Anda di halaman 1dari 14

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

1. In this course we have discussed the dilemma of balancing the limits


to growth with the right to develop. Critically assess the right to
develop concept in the context of global environmental and
developmental governance. Use and go beyond the literature listed
below to analyze the conditions under which this concept can be used
to empower developing countries.

Many in the developing world have argued that global institutions in the
post-colonial era have been skewed against their interests, the economic
order was unfair and prejudicial to the ability of developing countries to
develop. The concept of a right to development first surfaced at the
international level in the early 1970s. The debate has been divisive
between the North and the South, rather than increasing understanding of
the relationship between human rights and development (Ibhawoh, 2011).
consequences of the near universal embrace of the market economy and
inequality within an era of globalisation has proved to be institutionalised
through formal and informal rules at the global level, this is carried out by
rules on trade, development investment and environmental measures
(Udombana). Developing countries have attempted to counter this
inequality through the NIEO and right to development. They have thus
argued in favour of a new economic order and the right to develop. The
UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution on the Right to Develop in
1986. Proponents of this third generation of rights emphasize that these
rights will reinforce existing human rights, enhance their effectiveness and
made them more relevant to both governments and individuals. However,
dominant discourse have been proliferate and it is questionable to what
extent this concept of a right to develop has realistically had when
environmental degradation and survivalist discourses abound, sharing
ecospace has implications for the right to development (Gupta and Pouw,
2014).
Within the anthropocene there is a great acceleration in our population,
production, consumption, urbanization and trade. The limits of the Earths
ecospace has amplified hence the North-South debate, but also the richpoor debate on the right to develop, as one groups development may
come at the cost of the other groups aspirations and rights (Gupta, 2014).
The renewed relevance of the right to develop in the anthropocene has
led to new debates regarding who can develop and how; whether
resources (fossil fuel/forest) may or may not be used (the issue of
stranded resources and assets) who can emit greenhouse gases and who
cannot. This shrinking ecospace has implications on the global dialogue;
the shrinking ecospace is negotiated in opposition to rights. Particularly
with regards to emsission levels, growth trajectories, valorisation and the
right to development (Gupta and Pouw, 2014).
Developing countries have favoured a right to development over the last
four decades, and although this has now been adopted, it remains
contested by Industrialised Countries. A central component of this
approach to development is the human rights approach to development
assistance. This calls for the regulation of international development
cooperation and official development assistance by an agreed framework
1

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

of international human rights law. Such a framework would regulate the


delivery of development assistance, the priorities that it should address,
the obligations of both donors and recipients, and the processes for
evaluating development assistance (Ibhawoh, 2011). Although
Industialised Countriess have voluntarily commited to providing resources
to DCs over the last six decades and have continuously reiterated the
need to do so, they have not met their own targets. (Gupta, 2010) It has
also raised the issue of whether the new liberal or neo liberal paradigm
and ad hoc governance processes can actually address the key sharing
issues that are increasingly becoming important.
A hindrance to movement forward is the political and ideological
manoeuvring that underlies the discourse on the right to development.
The difficulties implementing the right to development are also due to
vague definitions, weak enforcement mechanisms, a lack of political will,
and consensus among stakeholders to enforce this right. It has been
conceded by proponents that despite half a century of debate, realising
the right to development to have a meaningful contribution has not yet
come to fruition (Ibawoh, 2011).
Rights discourses do set out to further more complex and sometimes
contradictory agendas these can be progressive and reactionary, it gives a
language of rights to the third world yet this was done through the belied
that it would speed economic development in the South.
Rights discourses can be used to further a more progressive and
reactionary agenda, human rights is conceived of as holistic, interrelated
and indivisible. Rights must be realised simultaneously within social,
political and economic spheres. The right to development pertains to
communities, nations and regions given that it is an entitlement to both
the individual and the collective, development can be claimed as a human
rights entitlement by both of these. This represents a paradigm shift and a
move away from the dominant Western liberal orientation and provides a
distinctly non-Western communitarian rights agenda (Ibawoh, 2011).
Despite a lack of movement in the rights to development, it has provided
an attitude shift and opportunities to improve global, national and local
governance, institutions and practices.
Gupta (2014) suggests that Governance for sharing our ecospace calls for
scalar analysis of glocal problems, critical and constructive relational
analysis of changing but persistent North-South and rich-poor problems;
sustainability not securitization framing to deal with ecospace and the
right to develop; a global constitution and rule of law within which other
governance processes operate and inclusive development as a way to
counter the dominant neo-liberal, hegemonic frames . This discourse
could act as a movement towards this.

