|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132496
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
School and higher education has received a very important place in the l2 " Plan document submitted by the working group on disaster management'. There is a paradigm shift in the approach of this document as it has not only earmarked adequate funding for school and higher education, technical education and medical education, but has for the first time tried to use the human resources in a fruitful manner. While the 12"education lists major initiatives which needs to be taken, it has yet to specify the road map for successful. implementation of the recommendations outlining speci?c roles that various stakeholders may play. The Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, organized a one day seminar to critically examine the document of 12* Five Year Plan with special reference to the 'role of higher education in disaster management.' Ahumble introduction of the chairperson Prof. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, former Principal, Hindu College, and other distinguished speakers, which included Prof. R. B. Singh, Vice President International - Geography Union; Dr. Ranjana Mukhpadhyay, Chairperson, Samutthan Eoundation; Dr Urfat Anjem Mir, Ambedkar University, New Delhi; Dr. Angeli Qwatra, Philanthrope, New Delhi; Dr. Sunita Reddy, Jawaharlal Nehru_University; Prof. V. R. Rao, former Director, Anthropological Survey of India was provided to the audience sharing the expertise and interests of each one of them. Prof. P.C Joshi, Asia Coordinator, EU Integrated Project MICRODIS and President, Society for Indian Medical Anthropology, initiatedthe discussion by sharing the concern of thinking of ways of mainstreaming disaster education at various levels and cadres. It was emphasized to discuss the role and capacities of universities in particular to impart awareness, and support action towards the -same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
129576
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The current literature on comparative political economy does not seem to consider unifying under a single theoretical framework the analysis of continuity and change in different economic systems. On the one hand, major comparative works derive their theoretical propositions from dynamics in the Western world. On the other, studies that are focused on national trajectories of development are concentrated in cross-national comparisons involving countries with similar characteristics in what concerns strategies of development. In this paper, I argue that all fields in the world of social action are pervaded by two major fields, hereby dubbed 'meta-fields': public and private. Both are in a 'double movement' to shape each other's boundaries through the definition of social and property rights that regulate access to human capabilities and capital. Public and private are meta-fields because they constrain human action and the organization of social configurations on state and non-state levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|