Social Science Knowledge and Economic Development

The closing decades of the twentieth century witnessed a sharp transition in the grand themes that had provided the context for development thought and practice during the previous half century. The process of political decolonization was followed by concerns about the implications of the globalization of economic activity. The fall of the Berlin Wall, which signaled the end of the Cold War, eliminated tension between the U.S. and the USSR as a source of discipline in international relations. A new set of issues including the rise of militant fundamentalist religions, the role of cultural endowments in economic and political development, and the ambitions of the constituent nationalities in multinational states forced themselves onto the development agenda. 1 These issues have not been easy for social scientists to address. Students of the sociology of religion have found it easier to study the evolution of religious thought and practice than to agree on the significance of fundamentalist religion for political and economic development. The analysis of the political and economic consequences of national culture no longer commands credibility among anthropologists. The disintegration of multinational states have challenged academic thought on the processes of nation building. These issues have largely been neglected by development economists. In this chapter I attempt to confront some of their implications for political and economic development and practice. To a world that viewed itself as becoming modern, or even " postmodern, " the emergence, during the late 20th century of religious movements that were " intense, impassioned, separatist, absolutist, authoritarian and militant " has been difficult to comprehend (Marty 1996, 24). 2 At the same time that the " death of God " was being celebrated by liberal theologians (Cox 1969), the United States was experiencing a prolonged religious revival (Gilbert 1997, 13). Fundamentalist religious movements, previously regarded as fossilized remnants of pre-modern culture, were emerging with renewed vitality to challenge the assumptions of both democratic and authoritarian order. But are there sufficient common elements in the diverse movements, that have arisen from (or fundamentalist like) appellation. One criteria is that all of the fundamentalist movements have defined themselves in opposition to modernity. They are vigorous critics of what they regard as the compromise of traditional religious institutions, and the erosion of fundamental religious principles, in response to the corruptive forces of modernization. A second common feature is the rejection of the liberal principle of the separation of …