Suchergebnisse

Investigates the World Bank's promotion of market-led development in the underdeveloped world and the impact that this promotion has upon citizenship. This book looks at this subject using case studies drawn from Southeast Asia, one of the world's most diverse regions.

ABSTRACTThis article seeks to reconceptualize the post‐Washington consensus (PWC) by focusing not simply upon the institutional structures and ideology promoted by it, but the manner in which these are promoted on the ground. The aim is to reveal a central distinction between the Washington consensus and the PWC that has been somewhat neglected: their diverging approaches to implementation. The author focuses on the World Bank‐funded Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) in Indonesia, a project that is viewed by some as being somewhat unorthodox. He argues that in addition to its promotion of the latest round of institutional reforms, what is really different about KDP, compared with older approaches to market‐led development typical of the Washington consensus, is the manner in which it delivers its mix of neoliberalism. What is radical about a programme like KDP is that it constitutes a new Trojan horse for embedding market‐centred norms and practices.1 In general, this is demonstrative of a key difference between the Washington consensus and the PWC that has been undervalued in many analyses of the dominant development paradigm: the methods used to embed and sustain liberal markets.

Via an analysis of the trans-ASEAN gas pipeline project (TAGP), in this article we argue for a reconceptualising of the regional dynamics of Southeast Asia and the forces shaping them. For this task, we propose an analytical framework based upon social conflict theory that delves within and beyond the state, and which places emphasis upon the roles of both material and ideological factors operating across time in the reordering of particular geographical spaces. The framework reveals that the tensions acting within and upon ASEAN and the TAGP influence regionalism in such a way that the gas pipeline project - much like other 'regional' projects - is unlikely to ever come close to fulfilling its brief of enhancing regional security and cohesion. What is more probable is that the project's form will continue to be conditioned by entrenched politico-economic realities and the influence of dominant ideologies - factors which have the capacity to exacerbate existing regional animosities and disparities. (Pac Rev/GIGA)