|
|
DSA Annual Conference November 2008
DEVELOPMENT’S
INVISIBLE HANDS
Saturday
8th November 2008
Church House, Westminster, London
SUMMARY
OF PANELS
OPEN FOR
SUBMISSION OF PAPERS
How
Change Happens: new thinking on the drivers and dynamics of change
Convenor
Duncan
Green, Head of Research, Oxfam dgreen@oxfam.org.uk
Abstract
How
change happens is a central issue in almost every field of academic
inquiry. Historians debate how National Socialism emerged in Germany.
Economists investigate the drivers of economic growth. Sociologists
examine the rise of radical Islam. Psychologists discuss the incentive
structures that alter human behaviour. Geographers study the role of
climate in the rise and fall of civilisations.
Up
until recently, however, the development debate, and in particular
discussions within major donors, NGOs and other practitioners, has
focused far more on policies than on politics and change, and more on
external drivers of change, such as aid and globalization, than on
internal factors. From a development industry perspective, this has led
both to frustration as governments and countries stubbornly refuse to
‘do what’s good for them’ and to an increasing questioning of the
‘policies not politics’ approach. On the other hand, the development
industry itself can be criticised for underestimating the importance of
national processes such as institution building.
There
are several ongoing attempts at understanding the politics and economics
of change which have radical implications for both the theory and
practice of development.
-
DFID’s
Drivers of Change work, with its focus on domestic change processes,
has been picked up by its newly formed Politics and the State Team
and is now being developed by the Dutch Government.[1]
-
Oxfam
has initiated a ‘national change strategy process’ across its
entire programme, geared to understanding domestic drivers of
change, while its new book ‘From Poverty to Power’[2] includes
case studies of eight examples of change processes, mostly
domestically driven, using a new ‘How Change Happens’ analytical
framework.
-
IDS’
work on participation is analysing a series of examples of change
and asking 'How and under what conditions does citizen engagement
with the state contribute to the formation and implementation of
national level policies, which have a positive impact on the lives
of poor and excluded people.’[3]
This
panel aims to bring together some of those working on the issue of how
change happens from within and outside the discipline of development
studies. We are keen to include presentations from the perspective of
major donors, and from major international NGOs such as Oxfam, exploring
their work and thinking on change. We also invite critical analysis and
contributions from other perspectives such as from within developing
countries.
China
as a new shaper of International Development
Convenors:
Arjan de Haan, DFID, Sarah Cook, IDS; Raphael
Kaplinsky, Open University
Email:
a-dehaan@dfid.gov.uk; s.cook@ids.ac.uk;
r.kaplinsky@open.ac.uk
Abstract
The DSA’s 30th
anniversary coincides with the 30th anniversary of China’s economic
reform. The latter has transformed the Chinese landscape, lifting half
a billion people out of extreme poverty. Over the next 30 years, China
will reshape the international landscape, through its economic
activities abroad, its environmental policies, its political
strategies to become a responsible global player, and through its
rapidly expanding aid programme.
An important aspect of this process is the way
China’s rapid growth and growing global integration is having a
major impact on economies in sub-Saharan Africa. This impact arises as
a consequence of the rapid growth in trade, investment, aid and
migrant-labour links between Africa and China. Some of these impacts
are direct, reflected in growing bilateral interactions. Others, often
more profound, arise indirectly, as a consequence of China’s growing
impact on the global economy.
The
question for this panel is broader than China’s links with Africa,
although it includes
a
focus on the developmental impact of these links, seeking to identify
areas of synergy and competition, both for individual regions and
economies, and for different classes and groups of people.
What will
the re-emergence of China as global player mean for international
development, and development studies in particular? Much of the
experience of China’s recent development seems to have defied
conventional wisdom – so what are the lessons from China’s development success? Its institutions
for development are deeply context-specific, throwing up many
questions about new forms of development and collaboration at the
global level. New centres or networks of (international) learning are
emerging: how might these challenge or complement existing ways of
international development and studies?
What are the implications for UK development studies, its
researchers as well as its funders?
