depending on strategic bargains that involve three groups – an elite, a non-elite majority, and minority groups. Elites may find conceding political rights advantageous, either because elections are a way of negotiating intra-elite divisions or because the costs of excluding the majority from political participation are greater than the costs of managing electoral outcomes. The majority focuses on electoral rights because elections give them the power to choose leaders and policies. Footnote 5 A circumscribed extension of civil rights may affect them in a direct and serious way. The group that most depends on civil rights administered independently of electoral outcomes are non-elite minorities. Since non-elite minorities are unlikely to shape political settlements, illiberal democracy becomes a natural outcome.

Rodrik sees this tendency as reinforced by two other features of new democracies: the greater prevalence of “identity politics” and the greater difficulty of organizing non-elites around economic issues. He sees political settlements aimed at surmounting economic cleavages, which involve bread-and-butter issues, as creating less pressure to undercut civil rights than political settlements aimed at negotiating identity conflicts. Initial political settlements in new democracies are built on mobilization around nation building, which has “an implicit or explicit ‘other’ against which mobilized masses are aligned – a colonial adversary, a neighboring nation, or an ethnic group supposedly standing in the way of independence.” This kind of mobilization is more vulnerable to settlements that exclude opponents from the legal protections of civil rights.

Economic trajectories also reinforce the tendency toward illiberal democracy. Rodrik agrees with the host of analysts who argue that the industrial working class played a key role in the construction of earlier liberal democracies. Therefore, he finds the shrinking of the relative share of manufacturing employment and the growth of service sector employment, particularly informal service sector employment, as favoring illiberal democracy. In his words, “Elites can easily divide and rule by exploiting identity cleavages and the highly heterogeneous economic interests of informal labor.”

This schematic simplification of Rodrik’s argument leaves out the nuance. In the full rendition of the argument, he assiduously explores possibilities for institutional creativity that might generate exceptions and countervailing possibilities that would support variations on liberal democracy. In addition, he emphasizes throughout that the argument is not mechanistically structural. The identity cleavages that are the building blocks for institutionalizing illiberal rules are “not primordial or exogenous; they can be deepened or manipulated, spurring political mobilization based on ethnicity, language, or religion.” Thus, illiberal outcomes are contingent on the strategic agency of elites who “depend on the continued prevalence – and deepening – of identity cleavages to maintain their hold on power.”

In the end, Rodrik’s analysis of illiberal democracy overlaps with Roberts’ view of the dynamics of political change. Just as Roberts emphasizes political process without rejecting the idea that structural preconditions may play a role in shaping the prospects of democracy, Footnote 6 Rodrik highlights structurally shaped strategic preferences, but leaves space for the role of political process.

The Central Inequality Paradox

Rodrik’s argument also connects to the distributional issues that are the center of Frances Stewart’s article. Rodrik’s definition of civil rights is “non-discrimination in the provision of public goods such as justice, security, education and health.” These lie in the domain of what Stewart terms “horizontal inequalities” – the unequal distribution of economic resources and political power across identity groups. Education and health might as easily be considered social rights as a component of civil rights. Thus, illiberal democracy implies, not just a restricted ability to exercise rights like freedom of association, but also a failure of democracy to produce positive distributional effects. Rodrik’s argument then provides a nice example of how debates on democracy connect to debates on inequality, which have been central to shifting perspectives on development.

Shifts in the conceptualization of the relationship between development and inequality since SCID’s founding have been more dramatic than the changes in the conceptualization of democracy. A half century ago, an inequality-friendly theoretical climate prevailed. The Lionel Robbins view that the optimal amount of inequality was that which maximized output had triumphed over the more egalitarian Pigou version of welfare economics. In development economics, the dominant view was the Kuznets’ prediction that development was likely to increase inequality in the short to medium run, even though economic transformation would eventually have the opposite effect (the inverted-U phenomenon). This combination helped provide legitimation for what Stewart characterizes as “broadly unequalising policies supported by the most powerful global institutions.”

Over the course of the last 50 years, a quite different intellectual consensus has emerged. Reducing inequality, in addition to being consistent with aspirations for justice, is acknowledged to have a range of positive effects on other goals, from facilitating environmental sustainability to being “important in promoting and sustaining growth” (Berg et al. 2011 : 13, as cited by Stewart). Nonetheless, “many of the policies which continue to be advocated by global institutions – and even insisted upon in conditional loans – are likely to be inequality increasing, such as reducing public expenditure, switching from direct to indirect taxation, and reducing high marginal rates of income tax.” Rhetorical support for equality-increasing policies, for example in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), does not just fail to translate into diminished inequality “on the ground.” It fails to translate into concrete policy. For Stewart, the result is the central inequality paradox: “[t]he contradiction between what is, and is accepted to be, desirable, and actual policy-making.”

Stewart’s characterization of the central inequality paradox applies primarily to the global level – to intergovernmental organizations and rich countries in their roles as donors. At the national level, it is variation in inequality that is most striking. Stewart reads the trends in national level data as suggesting that “while there are strong tendencies making for rising inequality in a globalizing capitalist world, governments can counter this by well-designed policies.” As a quick rule of thumb for explaining variation, Stewart suggests that it is “a matter of the power of money balanced against the resistance generated by people’s movements, and how well each organizes, in the context of increasing global pressures.”

What this rule of thumb implies is that if we want to explain levels and trends in inequality at the national level, we need to use the analytical toolbox from the literature on democracy reviewed by Roberts, exploring “the changing social landscape for popular representation and participation in an era of economic liberalization.” While it does not provide a sufficient condition for improved distribution, democracy may expand the space for political movements to mobilize for redistribution. If inequality-reducing policies can be connected with the emergence and robustness of particular kinds of democratic institutions, they constitute a falsification of the Schmitter ( 2014 ) proposition that democratization has “done little to bring about significant changes in power relations, property rights, policy entitlements, economic equality, and social status.”

Conversely, demonstrating a positive connection between effective democratic institutions and inequality reduction adds a crucial question to Rodrik’s proposition that the share of illiberal democracies is expanding. Illiberal democracies are likely to intensify horizontal inequalities rather than reduce them, but if separating civil rights from political rights also reduces the likelihood of policies that reduce vertical inequalities, then the rise of illiberal democracy becomes more menacing.

