Having spent considerable time in University studying theoretical understandings of the world, a reasonable question becomes apparent. How usefull is all this theory in understanding the real world anyway? To put it in a more specific context, to what extent does learning about theories of development and governance enhance our ability to actually make better decisions, implement more effective policy or transform development resources into real, beneficial outcomes.
Theories provide a framework to address a problem. They tell us what is important in a specific context and for a specific issue. They outline streams of cause and effect and effective provide a filter so that we do not become overloaded with information when trying to analyze a problem.
The obvious failure with theories is when they disconnect from reality. When the framework that they provide becomes too restrictive and the empirical or real outcome turns out to be drastically different than the predicted one. Theories become problematic when they filter out too many important factors to a problem along with the unimportant ones.
However, despite these problems, theories may still be helpful when used with a grain of salt. They do help to organize ideas and facts and can help streamline decision making, a feature that is important when time is of the essence. The important thing for those making decisions, developing policy, etc is to take all theory with a grain of salt. See what each framework would predict in a given situation, even if you don't agree with that theory entirely, it may provide insight that you never considered before.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Transnationalization....is that even a word?
"The times they are a-changing" - Bob Dylan
Sure they are Bob, but how? That's the much more intriguing question. And lest we get too philosophical, I'll cut to the chase and say that what I'm talking about is this little thing we call globalization.
Contemporary debates globalization theories are essentially divided into three categories. 1. The sceptics who say that globalization is not a new phenomenon but just more trade with new technology. 2. the globalists who say that states are becoming less important and governance is being transferred to supranational powers such as the UN. and 3. the transformationalists who believe that transnational spheres of influence are changing state government without usurping it.
Ok, enough with the theory lesson, if you want to learn more (with a clear bias towards the transformationalist perspective) check out Jan Aart Sholte's book "Globalization: A Critical Introduction".
The point of all that is to suggest that theories of "transnationalism" seem to be reaching unprescedented levels of importance in how the political process and governance seems to be occuring. Transnationalism involves a concept of political, civil, social and economic space that is not tied to territory. For more information on this concept (which is not new by any means) check out Keohane and Nye's 1972 paper "Transnational Relations and World Politics: and introduction" (International Organization volume 25, issue 3). Transnationalism occurs because of technology like the internet which allows communication and networking across countries and continents and permits a global identity and functionality to exist. Thus, international organizations are thought to not only be empowered by states but rather have some degree of autonomy and power in and of themselves.
Ok...long introduction, short thought in the end.
Coming out of the global recession, words like "austerity" have become rampant in discourse. Currently, there has been some considerable debate on austerity measures and whether the US is ready to reduce its stimulus spending and cut back or whether to wait until stability is achieved. However, while its easy to see this as a product of American discourse, the role of transnationalism in the debate is becoming clearer and clearer. Austerity policies are becoming increasingly expected of all states around the world. What has traditionally been see as a product of western thinking has now moved into the realm of transnational thinking. Clearly the west is reconsidering the wisdom of such policies while continued pressures from IOs like the IMF force these debates in academic discourse and increasingly globalized forums such as the G20 (which have indicated the desire to reduce deficite spending globally and also, hesitation in doing so too soon).
What does this have to do with globalization theory? Concepts from above such as austerity are imposing guidelines along which political debate is occurring in states. I believe that politicization and ideology haven't died but are now debating issues dictated from transnational space. The problem is, many of these transnational sources of ideas and "knowledge" are not ideologically or politically neutral. Nor are they responsible or elected. As a result, ideas and guidelines handed down from the transnational realm to the national realm represent a type of global autocracy. While the US can afford consider and reconsider policy options, weaker states are much more at their mercy(take Greece or Ireland for example, let alone LDCs which are so completely dependant on funding from these transnational organizations).
There may be reason to believe that this is not all bad. But it certainly raises concerns, especially (as Krugman points out in an article today on the NYtimes website; see below) when this "transnational knowledge" is not clearly as beneficial as it claims to be.
Thoughts?
Krugman criticizes austerity
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/does-fiscal-austerity-reassure-markets/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
The Austerity debate worldwide
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22384/fiscal_austerity_debate.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fallreports%3Fco%3DC028102
More on Transnationalism
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/fr/analyse/fiche-analyse-37.html
Sure they are Bob, but how? That's the much more intriguing question. And lest we get too philosophical, I'll cut to the chase and say that what I'm talking about is this little thing we call globalization.
