| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
118660
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article examines China's emergence over the past decade as a net donor, and the implications of this status in global development. The analysis begins by outlining China's rise as a net donor, drawing comparisons in two-way aid flows with the other rising states, specifically Brazil, South Africa and India, and then turns to the implications of China's rise as an aid sender. The central argument is that conceptualizing China's rise as a 'net donor' is crucial for understanding the hybrid position that China has come to occupy in the global aid system, and the consequences of this positioning. Although China has achieved remarkable success with its own development, rather than join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) regime of traditional donors, the Chinese Communist Party and government leadership has chosen instead to continue to self-identify with the countries of the South, and to construct ties of South-South cooperation outside of DAC arrangements. The Chinese leadership is trying to stake out an unprecedented position in the global aid system, traversing the North-South divide, despite the fact that China has already joined the ranks of world economic powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160830
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper argues that the Western paradigm of foreign aid promoted by the Development Assistance Committee is rapidly losing relevance in development studies and its related academic teaching programmes. The longstanding Southern‐led approaches to aid and development are now coming to the fore. China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (finalised at Bandung in 1955) and the Eight Principles for Economic Aid and Technical Assistance to Other Countries (1964) are increasingly emphasised as points of difference to Western aid. It is the rise of the South that has challenged the dominant development paradigm(s) over the past 50 years. The discipline of development studies has been slow to address these challenges in how it trains future development practitioners. I will argue that development studies programmes in Australian universities have a focus on Western foreign aid: either questioning its hegemonic nature as a tool for neo‐liberal or neo‐colonial development on the one hand; or questioning aid effectiveness and how well it addresses contemporary challenges. This paper explores the challenges in examining South–South cooperation and a different development paradigm in producing relevant development studies curricula and pedagogies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
094755
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
137878
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Random thoughts flitted through my mind as I sat listening to the first annual army day press conference of the chief of army staff, General Dalbir Singh on 13 January 2015. Listening, because, like most other journalists I was also reduced to the status of a listener, instead of a participant. Every time I raised my hand to request an opportunity for asking a question, the moderator showed me his watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
139006
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The revival of China's interest in Africa is often highlighted as being an opportunity to provide African governments with a choice between development partners that may strengthen negotiation leverage and thereby carve out policy space to define and implement policies that affect social and economic development. This article critically reviews the most recent developments in Chinese and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) approaches to development finance to Africa. It argues that although we can detect a number of incidents that point towards more policy space for African governments, the revival of China's development finance does not fundamentally alter the power relations between African countries and their financiers, as the tendency now is towards convergence and cooperation between China and Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors—not divergence and competition, which could have created policy space as it did prior to the end of the Cold War. This follows the trend of other ‘emerging’ donors who increasingly play by DAC rules and thereby minimize the future possibility of playing out one partner against the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|