If Stewart underlines the importance of connections between the analysis of political institutions and understandings of inequality at the national level, she cautions with equal insistence against restricting analysis to the national level. While acknowledging that most analyses of the consequences of inequality are undertaken at the national level, including her own, Stewart argues that ultimately the global level must be given at least equal attention. Indeed, it is the global level generates the central inequality paradox. Since roughly three-fourths of total interpersonal inequality is accounted for by inter-country inequality, Footnote 7 making policy efforts at the national level would be perforce inadequate to address the overall problem.

Finally Stewart argues that, “shared humanity suggests that the global level is the right one from a normative perspective.” Thus, her analysis of inequality points directly toward the importance of analyzing the structure and dynamics of the international arena, which is to say to the article by Sarah Babb and Nitsan Chorev.

Tightly and Loosely Coupled International Regimes

The effects of the international context on development have been a central concern of SCID articles from its beginnings, consistently featuring as one of the top four topics in each decade as we have seen (Table 1 ). Babb and Chorev focus on a particular facet of the international context, the international regime as defined by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. Within this focus, they propose an analytically elegant framework for periodizing the evolution of the international regime since World War II.

Building on a dichotomous, ideal-typical division of regimes as ranging from “tightly coupled” to “loosely coupled,” Babb and Chorev suggest that the regimes generated by international organizations for the first 25 years after World War II were loosely coupled. This was a period in which the constraining factors imposed by the international regime on individual nation states were “diffuse and decentralized and lacked the organizing principle of either a hegemonic idea or a coherent set of rules.” The initial loosely coupled era was followed by a 30-year period during which regimes became more tightly coupled – “characterized by strong interdependence, centralized authority, and standardization.” Then, starting at about the turn of the millennium, the regime generated by international organizations became again more loosely coupled, “characterized by the rise of new actors, the decentralization and fragmentation of authority, and the declining influence of policy paradigms.”

One might contest either the initial conceptual categories or the periodization or both. But, if we accept both, Babb and Chorev’s analysis generates a very interesting set of hypotheses for explaining the trajectory of democracy, which Roberts and Rodrik consider over the same time frame. Likewise, the Babb-Chorev framework evokes an interesting dialogue with Stewart’s central inequality paradox.

Comparing Roberts’ periodization of the expansion of democracy with the Babb-Chorev periodization suggests an intriguing interaction of international regime and democratization. Roberts characterizes the 1960s and early 1970s – which were loosely coupled in Babb and Chorev’s view – as a period of receding democratization “when Latin America veered decisively toward authoritarian rule and the initial promise of decolonization gave way to the sobering reality of single-party or strong-man rule in Africa and the Middle East and to civil war in Southeast Asia.” The 1990s, on the other hand – a tightly coupled period for Babb and Chorev – were for Roberts a period in which “favorable international opportunity structures were widely understood to encourage democratic currents in developing societies and help to compensate for the weakness of domestic structural conditions for democratic rule.”

Can we give the greater coordination and convergence toward a single policy model of the tightly coupled international regime credit for helping to expand the number of democracies? Conversely, does the greater policy space created by looser coupling, make it easier for elites in the Global South to construct undemocratic regimes of their own choosing? Footnote 8 Most discussions of policy space and tighter coupling focus on reduced space for unorthodox economic policy – as exemplified in the dominion of the “Washington Consensus.” Perhaps, however there was a similar pressure toward conformity in the political realm in the period of tighter coupling. If so, this opens up a new way of interpreting the rise of illiberal democracies.

The mapping of the number of new democracies and new non-democracies over the post World War II period by Mukand and Rodrik ( 2015 : Fig.  1 ) is very consistent with Roberts’ analysis. It is the period of tighter coupling at the end of the 20th century during which the number of new non-democracies takes a sharp fall, while the increase in the number of new democracies accelerates. But, this also connects the proliferation of illiberal democracies to Babb and Chorev’s periodization. One way of interpreting this juxtaposition of trends is that tighter coupling increases the penalty imposed on countries that formally eschew democracy, but it does not diminish the incentives for elites to devise systems that prevent accountability and popular intrusion on their political privileges.

Viewed in this optic, illiberal democracies are not just the product of national strategies and dynamics. They also reflect a shifting international context. Tighter coupling means that the international regime (international organizations/rich countries/donors) increases the international costs imposed on countries in the Global South that abandon formal electoral institutions. If domestic political calculus makes full democracy (i.e., including universal support for civil rights) unattractive to local elites, then the combination of national and global factors favors illiberal democracy. This logic implies that the tightly coupled international regime is less willing and/or able to sanction the partial application of civil rights at the national level than it is to sanction the abandonment of formal electoral procedures. Differential capacity to enforce different sorts of international political norms would add an additional dimension to the tight vs. loosely coupled distinction.

Connecting more tightly coupled international regimes with shifts in national political outcomes would also have implications for the domestic effects of the current loosely coupled international regime. If Babb and Chorev are right that we are in a period in which looser coupling is likely to prevail, then the threat of sanctions against countries that slip out of conformity with global political norms will have less impact on national level political strategies. In countries where national political considerations make democracy strategically unattractive for local elites, we would expect these elites to be more likely to curtail both electoral rights and civil rights. On the other hand, the smaller number of electoral democracies that persist will do so on the basis of domestic calculations of the benefits of democracy, which may increase the proportion of electoral democracies that include full provision of civil rights.

Stewart’s central inequality paradox opens up another possibility for using tight versus loose coupling in the international arena as an analytical tool. Stewart implies loose coupling of slightly different sort. The disjunction between analysis and rhetoric, on the one hand, and instantiated policy, on the other, suggests another consequence of loose coupling. The analytical and normative consensus in the international arena has become disconnected from the policies that are implemented in practice. The contradiction may be within a single organization (e.g., the World Bank) as well as between organizations. The potential realm and scope of loose coupling is thus expanded and the role of inconsistency and disjunction within the international arena becomes even more important than it is in Babb and Chorev’s analysis.

The intersections between Babb and Chorev’s analysis of the evolution of the international regime with Roberts’ and Rodrik’s analyses of democracy and development and Stewart’s analysis of inequality complement the links among the first three papers that have already been considered. Overall, these intersections are a reassuring confirmation that the comparative study of development is in fact a “field.” It is an intellectual arena in which findings and hypotheses in one area complement and enrich findings and hypotheses in another. Even more satisfying is the sense, made clear by the reviews of sub-fields in each paper, that the comparative study of development is a field in which later work builds on earlier work and analytical perspectives become more nuanced and satisfying over time, despite the fact that the nature of development itself has shifted dramatically over the decades.

