Correspondence

What ever happened to DevelopmentGeography?

From Rob PotterProfessor of Geography, Royal Holloway, Universityof LondonI suspect that I will not be the only person writing inrespect of the review of British Geography pro-duced by Thrift and Walling (GJ 2000 166 96–124),for the International Geographical Union GeneralAssembly held in South Korea in August 2000. In1996, David Stoddart, having read the previousreview of British Geography published in The Geo-graphical Journal covering the period 1992–1996(Richards and Wrigley 1996), wrote to the Editorto express what he described as his ‘incredulity’(Stoddart 1996). Specifically, he commented that‘In their text the only locality specifically identifiedother than Europe is Antarctica, and that is in aglacial context’; and he asked, ‘Has British Geogra-phy forgotten the world exists?’ (Stoddart 1996,355). Stoddart then noted numerous books andpapers which had emanated from British pressesbetween 1992 and 1996 (including those pub-lished in The Geographical Journal itself), and whichgained no mention at all in the Richards-Wrigleyreview of British Geography.

I had no desire to enter and extend this debate,but literally as I was writing the first draft of a paperconsidering the interface between Geographyand studies of development (Potter 2001), theThrift-Walling review of Geography in the UnitedKingdom 1996–2000 landed on my desk (Thriftand Walling 2000). Thrift and Walling seem to beaware of the need to rectify the shortcomings of theearlier signature by Richards and Wrigley. Thus, thevirtual demise of area studies in many (most?)British Geography Departments is noted at theoutset by Thrift and Walling, along with what isreferred to as the ‘pious Eurocentrism’ which isregarded as accompanying this, ‘in which muchis written in theory concerning the necessity toappreciate difference, but this is too rarely articu-lated in practice’ (Thrift and Walling 2000, 106).

But curiously, given the tenor of this message, themain passage of the review which deals with ‘devel-opment geographers’ is the portion of the textwhich is most devoid of bibliographical citations.From the bottom of page 107 to page 108, we aretaken through an account which mentions areastudies, rethinking development, economisticrecipes for progress, structural adjustment policies,

environmental sustainability, indigenous voices, theWorld Trade Organization, the resource cursethesis, global financial systems, the Asian crisis, theJubilee 2000 campaign for debt relief and thenature of governance. Yet, these three paragraphsare not accompanied by a single bibliographiccitation. It can only be assumed that the formativeconsultation process broke down in some way.But the net result is as before: the actual re-search publications and substantive texts of thoseworking on poor countries are desperately under-represented relative to other sub-areas of thediscipline.

Thus, when I scanned the text and referencesand then read them carefully, I searched in vain forany reference to the publications of the Britishscholars I know who are actively publishing ongeographical aspects of development studies. Tostart with, there is not one reference to the work ofthe ten members of the current Developing AreasResearch Group committee of the RGS/IBG. Inaddition, I searched in vain for the publications ofthose I know who have researched and writtenon Latin America and the Caribbean (for example,Alan Gilbert, Colin Clarke, Cathy McIlwaine, AnneVarley, Janet Townsend, Stella Lowder, BobGwynne, Gareth Jones, David Watts, LindaNewson, to name but a few). Equally, there was noteven a trace of the writings of those who focus onAfrica, the Middle East or Asia (including, the lateDavid [Drakakis-] Smith, Allan Findlay, Bill Adams,Mike Parnwell, Jonathan Rigg, Graham Chapman,Chris Dixon, Sylvia Chant, Tony Binns, Rick Auty,Morag Bell, Chris Barrow, Piers Blakie – the list isalmost endless – and notably includes the names ofboth the RAE 1996 and 2001 panellists who wouldbe regarded by most as covering ‘developmentgeography’). However this neglect of the literaturerelating to development came about, I found itutterly amazing that not one of the publications ofthese and other development geographers hadsqueezed in.

In addition, key texts on geography and develop-ment are entirely missing from the review (forexample, the second edition of the successfulGeography of the Third World by Dickenson et al.(1996); the second edition of An Introduction toSustainable Development by Jenny Elliott (1999), orthe new text by Potter, Binns, Elliott and Smith(1999); Geographies of Development. There are justa handful of references to development geography,and Power, Corbridge, Radcliffe and Slater get one

ISSN 0016-7398/01/0002-0188/$00.20/0 � 2001 The Royal Geographical Society

mention each, and Sidaway two, generally for itemswhich appeared in Environment and Planning.Nothing wrong with that, although I could not findone citation of a paper published by a Britishgeographer in a development-oriented social sci-ence journal, such as World Development or theJournal of Development Studies – or indeed, in theSingapore Journal of Tropical Geography. But alltoo evidently, core-periphery lives on withintwenty-first century Geography, as well as in theworld at large.

In concluding, I should like to make a far widercomment, which I must emphasize does not stemfrom the Thrift-Walling review. Their paper is atleast mindful of the delicate position occupied byarea studies, as well as research conducted over-seas, even if the citations which underpin suchwork are almost entirely missing from the resultantreview. This wider comment suggests the need forparticular vigilance to be exercised in respect of therepresentation of work conducted overseas, andstems from the apparent existence of what can onlybe described as a ‘Little Englander’ mentality insome quarters of British Geography. Specificinstances and implications of the operation of ‘LittleEngland and little geography’ were reviewed byPotter (1993) at the beginning of the 1990s. As amore recent example, I attended a meeting where aparticipant argued vociferously that the contri-butions of geographers concerned with develop-ment issues could not possibly be compareddirectly with those made by what were clearly seenas the ‘luminaries’ working on the developed-industrialized world. Unfortunately, in my experi-ence, such overt manifestations of what appears tobe a ‘core-periphery mentality’ within Geography

itself, are far from unusual. It seems that somegeographers think dichotomously about the contri-butions made by those who work in the Euro-NorthAmerican tradition and those who work in Africa,Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean (Potter1993). This seems oddly misplaced in a worldsystem dominated by globalization and trans-nationalism, together with their highly unevengeographical outcomes.

ReferencesDickenson J et al. 1996 A geography of the Third World

second edition Routledge, LondonElliott J 1999 An introduction to sustainable development

second edition Routledge, LondonPotter R B 1993 Little England and little Geography: reflec-

tions on Third World teaching and research Area 25 291–4— (2001) Geography and development: ’core and periph-

ery’? Area 33 in pressPotter R B, Binns T, Elliott J and Smith D 1999 Geographies

of development Prentice Hall, London and New YorkRichards K and Wrigley N 1996 Geography in the United

Kingdom 1992–1996 The Geographical Journal 162 41–62Stoddart D 1996 Letter to the Editor The Geographical

Journal 162 354–5Thrift N and Walling D 2000 Geography in the United

Kingdom 1996–2000 The Geographical Journal 16696–124

Editor’s noteThe Editor approached the authors of the paperreferred to, but because the Society is consideringa different format of publication for the IGC inGlasgow in 2004, they felt it inopportune torespond to this correspondence.

Correspondence 189