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

Word Count: 866


Bibliography and References
Bernstein, S. (2002) Liberal Environmentalism and Global Environmental
Governance, Global Environmental Politics, 2(3): 1-16
Biermann, F., K. Abbott, S. Andresen, K. Bckstrand, S. Bernstein, M.
Betsill, H. Bulkeley, B. Cashore, J. Clapp, C. Folke, A. Gupta, J. Gupta, P. M.
Haas, A. Jordan, N. Kanie, T. Kluvnkov-Oravsk, L. Lebel, D. Liverman, J.
Meadowcroft, R.B. Mitchell, P. Newell, S. Oberthr, L. Olsson, P. Pattberg, R.
Snchez-Rodrguez, H. Schroeder, A. Underdal, S. C. Vieira, C. Vogel, and
O. R. Young (2012). Transforming governance and institutions towards
Global Sustainability: Key Insights for Social Science Research, Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1): 51-60
Gupta, J. (2014). Sharing our Ecospace. Available:
http://www.oratiereeks.nl/upload/pdf/PDF-3450weboratie_Gupta.pdf. Last
accessed 2nd December 2014.
Gupta, J. And Pouw, N. (2014) The Right to Develop in the Context of
Sharing Our Earth: Global institutional politics. November 11th 2014, Core
Issues in International Development Lecture at the University of
Amsterdam.
Gupta, J. (2010) Global governance: development cooperation, In Gupta,
J. and N. van de Grijp (eds.). Mainstreaming Climate Change in
Development Cooperation: Theory, Practice and Implications for the
European Union, Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-133
Ibhawoh, B. The Right to Development: The Politics and Polemics of
Power and Resistance (2011) 33 76-104 Human Rights Quarterly
Udombana, NJ. 'The Third World and the Right to Development: Agenda
for the Next Millennium' (2000) 22 Human Rights Quarterly

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

2, A central position in the analysis and practice of governance


has been given to the role of the state in promoting citizenship.
Examples were discussed in the literature and lectures of how
governance outcomes may lead to either marginalization or
empowerment of social groups. Discuss one of the examples of
governance from lectures 6 or 7 to argue which approach (or
combinations thereof) to participatory governance from the
literature is best suited to understand the relevant outcomes and
processes.

Since the 1990s participatory and inclusive approaches have gained


importance in development. Efforts to improve urban governance have
revolved around decentralisation. This can take many forms and its
success depends on a variety of factors. However depoliticisation and a
loss of responsibility can occur by sidelining formal political actors during
a process of decentralisation. Urban social movements have played
critical roles in transforming ways in which cities are managed by local
authorities and the ways they work together with social movements and
other actors. Examples of transformative collective action are not
commonplace, partly due to urban dwellers struggle for immediate
survival. National and local political will and committed urban leadership
are essential if this development can move forward. (Beall and Fox, 2009)
Citizenship represents a significant conceptual advance within
understandings of participatory governance and development and offers a
means of covering the convergence between participatory development
and participatory governance (Gaventa, 2002 in Hickey and Mohan, 2005).
It is argued that citizenship links to rights-based approaches as it
establishes participation as a political right that can be claimed by the
excluded, and provides a political, legal and moral imperative for focusing
on peoples agency within development. The notion of citizenship offers a
useful form of analysis within which to situate understandings of
participation. It is however questionable whether citizenship provides a
requirement towards a transformative approach to participation.
Indeed, Hordijk (2005) argues participatory approaches are most likely to
succeed: where they are aimed at securing citizenship rights and
4