Expanding the Focus: The Role of the State and Competing Global Orders

While the four papers in this issue do a masterful job of analyzing key fields in development studies and the connections among these fields, flagging some of the other themes and arenas that have provided the warp and woof of development studies during SCID’s 50 years is still in order. Without pretending to cover the full range of themes here, we would like to explore briefly some complements to the themes set out in the papers, connecting these additional themes to those that are the focus of the papers and then pointing toward some issues that have the potential to become salient in SCID’s next 25 years.

A first theme is the economic role of the state, which is a central part of the economic development topic that has characterized so many SCID articles as seen earlier. Debates on the economic capacities and agendas of states are the obvious complement to democracy debates in which the possibility of creating responsive and accountable states looms large. Without sufficient state capacity, democratic accountability is sterile. The same logic applies to equality-enhancing strategies at the national level. As Stewart points out, responses to inequality at the national level depend not just on democratic will, but on the capacity and willingness of states to pursue this agenda.

Second, we expand the discussion of the international arena to include two systems of power that have a symbiotic relation with the regimes that Babb and Chorev analyze, but which also compete with the regimes constructed by international organizations. The structures and agendas created by private capital is one such system; geopolitical competition among nation states is the other. The international order defined by private capital depends on and reinforces the one defined by international organizations, but the quest for profit maximization can also undermine the efforts embodied in international organizations. The logic of geopolitical competition can operate symbiotically with the regime structured by international organizations, or it can undercut it. Finally, of course, capital uses nation states to pursue its ends and vice-versa. Flagging the role of the interactions among this triumvirate of orders helps fill out an agenda for studying the international arena.

Bringing the economic role of states into the foreground and expanding the description of the international arenas complement each other as intellectual agendas. Each of these agendas also connects to the discussion of democracy and inequality at the national level. When the debate on democracy in the Global South focuses on its failure to have substantive effects on “power relations, property rights, policy entitlements, economic equality, and social status,” according to Roberts (citing Schmitter 2014 ), it also invokes both the inability of popular politics to reshape state policies and the inadequacy of the state as an instrument of transformative change. In a globalized world, the economic role of the state and the international systems of power that it faces are inextricably linked.

Debates on the economic role of the state have evolved dramatically in the years since SCID’s founding, both in the pages of SCID and beyond. At the time of SCID’s founding, the centrality of the state’s role in development was largely taken for granted. From the political alliances of national liberation and socialism that ranged from Nehru’s post-colonial socialism to the revolutionary socialism of Mao and Ho Chi Minh to the “big push” development economics of Nurske and Rosenstein-Rodan, the centrality of the state had been a given in development studies. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, neoliberal narratives displaced a long tradition of state-centric visions of development. During the neoliberal interlude, reforms that reduced the role of the state were in fashion. Even repressive regimes like Pinochet’s Chile were redeemed ideologically by their rhetorical support for “free markets.” The centrality of the state’s role in development and in development studies appeared to be eclipsed by the power of market driven narratives.

The hegemony of the neoliberal narrative, especially prominent in Latin America, was challenged by events on the other side of the world. The amazing economic ascent of East Asia returned the state to prominence and introduced the concept of the developmental state. Chalmers Johnson’s ( 1982 ) analysis of Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Development (MITI), which projected a state-centric vision of the organizational dynamics of industrial transformation, was the beginning. A number of analyses of Korea and Taiwan with a similar message followed (e.g., Amsden 1989 ; Wade 1990 ). Once appreciation for the state’s role in Japan’s industrial success was complemented by fascination with the state’s involvement in the transformation of the East Asian Tigers from poor, agrarian, former colonies to emerging export manufacturing powers, the empirical foundations of the idea of the developmental state were firmly established.

In the ensuing decades, arguments for reforms that would further privilege market logics and restrict the role of the state continued to be a central preoccupation of development studies, but many SCID contributors offered skeptical assessments of this agenda. On the one hand, analyses of neoliberal reforms suggested deleterious effects (e.g., King 2002 on the Soviet Union). On the other hand, those who looked at specific sectors (e.g., Baer 2014 on water in Chile) failed to find a connection between private markets and positive outcomes. Moreover, those who looked at cases like Chile that were put forward as neoliberal successes (e.g., Schurman 1996 ; Negoita and Block 2012 ) suggested that, despite local rhetoric extolling private markets, a strong state role actually lay behind the economic successes that had been achieved.

Rather than touting the advantages of market-enhancing reforms, SCID contributors often focused on the consequences of institutional variation. How did countries in the Global South structure their national rules of the game, and what difference did it make for outcomes? The concept of “institutions” is useful in part because it offers a general and elastic framework into which variegated specific content can be poured. For example, North ( 1994 : 360) defined institutions as “the rules of the game: the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction.” Footnote 9 The New Institutional Economics puts institutions at the center of the study of development. Footnote 10 While many economists’ applications of the frame imply that only two institutions – property rights and markets – matter, other economists, like Dani Rodrik in his 2000 SCID article, argue that the role of institutions in protecting private property is only one aspect of aggregating and legitimating societal goals.

A version of institutional analysis that gives more weight to the role of the developmental state is characteristic of many SCID contributors. In this frame, institutions provide a conceptual matrix that ties together more economically oriented work on the developmental state with the work on democracy and democratization that we focused on in the prior section. The result is a very different sort of political economy analysis than that which emerges from a perspective where figuring out how to enhance the impact of market logic is the prime goal of developmental policy (and theory).

Two consequences flow from this version of institutional analysis. First, it provides a way of integrating the political and economic dynamics of development without subordinating one to the other. Second, it forces development studies to confront the conundrum of what concrete institutional features are associated with different developmental outcomes. Rodrik’s ( 2000 ) identification of democratic institutions as the “meta institutions” that produce “high quality growth” is a good example, though, as we have seen, specifying the content of democratic institutions is a challenge in itself. Portes and Smith ( 2008 ) are more specific, identifying four different structural features that are associated with better performance across a variety of institutional arenas in three Latin American countries, including features previously identified with the success of East Asian countries, like meritocratic recruitment to public bureaucracies. Other SCID authors are more skeptical of the possibility of specifying the features of effective institutions. For example, Haggard ( 2004 : 53) challenges institutional explanations offered for East Asia’s growth; sides with Rodrik in suggesting that a diversity of institutional means may accomplish the same ends; and suggests that “the search for a single institutional ‘taproot’ of growth is likely to be a misguided exercise….”

