0618664814Lindsey 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 Earth’s ecospace has amplified hence the North-South debate, but also the richpoor debate on the right to develop, as one group’s development may come at the cost of the other group’s 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 political and economic spheres. A hindrance to movement forward is the political and ideological manoeuvring that underlies the discourse on the right to development. it has provided an attitude shift and opportunities to improve global. the obligations of both donors and recipients. they have not met their own targets. human rights is conceived of as holistic. and consensus among stakeholders to enforce this right. 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. Although Industialised Countries’s have voluntarily commited to providing resources to DC’s over the last six decades and have continuously reiterated the need to do so. the priorities that it should address. Rights discourses do set out to further more complex and sometimes contradictory agendas these can be progressive and reactionary. (Gupta. The right to development pertains to communities. It has been conceded by proponents that despite half a century of debate. institutions and practices. 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. weak enforcement mechanisms. Rights must be realised simultaneously within social. realising the right to development to have a meaningful contribution has not yet come to fruition (Ibawoh. interrelated and indivisible. hegemonic frames . and the processes for evaluating development assistance (Ibhawoh. development can be claimed as a human rights entitlement by both of these. Gupta (2014) suggests that Governance for sharing our ecospace calls for scalar analysis of glocal problems. sustainability not securitization framing to deal with ecospace and the right to develop. The difficulties implementing the right to development are also due to vague definitions. 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. critical and constructive relational analysis of changing but persistent North-South and rich-poor problems. 2011). Despite a lack of movement in the rights to development. Rights discourses can be used to further a more progressive and reactionary agenda. 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.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle of international human rights law. This discourse could act as a movement towards this. Such a framework would regulate the delivery of development assistance. 2011). national and local governance. a lack of political will. nations and regions given that it is an entitlement to both the individual and the collective. 2011). 2 . Core Issues in International Development Lecture at the University of Amsterdam. Vogel. Meadowcroft. Available: http://www. Cashore. Schroeder. Liverman. F.nl/upload/pdf/PDF-3450weboratie_Gupta. Jordan. S. M. Pattberg. Mainstreaming Climate Change in Development Cooperation: Theory. Kanie. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Oberthür. P. J. and N. Cambridge University Press. 99-133 Ibhawoh. pp. 'The Third World and the Right to Development: Agenda for the Next Millennium' (2000) 22 Human Rights Quarterly 3 . Sharing our Ecospace. A. And Pouw. S. M. Clapp. November 11th 2014. K. C. Bulkeley. C.pdf. Andresen. C. Practice and Implications for the European Union. P. Bernstein. J. R. Gupta. Vieira. Newell. K.). (2014).B. H. J. NJ. H. Bäckstrand. (2002) Liberal Environmentalism and Global Environmental Governance. Young (2012). (2010) ‘Global governance: development cooperation’. S. D. P. N. In Gupta. Sánchez-Rodríguez. N. Lebel. Kluvánková-Oravská. T. Mitchell. Transforming governance and institutions towards Global Sustainability: Key Insights for Social Science Research. B. and O. B. J. Gupta. Global Environmental Politics.. Gupta. Underdal. L. Last accessed 2nd December 2014. J. “The Right to Development: The Politics and Polemics of Power and Resistance” (2011) 33 76-104 Human Rights Quarterly Udombana. van de Grijp (eds. 2(3): 1-16 Biermann.oratiereeks. A. Gupta. L. J. Olsson.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle Word Count: 866 Bibliography and References Bernstein. J. (2014) The Right to Develop in the Context of Sharing Our Earth: Global institutional politics. R. Folke. S. Haas. A. Abbott. R. S. Betsill. 4(1): 51-60 Gupta. Since the 1990’s participatory and inclusive approaches have gained importance in development. 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.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle 2. 2002 in Hickey and Mohan. A central position in the analysis and practice of governance has been given to the role of the state in promoting citizenship. (Beall and Fox. partly due to urban dwellers struggle for immediate survival. Efforts to improve urban governance have revolved around decentralisation. and provides a political. However depoliticisation and a loss of responsibility can occur by sidelining formal political actors during a process of decentralisation. Hordijk (2005) argues participatory approaches are most likely to succeed: where they are aimed at securing citizenship rights and 4 . 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. 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. This can take many forms and its success depends on a variety of factors. Indeed. Examples were discussed in the literature and lectures of how governance outcomes may lead to either marginalization or empowerment of social groups. legal and moral imperative for focusing on people’s agency within development. 