This panel topic
is motivated first of all by the question of how China’s development
path will change mainstream thinking about development. At the same
time, it is proposed as a platform for promoting collaboration between
the ‘old’ donors and development researchers and the newly
emerging donors and researchers who are engaged in a historically
unique and rapid process of transition from aid ‘recipient’ to
‘global player’.
We are interested in papers which draw on
recently-completed research and research-in-progress, including from D
Phil students, as well as contributions from development policy
practitioners and experts.
Cities
in an
Insecure World
Convenors:
Professor Jo Beall, DESTIN, London School of Economics j.beall@lse.ac.uk
Ursula
Grant, Overseas Development Institute u.grant@odi.org.uk
Abstract
A
full Abstract for this panel is not yet available. In a note
from the convenors, they indicate that they intend to make an open
call for papers on various related topics including:
-
cities
in a world made insecure by war, terrorism etc.
-
social
security/protection in cities;
-
security
of tenure;
-
physical
security vis a vis crime and violence in cities.
Development
futures in a changing climate: shaping the invisible
Convenors
Dr
Emily Boyd,
Leverhulme Fellow, Oxford University Centre for the Environment,
Environmental Change Institute, UK
emily.boyd@ouce.ox.ac.uk
Dr
Natasha Grist,
Senior Research Associate, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
and Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, Norwich and
DSA Study Group on Climate Change and Development Convenor
n.grist@uea.ac.uk
Dr
Sirkku Juhola,
Assistant Professor, Department of Social Science and Philosophy, University
of Juvaskyla, Finland
Valerie
Nelson, Principal
Scientist, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich,
London & DSA Study Group on Climate Change and Development
Convenor
Abstract
Climate change is arguably the greatest
threat of the 21st Century to developing countries, a
threat that will become an increasingly visible and irrefutable
determinant of development. The urgency of climate change puts
development in a completely new light. Land degradation, food
insecurity, extreme weather events, migration and social fragmentation
are some of the anticipated effects that will exacerbate millions of
vulnerable livelihoods globally. Funds for climate adaptation are
slowly being pledged and carbon offsets for development are marketed
to individual consumers in the North. Aid organizations are starting
to consider new frameworks (e.g. resilience) to better understand the
intertwined nature of climate change, development and the environment.
However, will these efforts positively transform existing linear forms
of risk management, underlying knowledge-power structures, and
ultimately, poor people’s lives in a globalising, urbanising,
context-specific reality?
This panel aims to analyse the
theoretical and practical challenges facing the future of development
resulting from climate change. The papers will reflect on concepts and
application of resilience, sustainable development, adaptation and
mitigation at different scales of decision-making. They will seek to
answer the question: what are the patterns and futures of development
in the light of climate change, and how can these be influenced to
benefit the global poor most effectively?
We propose to focus on five current
development and climate themes in our considerations:
i)
food security: the challenge of responding to both climate
change and development imperatives;
ii)
disaster risk reduction: lessons for climate policy;
iii)
carbon markets and considerations for development: ethics,
policy and practice;
iv)
development futures: strategising and operationalising
change;
v)
climate knowledge and power.
Invisible
agendas? Return migration and the migration-development
nexus
Convenors
Dr
Tanja Bastia, Global Urban Research Centre, University of Manchester tania.bastia@manchester.ac.uk
Dr
Kavita Datta, Department of Geography, Queen Mary, University of London.
k.datta@qmul.ac.uk
Abstract
Once
viewed as a graphic indicator of the failure of development, migration
is now seen as a potential contributor, or indeed, panacea for
development with research particularly focusing upon the potential
impact of remittances upon poverty alleviation and development in the
Global South. In stark contrast, the issue of return migration, and its
shaping of the migration-development nexus, has received far less
attention. This said, perspectives on return migration have changed over
a period of time. Traditionally seen as the ‘natural’ end of a
migration cycle, return migration has been associated with the transfer
of human capital back to home countries. Contemporary perspectives,
which are informed by transnational approaches to migration, are more in
favour of the circulation of skills, goods and ideas, and the creation
of ‘knowledge networks’ which not only potentially contribute to
development but also engender and support remittance flows as migrants
seek to embed themselves in both home and host countries.
