The previous chapter presented the free-market doctrine of development. This chapter describes some of the ways this doctrine has been refined since then. IFIs and aid agencies became concerned with the capability of states to implement market reforms and work more effectively with non-state actors. At times known as the “new governance agenda,” the refinement now placed the onus on states to measure and ensure reforms. Accompanying the shift was a greater attention on whether civil society actors could manage the development process, tracking funds and monitoring results.

Within this refined doctrine MOS now featured prominently as a means of attaining development. But it also became Janus-faced. Management's positive face was its means to measure, monitor, assess, and reward suitable activities. Its negative face was the growing regulatory capacity it offered aid agencies and donors. The onus of civil society action rapidly shifted from the process of generating social change to that of handling donor funds. This latter face of management—characterized by its critics as oppressive, depoliticized—also acquired a different name, managerialism. Just as rapidly as management ideas became tied to the refined free-market doctrine of development, just as rapidly popular criticisms of this trend now spoke of it as managerialist.

This chapter brings to a close the trajectory of development outlined in this book. The regime of financialization remains present, the key unacknowledged influence on development studies, MOS, and forms of civil society. However, the concatenation that led to financialized capitalism may shift further, and in unexpected ways. As the next chapter argues, the space for resistance, and for challenging common sense, hinges on the manner in which such regimes exist and change.

Within development studies, further refinement of the Washington Consensus encouraged sharp reappraisal or rejection of the promise of development. Meanwhile management studies continued to move away from the ambitions of high management. Across both, two curious ironies were apparent. There was some acknowledgment of MOS’ relevance within development studies. But its complexity was foreshortened, relegated to demands of efficacy, getting work done, or demands of marketization, enabling competitiveness and performance. Meanwhile civil society was also recognized explicitly—as a partner of development and as a promoter of managerial expertise.