2005). It is however questionable whether citizenship provides a requirement towards a transformative approach to participation. 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. The notion of citizenship offers a useful form of analysis within which to situate understandings of participation. National and local political will and committed urban leadership are essential if this development can move forward. Examples of transformative collective action are not commonplace. Relations of patronage and reciprocity that offer security are maintained. 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. basic needs have seen improvement. It is argued that the benefits of the approach are citizens have direct participation in governance. municipal agencies. India has a different concept of ‘community’ and citizenship may then also have a different place than the Western ideal. establish institutional links for employment. lack of information and confidence. provide loans and emergency support. In a participatory context. However. the highest being the development of interest and lobby groups and consultative mechanisms which reach ordinary inhabitants. it allows for community based organisations to block progress. this transforms them into citizens and raises democratic awareness. these relations are critical for survival as the poor operate in an environment characterized by unreliable institutions. this presents a problem in that divisions exist between people not only in terms of caste but also income. 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. these relations still exist and serve those in power. This reacts to Hordijk’s proposition of citizenship. This evidence shows that municipal agencies. control or capture benefits aimed at the poor. plus infrastructure and service improvements have a redistributional focus. is supported by the middle and some upper classes whilst also linking together the governors and the governed. patronage prevails along with their power and influence.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle participation for marginal and subordinate groups. informal and vertical relationships. gender and ethnicity . negligent or predatory government agents. Indeed. It is argued that this level of citizenship is obtained and also fosters a novel approach when utilising a participatory budgeting framework. participation and governance as there exist many barriers to these due to lack of horizontal mobilisation of the poor. As demonstrated in De Wit and Berner (2009). Participatory budgeting is one form of governance innovation in which citizenship has been prioritised. This framework demands that authorities and inhabitants formulate development plans and budgets in a participatory manner. and multiple but unsecure sources of household income. Transparency emerges from this approach. Since access by the poor is hindered by illiteracy. gives a new meaning to citizenship and is innovative. They have access to government agencies. donors and NGO’s cannot avoid becoming embroiled within the cultural and community based status quo. pro-poor growth has increased along with tax revenues. This approach has indeed shown success in Brazil and has also moved into many parts of South America. the community based organisations. These grassroots strategies tend to be unequal as they are based on personalised. benefits include increased investment. donors 5 . She identifies three levels of citizenship . It is claimed as an approach which is redistributive. S. but the participatory development itself has been imported. Fox (eds) Cities and Development. and S. pp. NGOs. Oppression and discrimination will still exist as this was the basis in the pre civil society. 40(5): 927-947 Hickey. 201-230 De Wit. (2003) ’Development and its Discontents: Civil society as the new lexicon’. and G. asking who decides which people are involved and what role they play. J. Words: 995 Bibliography and References Beall J. 46(1): 80-87 Hordijk M. it may be less easy for such pro-poor approaches to give the excluded a voice in the process of development. Indeed. and S. Routledge: London.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle and NGOs cannot easily escape the logic of patronage and often themselves become part of a system of vertical dependency relations. Shatkin (2007) echoes this notion of ‘convergence’ in his perspective it is necessary to account better for local agency and divergent outcomes. It is a notion which has set itself against Eurocentric notions. Rather than attempting to find models where developing countries converge in their path to development.A. and Berner. and the Limits to Slum Dweller's Empowerment’. (2009) ‘Progressive Patronage? Municipalities. However this approach has proven that it may only work well in homogenous societies. Governance and Politics’. (2005) ‘Participatory Governance in Peru: Exercising Citizenship’. in the participatory approach internal contradictions such as these are ‘glossed over’. Society for International Development.. Participatory approaches could lead to a rolling back of the state and a withdrawal of commitment from welfare and development. Roy (2003) questions the notion. E. In Beall J. I. Environment and Urbanization 17(1): 219-236 6 . Mohan (2005) ‘Relocating Participation within a Radical Politics of Development’. 