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

participation for marginal and subordinate groups. Participatory


budgeting is one form of governance innovation in which citizenship has
been prioritised. She identifies three levels of citizenship , the highest
being the development of interest and lobby groups and consultative
mechanisms which reach ordinary inhabitants. It is argued that this level
of citizenship is obtained and also fosters a novel approach when utilising
a participatory budgeting framework. This framework demands that
authorities and inhabitants formulate development plans and budgets in a
participatory manner. It is argued that the benefits of the approach are
citizens have direct participation in governance; this transforms them into
citizens and raises democratic awareness. Transparency emerges from
this approach, plus infrastructure and service improvements have a
redistributional focus. This approach has indeed shown success in Brazil
and has also moved into many parts of South America, benefits include
increased investment, basic needs have seen improvement, pro-poor
growth has increased along with tax revenues. It is claimed as an
approach which is redistributive, gives a new meaning to citizenship and is
innovative, is supported by the middle and some upper classes whilst also
linking together the governors and the governed.
However, participatory approaches do not work well in all contexts there
are many divergent outcomes in the examination of the interaction
between global and local actors in a particular setting. In India DeWit and
Berner (2009) question the usefulness of participatory approaches due to
the vertical power relations that exist. India has a different concept of
community and citizenship may then also have a different place than the
Western ideal, this presents a problem in that divisions exist between
people not only in terms of caste but also income, gender and ethnicity .
This reacts to Hordijks proposition of citizenship, participation and
governance as there exist many barriers to these due to lack of horizontal
mobilisation of the poor. Indeed, the community based organisations,
municipal agencies, donors and NGOs cannot avoid becoming embroiled
within the cultural and community based status quo. These grassroots
strategies tend to be unequal as they are based on personalised, informal
and vertical relationships. As demonstrated in De Wit and Berner (2009),
these relations are critical for survival as the poor operate in an
environment characterized by unreliable institutions, negligent or
predatory government agents, and multiple but unsecure sources of
household income. Relations of patronage and reciprocity that offer
security are maintained, these relations of patronage can be seen through
relations of the poor with brokers: intermediaries usually with a higher
level of political or non political power. They have access to government
agencies, establish institutional links for employment, provide loans and
emergency support. Since access by the poor is hindered by illiteracy,
lack of information and confidence, patronage prevails along with their
power and influence. In a participatory context, these relations still exist
and serve those in power, it allows for community based organisations to
block progress, control or capture benefits aimed at the poor. This
evidence shows that municipal agencies, donors
5

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

and NGOs cannot easily escape the logic of patronage and often
themselves become part of a system of vertical dependency relations.
Indeed, in the participatory approach internal contradictions such as these
are glossed over. Roy (2003) questions the notion, asking who decides
which people are involved and what role they play. It is a utopian notion
where in reality it is questionable as to whether participatory approaches
include the excluded. It is a notion which has set itself against Eurocentric
notions, but the participatory development itself has been imported.
Oppression and discrimination will still exist as this was the basis in the
pre civil society. Participatory approaches could lead to a rolling back of
the state and a withdrawal of commitment from welfare and development.
The participatory budgeting approach here may be commended, in that it
doesnt simply allow grassroots participation but brings together the state
and its citizens in an instrumental way. However this approach has proven
that it may only work well in homogenous societies, with societal
divisions, it may be less easy for such pro-poor approaches to give the
excluded a voice in the process of development. Shatkin (2007) echoes
this notion of convergence in his perspective it is necessary to account
better for local agency and divergent outcomes. Actor-centred
perspectives need to be further considered in urban analysis. Rather than
attempting to find models where developing countries converge in their
path to development, a shift is needed to examine the interactions
between global and local actions and institutions within particular
settings.
Words: 995

Bibliography and References


Beall J. and S. Fox (2009) Shaping city Futures: Urban Planning,
Governance and Politics, In Beall J. and S. Fox (eds) Cities and
Development, Routledge: London., pp. 201-230
De Wit, J. and Berner, E. (2009) Progressive Patronage? Municipalities,
NGOs, Community-Based Organizations, and the Limits to Slum Dweller's
Empowerment, Development and Change, 40(5): 927-947
Hickey, S. and G. Mohan (2005) Relocating Participation within a Radical
Politics of Development, Development and Change, 36(2): 237-262
Roy, I. (2003) Development and its Discontents: Civil society as the new
lexicon,
Society for International Development, 46(1): 80-87
Hordijk M.A. (2005) Participatory Governance in Peru: Exercising
Citizenship,
Environment and Urbanization 17(1): 219-236
6

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

Shatkin, G. (2007). Global cities of the South: Emerging perspectives on


growth and
inequality. Cities, 24(1): 115.
- Roy, I. (2003) Development and its Discontents: Civil society as the new
lexicon,
Society for International Development, 46(1): 80-87

3.Market-driven development has been discussed as providing


new opportunities for inclusive development. On the other hand,
it can be seen as creating the very conditions that for social
exclusion and unsustainable development. Discuss the potential
of market-driven development for inclusive development and how
the advantages and disadvantages of building relationships with
the private sector should be conceptualized. Reflect in your
answer on the different scale levels at which this collaboration
can be approached and how the chosen scalar level influences the
types of instruments and strategies that are suggested.
Stiglitz (2006) question whether market driven development is necessarily
welfare enhancing, he recognises the importance of a market economy
but it is problematic in that there is a belief in market fundamentalism and
the approach taken is that one size fits all, this does not capture the
complexities of development. He suggests more emphasis needs to be
placed on the role of government rather than simply unfettered
capitalism, this role of government should have a more active role in
7