Debates about what concrete structural and organizational features, what specific kinds of constraining rules, and what specific sorts of cultural norms and understandings enable effective institutional performance are likely to continue for the indefinite future in the pages of SCID and in development studies more generally. Failure to resolve them should not be taken as evidence against the fruitfulness of institutional analysis, but – to the contrary – as an indicator of the richness and complexity of the arguments that it engenders.

The logic of an institutionalist perspective takes on a different character when the focus is on the interaction of national and international arenas. While traditional “realist” visions of the international arena as “Hobbesian anarchy” have, as Babb and Chorev point out, been replaced by more institutionalist projections of global regimes, no one would deny that political actors are constrained less in the international arena by shared rules of the game than they are within national societies.

The power of the international arena to checkmate the plans of developmental states in the Global South tempers optimistic projections of the ability of democratic politics to move states toward distributive and welfare oriented goals, especially when the international arena is seen not just as a regime shaped by international organizations but rather as a hybrid structure in which the agendas of private global capital and individual nation states trying to maximize geopolitical advantage often dominate those of international organizations.

In the neoliberal era, international organizations must operate in the shadow of global capital. They have been seen as allies of private capital or as the agents of global capital. These characterizations underestimate their “relatively autonomous” role in shaping the overall in the international arena, but even so their behavior cannot be understood independently of the agendas of private capital. International organizations do dominate the direct production of norms and global rules (as Babb and Chorev explain), but private global strategies and agendas consistently shape and reshape the global arena, with powerful consequences for developing countries.

International organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, along with northern donor countries, continue to be the primary source of external capital for the poorest countries, but being attractive destinations for private capital is the sine qua non of financial equilibrium for middle-income nations. This became more obviously true as the 20th century drew to a close. Indeed, by the 1980s, it appeared that the IMF was more important as a source of legitimation (“seal of approval”) and an organizer of collective action among private global lenders than as a source of capital per se.

The 1997–98 East Asian financial crisis brought into sharp focus both the centrality of private global capital and its inability to manage its own collective action problems. The dynamic progress of several Southeast Asian countries and even Korea was rapidly undercut by massive capital outflows as the herd behavior that had led to over-lending was replaced by herd-like outflows. In recent months it has become clear that even China, the one country in the Global South that seemed immune to the tides of global capital outflow, was not invulnerable. Perhaps even more fundamental for the strategies of the state in the Global South, however, are the constraints imposed by anticipation of the reaction of “the markets” (i.e., the major global banks and other financial institutions). Policies that might appear to be anti-capital, whether local or foreign, are likely to be eliminated by the self-censorship of policy-makers and politicians even before becoming the focus of political debates. Once the power of capital is added to the global political equation, the limits on the policy space that nation states can feasibly explore become clearer and narrower. Adding private global capital to the equation does not eliminate consequential variations in social policy at the national level or the importance of democratic accountability, but it reframes their context.

Just as perspectives on the economic role of the state have evolved over time, the frames used to interpret the impact of international factors on national strategies have changed. In SCID’s early decades in the 1960s and 1970s, dependency theory was still in vogue, especially given SCID’s regional affinity with Latin America (see, for example, Chilcote 1976 or Remmer 1976 ). In recent years, however, globalization has become the theoretical rubric. Comparing the dependency perspective on the relation between national possibilities with the globalization perspective is instructive. In early dependency work (and even in work critical of dependency theory but influenced by it), the possibility of a more nationally controlled economy remained an ideal typical aspiration and political goal, even if one that was likely to be frustrated.

By the second decade of the 21st century, the necessity of global integration was taken for granted. Compare, for example, two SCID articles published a quarter of a century apart: Becker’s ( 1985 ) positive assessment of the possibilities for national development strategy even in a small country fully dependent on mineral resources, with the assertion in Whittaker et al. ( 2010 ) about the centrality of globally integrative strategies to developmental success, even for China – the country in the Global South with the greatest possibility for nationally-oriented development. While the hope of being able to combine this integration into the global political economy with national social and welfare goals had not been completely abandoned (e.g., Cardoso 2009 ), notions of economic autonomy have largely disappeared from even aspirational visions of development.

As the current century opened, then, theories of development were forced to assume that the power of global financial capital could not be escaped. The necessity of living in a world dominated by global capital was no longer debated. Whether this was an economic world that would be able to deliver wellbeing to the majority of the world’s citizens was another question. Indeed, by the second decade of the 21st century, the global political economy was viewed not only as crisis prone, but as incapable of dealing with the most fundamental global collective action problems, with climate change topping the list.

The failure of global markets to solve the day-to-day problems of local citizens and the resurgence of nationalist political strategies are mutually reinforcing. That is, the failure of global markets to deliver (especially when there is no economic means of escaping their effects) makes retrogressive nationalist politics more attractive, and the rise of nationalism makes solving global collective action problems more difficult. This is another way of thinking about the new vitality of illiberal democracy that is set out in Rodrik’s article. It also provides another perspective on the loosely coupled international arena that Babb and Chorev expect.

The most interesting question is whether the increasing presence of China in the Global South creates a new set of opportunities. The answer depends first of all on whether China is capable of becoming a global hegemon or whether an unstable multipolar balance of power is a long-term prospect. Predicting what the effects of Chinese hegemony would be, were it to achieve some sort of hegemony, is even less obvious. Regardless of one’s assessment of China’s future role, states in the Global South face a high likelihood of confronting an unstable global regime, one incapable of delivering collective goods, driven by the uncertain vectors of geopolitical rivalries in which major powers share the agenda of global capital without being capable of preventing globally threatening collective action failures. In this context, we must return to questions of national political institutions.