36(2): 237-262 Roy. Community-Based Organizations. Actor-centred perspectives need to be further considered in urban analysis. The participatory budgeting approach here may be commended. with societal divisions. Development and Change. It is a utopian notion where in reality it is questionable as to whether participatory approaches include the excluded. in that it doesn’t simply allow grassroots participation but brings together the state and it’s citizens in an instrumental way. Development and Change. Fox (2009) ‘Shaping city Futures: Urban Planning. a shift is needed to examine the interactions between global and local actions and institutions within particular settings. (2003) ’Development and its Discontents: Civil society as the new lexicon’.Market-driven development has been discussed as providing new opportunities for inclusive development. 24(1): 1–15. (2007). . ‘Global cities of the South: Emerging perspectives on growth and inequality’.Roy. Society for International Development. this role of government should have a more active role in 7 . 46(1): 80-87 3. this does not capture the complexities of development. On the other hand. He suggests more emphasis needs to be placed on the role of government rather than simply ‘unfettered capitalism’. I. G.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle Shatkin. Cities. 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. 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. 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. it can be seen as creating the very conditions that for social exclusion and unsustainable development. Stiglitz (2006) question whether market driven development is necessarily welfare enhancing. 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. This notion is similar to that of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Different people interact with economic microprocesses and macrostructures and regimes in their quest for wellbeing (Pouw. institutions and culture. but also a concern with non-economic values such as social justice. Pouw (2011) also goes on to highlight the access. This points towards the need for a more inclusive approach towards market based approaches. This will expand access to the market. At odds with Stiglitz (2006) then who believes that there is a single minded approach and less concern for non economic values. and emphasises that this is context specific which leads us to take a more inclusive approach and examine development measures at the society level. This differs somewhat to Stiglitz’ (2006) view of necessary governmental intervention. the market economy may have worked to some extent for Western countries. a climate for business and job creation and a construction of physical and institutional infrastructure are necessary. 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.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle promoting development and protecting the poor. the successful developing countries have adapted policies to their own situation. Indeed in the success stories. control and prioritisation to capital is also community context specific. circumstances and details in policy. in that if markets are there. they may 8 . cultural diversity and consumer protection. There are different views about the origins of poverty and inequality. This is emphasised on the global and national level. 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. The issue is that there has been hegemony in support for one economic perspective. but a different approach may be necessary for different country contexts. 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. 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. Narayan (2009) concurs with this idea. Narayan (2009) calls for liberalisation from below and reducing the role of government regulation. 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) provides a concern for economic efficiency. another is the reward for hard work. the environment. Infrastructure in communications and roads is a necessary intervention. Luck is one factor. Permanent assets need to be built to reach everyone and reduce vulnerability. 2011). 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. Word Count: 764 Bibliography and References: Narayan. people will take the initiative. pp. D. L. Success from the Bottom-Up. but applying this within all scales of understanding is indeed a complex task. 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.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle engender a distribution of income. All three of these approaches take an inclusive approach in understanding the different contexts within which poverty and inequality takes place. Pritchett and Kapoor (eds) Moving out of Poverty. The common theme throughout is that there is no one size fits all solution. Narayan (2009) assumes that given the opportunity. 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. Kapoor (2009) ‘Chapter 1 ‘The Moving out of Poverty Study: An Overview’ In Narayan. this approach is problematic as barriers to people taking the initiative given the opportunity are not discussed. Vol 2:. Pritchett and S. 2-49 9 .. pp. (2006) Chapter 1 ‘Another world is possible’. The arguments set by Sen.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle Pouw. 3-24 and pp. London: Penguin Books. Stiglitz and Esteva/Escobar about the idea of development studies may incorporate new notions and concepts useful for the discipline of International Development Studies. J. and chapter 2 ‘The promise of development’ In Making Globalization work. and B. New York: Routledge. pp.R. Gilmore (2011) ‘Wellbeing in Theory and in Practice’. In Pouw and Baud (eds) Local Governance and Poverty in Developing Nations.M. Please elaborate on each author’s main contribution to the theoretical discourse on development as well as point out one 10 . 