This entry is in response to Bill Easterly's recent blog entry,
http://aidwatchers.com/2010/07/the-answer-is-42/
I whole heartedly agree with what Professor Easterly has to say in this article. It is really a part of how we redefine the way developmentalists look at their subjects and the work they are trying to do. By framing development as the emergence of a problem-solving system as opposed to a series of solutions, it sets apart the expectations that so many people have. Processes emerge gradually and, while they can be informed by developmentalists, they cannot be imposed all at once. We've seen this in cases of Afghanistan and Iraq where the imposition of western-style democracies have been resisted. On the other hand, the "solutions" that this discipline comes up with, have to be seen in with a more even handed perspective. That they are solutions to specific problems in specific contexts, not panaceas.
One twitter correspondant replied to Prof. Easterly's article "Isn't this tautology?" (@aneldagrove)
Maybe, for those who are in the field and have been working on the ground. But for outsiders this reality is not so clear...especially when we have misleading institutions that express a sense of "catch-all" like the World Bank and the International Development Bank.
However, these instutitions are, generally, our best hope for real development inasmuch as their studies and projects combine both prescriptions for problems as well as subtle changes that affect systems. And, they carry the legitimacy of being big, knowledgable (not to mention well-funded) sources of "development".
What am I saying? I think I'm saying that the best hope for system change on the level that Prof. Easterly alludes to, is through the subtle systemic changes that have occured within countries that adapt to the advice of development agencies and institutions. Might it be that development is a case of being as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves?
Showing posts with label World Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Bank. Show all posts
Friday, July 9, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