The issue of return migration
is particularly addressed in debates on ‘co-development’ which
attempt to bring the countries of the Global North and South together
around issues of migration and development. However, critics argue that
the respective agendas pursued by the Global South and North are
somewhat contradictory such that while the former are interested in
harnessing the developmental potential of migration, the latter are
driven by a need to control migration in response to the perceived
‘migration crisis’ in the North such that they are more concerned
with facilitating ‘sustainable return’ rather then a circulation of
migrants.
It is within this broad
context that this panel will seek to interrogate key theoretical and
policy debates on return migration and the migration-development nexus.
It will particularly focus upon the implications of the
potentially divergent agendas of the Global North and South on return
migration and the impact this has on the migration-development nexus as
well as broader understandings of development and North-South relations.
The
future of technology intensive social
innovations for development
Convenor
Dr.
Xiaolan Fu, University of Oxford, Department of International
Development xiaolan.fu@qeh.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
Over
the past 30 years, technology-intensive innovations have gained an ever
growing role in economic growth and social development and have
redefined development agendas around the world, opening new
opportunities for catching-up and leap-frogging. Yet the role of
technology-intensive social innovations has not received much attention
in the literature, neither in development studies nor in studies of
social policy and the wide literature on innovation. Given this
increasing potential of technology in shaping development, this panel
will discuss how technology-intensive social innovations with poverty
reduction objectives can be triggered, supported and sustained in
developing countries.
One
of the main unresolved issues in this field is the question why
potentially useful social innovations may fail to sustain or to scale up
and how this challenge can be addressed – both at the level of the
firm, through appropriate business models (Fu and Polzin 2008), and at
the level of policy (Wong, 2008). What policy lessons can be drawn from
the development of general technology-intensive innovations for those
tailored more specifically towards social development? What factors can
help social innovators in developing countries to catch up, and, in some
cases, to forge ahead? What is the role of foreign direct investment (FDI)
in fostering social innovation (Fu and Polzin 2008, Suder 2008). The
contribution of foreign multinationals such as Microsoft (Suder 2008)
and Hewlett Packard (Fu and Polzin 2008) will be discussed in fostering
processes of social innovation.
As
technology intensive innovations gain increasing influence around the
world, applications for social development can be expected to gain
increasing prominence and to shape future development agendas.
Therefore, the questions addressed in this panel are important for our
understanding of the role of technology in global social change. The
panel will thus contribute to the debate on ICT for development and the
growing yet underdeveloped field of academic research into social
innovation and social entrepreneurship in developing world.
Business and its influence
on development
Panel
Convenors:
Anne
Tallontire, Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds a.m.tallontire@leeds.ac.uk
Peter
Edward, Judge Business School, Cambridge University p.edward@jbs.cam.ac.uk
Abstract:
Our
broad theme for the Panel is Business and its influence and
development. We propose looking at this theme in terms of both
looking back and also thinking about the future. This year the DSA
is 30 years old. How have development and its interaction with
business changed since then and where is it going?
The
Panel at the November Conference would build on recent DSA CSR Study group
meetings on the relationship between business and development (June 2007
and planned for June 2008) and provide material for a proposed special
issue of the journal, Business Strategy and the Environment. Issues that
we would like to address in the panel are outlined below.
In
1978 development policy was largely seen as the remit of governments and
international institutions. Business made profits and generated
growth while governments addressed issues of poverty, inequality and
security. Today it seems that business ‘delivers’ whilst
governments ‘regulate.’ Thirty years ago many saw an idealised
separation of roles between business and government. Today it seems
harder to make such arguments as, for example the private sector moves
into domains previously reserved for the public sector, and as
international NGOs increasingly take on a hybrid form between non-profit
business and social welfare provider, as well as contribute to governance
debates.