Contemporary debates globalization theories are essentially divided into three categories. 1. The sceptics who say that globalization is not a new phenomenon but just more trade with new technology. 2. the globalists who say that states are becoming less important and governance is being transferred to supranational powers such as the UN. and 3. the transformationalists who believe that transnational spheres of influence are changing state government without usurping it.
Ok, enough with the theory lesson, if you want to learn more (with a clear bias towards the transformationalist perspective) check out Jan Aart Sholte's book "Globalization: A Critical Introduction".
The point of all that is to suggest that theories of "transnationalism" seem to be reaching unprescedented levels of importance in how the political process and governance seems to be occuring. Transnationalism involves a concept of political, civil, social and economic space that is not tied to territory. For more information on this concept (which is not new by any means) check out Keohane and Nye's 1972 paper "Transnational Relations and World Politics: and introduction" (International Organization volume 25, issue 3). Transnationalism occurs because of technology like the internet which allows communication and networking across countries and continents and permits a global identity and functionality to exist. Thus, international organizations are thought to not only be empowered by states but rather have some degree of autonomy and power in and of themselves.
Ok...long introduction, short thought in the end.
Coming out of the global recession, words like "austerity" have become rampant in discourse. Currently, there has been some considerable debate on austerity measures and whether the US is ready to reduce its stimulus spending and cut back or whether to wait until stability is achieved. However, while its easy to see this as a product of American discourse, the role of transnationalism in the debate is becoming clearer and clearer. Austerity policies are becoming increasingly expected of all states around the world. What has traditionally been see as a product of western thinking has now moved into the realm of transnational thinking. Clearly the west is reconsidering the wisdom of such policies while continued pressures from IOs like the IMF force these debates in academic discourse and increasingly globalized forums such as the G20 (which have indicated the desire to reduce deficite spending globally and also, hesitation in doing so too soon).
What does this have to do with globalization theory? Concepts from above such as austerity are imposing guidelines along which political debate is occurring in states. I believe that politicization and ideology haven't died but are now debating issues dictated from transnational space. The problem is, many of these transnational sources of ideas and "knowledge" are not ideologically or politically neutral. Nor are they responsible or elected. As a result, ideas and guidelines handed down from the transnational realm to the national realm represent a type of global autocracy. While the US can afford consider and reconsider policy options, weaker states are much more at their mercy(take Greece or Ireland for example, let alone LDCs which are so completely dependant on funding from these transnational organizations).
There may be reason to believe that this is not all bad. But it certainly raises concerns, especially (as Krugman points out in an article today on the NYtimes website; see below) when this "transnational knowledge" is not clearly as beneficial as it claims to be.
Thoughts?
Krugman criticizes austerity
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/does-fiscal-austerity-reassure-markets/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
The Austerity debate worldwide
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22384/fiscal_austerity_debate.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fallreports%3Fco%3DC028102
More on Transnationalism
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/fr/analyse/fiche-analyse-37.html
Friday, June 11, 2010
Units of measurment in development and economics
I’m new to blogging and had a lot to say today. Is one allowed to post twice in the same day? I don’t know...
The "great recession" (I only recently heard that that's what they're calling it) showed us that economic powers of the "north" are not unapproachable, while the top-dogs are still struggling to re-attain their pre-crisis GDP levels, many of the "poor countries" are thriving with levels well higher than their pre-crisis situation.
You could have gotten that from the Economist article I referenced in my last post, in much better wording. What they don't mention in this article, is the differentiation of which countries weather the crisis amongst the "poor". While many LDCs (less developed countries) did come out okay and are now growing relative to the richer players, many got hit hard and are continuing to struggle.
While overall, some did better than others, the more important change that occurred because of the recession is the changes within countries. Rather than saying poor COUNTRIES did or did not do well relative to rich countries...its more useful to say the POOR did or did not do well relative to the rich. When you take out the "country" dimension, we see that the poor did take a hit, everywhere.
I was recently discussing aid in a class (Chatham house rules here) when it was noted how Bill Easterly has effectively argued against the concept that aid facilitates growth, noting that statistically speaking, the effects of aid have been negligible. This is problematic, especially given the billions of dollars that have been funnelled into developing countries for this very reason.
