| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106412
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
088724
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
117798
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
When future historians consider the global governance role of the G8, they would do well to consider its approach to Africa. For the first decade of the new millennium, G8 summits sustained an extraordinary focus on the continent. Responding to African governments' proposed New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), G8 governments produced a succession of agreements and initiatives, anchored by the 2002 Africa Action Plan and the 2005 Gleneagles declaration on Africa and development. These initiatives were framed by a motif of "partnership." They provided elite impetus toward a more comprehensive "Third Way" bargain for Africa. Collectively, they illustrate some stark limits to designs for a transnationally hegemonic approach to global challenges. In consequence, they have contributed to the erosion of G8 purpose and legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
143524
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Historically, the relationship between the private sector and international development has been deeply ambivalent. For many, a vibrant private sector and competitive markets are the essential prerequisites of development. For many others, development is principally concerned with ameliorating the dislocation associated with capitalist profit seeking. In the last generation, this ambivalence has given way to an emphasis on the complementarities between the private sector and development. Yet skeptics have continued to criticize the form of development this trend has promoted. We review the historical conditions behind this trend; the controversies concerning transnational corporations and foreign direct investment; the rise of corporate social responsibility; the parallel rise of philanthrocapitalism; and the growth of micro-credit as a market-oriented vehicle for poverty alleviation and empowerment. When taken together, it is clear that private sector actors have become increasingly influential in the new landscape of development, yet their effects remain ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|