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

promoting development and protecting the poor, a climate for business


and job creation and a construction of physical and institutional
infrastructure are necessary. Narayan (2009) concurs with this idea, and
emphasises that this is context specific which leads us to take a more
inclusive approach and examine development measures at the society
level. The issue is that there has been hegemony in support for one
economic perspective, the market economy may have worked to some
extent for Western countries, but a different approach may be necessary
for different country contexts. Trickle down has not worked and Stiglitz
(2006) believes that markets have not produced efficient outcomes. The
connections between economic and cultural attitudes have a place within
this debate which is echoed by Pouw (2011) in that the factors affecting
wellbeing are dependent on multiple pathways, institutions and culture.
There are structural processes which interact with capital flows and the
problem is not the amount of resources but how systems and institutions
appropriate them. This is emphasised on the global and national level,
Pouw (2011) also goes on to highlight the access, control and
prioritisation to capital is also community context specific. Different
people interact with economic microprocesses and macrostructures and
regimes in their quest for wellbeing (Pouw, 2011). This also takes into
consideration the context of community and individual level which is less
highlighted by Stiglitz (2006) although he doe highlight the difficulty in of
knowing how far the market approach is effective due to the vast
differences in history, circumstances and details in policy. This points
towards the need for a more inclusive approach towards market based
approaches. Indeed in the success stories, the successful developing
countries have adapted policies to their own situation.
There are different views about the origins of poverty and inequality. Luck
is one factor, another is the reward for hard work. This view is taken by
Narayan (2009) who operates on the framework that there is an
interaction between the initiative people have to move out of poverty and
the opportunity they have to do so. At odds with Stiglitz (2006) then who
believes that there is a single minded approach and less concern for non
economic values, Narayan (2009) provides a concern for economic
efficiency, but also a concern with non-economic values such as social
justice, the environment, cultural diversity and consumer protection,
Narayan (2009) frames his argument in that at the local level and this
may be the key in looking at development issues from a market approach
whilst also remaining inclusive. Narayan (2009) also highlights the
constraints of local level political and economic institutions and also the
contextual constraints to initiatives and expanding economic opportunity
at the local level. Permanent assets need to be built to reach everyone
and reduce vulnerability. Economic prosperity thus then needs to be
focused on at a local level as the local business climate is very different
from that of large businesses, Narayan (2009) calls for liberalisation from
below and reducing the role of government regulation. This will expand
access to the market. Infrastructure in communications and roads is a
necessary intervention. This differs somewhat to Stiglitz (2006) view of
necessary governmental intervention. This notion is similar to that of
Adam Smiths invisible hand, in that if markets are there, they may
8

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

engender a distribution of income. Narayan (2009) assumes that given the


opportunity, people will take the initiative; this approach is problematic as
barriers to people taking the initiative given the opportunity are not
discussed.
All three of these approaches take an inclusive approach in understanding
the different contexts within which poverty and inequality takes place.
However a combination of understanding is needed in that the high level
governance of institutions are not placing consideration on the very local
level understanding of poverty, whilst the bottom-up development
approaches outlined here avoid an approach which integrates the local
context setting along with the global context which reduces the
enhancement of welfare through markets. The common theme throughout
is that there is no one size fits all solution, but applying this within all
scales of understanding is indeed a complex task.

Word Count: 764

Bibliography and References:


Narayan, D., L. Pritchett and S. Kapoor (2009) Chapter 1 The Moving out
of Poverty Study: An Overview In Narayan, Pritchett and Kapoor (eds)
Moving out of Poverty. Success from the Bottom-Up, Vol 2:, pp. 2-49
9

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

Pouw, N.R.M. and B. Gilmore (2011) Wellbeing in Theory and in Practice,


In Pouw and Baud (eds) Local Governance and Poverty in Developing
Nations, New York: Routledge, pp. 17-31
Stiglitz, J. (2006) Chapter 1 Another world is possible, and chapter 2 The
promise of development In Making Globalization work, London: Penguin
Books. pp. 3-24 and pp. 35-60

4. The arguments set by Sen, Stiglitz and Esteva/Escobar about


the idea of development studies may incorporate new notions and
concepts useful for the discipline of International Development
Studies. Please elaborate on each authors main contribution to
the theoretical discourse on development as well as point out one
10