However, instead of thinking of development as growth, it might be more helpful for us to think of development as things we need to do for people. That is, rather than looking at the whole picture, we need to think of development as providing a well in one village, or providing a tractor to a farmer, or giving nutritional supplements to infants to prevent stunting. Looking at the unit of the person or community for our unit of measurement is perhaps where we need to go.
Okay…recession…right. My point is that this principle doesn’t just apply to aid and development but needs to apply to our understanding of economics in general. The recession caused some countries to grow (China grew nearly 11 percent in 2008 according to the CIA world factbook) but this says nothing to the poorest people, especially in rural communities who faced astronomical food prices through 2008. The point is, we need to start judging our economic successes in different ways. Not just for the LDCs but even for ourselves, stability in the US financial sector is useless if the millions who lost their jobs, lost their retirement funds or lost their homes aren’t provided for. It requires us to reconsider our assumptions of what is beneficial and why.
The "great recession" (I only recently heard that that's what they're calling it) showed us that economic powers of the "north" are not unapproachable, while the top-dogs are still struggling to re-attain their pre-crisis GDP levels, many of the "poor countries" are thriving with levels well higher than their pre-crisis situation.
You could have gotten that from the Economist article I referenced in my last post, in much better wording. What they don't mention in this article, is the differentiation of which countries weather the crisis amongst the "poor". While many LDCs (less developed countries) did come out okay and are now growing relative to the richer players, many got hit hard and are continuing to struggle.
While overall, some did better than others, the more important change that occurred because of the recession is the changes within countries. Rather than saying poor COUNTRIES did or did not do well relative to rich countries...its more useful to say the POOR did or did not do well relative to the rich. When you take out the "country" dimension, we see that the poor did take a hit, everywhere.
I was recently discussing aid in a class (Chatham house rules here) when it was noted how Bill Easterly has effectively argued against the concept that aid facilitates growth, noting that statistically speaking, the effects of aid have been negligible. This is problematic, especially given the billions of dollars that have been funnelled into developing countries for this very reason.
However, instead of thinking of development as growth, it might be more helpful for us to think of development as things we need to do for people. That is, rather than looking at the whole picture, we need to think of development as providing a well in one village, or providing a tractor to a farmer, or giving nutritional supplements to infants to prevent stunting. Looking at the unit of the person or community for our unit of measurement is perhaps where we need to go.
Okay…recession…right. My point is that this principle doesn’t just apply to aid and development but needs to apply to our understanding of economics in general. The recession caused some countries to grow (China grew nearly 11 percent in 2008 according to the CIA world factbook) but this says nothing to the poorest people, especially in rural communities who faced astronomical food prices through 2008. The point is, we need to start judging our economic successes in different ways. Not just for the LDCs but even for ourselves, stability in the US financial sector is useless if the millions who lost their jobs, lost their retirement funds or lost their homes aren’t provided for. It requires us to reconsider our assumptions of what is beneficial and why.
The "Third World"
A recent article from the Economist, "Rethinking the 'third world'", addressed some important backdrops for out understanding of global political economy with important implications for how we view aid, development, and the future.
The article starts with a reminder of World Bank President Bob Zoellick`s comment “2009 saw the end of what was known as the third world”. While the article provides a pretty even handed review of what this statement means and, ultimately, reasons why its probably not true, a couple of issues arose in my mind that weren`t explicitely addressed.
I remember the first time I was informed that the term ``third world`` was no longer p.c. I believe it was in my first or second year of university. The negative connotation and cold-war baggage made it an oppresive term, denoting condescencion towards less developed countries. And while the fall of the Berlin wall indicates that its original meaning is now lost, I don`t believe that its usefullness has gone out of style; many academics I still talk to use this term.
but the term has changed, third world still implies an ordering, the concept that the Asian Tigers were just a freak-show of growth is disappearing and a new level of global-political order is emerging. The BRICs (Brazil, India, Russia and China) represent a new `in-between` of the world`s super powers and suggest that positioning in them is no longer permanent. Some move up (China and India) and some are moving decisively down (Russia). This, of course, is primarily an economic analysis but in this environment, economics is important to note, if not the most defining feature in this new global political order.
Ultimately, the concept of "third world" is now addressing power structures of the have and the have nots. And its not all negative, the have-nots are showing force in numbers through international organizations, which are becoming increasingly important. The "third world" has effectively stalled out the Doha round, the "third world has the potential (sceptical as it may be) of creating regional pacts such as African Union, and the "third world" weather this recent economic crisis with much more finesse than the "first world".