Are there scenarios in which the interaction of democratic politics and a capable state can supersede the disadvantages of the current international arena? Are there plausible national political and economic strategies that can supersede negative externalities generated globally? Convincing answers to these questions are obviously beyond the capacity of even the best social scientists, but efforts to confront them are likely to become part of the agenda of SCID contributors in the next 25 years.

Looking Ahead to SCID’s 75th Anniversary: Speculations on the Future of Development Studies

Reflecting on SCID’s first half century provides a rich tapestry of questions and conundrums that are central to the evolution of development studies as a field. Imagining what a similar set of reflections might focus on at SCID’s 75th anniversary is a precarious exercise, but also one that is provocative and worthwhile. In order to make the project less fantastical, we will limit it to a focus on the potential evolution of the arenas that we have already explored: democracy, inequality, the political economy of the state, and the evolution of the international arena.

Some likely continuities are obvious. The character and consequences of democracy will continue to be a preoccupation for development studies. One important future agenda is clear from the articles on democracy in this issue. The pessimistic logic of the expansion of illiberal democracy that Rodrik outlines stands in fundamental tension with the emergence of new forms of participation and institutional access underlined by Roberts. These contradictory trends have both grown up under the umbrella of formal, representative democratic institutions, but will have contrary effects on the future consequences of those institutions. Figuring out what factors explain the relative predominance of these countervailing trends in specific national contexts will provide a central challenge for analysts of democracy and development.

The persistence of a preoccupation with inequality can also be taken for granted. The multiple possibilities for new and interesting work hardly need underlining. Among the various dimensions of what Stewart has called horizontal inequality, gender has been an obvious lacuna in SCID’s repertoire. Gender and development is a field that antedates SCID, yet throughout the period it was represented by only a couple of articles per decade. It is hard to imagine that this gap will not be filled in the decades to come. Indeed, a special issue on gender and development is currently under consideration.

Of the plethora of other avenues that debates on inequality might take, a few are worth noting. The Piketty treatise ( 2014 ) on inequality, with its focus on Europe, creates an obvious opportunity for development scholars interested in inequality. Specifically, there is the challenge to explain the fact (noted by Stewart) that declines in inequality in Latin America were about a half-century out of sync with the declines that are the centerpiece of Piketty’s findings for Europe. An even more tempting puzzle is Stewart’s central inequality paradox about the contradiction between actual policy making and what is accepted as desirable. If we assume the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism, then the central inequality paradox should not exist. Insofar as inequality can be interpreted as the result of market forces and incentives, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as desirable. Stewart’s central inequality paradox would seem, then, to represent a departure from a consistent neoliberal position whose origins and implications are in need of explanation.

Preoccupation with the role of the state is also likely to persist, if not expand. The 1990s agenda promoting greater openness to global capital and greater sway for market logics domestically seems unlikely to make a comeback. Efforts to probe the underpinnings of the developmental state are likely to continue, but the constraints imposed on would-be active states by the international arena, particularly by global capital, set limits on the possibilities for success.

There is also another feature of state behavior that may well become an increasing focus of attention. The maximization of territorial power as a goal in itself and as a means of unifying popular support for the holders of state power was, in the early post World War II period, a central conceptual frame in development studies. It was not, however, a focus of attention for most of SCID’s history. Footnote 11 This seems likely to change. Nationalism is an obvious response to the increasingly problematic intersection of national development and the international arena. The weakness of neoliberal globalization as an organizing ideology and a vehicle for delivering economic benefits increases the attractiveness of nationalism as a political strategy, everywhere from China and the United States to South Africa and Sudan. The rise of illiberal democracy also fits with an increasing predominance of nationalist strategies. The original postwar frameworks for analyzing nationalism are unlikely to provide leverage for any resurgence of nationalism. Footnote 12 Will SCID authors find new ways of understanding the interrelation of nationalism and development? This would be an important task.

China by the 2005–15 period was already the largest single country focus for SCID, superseding the Latin American countries that were SCID authors’ traditional favorites and leading the shift toward increased interest in East Asia that began with the East Asian tigers and the developmental state. SCID’s pages have reflected general interest in trying to figure out the dynamics of Chinese institutions, particularly at the state and local level, but also at the national level. Cracking the conundrum of why these institutions work (when they do work) and what kinds of political dynamics undermine their successful functioning (when they do not work) is clearly a project with a future.

Curiously, analysis of China’s role in facilitating or hindering development in the Global South (or even the effect of the changing global context on China’s own development) has not been a topic that SCID authors have explored. Footnote 13 It is hard to believe that development studies can avoid tackling this topic over the next 25 years. China’s global role is an obvious future addition to SCID’s repertoire over the course of the next quarter century, but it is only one of several facets of the international arena that merit expanded attention.

SCID’s analysis of the international arena has focused primarily on traditional economic and political actors – states, foreign investors, and international organizations. As Babb and Chorev underline, non-traditional actors like philanthropic foundations and public-private partnerships “have become omnipresent and highly influential.” There is, however, another set of new global actors who may end up playing an even more important role in reshaping the international arena than the Gates or Clinton foundations and which are yet to be analyzed in the pages of SCID.

Ideologically driven networks willing to engage in unrestrained violence may have relatively little economic or political clout relative to powerful nation states or global corporations, but they are still changing the international terrain in profound ways. These “terrorist” networks do not easily lend themselves to conventional analytical frames, but their impact on development cannot be ignored and should not be underestimated. It would be surprising if analyses of the origins and consequences of these organizations did not begin to appear in SCID and other development journals over the course of the next quarter century. Up till now, of course, such articles have been mainly found in journals focusing on security issues.

At the same time, there is another set of international networks that are equally interesting, even if they are considered less newsworthy. The failure (whether due to incapacity or disinterest) of states and global capital to deliver crucial global public goods – such as policies to mitigate climate change – and the extent to which international constraints also limit the ability of nation states to deliver the same sorts of goods has created powerful incentives for social movements to develop their own international networks. Nowhere is this clearer than in the rich mélange of efforts to force nations and corporations to pay attention to the long term tragedy of climate change, but there are a variety of other efforts as well.

From the Brazilian landless workers movement (MST) to the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF) to the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), a multiplicity of groups are using international connections to enhance their bargaining power. Like terrorist networks and non-traditional actors highlighted by Babb and Chorev, transnational social movements reflect both the disappointing failure of traditional means of organizing the international arena and the frustrations of trying to get leverage operating only at the national level. They face long odds against being able to reorganize the international area in a way that improves global welfare, but they will almost certainly become a permanent feature of global development politics nonetheless. They epitomize a central challenge to SCID’s next 25 years, which is to explore the implications for development of an increasingly complex and contradictory international arena.

