Comment on the Papers by

Shelley Feldman: Social Development, Capabilities, and the Contradictions of (Capitalist) Development and David Barkin: Incorporating Indigenous Epistemologies into the Construction of Alternative Strategies to Globalization to Promote Sustainable Regional Resource Management Paul B. Thompson Shelley Feldman draws from a number of authors who have commented on Sen and Nussbaum’s “capabilities approach,” concluding that although their work has undeniably moderated some of the excesses associated with development theory and practice of years past, it still fails to challenge the neo-liberal paradigm of thinking on the general nature and legitimacy of development, and by extension, fails to challenge the unequal distribution of power inherent in the modern state system. David Barkin offers us a rich description of how local knowledge has been integrated with specific forms of technical expertise to create projects for human development in Mexico. By implication he suggests that there is a more effective ethic for involving marginalized and oppressed peoples in processes of development than the capabilities approach, one that might be summarized as “just do it.” I have not been asked to comment on these two provocative papers because I have experience or training in development theory or practice. I have neither. Nor do I put myself forward as someone who wants or needs to be heard by development professionals, much less the intended beneficiaries of development activities, or even by interested bystanders and observers of the various intellectual debates on global inequality, sustainability, or distributive justice. I doubt seriously that I have anything