While it may not be politically correct, I would argue that the term continues to be a useful descriptor of the reality of global political economy.
The article starts with a reminder of World Bank President Bob Zoellick`s comment “2009 saw the end of what was known as the third world”. While the article provides a pretty even handed review of what this statement means and, ultimately, reasons why its probably not true, a couple of issues arose in my mind that weren`t explicitely addressed.
I remember the first time I was informed that the term ``third world`` was no longer p.c. I believe it was in my first or second year of university. The negative connotation and cold-war baggage made it an oppresive term, denoting condescencion towards less developed countries. And while the fall of the Berlin wall indicates that its original meaning is now lost, I don`t believe that its usefullness has gone out of style; many academics I still talk to use this term.
but the term has changed, third world still implies an ordering, the concept that the Asian Tigers were just a freak-show of growth is disappearing and a new level of global-political order is emerging. The BRICs (Brazil, India, Russia and China) represent a new `in-between` of the world`s super powers and suggest that positioning in them is no longer permanent. Some move up (China and India) and some are moving decisively down (Russia). This, of course, is primarily an economic analysis but in this environment, economics is important to note, if not the most defining feature in this new global political order.
Ultimately, the concept of "third world" is now addressing power structures of the have and the have nots. And its not all negative, the have-nots are showing force in numbers through international organizations, which are becoming increasingly important. The "third world" has effectively stalled out the Doha round, the "third world has the potential (sceptical as it may be) of creating regional pacts such as African Union, and the "third world" weather this recent economic crisis with much more finesse than the "first world".
While it may not be politically correct, I would argue that the term continues to be a useful descriptor of the reality of global political economy.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
My Blog
As an initial posting, I think it would be beneficial for me to iterate what my goals are for this blog. In order to get there, however, its necessary that I outline some important facts about myself.
I am in the process of completing my Master's degree in International Public Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I've now spent over 5 years studying policy, economics, politics, institutions, development, human rights and security. When one gets really wedded to academic discourse and interested in what one is studying, it becomes apparent that the environment which is created in the university/ college environment has severe limitations in its ability to develop professional individuals. As such, I am now attempting to branch out and utilize the skills and knowledge I've acquired and adapt it to real, normative application. No longer content with writing papers to achieve grades, I now want to write ideas to achieve change.
Change is ultimately my goal. Change in anything. I want to change the world. change your mind. change policy. change discourse. I want to change how budgets are put together and how people vote. I want to change how aid funds are distributed and how we help those in severe poverty. By taking this mentality, I hope to focus my personal resources for something other than an artificially-orchestrated academic achievement. Don't get me wrong, I understand the rationale for academic fora, but I think that they lose their ability to inform and influence regular individuals and therefore are limited in their capacity to affect change.
Thus, this blog will look at a wide range of interests from current political events to economic theories that I find interesting. However, most often I intend to comment on current trends in development, policy in developing countries and the activities of global governance. I only hope that I'm able influence real world changes through this avenue of writing.
Best,
Jonathan
I am in the process of completing my Master's degree in International Public Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I've now spent over 5 years studying policy, economics, politics, institutions, development, human rights and security. When one gets really wedded to academic discourse and interested in what one is studying, it becomes apparent that the environment which is created in the university/ college environment has severe limitations in its ability to develop professional individuals. As such, I am now attempting to branch out and utilize the skills and knowledge I've acquired and adapt it to real, normative application. No longer content with writing papers to achieve grades, I now want to write ideas to achieve change.
Change is ultimately my goal. Change in anything. I want to change the world. change your mind. change policy. change discourse. I want to change how budgets are put together and how people vote. I want to change how aid funds are distributed and how we help those in severe poverty. By taking this mentality, I hope to focus my personal resources for something other than an artificially-orchestrated academic achievement. Don't get me wrong, I understand the rationale for academic fora, but I think that they lose their ability to inform and influence regular individuals and therefore are limited in their capacity to affect change.
Thus, this blog will look at a wide range of interests from current political events to economic theories that I find interesting. However, most often I intend to comment on current trends in development, policy in developing countries and the activities of global governance. I only hope that I'm able influence real world changes through this avenue of writing.
Best,
Jonathan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
