| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
168483
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Confusion between the idea of development as purposeful intervention and development as outcome has been addressed by efforts to distinguish ‘intentional’ from ‘immanent’ development, and the distinction between ‘big D’ development as Western post- World War Two modernisation in the Global South, and ‘little d’ as the creation of winners and losers within unfolding capitalist change. As a heuristic device this distinction has been put to a variety of uses within development studies, but it has rarely been subjected to further scrutiny. This paper asks (1) whether the distinction remains coherent or risks being stretched too far, and (2) whether it remains relevant within the changing landscape of twenty-first century development. It first traces the historical evolution of the distinction, and then presents an exploratory case study of Bangladesh’s garment sector in order to analyse the relationship between the two kinds of development empirically, identifying a number of contradictions and ambiguities. It finds that while the ‘D/d’ distinction remains useful at a general level, further conceptualisation is now needed, and its relevance may fade as the significance of Western aid declines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
142206
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the political processes that gave rise to the antipoverty norm—the normative principle that poverty is morally wrong and must be eradicated. It traces the origins of this norm to a critical juncture in the 1990s when the end of the Cold War ushered in a euphoric moment. Despite proclamations of the “end of history,” crises loomed large on the international stage where governance structures of an earlier era seemed like ancient relics no longer capable of managing problems of a new world order. As the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were attacked for conditionalities attached to their structural adjustment loans, the UN was overwhelmed with competing peacekeeping missions. Declining foreign aid and increasing conflicts relegated development to a lower rung of importance. As official development assistance fell, donor countries found themselves debating the future of development assistance and their role within it. Thus, international organizations created after World War II found themselves reflecting on their relevancy in a world that differed from the one that had given rise to them. In this moment of reflection, poverty was deployed as a strategic response to international institutions' varying crises of relevancy. In that process, instead of seriously critiquing and reforming extant global governance structures, the convergence of international institutions on poverty resulted in a reinvention of development orthodoxy while maintaining the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|