Suchergebnisse

Examines the social costs of capitalist development and neoliberalism; 12 articles. Contents: Pt. 1: Developing disarticulation within the Mexican economy, by James M. Cypher: Accomplishments and limitations of the Mexican export project, 1990-1997, by Jorge Basave Kunhardt; The Mexican crisis and the Maquiladora boom: a paradox of development or the logic of neoliberalism? by Paul Cooney; Neoliberal reforms and rural poverty, by Thomas J. Kelly; From neoliberalism to social liberalism: situating the national solidarity program within Mexico's passive revolutions, by Susanne Soederberg; What a difference a crisis makes: NAFTA, Mexico, and the United States, by Stephen D. Morris and John Passé-Smith; Pt. 2: Democratization in Mexico: the Zapatista uprising and civil society, by Chris Gilbreth and Gerardo Otero; Of free trade and debt bondage: fighting banks and the state in Mexico, by Heather Williams; Neoliberalism, labor market transformation, and working-class responses: social and historical roots of accommodation and protest, by Richard Roman and Edur Velasco Arregue; From the resources of poverty to the poverty of resources? the erosion of a survival model, by Mercedes González de la Rocha; Narcotrafficking, migration, and modernity in rural Mexico, by Victoria Malkin; Economic, globalization, class struggle, and the Mexican state, by José M. Vadi.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.

Science and technology, as rational approaches to problem solving, are driving forces in the promotion of democracy at home and abroad. Science based decision-making is increasingly global as countries share technology, research results, and engage in joint studies on common problems. The widening rift between global wealth and poverty diminishes for many the opportunity for exposure to science, technology and social science based decision-making on issues that directly affect them. This paper outlines a model for democratizing science by utilizing the interactive tools of the social sciences in a process that enables information-marginalized people to engage with the language, methods and results of social science for purposes of community empowerment and voice in science policy. The paper offers examples of approaches to implementation, citing various forms of research partnerships with communities, and discusses challenges including ethical considerations, the conflict between "local" and science-based knowledges and power differentials in practice.