Editorial

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Mike Powell's introductory overview to his guest issue of November 2006 spells out the myriad ways in which the increasing domination of the development sector by the English language both excludes those who are not fully fluent in English, and just as importantly ‘[disempowers] itself by ensuring its ignorance of vitally (and in the case of China increasingly) important intellectual traditions. By failing to engage systematically with local languages, the sector limits its understanding of and its ability to communicate with most of its intended beneficiaries. Addressing the issue of language fully would have large financial and organisational implications, but failure to do so carries the high costs of ignorance and inefficient communication. If development is to be about life, it has to be able to connect with the languages in which its beneficiaries live’ (Powell 2006:523).

2. This paper forms the basis of Cornwall and Brock (2006).

3. The opening quotations clearly betray my middle-class English upbringing of the early 1960s; I make no apology for this, for it would be sad indeed if our childhood left us without cultural roots and reference points. Of course, the fictional works of Lewis Carroll, an Oxford don who was also an Anglican clergyman, a logician, and a photographer, and A. A. Milne, an obscure playwright, assistant editor of the satirical magazine Punch, and author of children's books and poems, cannot conceivably be regarded as universal or even ‘great’ authors. They have, however, become ‘globalised’, albeit in saccharine versions that bear little relation to the original texts and wonderful illustrations, thanks to Walt Disney, Inc.

4. The ‘Thirty-eight thousand development programmes’ reproduced as a coda to this Editorial emerged in the late 1970s. We have made every effort to find the original source, but without success; if its authors or copyright holders come forward, we will be only too happy to credit them. The interesting thing about this game is how much and how little has changed. Clearly, it pre-dates the international debt crisis, structural adjustment, the ‘end of communism’, neo-liberalism, and the Washington Consensus; it therefore also pre-dates the series of UN conferences that took place through the 1980s and 1990s: Children, Environment, Women, Population, Human Rights, and Social Development, which together provided such fertile ground for new buzzwords. The now ubiquitous language of New Public Management had yet to permeate the Development Industry. But the essence remains the same, give or take a few missing terms. Readers may therefore enjoy creating more up-to-date versions of the game. We would be pleased to publish the most original contributions in a future issue of the journal.