But
just how significant are these changes? Why do we find we need to
consider the role of business in development today in ways that we
didn’t need to 30 years ago? How did this come about and does it
represent a substantive change or merely a cosmetic one? Many of the
companies working in developing countries today were already established
in those communities in 1978. Has the apparently closer association
of business with development since then led to any change in their
behaviour? Are they doing anything in development terms that they
would not have done anyway, and if so, what are they doing and why?
How has development policy changed in response to our changing perceptions
of business? What has been gained and what has been lost? Does this
amount to a substantive change in the role of the private sector in
development and developing communities? Or is it merely that our
attitudes to and perceptions of business have changed since 1978? We
are keen to also explore whether these trends will this continue in the
future or are other patterns emerging?
Anti Democratic Development
Convenor:
Erich
Kofmel, University of Sussex and Sciences Po/The Institute for Political
Studies (IEP) in Paris, e.kofmel@sussex.ac.uk
Abstract:
Anti-democratic
thinking is one of the most important factors impinging on the success or
failure of social and economic development efforts in developing
countries. Terms like "good governance" and "political
development" are often used, in the development discourse,
synonymously with "democracy" and "democratization."
At the same time, modes of anti-democratic thought are seldom studied
seriously in either development studies or related disciplines such as
political science and international relations. This is all the more
surprising as in a histori
cal and cross-cultural perspective the fact cannot be denied that most
democracies failed. Many formerly democratic countries do not have a
democratic government now. Many countries have never known democracy. Only
western democracies for a short while – maybe to be dated from the fall
of Soviet communism to the rise of radical Islam – believed themselves
invincible. It is therefore expedient to think about political
alternatives once more and to study threats to democracy from within and
without as well as common modes of failure of democracy and
democratization.
This
panel will assess the ways in which anti-democratic thought shapes social
and economic development. It will study cases of successfully developing
countries, such as China, that are openly hostile to democratic values. Is
the social and economic development discourse about to be delinked from
the democracy agenda? Can we understand cases like Zimbabwe without
understanding the inherent opposition between ethnic- and clan-based
politics in Africa and liberal parliamentarism? And what role do
fundamentalist interpretations of religion play in the formation of
anti-liberal (and thus anti-parliamentarian, anti-capitalist and
anti-democratic) thought in the Middle East and elsewhere? Can a model of
"development" be found that takes anti-democratic thought (and
the public support for it in many developing countries) seriously? What is
the role of countries with an arguably less than democratic approach to
politics (such as Russia and China) in Africa's, Asia's and Latin
America's development? The panel welcomes theoretical as well as empirical
contributions.
Unfree Labour in the Global Economy
Convenors
Dr Stephanie Ware Barrientos,
IDPM, University of Manchester stephanie.barrientos@manchester.ac.uk
Co-convenor:
Professor Nicola Phillips, Centre for the Study of Political Economy,
University of Manchester
Abstract
The
question of unfree labour in the modern global economy is of growing
significance and the subject of rapidly increasing official and political
attention. Debates about the nature of unfree labour have focused in
particular on what it means to talk about ‘unfreedom’ and coercion in
this context, what shape modern forms of unfree labour take, and how we
should understand the relationship between modern capitalism and unfree
labour. These debates are complemented by extensive bodies of research on
forms of unfree labour across the world – for example, debt bondage, sex
slavery, child labour, and the conditions of many migrant domestic
workers. Official debates about unfree labour are growing in scale and
urgency, with agencies such as the International Labour Organization and a
wide array of other international, national and local bodies launching
significant campaigns and legislation against forced labour and human
trafficking in all their forms and manifestations.
This
panel will focus on debates and case studies on unfree labour in the
contemporary global economy. It will bring together analytical and
conceptual papers exploring the nature of unfree labour, how it is defined
and investigated, with papers based on case studies of specific forms of
unfree labour found in the contemporary global economy (in the south and
north). The papers are drawn from a variety of disciplines and approaches
– political theory, development studies, migration and gender studies.
The aim will be to stimulate a cross panel discussion that explores new
ways of thinking about unfree labour and its place in modern capitalism.
