|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 10/00
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 2, No. 4 (December 1999)
The authors' aim is to take stock of certain current trends in the rethinking of development theory, but above all to transcend the development discourse and move towards a comprehensive social science theory, here called 'global social theory'; meaning a unified historical and critical social science that goes beyond the pitfalls of state-centrism and an obsession with 'national development'. In a turbulent and 'globalised' world, the nation-state no longer constitutes the dominant framework for understanding society, and social processes must be analysed when delinked from national space. It is argued that certain strands of both international political economy (IPE) theory and of development theory, in conjunction with a new emphasis on cultural studies as well as the new development-related conflicts, together constitute the possible building blocks of reconstructing development theory as a step towards global social theory.
New ways are needed for framing the issue of international development in the context of global restructuring. The old thinking which deployed such terms as 'Third World', 'developing countries', 'core and periphery', even 'North' and 'South' needs to be abandoned. It does not travel well into a globalising world. New interpretations of international inequality have emerged in the 1990s - the so-called 'Bretton Woods' and 'United Nations' paradigms - and are linked to attendant economic liberal and sociological strands of international political economy analysis. But both approaches underplay politics. However, the new global politics of development can be satisfactorily framed provided that we adopt an approach which takes globalisation seriously, recognises the continuing, albeit changing, realities of states and inter-state politics and reinterprets development as a universal problem. Attempts to classify states and societies in advance of research must also be avoided.
This article deals with the question of culture and cultural analysis and it explores, more specifically, the texts of alternative- and post-development writers where the cultural turn is particularly evident. Cultural analysis is, in these texts, primarily employed to oppose the Eurocentrism of development. Development is presented as a particular Western idea, not suited to, but imposed upon the Third World, and two strategies in particular are proposed - 'revaluation' and 'separate development'. This article questions the analysis and strategies proposed by the critics on a number of points. Instead of going beyond the Eurocentrism which they oppose, they tend to remain within and support its logic. The central binaries which legitimised colonial intervention and later modernising development remain in the texts of the critical development writers. The analysis and strategies proposed rest on an essentialist conception of culture which does not acknowledge that cultural identities are constructed within discourse and power. Moreover, the Westernisation threat scenario presented by the critics is simplistic and does not acknowledge the ways in which cultural signs are reinterpreted and translated.
We are used to thinking of sovereignty and development as two sides of the same coin. Yet the positive relationship between sovereignty and development has been increasingly questioned by the trajectory of sovereign statehood since the 1950s. First, globalisation appears to challenge sovereignty in fundamental ways. Second, a large number of countries that obtained sovereignty in the context of post-war decolonisation have not been able to get development under way in any meaningful sense. In the light of these events, how should we currently assess the relationship between sovereignty and development? Sovereignty is an institution that changes over time in order to accommodate new circumstances; multilevel governance is emerging in some parts of the developed world. As regards the post-colonial world, the author would argue that for a number of countries sovereignty in its present form is no longer conducive to a rapid process of development. This lack of a positive relationship between sovereignty and development in large parts of the post-colonial world could be the greatest current challenge facing the global society of sovereign states.
This article starts from the premise that democratisation in the South has generally been disappointing in terms of deepening citizenship and of widening socio-economic entitlements through national societies. The 'third wave' has failed to create systems based on political equality, genuine representation and incorporation of a majority of the population as equal citizens. Using examples from Chile and Venezuela, the author explains the poor performances of new democracies, first through an examination of the historical, cultural and institutional legacies which new democracies inherit. In Latin America, the author suggests, these legacies contribute to elitist and restrictive democracy. Second, the author discusses the impact of the global political economy on the South. The author then identifies imposition, encouragement, the spread of ideas and policy-learning as ways in which different global actors shape the process of political change in the South. The article thus argues that the NATIONAL, as well as the GLOBAL, remain important levels of analysis for understanding the complex process of political change in the South. Development theory has in recent years emphasised the constraints imposed by the process of globalisation and its impact on the South; an analysis of democratisation in the South suggests the need to extend development theory by (re)emphasising the state and national politics and the linkages between the state and the global order.
