| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
194030
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Gay men in Kunming, China use collusive infrapolitics to foster and sustain LGBT communities under the premise of HIV/AIDS prevention. Collusive infrapolitics is the building of collaborative relationships between non-state actors and governing agencies to tacitly agree on publicly acceptable political projects, while leaving vague other deviating activities. Men who have Sex with Men HIV Community Based Organizations cooperate with the state around HIV/AIDS prevention and can then build collusive relationships with low level government cadres, who then ignore gay social activities and help to insulate LGBT organizations from political pressure. As the Chinese political environment becomes more restrictive of LGBT organizing, collusive infrapolitics provides an important theoretical explanation for how non-state actors can engage politically around sensitive topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
083824
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent literature has focused on the ways in which civil society organizations are contributing to practices of global governance in an era of neoliberalism. As UN Habitat has pointed out, what has also coincided with the shift to neoliberalism is the proliferation and growth of global slums. As slums have become an increasingly widespread form of human settlement, a global campaign to improve the life of slum dwellers has emerged under the Millennium Development Goals. In this article, I argue that this project can be conceived of as a biopolitical campaign where nongovernmental and community-based organizations are viewed as a kind of panacea for the problem of slums. This view is misguided given the scale of the problem and the apartheid of life chances that has accompanied neoliberalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
077451
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Two Community Development Corporations (CDCs) in Oakland, California, anchor the following analysis. These legally homogenous organizations have implemented similar "low-income" redevelopment projects widely hailed as representing a single successful blueprint for urban revitalization. Despite their similarities, however, these entities have produced starkly different socio-economic outcomes-a phenomenon traced to the CDCs' divergent internal structures and the contrasting external contexts of their development activities. These variations generated competing "logics" of redevelopment. On one hand, we find a CDC dominated by market-oriented interests and the economic logic of exchange-values, while on the other, we find a CDC dominated by community-oriented interests and the social logic of neighborhood use-values
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|