Valuable help in this endeavor was provided by Ben Bradlow, a sociology graduate student at Brown. We greatly appreciate his assistance.

The data in Fig.  2 exclude articles involving cross-regional comparisons.

All quotes in this section, unless otherwise indicated, are from the other four articles in this issue.

Roberts invokes Baiocchi et al. ( 2011 ) on municipal participatory budgeting in Brazil as a principal example.

The proposition that majorities can feel confident in their ability to exercise political rights in an institutional context where civil rights are not applied universalistically, at least in principle, is contestable. Just as the merchants and landlords who fought in England’s glorious revolution saw civil rights as an essential component of their political rights, likewise it is hard to imagine that contemporary capitalist elites (and even more so non-elite majorities) might find the ability of the state to trample unimpeded on the civil rights of minorities a worrisome harbinger of their own inability to resist expropriation or the curtailment of their political rights. They may be unable to come up with strategies for constraining political elites that won’t threaten their current privileges, but this is a question of inability to construct optimal political institutions rather than a structural preference for the limited application of civil rights.

See, for example, Roberts’ discussion of Przeworski et al. ( 2000 ).

See Lakner and Milanovic ( 2013 ).

To be sure, Roberts sees geopolitical change (which is not part of Babb and Chorev’s argument) as a central factor in this shift: “The collapse of communism in the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War eliminated Soviet support for authoritarian alternatives and induced the U.S. to adopt a more consistent pro-democratic stance in its spheres of influence. More favorable international opportunity structures were widely understood to encourage democratic currents in developing societies….” Nonetheless, while this is a different way of thinking about the shift from loose to tight coupling, it seems consistent with the basic logic of the Babb-Chorev argument.

To be fair, North does not leave his definition at this most general level, going on to specify, “They are made up of formal constraints (such as rules, laws, constitutions), informal constraints (such as norms of behavior, conventions, self-imposed codes of conduct), and their enforcement characteristics.”

For example, Acemoglu et al. ( 2005 : 386) say: “Differences in economic institutions are the fundamental cause of differences in economic development.”

Hechter ( 2000 ) and vom Hau ( 2008 ) are among the interesting exceptions.

Consider, for example, Deutsch’s ( 1953 ) classic.

Whittaker et al. ( 2010 ), which looks at the effect of global context on China’s development, is an exception on this point.

Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN, editors. Handbook of economic growth, vol. 1A. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. p. 385–472.

Google Scholar  

Amsden AH. Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.

Baer M. Private water, public good: water privatization and state capacity in Chile. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2014;49(2):141–67.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baiocchi G, Heller P, Silva MK. Bootstrapping democracy: transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2011.

Becker DG. Peru after the ‘revolution’: class, power, and ideology. Stud Comp Int Dev. 1985;20(3):3–30.

Berg AG, Ostry JD. Equality and efficiency: is there a trade-off between the two or do they go hand in hand? Finance and development (September). 2011;48(3):12–15.

Cardoso FH. New paths: globalization in historical perspective. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2009;44(4):296–317.

Cardoso FH, Faletto E. Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1979.

Chilcote RH. Ruling classes and dependency in two backland communities of Northeast Brazil. Stud Comp Int Dev. 1976;11(2):35–50.

Deutsch K. Nationalism and social communication: an inquiry into the foundations of nationality. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1953.

Haggard S. Institutions and growth in East Asia. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2004;38(4):53–81.

Hechter M. Nationalism and rationality. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2000;35(1):3–19.

Huber E, Stephens JD. Democracy and the left: social policy and inequality in Latin America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.

Book   Google Scholar  

Johnson C. MITI and the Japanese miracle: the growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1982.

King L. Postcommunist divergence: a comparative analysis of the transition to capitalism in Poland and Russia. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2002;37(3):3–34.

Lakner C, Milanovic B. Global income distribution. From the fall of the Berlin wall to the great recession. Policy Research Working Paper 6719. Washington DC: World Bank; 2013.

Lindberg SI. Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006.

McGuire J. Political regime and social performance. Contemp Polit. 2013;19(1):55–75.

Mukand S, Rodrik D. The political economy of liberal democracy. NBER Working Paper 21540. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2015.

Negoita M, Block F. Networks and public policies in the global south: the Chilean case and the future of the developmental network state. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2012;47(1):1–22.

North D. Economic performance through time. Am Econ Rev. 1994;84(3):359–68.

O'Donnell G. Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: studies in South American politics. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1973.

Piketty T. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2014.

Portes A, Smith LD. Institutions and development in Latin America: a comparative analysis. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2008;43(2):101–28.

Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F. Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

Remmer KL. Economic dependency and political conflict: Chile and Argentina, 1900–1925. Stud Comp Int Dev. 1976;11(2):3–24.

Roberts KM. Social inequalities without class cleavages in Latin America’s neoliberal era. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2002;36(4):3–34.

Roberts KM, Wibbels E. The politics of economic crisis in Latin America. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2010;45(4):383–409.

Rodrik D. Institutions for high-quality growth: what they are and how to acquire them. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2000;35(3):3–31.

Schmitter PC. Reflections on ‘transitology’—before and after. In: Brinks D, Leiras M, Mainwaring S, editors. Reflections on uneven democracies: the legacy of Guillermo O’Donnell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2014. p. 71–86.

Schurman RA. Chile’s new entrepreneurs and the ‘economic miracle’: the invisible hand or a hand from the state? Stud Comp Int Dev. 1996;31(2):83–109.

Slater D. Democratic careening. World Polit. 2013;65(4):729–63.

vom Hau M. State infrastructural power and nationalism: comparative lessons from Mexico and Argentina. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2008;43:334–54.

Wade R. Governing the market: economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.

Whittaker DH, Zhu T, Sturgeon T, Tsai MH, Okita T. Compressed development. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2010;45(4):439–67.

Wong J. Healthy democracies: welfare politics in Taiwan and South Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2004.

