Bringing Development Back into Development Studies (Record no. 10652)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02338nab a2200181 4500 |
| 005 - DATE & TIME | |
| control field | 20200923150824.0 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 200923b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Andrew M. Fischer |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Bringing Development Back into Development Studies |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) | |
| Name of publisher, distributor, etc | Wiley, |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc | 2019. |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION | |
| Pages | Vol. 50, Issue 2,2019:(426-444 p.) |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc | This article challenges Horner and Hulme's call to move from ‘international development’ to ‘global development’ with a reaffirmation of the classical traditions of development studies. With some adaptation to fit the changing contemporary context, these traditions not only remain relevant but also recover vital insights that have been obscured in the various fashionable re‐imaginings of development. In particular, development thinking and agendas in the past were much more radical and ambitious in addressing the imperatives of redistribution and progressive forms of transformation in the context of stark asymmetries of wealth and power. Such ambition is still needed to address the nature and scale of challenges that continue to face the bulk of countries in the world, particularly given the persistence if not deepening of asymmetries. This reaffirmation is elaborated by addressing three major weaknesses in Horner and Hulme's arguments. First, they do not actually define development, but instead treat it as simply poverty and inequality dynamics, which are better understood as outcomes rather than causes. Second, despite their assertion that the study of (international) development was primarily concerned with between‐country inequalities, this is not true. Domestic inequality was in fact central to both development theory and policy since the origins of the field. Third, the authors ignore the rise of neoliberalism from the late 1970s onwards and the profound crisis that this caused to development outside of East Asia and perhaps India, which the jargon of ‘global’ implicitly obfuscates and even condones. Rather, the experiences of East Asia and in particular China arguably vindicate classical approaches in development studies. |
| 773 0# - HOST ITEM ENTRY | |
| Host Biblionumber | 8737 |
| Host Itemnumber | 15395 |
| Place, publisher, and date of publication | West Sussex John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1970 |
| Title | Development and change |
| International Standard Serial Number | 0012-155X |
| 856 ## - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12490 |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| Koha item type | Articles |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| -- | 30568 |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| -- | ddc |
No items available.