The final third of the 20th century saw the weakening and eventual collapse of one challenge to the dominant western model of development and almost simultaneously the emergence of another based not on class conflict, although in some sense including it, but on the discourses of the environment and human rights. Challenging the current neo-liberal version of this model, voices articulating alternative approaches to development have appeared in the many regions of the world that have been forced to confront a wide variety of losses, costs and calamities brought about by the dominant models of development. For example, in the Philippines, development projects that convert the lands on which people live and work into dam created reservoirs, irrigation schemes, mining operations, plantations, recreation areas and other large scale forms of use favoring national or global interests have been referred to as "development aggression" by impacted communities and the nongovernmental organizations (NGO) working with them (Heijmans 2001: 5). Still, for much of the past 30 years most of the conversations about development have essentially taken place among elites, both pro and con. However, the counter discourse that has emerged in that same period comes from a substantially broader and more diverse base. To some extent both sides of the discussion share similar rhetorics of social justice and material well-being, but they differ markedly on the deeper philosophical meaning of development as a social goal and the means by which that goal should be achieved. The meanings, means, and implications of development in the discussion reflect the internal heterogeneity of both the development industry and those who propose alternative visions (Fisher, W. F. 1995:8). Emphatically, however, the discussion about development is no longer a top-down monologue by elites, but rather an argument, in which protest and resistance from many sectors, many regions are speaking out in many voices. Some