The core questions around which the panel will explore are:
o
How can we frame concepts of
freedom, unfreedom and coercion as the foundations for understandings of
unfree labour relations?
o
In what ways can we push
forward the ongoing debates about the place of unfree labour in modern
capitalism?
o
What are and should be the
foundations on which unfree labour is defined and measured in global
policy frameworks?
The panel has strong links to the theme of the DSA
Conference – Development’s Invisible Hands – given the growing
significance of unfree labour as a hidden factor facilitating development
in the global economy, found in both the south and north.
After
2015: What's next for development research and policy?
Convenors
Andy
Sumner, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex a.sumner@ids.ac.uk
Meera Tiwari, University of East London m.tiwari@uel.ac.uk
Nicola Jones, Overseas Development Institute n.jones@odi.org.uk
Abstract
It's 2015. China has just overtaken the US as the world's largest economy
(on PPP). India is not so far behind. Some of the MDGs were met. Some were
not. The MDGs on income and education were met globally but with huge
disparities. Progress in Africa accelerated following large aid flows but
repayments are looming. The other MDGs were missed though not as badly as
expected. Climate change/chaos has intensified with many of the impacts
felt in the South. Urbanisation and migration are accelerating. There are
major shifts in technology such as mobiles, biotech, etc). The MDGs have
played a major role in focusing international development policy but what
happens after 2015?
Over the last few years there has been a re-emergence at attempts at a
meta-narrative. The most famous being Paul Collier's Bottom Billion
(2007), William Easterly's White Man's Burden (2007) and Elusive Quest for
Growth (2006) and Jeffrey Sachs (2005), End of Poverty. One might note
many more. Such as Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans (2008), and Kicking Away
the Ladder (2002), Chang and Ilene Grabel's Reclaiming Development (2006).
There is also Alice Amsden's (2007), Wolfgang Sach's (2007) books and Erik
Reinhert's How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
(2007), Dani Rodrik's One Economics, Many Recipes (2008), Joseph
Stiglitz's Making Globalisation Work (2007) and Fair Trade for All (2007)
and not to forget Angus Maddison's (2008) epic Contours of the World
Economy 1-2030AD.
Each author in the above list presents some kind of diagnosis of global
development to date and the problem of (mal) development. Each then
presents entry points with most leverage for (good) change.
Do we have a convincing storyline? Do we need one? What should replace the
MDGs? What does the changing context mean for development research and
policy?
These and other questions will guide the panel.
Frontiers of Global Justice: Health and Environment
Convenors
Theo
Papaioannou, Development Policy and Practice, The Open University t.papaioannou@open.ac.uk
Mary
Upton, Development Policy and Practice, The Open University mu325@openmail.open.ac.uk
Abstract
One
of the new forces likely to influence future of global change and re-shape
development agendas is the growing theory and practice of global justice.
The latter is founded upon the moral and political claim that, in
today’s globalising world, our duties and obligations to other persons
extend beyond state borders. Global justice marks the shift from a
Hobbesian perspective on international development to a Kantian one, i.e.
more cosmopolitan. Indeed, recent commentators on global justice such as
Amartya Sen, Martha C. Nussbaum and Thomas Pogge argue that although we
have special connections with those in relation to us, we also have
relations to the humanity as a whole. These relations raise the issue of
our obligations to the global poor. The question here is not only what our
obligations are in abstract but also what we can practically do to help.
The two frontiers of the current theory and practice of global justice are
health and environment. Health is not just a resource of development but a
capability of freedom. Environment, on the other hand, is a source of
human life and phenomena such as global climate change result in harm to
all human beings. Global health and environmental problems are
interrelated. For instance, with global warming several poor communities
come under threat from rising sea levels and diseases such as malaria and
cholera. Large inequalities in global health and environmental pollution
raise a number of questions:
-
What
does global justice require in terms of health and/or environment?
-
How
can the global justice requirements for health and/or environment be
practically met in the absence of a global political state?
-
What
is the role of new forms of global governance such as public-private
partnerships for health and environmental innovation in global
justice?
-
How
global health and environmental justice can re-shape international
development agendas?
The
aim of this panel is to discuss the emerging theory and practice of global
justice in the frontiers of health and environment. Therefore, both
normative and empirical papers are invited to address one or more of the
above questions.
