Thinking on International Development: Towards Three Dialogues (original) (raw)
International Development: A Distinct and Challenged Policy Domain
2020
The European Union (EU) is widely recognized to be a major actor in international development cooperation. First, this chapter discusses key issues and debates on EU development policy. Secondly, the uniqueness of this policy domain, compared to other EU policies in this volume, is highlighted. Thirdly, the chapter elaborates two main policy-making domains: the EU as a donor itself and as a coordinator of member states' policies. Overall, the EU follows the regulatory and distributional modes in its role as a donor, and when it seeks to coordinate member-state policy, the policy coordination mode is to the fore. Moreover, intensive transgovernmentalist features appear in both domains. The conclusion summarizes the main trends and future challenges.
Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 2020
This paper examines development policies in the fight against inequalities and global justice using alternative and critical theories, establishing the connections between the capitalist system and development policies as a social phenomenon inherent to it, and thus examining if these policies can address their abstract motivations and goals of justice and equality. The general findings of the paper suggest that development policies contribute to the intensive and extensive expansion of capitalism, as an instrument to impose and never confront Western economic’ interests. Moreover, the concepts of "charity discourse" and "development imperative" are introduced as the ideological foundations of development policies, which serve both to extend the idea that the struggle against inequalities and injustice generated by the capitalist system can and must be resolved within the framework of this system, and as as a device of social control and hegemony production from Western societies to the rest of the world.
The globalization and development reader: perspectives on development and global change
2007
This book is an intellectual tour de force. It considers the contemporary Keynesian intellectual counter-revolution with regard to the political economy of underdevelopment. The basic thesis of the work is that there were two economic epochs in the postwar period. The first constituted the golden age of capitalism (1945-1973), to borrow a phrase coined by Cambridge (UK) Keynesians. The second period, post-1980, was not so benevolent an age. The global growth record of all countries and regions during the golden age was phenomenal-nobody disagrees. In the second phase since 1980 there has been considerable divergence in global growth and income, mainly because of economic collapse in Africa and Latin America, making the last two decades of the twentieth century lost decades for some. Again there is no disagreement with that-the question is why. Writers such as Amartya Sen talk about capabilities and rights without much reference to the costs of their provision. Jeffrey Sachs speaks of the big-push fundamentalism of increasing aid (mainly to Africa). Bill Easterly outlines the abject failure of development assistance. Dani Rodrik advocates a more eclectic and technocratic 'identify the constraints to growth' approach. Paul Collier elucidates on the povertyconflict traps of the bottom billion along with possible Iraq/Afghanistan-like protracted interventions to prevent conflict re-igniting. In this book Amsden argues that the first postwar era succeeded because developing countries were left alone to pursue independent strategies of economic development that were also 'demand' driven, while during the second phase they were subjected to colonial style prescriptions dictated by the structural adjustment syndrome; something that morphed into poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs), which is really structural adjustment in drag. Both periods, Amsden argues, were driven by American dominance of an empire, unprecedented in its sheer size and extent. The golden age has been described as the era of 'Pax Americana'; the post-1980 globalization phase is likely to be remembered as less benign. Throughout history empires last while they are seen to provide security and prosperity in return for the tribute they exact. Underlying the thinking behind the second phase was the market fundamentalism of the 'Washington Consensus' quartet, something that has latterly changed its emphasis to institutional quality. The Washington consensus 'high priests' are curiously unforthcoming in producing a popular version of their own solutions to the world's contemporary economic predicament. Could they be a tad embarrassed by their failure to deliver? What is missing in Amsden's analysis is the fact that the earlier American and Western laissez faire (or in Richard's Nixon's words: 'don't give a damn') attitude to the home-grown development strategies of the third world was predicated on a genuine fear of countries adopting, in whole or in part, the alternative Soviet model. In fact, countries like India did rather well by playing off the two superpowers.
Building global policies: development assistance, a source of inspiration?
Despite the two disadvantages of being intertwined with colonial policy, and of addressing far-off targets, official development assistance grew into a global policy in order to establish its local legitimacy. The history of global development assistance policy shows a contrast between very old instruments and very recent objectives, following a long consolidation process. The search for legitimacy gave rise to increasing advocacy work and strategic productions, originally intended for developing countries, which turned into a source of inspiration for the domestic policies of donor countries. The global nature of development assistance also means that it constitutes a form of multidimensional policy. Norms developed into a very complex group and their role very much increased, acting to constrain the very objectives of development assistance.