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

or more of shortcomings in their conceptualizations of poverty


and underdevelopment.
In Development as Freedom, Sens notion of development as capability
enhancement has broadened out to development as freedom. Sen
distinguished between five forms of freedoms (political; economic
facilities; transparency guarantees; social opportunities and protective
security). These expansions of freedoms are not only the primary end but
also the principal means of development. Sen argues more precisely, to
move beyond the poverty reduction goal of development to the removal
of unfreedoms that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of
exercising their reasoned agency' as the overarching objective. Bringing
with it new notions and concepts of development. Given that it is agency
oriented, people can develop themselves according to their own values, it
allows people to move beyond the dichotomy of the state versus the
market in advancing development. In its removal of unfreedoms there
are many different points of entry and soace for action. There are also
multiple pathways to achieve development as a multidimensional and a
culturally sensitive approach. Attention is shifted away from income
(means) to ends (freedoms). This then requires a new methodology of
measuring wellbeing that shifts beyond the money-metric, national-level
categories. Income poverty is criticised as a measure, evidence also
suggests that capability deprivation is experienced differently to income
thus the capability approach is able to capture a different dimension of
poverty. There is however, ambiguity about exactly how to apply Sens
approach empirically. The policy outcomes work within political, economic
and social spheres, limited resources may result in limited impact of such
policies.
Sen does not identify a set of capabilities, it is a value judgement that
needs to be made explicitly, through a process of public debate (Sen
1999a). Alkire (2002) has argued the lack of specification was deliberate
in order to allow room for choice across societies and ensure the
relevance of the approach to different persons and cultures. It is
necessary to consider the question, to what extent can actors have a
voice within their own development process? Sens notion is about the
enhancement of the potential of people to emancipate themselves (see
Sen 1999a). Freedom and democracy are emphasised, but still, are open
to a wide range of interpretations. Even in democracy, there can be
tension accepting pluralistic views. According to Tully (2013) countries
have their own idea of democracy and human rights, and the way in which
Western democracy has been spread is hypocritical. This approach also
represents external assessments, which could place development as a
process initiated and implemented by outside forces and actors.
The central theme within Stiglitzs (2006) argument is of globalisation; it
has brought both growth and instability. Initially it was hoped that
globalisation would increase the global outcome, however there is a
growing number of people in poverty. Some countries have advanced
better than others, there are unbalanced outcomes within and between
countries; this is due to the rules of the game being set by the advanced
11

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

industrial countries. The problem is not globalisation, but the way that it
has been managed. Economic globalisation has outpaced political
globalisation; there is a chaotic, uncoordinated system of governance.
Wealth is created but not shared, and there is no voice in shaping the
process (Stiglitz, 2006:8).
Athough Stiglitz points out these structural inequalities, he suggests no
concrete measures with which to change the rules of the game, however
simply identifiying this issue may bring the issue to the fore and create
awareness of power imbalances and the limitations of multilateral
institutions.
Escobar emphasises that the notion of development itself is flawed as the
discourse has been produced under conditions of unequal power. It is
rendered as a technical problem which de-politicises is although according
to Escobar, it is a political project. He suggests a post-development
approach needs to be taken, in which self determination is implicit; culture
should have a stronger place in defining terms such as poverty,
development and growth. A grassroots approach should thus be taken.
This approach is problematic in that it emphasises social movements with
no consideration of the internal power dynamics within cultures. This is
inconsistent with its own deconstructionist approach. The subjects within
development still remain as passive within the process of development.
Words: 693

12

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

Bibliography and References


Alkire, S. (2002) Dimensions of Human Development, World
Development 30 (2):181-205
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and
Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Leynseele, Y. And Gomez, E. (2014) Workshop 4: PostDevelopment. September 26th 2014, Core Issues in International
Development Lecture at the University of Amsterdam.
Ruggeri, C. Saith, R. & Stewart, F. (2003) Does it Matter that we do not
Agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches,
Oxford Development Studies, 31:3, 243-274, DOI:
10.1080/1360081032000111698
Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom (2nd ed.). Oxford New York:
Oxford University Press
Stiglitz, J. (2006) Chapter 1 Another world is possible, and chapter 2 The
promise of development In Making Globalization work, London: Penguin
Books. pp. 3-24 and pp. 35-60

Tully, J. (2013). Two ways of realizing justice and democracy: linking


Amartya Sen and Elinor Ostrom. Critical Review of International Social and
Political Philosophy, 16(2), 220-232.

13

0618664814

Lindsey Cottle

Total Word Count: 3,318

14