Wellbeing and Development Policy and Practice
in the 21st
Century
Convenors
Allister McGregor, University of Bath j.a.mcgregor@bath.ac.uk
Sarah White,
University of Bath, s.c.white@bath.ac.uk
Abstract
A key challenge for international development policy in the 21st
century is to promote the conditions in which all people can seek to
achieve wellbeing. Failures of wellbeing can be seen in developing
countries around the world, where people suffer from chronic hunger, high
infant mortality rates or social exclusion. Conflicts arise when people
have different views of what wellbeing is and have different abilities to
achieve it. Understanding what wellbeing means to different people and how
they seek to achieve it is central to the development of more effective
anti-poverty policy, which can lead to a better quality of life.
Understanding wellbeing also allows us to address the question: “How are
we to live together in our neighbourhoods, nation states, and in the
global community?”
This panel invites
papers on the theme of Wellbeing in Development Policy and Practice.
Papers are particularly welcome which reflect on practical experience of
applying wellbeing analysis in development policy or implementing a
wellbeing approach in development practice.
PANELS
NOT OPEN TO SUBMISSION OF PAPERS
The
Transformation of Development: Religious Challenges to Development Studies
Panel
convenor: Dr Séverine Deneulin
(Lecturer in International Development, Dept of Economics and
International Development,
University
of
Bath
)
Presenters:
- Dr Stephen Plant
(Wesley House,
University
of
Cambridge
)
- Dr Masooda Bano
(Queen Elizabeth House, Dept of International Development,
Oxford
University
)
- Prof Clemens Sedmak
(Dept of Theology and Religious Studies, King’s College,
London
)
- Prof Gurharpal Singh
(Dept of Theology and Religion,
University
of
Birmingham
)
- Dr Tamsin Bradley
(Dept of Applied Sociology,
London
Metropolitan
University
)
- Dr Gerard Clarke (Centre
for Development Studies,
University
of
Swansea
)
Discussant:
Prof Carole Rakodi (DFID Religions and Development Research Programme,
University
of
Birmingham
)
Panel
description
As
societies modernized and embarked on the path of development, development
studies made the assumption that religion would naturally disappear from
the lives of people in developing countries. Yet, that assumption has not
been verified. One of the most striking results of the participatory
exercises of Voices of the Poor
was that religion permeates how poor people perceive their wellbeing. In
addition, the study also found out that religious leaders and institutions
are more trusted than political ones. In contrast to Max Weber’s
predictions, the disenchantment of the world and the disappearance of
religion from people’s lives have not happened. Natural and social
phenomena may now have a non-religious explanation, but religion continues
to have a dominant place in the lives of many of the world’s poor and
marginalized. It remains the major source of meaning-giving to life. In
addition, despite the expectation of secularisation and arguments for a
secular state, religious organisations continue to have important
influences on politics and to play important but controversial roles in
development.
This
panel addresses how the invisible hand of religion is already challenging
some core long held assumptions of development studies. Several challenges
will be examined.
First,
although the idea of development is not religiously grounded, the
discourse on development shares a lot with theological discourse. Both
are, for example, based on the idea of salvation – salvation from
poverty and injustice and salvation from sin. In many ways, development
discourse is a form of Christian eschatology cut
off from its theological roots. One of the challenges that religion poses
to development studies relates to questioning the finality of
‘development’ or economic and social progress. Stephen Plant is a
theologian who has written several articles on the links between
development and Christian theological discourses.
Second,
an area in which development studies is already being challenged by
religion is in the field of education. When people value a religious-based
education, this is not always in tune with the principles of liberal
education that the development community has promoted so far. Masooda Bano
is currently undertaking path-breaking research on madrasa education in
Bangladesh
and
Pakistan
and the relations between Muslim education providers and governments in
the context of madrasa reform programmes.
