|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
194882
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The ‘Scramble for Africa’ has historically been a concept used to describe the plunder of Africa by colonial powers, their subsequent economic capture of African resources, their political control and their racial domination of Africans. But, in recent times, many writers have pointed to Chinese ‘Scramble for Africa’. Of these depictions, The Economist’s has been both categorical and relentless. But is the set of relationships between China and African countries imperial? Does it amount to a Chinese ‘Scramble for Africa’? If so, what can be done; if not, why not? Neither content nor institutional analyses of 27 stories, sampled from 132 issues of The Economist from 2019 to 2021, show conclusive evidence that the relationship between China and Africa is imperial. Evidence of African indebtedness to China, Chinese opaque resource transactions in Africa, and the controlling effect of China’s Belt and Road Initiative typically emphasised by The Economist is serious. But it does not amount to economic plunder, political control, military destabilisation or racial domination. The Economist’s characterisation of China–Africa relations reflects wider processes of Westernisation. Its features include the use of mainstream economic analysis, (mis)representation of the Global South to maintain Western hegemony and inhibiting Southern struggle to break the Western chokehold on global development. As an elite newspaper, The Economist’s ‘frame analysis’ not only presents news, but also produces views that caricature Global South agendas, especially those that threaten Western liberalism and imperialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134236
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The North American scholarship on gated housing communities posits the desire for security as the main driver for gating, but does this hold true for less wealthy countries? To address this question, this study examines evidence of why people live behind gates in Malaysia and Ghana and investigates the socio-economic implications of gating. It uses a critical institutional framework anchored on Foucault’s interpretation of ‘panopticon’ and Runciman’s theory of relative deprivation, while drawing empirical evidence from surveys and emic experiences. It finds that, while security is an important reason, it is the provision of quality housing services that is reported as the single most important reason for living behind gates. ‘Quality service’ is, however, shorthand for a preference for privileged status. Further, the paper reveals that it is more helpful to see the binary between quality and security as constituting a flexible continuum of motives. Inhabitants of gated housing communities may be primarily motivated by quality service or prestige. Yet, as they set themselves up against the rest of society by enclosing themselves in walls of affluence, they begin to feel a need for greater security. This feeling of insecurity is heightened as people outside the gates feel relatively deprived. Thus, the desire for security becomes illusory and attainment of privilege, pyrrhic, while the harsh socio-economic conditions for a large stratum of the urban population living outside the gates persist and are sometimes worsened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
147324
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After an unprecedented and notable delay, the State of African Cities Report 2014 has been published. It makes a bold claim for re-imagining urban sustainability in Africa, continuing two earlier attempts at shaping the nature of urban discussion among scholars, students, and practitioners interested in cities located in Africa. A systematic content analysis shows that although, as in previous attempts, the report is a major success in highlighting developments in African cities, this year’s attempt is undermined by severe drawbacks, among which are conceptual challenges, a failure to achieve agreement between the report’s claims and research findings, and a bias in focus against smaller African countries and their cities. In turn, there are many dark clouds hanging over this otherwise successful report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|