Aid as an encounter at the interface: the complexity of the global fight against poverty
Third World Quarterly, 2004
International development discourse has recently shifted its focus from top-down economic adjustment to participative anti-poverty policy. This shift hints at an acknowledgement of the local complexities within the poverty process and at a need to listen to and develop actions with the 'poor'. But, whereas the mainstream argument remains couched in a technical framework, we argue that the fight against poverty is inevitably political. Conceptualising the aid industry as a set of global-local interfaces, it follows that a closer look at 'participation' in anti-poverty interventions is needed to come to grips with the political issues involved. Four issues are discussed: the complexity of local 'participation', given the 'polycephalous' character of third world societies; the power biases in the aid chain; the potential problem of 'false consciousness'; and the ambiguities of the role of local development brokers. We conclude that anti-poverty policy is in need of 'interface experts ', who, through 'provocation' can beget 'participation'.
Making Sense of Development Debates
Harvard Development papers, 1998
Designing policies and administering programs take place take place in widely varying settings, or “domains”. Linkages are imperfect, at best; and often contain weaknesses and fault points. These weaknesses apply within developing countries, within institutions in the aid community, and within universities. This paper sets out to characterize five such domains: (1) the policy design domain (in which broad visions for growth, social, political, or cultural direction are developed); (2) the macro economic management domain (usually represented by the ministries of finance and economy); (3) the sectoral domain (education, health, agriculture etc.); (4) the issue domain (environment, poverty, private sector, gender etc.); and (5) the community/enterprise domain (NGOs, businesses, local administration, project actors etc. Varying perspectives are illustrated through the use of fictional characters, half from developing countries, half from the “development professions”. The point is that development requires all these different perspectives to operate in parallel fashion rather than in competition. This will require all sides to make a more concerted effort to bridge the practical and conceptual barriers and hence achieve better understanding and more solid results.
Editor’s Introduction: Sustaining Global Development
The Journal of Contemporary Sociological Issues, 2022
Sustainable development is a discourse promoted as a global scenario to save human civilization; at least, that is what international institutions have developed. Sustainable 1 development should be conceptualized empirically as anxiety over inequality conditions on the African continent or other developing world countries. Once again, the globalization that allows the acceleration of the exploitation scheme called Primitive Accumulation by Marx finds its concrete form, namely in how the circularization of capital is limited to the elite class. 2 Thus, sustainable development as a politically driven discourse does not escape the problems of capital accumulation and limited economic access. The destiny of capital that permeates social activities and forms social structures is a problem whose validity is seriously questioned. Economic stagnation anxiety occurs because there is capital that settles and cannot generate profits, while the capital market and investors demand generative values. This advantage in the process of capital accumulation is what is needed to drive the global economy. The movement of capital from one point to another, from one person to another, from social processes to the movement of commodities or services, is a prerequisite for how the development order can create life. Then, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether anxiety over economic stagnation can create a better life. Or do other fundamental issues need to be considered significantly to reduce massive, uneven development? Capital and development models are issues that present dependence on developed countries; for example, Cardoso sees economic and political dependence that occurs due to capital intervention and foreign policy models. 3 Instead of prospering the presence of international standards in the process of social change created by development programs, it becomes a trap for a country. What is happening in Zimbabwe, Uganda and Zambia in Africa 4 , then the cases of Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, and Bangladesh in Asia becomes a marker of how the economic crisis is not just a development issue but is an integral part of reflecting on the global development scheme. This critique, which dependency theorists pioneered, was built by development practices in third world countries that intervened to receive aid and follow the prescription scheme of development produced by defenders of capitalism. The grand ambition to
From Development of the ‘Other’ to Global Governance for Universal and Sustainable Development
IDS Bulletin
This article traces the evolution of the ideologies and narratives that have framed 'development' since its post-Second World War inception, through growth and dependency, adjustment and human development, state to market, to more equitable and globally supported sustainable development strategies required for the post-2015 decades. It analyses the ideas that became the main contributors to a multipolar and still contested narrative of national and global development, highlighting what can be learned from the process that led to current perspectives and goals for sustainable development. The article focuses especially on contributions by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and its global partners, both as critic of dominant orthodoxies and as creator or supporter of alternatives. It ends with reflections on the adequacy of the current narratives and perspectives in light of the challenges facing a multipolar, interconnected and interdependent world, and conclusions about future directions for thinking, action and research.