Zakaria F. The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Aff. 1997;76(6):22–43.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Like SCID itself, the production of the 50th anniversary issue and of this article has been a collective endeavor. We would like to thank a number of people. The Watson Institute leadership, Rick Locke and Ed Steinfeld, provided the resources and support to make the 50th anniversary symposium possible. Christie Kilgus efficiently organized the logistics. Ben Bradlow, a sociology graduate student, worked with great skill and dedication to analyze the distribution of a half century of SCID articles and create the empirical foundation for our initial analysis. Sarah Babb, Nitsan Chorev, Ken Roberts, Dani Rodrik, and Frances Stewart gave generously of their time to write papers, attend the symposium, and help make the symposium a lively intellectual event. Commentators Peter Gourevitch and Patrick Heller added greatly to the quality of the discussion and of the revised versions of the papers. The SCID staff, MeganTurnbull and Marcelo Bohrt, helped in their usual efficient way. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of Ruth Berins Collier, former SCID editor, who helped us plan the symposium and special issue although she was unable to attend the event itself.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

Peter Evans & Barbara Stallings

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Stallings .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Evans, P., Stallings, B. Development Studies: Enduring Debates and Possible Trajectories. St Comp Int Dev 51 , 1–31 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-016-9223-9

Download citation

Published : 05 May 2016

Issue Date : March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-016-9223-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Development
• Illiberal democracy
• International organizations
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Study with the world leaders in development studies and realise your potential to transform the world with our PhD by Research.

The PhD in Development Studies by Research is IDS’s advanced research degree. It is awarded to candidates after a minimum of three years study, based on completion of original and significant research in the field of Development Studies – which is assessed through a written thesis.

*Please note: It is not possible for international students to take a part-time PhD due to UK Home Office visa restrictions, and IDS does not have a distance learning mode of its PhD Programme.

World leaders in development studies

Ranked first in the world  for Development Studies  (QS World University Rankings by Subject 2023) for the eighth year in a row – the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) transforms the knowledge, action and leadership needed for more equitable and sustainable development globally, through our world-class research, learning and teaching.

As a PhD researcher, you will join a thriving research community comprising more than 70 research staff and 50 postgraduate researchers. You will have access to research and teaching opportunities, as well as a substantial series of seminars presented by leading development professionals and practitioners.

Areas of study

We welcome submissions from researchers who share our commitment to:

• upholding climate and environmental justice
• reducing extreme inequities
• fostering healthy and fulfilling lives
• nurturing inclusive, democratic and accountable societies.

We are particularly interested in work that shows originality in addressing topics related to the work of our research fellows based across our ten  research clusters : business; cities; digital; governance; health and nutrition; impact and policy; participation; power; resource politics; and rural futures.

Find out more about our current PhD Researchers Find out more about our Research Fellows and their interests

Studying at IDS can potentially transform your view of the world – you grow a lot learning from this very rich and diverse community.

Each PhD researcher has a minimum of two supervisors. The number of hours of formal supervision will vary over the course of the PhD depending on the student, supervisor and type of research. IDS publishes a detailed PhD handbook which sets out expectations and responsibilities regarding supervision.

During the course of your PhD, you are required to give two seminars to the IDS community. The first, at the end of year one is called the Research Outline Seminar and this provides an overview of your PhD plans prior to beginning fieldwork. The second occurs halfway through year three. This is called the Work in Progress Seminar and it focuses on the research findings and overall arguments made in the dissertation.

Your PhD work is examined by dissertation and viva. Your thesis must be no longer than 80,000 words. These limits includes footnotes and bibliography but excludes any appendices.

You’re normally expected to have a Merit (an average of 60% overall) in a Master’s degree. Your qualification should be in a relevant social sciences subject. In exceptional circumstances, you may be considered for the degree if you have a qualification in a different subject area.  You must also show evidence of substantial professional work experience in development-related work.

English language requirements

Students must be proficient in English. The minimum requirement is, for example, an  IELTS  grade of 7.0 overall and no less than 6.5 in each section of the IELTS test. For  detailed information on English language requirements for international students please see the University of Sussex website .

IDS requires that students register for a minimum of three years. Most students spend time on fieldwork that may take place in a development context – either overseas or in the UK. During fieldwork, students are charged a fee which is normally 65% of the full-time fee but may be subject to change.

Almost all IDS PhD researchers choose to do empirical research and fieldwork for their PhDs. The broad parameters of this research (topic and country) are usually decided by the student and included in the proposal submitted as part of the application to the PhD programme. More detailed assessments of the scope and scale of this research are usually developed in conjunction with supervisors during the first year of the PhD. Fieldwork usually lasts between 8 and 12 months and costs depend on the scope and scale of the activities. For example, participant observation and qualitative interviews undertaken in your home country and in a language with which you are familiar, may not be very expensive, but working in a country where you need visas, in-country ethical approval, and have to employ translators, transcribers, or a team of enumerators for a quantitative survey can mean that costs rapidly escalate. Where you stay, how you travel to your fieldsite, what technology you use to collect and analyse data and how long you stay will all influence the costs. IDS does not have the resources to fund any fieldwork or travel costs. There is a small conference fund and PhD students can apply for up to £450 during their PhDs if they are presenting a paper at a conference.

After having made substantial progress and completed three years of registration, students may be permitted to transfer to pre-submission status for a maximum of 12 months. IDS considers substantial progress to be the completion of three empirical chapters, supervisors’ approval and a successful work-in-progress seminar. If pre-submission status is not granted, then full-time fees are still applicable. The pre-submission fee is approximately £500 for each year or part thereof.

Unfortunately, neither IDS nor the University of Sussex can offer financial support. Applicants requiring financial assistance should contact their local Ministry of Education or Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the British Council representative (c/o British Embassy). For the latest information on fees, funding and scholarships, visit the  University of Sussex website .

Living costs

Find out typical living costs for studying at Sussex

Find out about our terms and conditions

Your time at IDS will equip you with the training needed to launch your career in academia, government, civil society or the private sector, and make a real difference in bringing about transformative change.

Our PhD graduates are defining and solving some of the world’s most pressing global challenges in their work as:

• ministers in national governments and civil servants
• high-level officials in development organisations such as UNDP and the World Bank
• leaders and thinkers of civil-society and international development organisations such as ActionAid and Christian Aid
• high-profile academics at universities across the world.

Apply via the  University of Sussex online application . When completing the application form, please identify IDS on the application; the code for this is L1604R – Development Studies (IDS) (PHD).

