![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Notes
Graham Harrison, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Elmfield, Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 2TU, UK
The articles in this special issue originated in the conference: ‘Towards a Political Economy of Development: Globalisation and Governance’, held at the University of Sheffield in July 2001 and supported by the Political Economy Research Centre (University of Sheffield) and the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (University of Warwick).
‘Official’ here is to recognise that the rise of development studies was not ab initio; rather it relied on a deeper history of Enlightenment thought and colonial practice from 1940 when Britain passed the Colonial Development Act. A detailed and compelling treatment of all of this is Mike Cowen & Robert Shenton, Doctrines of Development (Routledge, 1996).
Mark Berger, ‘The Nation‐State and the Challenge of Global Capitalism’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 6 (2001), pp. 889–908; and Mark Berger, ‘The Rise and Demise of National Development and the Origins of Post‐Cold War Capitalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2001), pp. 211–34.
Inter alia: Frans Schuurman (ed.), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory (Zed, 1996); and David Booth, ‘Marxism and Development Sociology: Interpreting the Impasse’, World Development, Vol. 13, No. 7 (1985), pp. 761–87.
Apart from IPE, development has gained new prominence in cultural studies (especially post‐structural versions) through the methodology of deconstruction, and political theory through considerations of inequality and justice at a global scale, especially in the work of Thomas Pogge.
Edward A. Brett, The World Economy since the War: The Politics of Uneven Development (Macmillan, 1985).
This is how Brewer understands dependency theory. See Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (Routledge, 1980).
Frans Schuurman (ed.), Globalisation and Development Studies (Sage, 2001); Philip McMichael, Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective (Pine Forge Press, 2000); and Ankie Hoogvelt, Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: Towards a New Political Economy of Development (Palgrave, 1997).
Development studies has not established a strong track record in analysing the global and systemic processes that have been the central provenance of IPE. See Jan Nederveen Pieterse, ‘Global Inequality: Bringing Politics Back In’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 6 (2002), p. 1034.
A key statement on the prospects for the construction of an IPE of development is Anthony Payne, ‘The Global Politics of Development: Towards a New Agenda’, Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2001), pp. 5–19.
Between the mid 1980s and the mid 1990s, world foreign direct investment increased at an annual rate of 28% and global trade by 14%. Gavin Kitching, Seeking Social Justice Through Globalisation (Penn State Press, 2001), p. 87.
Freidrich Frobel et al., The New International Division of Labour (Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Gary Gereffi & Miguel Korzeniewicz (eds), Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (Praeger, 1994).
Sub‐Saharan Africa underwent 241 Structural Adjustment Programmes in 36 countries between 1980 and 1989. See Francis Owusu, ‘Pragmatism and the Gradual Shift from Dependency to Neoliberalism: The World Bank, African Leaders, and Development Policy in Africa’, World Development, Vol. 31, No. 10 (2003), p. 1659.
See Greenspan's paraphrased words in the Wade article. Another key spokesperson in the global management of the economy, former Secretary General of the World Trade Organization, Michael Moore, made a similar point: ‘Globalisation is not an ideology … but economic evolution’, in Philip McMichael, ‘Sleepless in Seattle: What is the WTO about?’, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2000), p. 472. Both Greenspan and Moore wish to portray global liberalisation as the realisation of an immanent human nature. See also David Williams, ‘Constructing the Economic Space: The World Bank and the Making of Homo Oeconomicus’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1 (1999), pp. 79–99; and John Brohman, ‘Economism and Critical Silences in Development Studies: A Theoretical Critique of Neoliberalism’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1995), pp. 297–314.
A phrase employed in David Held et al., Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Polity, 1999).
Kenichi Ohmae, The End of the Nation‐State: The Rise of Regional Economies (Free Press, 1995); and Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Harper Collins, 1999).
Stephen Gill, ‘Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (1995), pp. 399–423; Ronen Palan & Jason Abbott, State Strategies in the Global Political Economy (Pinter 1999); and Rita Abrahamsen, Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Government in Africa (Zed, 2000).
An impressive analysis of this is Mark Blyth, Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Colin Leys, The Rise and Fall of Development Theory (James Currey, 1996), p. 6.
Colin Leys, ‘The Crisis in “Development Theory” ’, New Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1996), p. 42.
Robert Wade, ‘What Strategies are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The World Trade Organization and the Shrinking of “Development Space” ’, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 10, No. 4 (2003), pp. 621–45.
Nederveen Pieterse, ‘Global Inequality’, p. 1027.
James Wolfensohn, opening speech, in Joseph Stiglitz & Pierre‐Alain Muet (eds), Governance, Equity, and Global Markets (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. xxvii.
On the same issue, and broadly in keeping with Wade, see the special issue of Journal of International Development, Vol. 16, No. 1 (2004).
Despite the statistical problems, it is clear that global inequality has increased during the neoliberal age, as many UNDP Human Development Reports demonstrate.