Third,
the multidisciplinary field of development studies lies in the social
sciences with research methods strongly based in empiricism and
positivism. However, the object of study, religion, is at ill ease with
positivist and empiricist research methods, for religion relies on a
transcendental concept of truth which sees the world in a particular
light. Moreover, the concepts underlying ‘development’ are rooted in
Christian cultural contexts which have then been exported to very
different religious contexts. There is a need to extend the debate beyond
conventional development ideas, Christian theology and social science
epistemology to examine the conceptualisation of key ideas (such as
progress, wellbeing, poverty and wealth) in other religious traditions,
with other epistemological approaches. Clemens Sedmak is a theologian,
philosopher and social scientist who has undertaken extensive research on
the relationship between theology and development studies, and
epistemology and ethics.
Fourth,
modernisation theory led development analysts, advocates and practitioners
to associate with religion with tradition and secularism with modernity.
This was linked to and reinforced ideas about the desirability of
separating church and state. Despite the establishment of secular states
in most developing countries at independence, however, political
arrangements have been influenced by countries’ religious configuration
and religious organisations have continued to have considerable political
influence. Gurharpal Singh is a political scientist and will present
findings from comparative research on religion, politics and governance in
India
,
Pakistan
,
Nigeria
and
Tanzania
, which he has been coordinating as part of the Religions and Development
Research Programme.
Fifth,
despite the many post-independence governments taking prime responsibility
for development and service delivery (and in some cases nationalising the
facilities and programmes of religious organisations), faith-based
organisations (FBOs) in both donor and recipient countries continue to
play important but controversial roles. They may be regarded as NGO-like
organisations, and expected to behave in similar ways, undertaking similar
activities, with similar outcomes and strengths and weaknesses.
Alternatively, it may be necessary to conceptualise them differently both
for analytical purposes and in order to develop appropriate relationships
with secular development actors, including governments and donors. Using
two analytical frames, Tamsin Bradley will present a possible typology of
FBOs, consider their location within the ‘aid chain’ and identify some
of the factors that both enable and limit their contribution to
development.
A
sixth paper by Gerard Clarke will further explore the role of FBOs in
development and compare Muslim Aid (UK) with the United Methodist
Committee on Relief (US) and draw out its implications for trans-faith
humanitarianism. The two organisations began working together in
Eastern Sri Lanka
in 2006. The two NGOs combined resources to provide assistance to refugees
with funding from the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights. In June 2007, the two organisations signed an agreement
at the House of Commons in
London
to formalise and expand their cooperation. Based on fieldwork in the UK,
the US and Sri Lanka, the paper examines the achievements of the
partnership, its challenges, problems and failings and the lessons that
emerge for the organisations themselves and for other development
organisations.
The
Institutions Of Development And The Development Of Institutions
Not open for Papers
Convenors:
Adrian Leftwich, University of York, and Kunal Sen, University of
Manchester, both co-directors, improving institutions for pro-poor
growth research programme consortium
This
panel will present research that has been undertaken by the
Improving Institutions For Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG) research programme
consortium (www.ippg.org.uk).
Paper
1: The Political and Economic Institutions of Pro-poor Growth:
Reflections from three years of research in the IPPG consortium.
Adrian Leftwich, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of York,
and Kunal Sen, Professor of Development Economics and Policy,
IDPM, University of Manchester.
Abstract:
Pro Poor Growth (PPG) depends critically on the interactions of
formal and informal political, social, and cultural institutions with
economic institutions. Together, these interactions constitute an
institutional matrix which may either enhance or constrain PPG.
Research in the IPPG consortium has attempted to identify and
understand institutional interactions which support the
achievement of PPG. The aim of the research has been to explore
historically and comparatively those institutional sets and contexts
which enhance PPG and those which do not; how such patterns of
institutional interaction evolve and change; and the conditions under
which coalitions of stakeholders may be encouraged to adapt, adopt,
negotiate and devise institutional matrices for PPG, given very
different starting points, endowments, possibilities and constraints.
In this paper, we synthesise the key findings of the research, and
reflect on what we have learnt from the research on the institutional
arrangements which promote or hinder the economics of pro-poor growth,
and to what these arrangements are shaped by political processes and
social practices.
Paper
2: Institutions and Morality.
