| Abstract: | In response to the article by Horner and Hulme which opens this Debate section, this contribution argues that while the call for a shift from international to global development by Horner and Hulme is justified, their approach is confined to what has been called traditional or problem‐solving theory. On the levels of concepts, theory and metatheory, it fails to transcend orthodox approaches in development theory. Concerning concepts, it employs the traditional concept of ‘development’ without recognizing its ambiguity, referring at different times to social change, positive social change or social change according to the European model. Concerning theory, it is based on the nation state as a unit of analysis, not differentiating between different socio‐economic groups or classes, and neglects questions of power. Concerning metatheory, its knowledge interest, epistemology and methodology also remain within orthodox boundaries, for example reproducing the measurement of aggregate per capita income and its evaluation as progress. In the last section of this article, the author presents an outline sketch for a more critical theory of ‘development’. |
