| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
049452
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, MIT Press, 2003.
|
| Description |
xii, 392p.
|
| Series |
Washington quaterly reader
|
| Standard Number |
0262621797
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 047289 | 363.32/LEN 047289 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
142025
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The idea of capacity development has become ubiquitous in discussions of development assistance: a lack of capacity in developing countries is frequently identified as the main obstacle to development and building ‘capacity’ is seen as the most important output of development assistance. The terms ‘capacity development’ and ‘capacity building’ are, however, relatively new in development assistance discourse, having only come into frequent use in the last two decades. This paper examines the history and different uses of the concept of capacity in development assistance literature, tracing its origins and rise in popularity. Although a large amount of material has been produced on the topic there is no clear agreement on what it means, with a range of interpretations used by different authors and in different contexts. The more expansive and ambitious approaches promoted by some development organizations have a number of theoretical and practical difficulties and it is argued that the wide and imprecise use of the term has undermined its usefulness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
041125
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Paris, Organisation for economic cooperation and development, 1969.
|
| Description |
325p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 003910 | 338.91/OECD 003910 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
139775
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While the perspective of ‘liberalism of fear’ assumes that human rights limit the despotic power of the state, this paper argues that human rights reforms promoted in the context of institution- and capacity-building programmes have had significant power effects by enhancing the disciplinary capacities of the Turkish state and blunting the transformative potential of rights claiming. The reforms increased state surveillance by rechanneling criminal justice processes towards producing evidence (such as telecommunications data, DNA collection, etc) rather than testimonies. Instead of limiting state power, these reforms enhanced the disciplinary mechanisms of social control. They depoliticised the problem of torture by constructing it as an occupational accident (as opposed to a state crime) that happens because of lack of police officer know-how or resources for the investigation of crime. Finally, reforms revamped the way police investigated crimes, rather than launching campaigns against torture and dismissing past wrongdoers in the police. The paper concludes that the neoliberal emphasis on the technicalisation of political problems has limited the democratic potential of human rights reforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
048920
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Lynne Rienner, 1997.
|
| Description |
xii, 329p.
|
| Standard Number |
1555876528
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 039571 | 361.26/KRI 039571 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|