Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article seeks to introduce scholars outside of development studies to post‐development thought, and to restate its relevance and value to those working within the development field. It begins with an overview of post‐development thought and its critique of the post‐World War Two development project. Following this, specific critiques levelled at post‐development thought and various responses to these are considered. In the last section, the possibility or desirability of raising the living standards of Third World people to a level comparable to those of the First World through economically based development strategies is questioned. The article concludes by drawing attention to First World overdevelopment and the continued value of post‐development thinking in unsettling the development trajectory for either the First or Third World.

Lack of political commitment rather than financial resources is often the real barrier to human development. This is the main conclusion of Human Development Report 1991 - the second in a series of annual reports on the subject.

Alternative development has been concerned with alternative practices of development—participatory and people‐centred—and with redefining the goals of development. Mainstream development has gradually been moving away from the preoccupation with economic growth toward a people‐centred definition of development, for instance in human development. This raises the question in what way alternative development remains distinguishable from mainstream development—as a roving criticism, a development style, a profile of alternative positions regarding development agency, methodology, epistemology? Increasingly the claim is that alternative development represents an alternative paradigm. This is a problematic idea for four reasons: because whether paradigms apply to social science is questionable; because in development the concern is with policy frameworks rather than explanatory frameworks; because there are different views on whether a paradigm break with conventional development is desirable; and finally because the actual divergence in approaches to development is in some respects narrowing. There is a meaningful alternative development profile or package but there is no alternative development paradigm—nor should there be. Mainstream development is not what it used to be and it may be argued that the key question is rather whether growth and production are considered within or outside the people‐centred development approach and whether this can rhyme with the structural adjustment programmes followed by the international financial institutions. Post‐development may be interpreted as a neo‐traditionalist reaction against modernity. More enabling as a perspective is reflexive development, in which a critique of science is viewed as part of development politics.

SUMMARYConsultants are an integral component of development aid. Their involvement is based on an assumption of the transferability of knowledge to clients and beneficiaries. However, this role, its efficacy and the concept of knowledge transfer have all been questioned. Although research has shown interest in northern development consultants in recent years, detailed processes and practices of southern consultants' engagement with knowledge production are less analysed. Drawing on debates about knowledge, power and managing development interventions and on extensive fieldwork exploring a Bolivian consultancy company's assignments for northern development agencies, we analyse the 'knowledge engagements' between clients, consultants and beneficiaries. The results suggest a novel theorisation: knowledge engagements are shaped by power relations exercised through discourses and financial aid on one hand and shared and unshared lifeworlds and backgrounds of actors on the other. They are also characterised by collusive behaviour with the discourses and practices of aid on the part of consultants and beneficiaries, which in turn influences outcomes. Southern consultants, although aware of these issues, are in a difficult position to challenge these relationships. A greater recognition of the tensions could lead to a new role for consultants if collective action were to renegotiate their terms of engagement and aim for a new mutuality. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractAn annotated bibliography of this developmental intersection.

Development cooperation or aid is often perceived as a form of charity or agood deed that is being carried out only with the best intentions. Racism,on the other hand, is most often connected with right wing extremism(even though in Slovakia it is connected also with the wider political center).The basic assumption of this theoretical article is the opposite. One can findracism also in development and development cooperation. The article triesto answer the following question: What are the main forms of racism indevelopment and development cooperation? On the basis of the extant andmy own research the article categorizes the forms of racism in developmentand development cooperation and identifies the three main ones:development discourse, structural racism connected with the raciallydi!erentiated global capitalist system and an everyday racism connectedwith racially biased institutions. The conclusion poses a question regardingthe way one may fight these forms of racism and briefly answers it.