The article addresses the current discourse on a 'new international financial structure'. It argues that the Asian crisis of 1997 and a series of banking and currency crises over the years have created greater consensus than since the 1960s for some form of regulation of international finance, in particular short-term flows. The article discusses proposals in terms of four positions: radical liberalism, conservatism, reformist institutionalism and nationalist developmentalism which are discussed according to two dimensions: first, how they balance efficiency and legitimacy criteria, and, secondly, how they relate to the particular development concerns. It also discusses the respective roles of various levels of regulatory authority/governance - national, regional and global - and argues that all these levels of governance are both necessary and realistic when the two said dimensions are taken into account.
This article draws on a recent research project carried out on behalf of the government in Mozambique which relates to the room for manoeuvring for national governance, and discusses certain analytical tools considered important in identifying the circumstances and social forces underlying structural change. The analysis runs counter to the two predominant positions on globalisation: the more apolitical market-oriented or the parochial and fortress-oriented approaches. Instead, it points to the present dynamics in the international political economy and suggests that prevailing CONTRADICTORY CIRCUMSTANCES and COINCIDING ELITE INTERESTS for global reforms could create an OPPORTUNITY for a progressive transformation of world-order structures. It thus serves to illustrate a possible application of some of the contributions elaborated in other articles of this special issue.
The article argues that, in a globalising world increasingly shaped by processes of restructuring, it is essential to have a gendered international political economy (GIPE) with which to understand this changing world. Until now, there has been a tendency to separate the analysis of gender issues related to Third World countries from those of the more industrialised world. But, as the globalisation of economic relations proceeds, the need to understand the role of gender from a global perspective increases. While some work using a global perspective has begun to be undertaken, new analyses and approaches are needed to create a GIPE. The kernel of this GIPE is already in existence in the form of part of the large body of literature on gender and development. However, this literature now needs to expand its horizons. It should do more than just look at the Third World and cover the traditional ambit of 'development' and development studies. Despite criticism from some feminist international relations scholars who argue that the gender and development literature is too economistic and disempowering for Third World women, this article argues that it is more useful for the developing GIPE than is the writing on IPE which comes from feminist international relations.
The article explores some of the principal connections between the environment and development and seeks to explore the character and limits of the liberal, market-based approach to reconciling environmental and developmental objectives. It considers the neoclassical model of sustainable development and the modifications that are needed to incorporate notions of 'strong' sustainability. It then looks at the role of the state in relation to environmentally sustainable development and again explores the limits of the liberal approach to public action. The article then turns to a consideration of some of the distinctive questions that are raised by the international aspects of the relations between the environment and development and concludes with some observations about the missing political dimension of the debates about the environment and development. The article argues that, while there is much to learn from the market-based approach, it is inherently limited to a restricted notion of the appropriate scope of public action, both nationally and globally. Environmentally sustainable development will require the elaboration of a more developed account of the role of public action in protecting the environment in order to complement the role of the market stressed by liberal commentators.
The article takes its point of departure from the fact that the world is in a phase of deep and turbulent transformation. Unfortunately, our theories for understanding where we are, how we have got there, and for outlining proposals of where we can possibly go have not kept pace: we find ourselves in a theoretical vacuum. However, a few interesting policy statements have emerged. This article emphasises the contributions by Björn Hettne and Anthony Payne, which both seek to bring together the disciplines (International) Political Economy and Development Theory. The main argument outlined in the article is that these two otherwise highly commendable contributions need to be strengthened by a carefully elaborated meta-theory. Beyond their present 'horizontal inclusiveness' they need to be 'vertically inclusive' and address different ontological, epistemological, and axiological questions. This is, in the author's view, the main difference between interesting policy statements and more systematic theoretical frameworks. Building on Social Constructivism, this article proposes and partly elaborates on such a meta-theoretical foundation.