John Morton, Professor of Development Anthropology, Livelihoods
and Institutions Group, Natural Resources Institute
Abstract:
This presentation will raise the question of how culturally
varying views of “morality”, “fairness” and “justice”,
particularly those held by the rural poor in developing countries,
influence the way people evaluate, work within, use and (sometimes)
resist, economic institutions - especially the institutions that
emerge or are actively promoted during “development”
(market-oriented or otherwise)? It will review the way this and
related questions have been dealt with in a wide range of subjects,
including social anthropology, institutional economics, economic
sociology, experimental economics, and the study of rural
protest. It will then discuss how insights about morality and
its interactions with institutions could be incorporated more widely
into the study of institutions and development.
Paper
3: Do differences in institutions explain contrasting agricultural
development in Bolivia and New Zealand?
Steve Wiggins, Research Fellow, Rural Policy & Governance,
Overseas Development Institute, London
Abstract:
Despite clear differences today, historically Bolivia and New
Zealand are similar in several respects, in having small populations,
depending on primary production for their economic bases, and both
being remote from the centres of the world economy. While New Zealand
has developed a prosperous and internationally competitive farm sector
that has become the basis for a diversified economy, Bolivia struggles
to develop its agriculture in ways that produce broad-based growth and
reduce poverty. Why this difference?
This
question will be addressed by examining how states and other actors
have created institutions and other conditions for investment and
technical innovation in agriculture in the two cases, looking back
over the long run to the mid-nineteenth century.
Non-Governmental
Public Actors:
Development's Invisible Hands
Not open for Papers
Convenor
Professor Jude Howell, London School of Economics and Political
Science
Abstract
The purpose of this panel is to analyse critically the role of
non-governmental public actors in processes of social transformation
and poverty reduction. Public action by and for disadvantaged people,
undertaken by non-governmental public actors, is increasingly
significant at local and international levels. The concept of
non-governmental public actors refers not just to non-governmental
organisations but to a much broader range of formal and informal
non-governmental actors concerned with poverty reduction and social
transformation such as cooperatives, trades unions, rights-based
groups, peace-building groups, advocacy networks, virtual
organisations, independent media groups and so on.
After
the Cold War and with the rise of a governance agenda, donor agencies
began to engage with civil society in a more purposive and systematic
way. Though they recognised that civil society referred to a wider
range of non-governmental public actors than just NGOs, they tended in
practice to support and work with a relatively narrow section of
formal non-governmental organisations, typically development NGOs,
advocacy and rights-based groups. This was driven in part by
bureaucratic imperatives but also by a predilection to see only
certain parts of civil society as relevant to and significant in
processes of social change. As a result donors have tended to overlook
the contribution of a range of non-governmental public actors in
processes of social transformation.
Changing
aid modalities, the growing emphasis on budget support and the effects
of the securitisation of aid post-911 have altered the rationale for
and approach to engagement with non-governmental public actors. On the
one hand this has brought different non-governmental public actors
more directly into the gaze of donors such as Muslim organisations and
faith groups; on the other hand it has led to a readjustment of
relations with non-governmental public actors and in particular a
`tidying up’ of relations with development NGOs.
The
presentations in this panel draw attention to the diversity of
non-governmental public actors and their varied contributions to
processes of social change and poverty reduction. In doing so they
make visible parts of civil society that donors have tended to
overlook in their development strategising. They highlight the need
for development agencies to have a more nuanced and contextualised
understanding of non-governmental public action and its relation to
social transformation.
The
panel draws on research conducted under a five-year ESRC research
programme on non-governmental public action. The programme is entering
its fifth year and has generated an extensive body of high quality
empirical and theoretical research on non-governmental public action
in both `the North’ and `the South’. We are seeking three high
quality papers relevant to the theme of invisible and visible
non-governmental public action in international development processes.
Much of the research has already been `tested out’ in terms of
quality at various stages in the programme. The panel will invite a
commentator to comment on the papers and to stimulate discussion. The
papers will be put forward for a special issue or special cluster
issue of an international development journal.
Page last updated:
9th May 2008
|