Finding a supervisor

While you are not responsible for finding a supervisor, it is good practice to express your preferred supervisors on your application form. Applicants are assessed both on their academic credentials and on the relevance of their works to the research of one or more  IDS Research Fellows .

Distance learning

IDS is unable to accept applications for distance learning. We believe it is in the best interests of both PhD students and the Institute that the majority of the study period is spent at IDS. This offers the opportunity for ongoing interaction with other IDS members and students.

Your research proposal

When you apply, you must submit a detailed research proposal of 2000-3500 words indicating the primary research questions of your research project, a short review of the literature that you are planning to engage with, and your methodology. Find out how to write a research proposal.

Before applying, please read carefully our  guidelines on how to write your research proposal on the Sussex website . Here is a good example of a recent research proposal from a successful applicant:  Susana Araujo’s PhD research proposal to IDS, 2020 .

Application deadline

We prefer our PhD by Research students to start in September to coincide with the start of the University of Sussex autumn term. This timing will maximise your opportunities to take part in induction sessions, training and module enrolment (optional), both at IDS and the University of Sussex.

For September entry, the application deadlines are:

• 21 June for international students
• 21 July for UK/EU students.

In exceptional circumstances IDS may permit students to start the PhD by Research in January (for example, if visa issues prevent a September entry). The application deadline is 31 October for all January starters. We may also be able to offer some flexibility in start dates for students transferring from another organisation.

How we assess your application

When assessing your application we take into account many factors including: the quality of your research proposal, your academic qualifications, fit with IDS research priorities, previous development experience, language skills and availability of suitable supervisors.

All applications are assessed by the IDS Director of Doctoral Studies, with input from two potential supervisors. You will also be interviewed on your PhD research plans by these potential supervisors. If your application is successful, you will be contacted by the University of Sussex Admissions Office with a formal offer letter.

Presence at IDS

Your presence at IDS is vital at the early stage of your PhD when the research proposal is prepared (the first year) and then, after fieldwork, at the stage of writing up the research findings (the third year). The maximum period of registration is four years, but a PhD can be completed in three years.

Key information

Full time duration, part time duration, home fees (uk, republic of ireland, channel islands & isle of man), overseas (including eu), open days and events.

Find our more about our PhD Open Evenings, information sessions, virtual PhD events and campus tours

Key contacts

Teaching Coordinator

s.s.watson@ids.ac.uk

+44 (0)1273 915662

Related links

• PhD researcher, Jorge Ortiz-Moreno, explains what it’s like to study at IDS
• Why study at IDS
• First in the world for development studies
• Development Studies Scholarships and Funding

We’ll make all reasonable efforts to provide you with the courses, services and facilities described in this prospectus. However, we may need to make changes due to significant disruption, for example in response to Covid-19.

3 years ago @IDS_UK

📣Register for the #SussexDev Lecture Power to the people: how to make this the century of the citizen. With @dhnnjyn from @NEF Wednesday 23 October at 16:00. In-person and online at IDS. All welcome. @sussexuni @SussexGlobal @SPRU Register at: 👉https://ac.pulse.ly/ysmquldoen

IDS researchers @dorte_thorsen, @domglov and Lídia Cabral explore how the research, innovation, and interventions in agrifood systems be sensitised to young people’s needs and priorities 👇

Placing youth at the centre of agrifood systems research and practice - Institute of Development...

Today’s youth generation holds a large stake in the future of sustainable agrifood systems worldwide. Youth are re...

ac.pulse.ly

Not long now until #WorldEBHCDay on 20 October! Watch @WorldEBHCDay vlogs from individuals around the world who share their stories relating to the 2024 #WorldEBHCDay theme, ‘Health & Beyond: From Evidence to Action’. https://worldebhcday.pulse.ly/gjssyfcrgx

We're delighted to welcome Pedro Sanches de and Lucas dos Santos Miranda to IDS – the first two students to take part in our double master’s programme in partnership with Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo @FGV_EAESP. https://bit.pulse.ly/7fh27y1luy

As @DavidLammy visits China, it's a good time to revisit the analysis from researchers at the IDS China Centre on how & why the new Government needs to reset UK engagement with #China on pressing global challenges 👇

Foreign Secretary has opportunity to reset UK-China relations on global challenges - Institute of...

The UK should engage with China on pressing global challenges, including global health, sustainable food systems and climate change.

www.ids.ac.uk

💡🦠 NEW BRIEF: In 2023, women and children in DRC’s artisanal #mining areas were heavily impacted by a new strain of #mpox. This brief explores their vulnerabilities and the public health response. Read full brief here: https://tinyurl.pulse.ly/nwhxcud5kn

Join LOGIC (Living Off-Grid Food and Infrastructure Collaboration) researchers at @UN_CFS's panel! 📅 Date: October 23 ⌚ Time: 08:30 (CET) Register to attend online 👇 https://zoom.pulse.ly/uchphggcpr @iromip @colombourbanlab @iihsin @UrbanAfricaACC @UCT_news @UnivofGh @foodequityctr

Read @WorldEBHCDay blogs from individuals around the world who share their experiences and collective wisdom relating to the 2024 #WorldEBHCDay theme, ‘Health & Beyond: From Evidence to Action’👇 https://worldebhcday.pulse.ly/hnpi3ty5yt

📣 World renowned economist @MazzucatoM Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value @IIPP_UCL will be the guest speaker for this year’s IDS Annual Lecture. Tuesday 26 Nov at 16:00. In-person and online at IDS. All welcome. Register 👇https://ac.pulse.ly/8zp6b2lc0y

To mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, MA Poverty & Development, class of 2024-25, shared why they have chosen to study this theme, and what their aspirations are for the future. https://ac.pulse.ly/smorzuft2e #InternationalDevelopment #EndPoverty #SDG1

The UK's Minister For International Development @AnnelieseDodds has given her first major speech, emphasising a new approach to development in a spirit of collaboration and partnership👇 #GlobalDev #UKAid

Why do some people oppose #CleanEnergy transitions, and what can we, as researchers, do about it? Join our upcoming panel event to engage with these questions and more. Register 👇 https://ce4dev.pulse.ly/kjv8n6l712 #ClimateResearch #ClimateChange #GreenEnergy