17-31 Stiglitz. N. 35-60 4. There is however. Sen does not identify a set of capabilities. evidence also suggests that capability deprivation is experienced differently to income thus the capability approach is able to capture a different dimension of poverty. Some countries have advanced better than others. This then requires a new methodology of measuring wellbeing that shifts beyond the money-metric. economic facilities.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle or more of shortcomings in their conceptualizations of poverty and underdevelopment. 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. 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. economic and social spheres. transparency guarantees. This approach also represents external assessments. and the way in which Western democracy has been spread is hypocritical. are open to a wide range of interpretations. Bringing with it new notions and concepts of development. there can be tension accepting pluralistic views. The policy outcomes work within political. it has brought both growth and instability. Given that it is agency oriented. social opportunities and protective security). The central theme within Stiglitz’s (2006) argument is of globalisation. Sen’s notion of development as capability enhancement has broadened out to development as freedom. There are also multiple pathways to achieve development as a multidimensional and a culturally sensitive approach. Income poverty is criticised as a measure. Freedom and democracy are emphasised. These expansions of freedoms are not only the primary end but also the principal means of development. Sen argues more precisely. 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. ambiguity about exactly how to apply Sen’s approach empirically. In it’s removal of ‘unfreedoms’ there are many different points of entry and soace for action. however there is a growing number of people in poverty. According to Tully (2013) countries have their own idea of democracy and human rights. It is necessary to consider the question. Initially it was hoped that globalisation would increase the global outcome. which could place development as a process initiated and implemented by outside forces and actors. it is a value judgement that needs to be made explicitly. this is due to the rules of the game being set by the advanced 11 . In ‘Development as Freedom’. Attention is shifted away from income (means) to ends (freedoms). there are unbalanced outcomes within and between countries. to what extent can actors have a voice within their own development process? Sen’s notion is about the enhancement of the potential of people to emancipate themselves (see Sen 1999a). Sen distinguished between five forms of freedoms (political. but still. national-level categories. through a process of public debate (Sen 1999a). limited resources may result in limited impact of such policies. Even in democracy. 2006:8).0618664814 Lindsey Cottle industrial countries. The subjects within development still remain as passive within the process of development. It is rendered as a technical problem which de-politicises is although according to Escobar. The problem is not globalisation. Words: 693 12 . Athough Stiglitz points out these structural inequalities. uncoordinated system of governance. but the way that it has been managed. culture should have a stronger place in defining terms such as poverty. and there is no voice in shaping the process (Stiglitz. he suggests no concrete measures with which to change the rules of the game. there is a chaotic. A grassroots approach should thus be taken. Economic globalisation has outpaced political globalisation. development and growth. He suggests a post-development approach needs to be taken. This is inconsistent with its own deconstructionist approach. in which self determination is implicit. Escobar emphasises that the notion of development itself is flawed as the discourse has been produced under conditions of unequal power. This approach is problematic in that it emphasises social movements with no consideration of the internal power dynamics within cultures. however simply identifiying this issue may bring the issue to the fore and create awareness of power imbalances and the limitations of multilateral institutions. it is a political project. Wealth is created but not shared. And Gomez. (2006) Chapter 1 ‘Another world is possible’. September 26th 2014. A. World Development 30 (2):181-205 Escobar. Two ways of realizing justice and democracy: linking Amartya Sen and Elinor Ostrom. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. 243-274. Princeton: Princeton University Press Leynseele. A. 220-232. & Stewart. R.1080/1360081032000111698 Sen. 31:3. Ruggeri. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press Stiglitz. (2014) Workshop 4: PostDevelopment. C. J. Y. and chapter 2 ‘The promise of development’ In Making Globalization work. (1995). 35-60 Tully. Core Issues in International Development Lecture at the University of Amsterdam. (2001). E. F. (2013). 3-24 and pp. Oxford Development Studies. (2002) ‘Dimensions of Human Development’. London: Penguin Books.0618664814 Lindsey Cottle Bibliography and References Alkire.). Development as freedom (2nd ed. Saith. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. pp. 16(2). DOI: 10. (2003) Does it Matter that we do not Agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches. S. J. 13 . 318 14 .0618664814 Lindsey Cottle Total Word Count: 3.