power and prejudices

8/8/2019 Power and Prejudices

1/22

Power, Prejudices and Poor: Rethinking Development

Abstract:

Development debates have always been centered on the edge of powerful and powerless and

they become further ambiguous when the two are influenced by the development biases. In the

process of development the modernists argue in favor of a common ground where everyone

benefits from the modernization. On the other, the anti modernists put their views in a different

way: whether the modernization is positive or negative. In other words, if modernization brings a

common ground for all by alienating power divisions among gender, class and race or the

opposite. Despite the significance of modernization for introducing human civilization into theworld, critical concerns are on equities and empowerment. The challenges are thus to ensure

human freedom as a means and as an end so as to equalize the human capabilities for the wellbeing of every human being.

_______________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Starting from Marx against the class antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat,

Durkheim on organic vs. mechanical solidarity, and Habermas on public vs. private

sphere, no social theory is free from power analogy (Marx and Engels, 1998; Durkheim,

1984; Habermas, 1989). Development discourse has largely been centered within the

power paradigm. Power of modernization to bring the world into a parallel society is

debated against its power to create uneven society contributing to economic, political and

social inequalities (Abdo, 1996; Frank, 1966; Ruffin, 1990). Development of a few is

perceived as an exploitation of many and contributing to the clash of civilizations

(Huntington, 1993; Ikeo, 2003; Weede, 1998). Rationale of science and technology has

been questioned for undermining the social and cultural values, and ignoring the large

social cost of transition (Granato, Inglehart, and Leblang, 1998; Facio, 2004; Smith,

2005). Above all, economic progress for human development or human freedom has

been a critical one in late modernization (Chamber, 2005; Friedman, 1992; Sen, 1999).

1


2/22

Marx argued on expansion of human freedom (freedom to realize ones fullest capacities)

as one of the basic criterion of human progress (cited in Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson,

2003: 153). In The Communist Manifesto Marx looks forward to a society in which the

free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (Marx and

Engels 1998: 41). However, this requires a continuous struggle to relieve the human

being from the existing restraints so as to alter their relation with nature and among

themselves. Such struggles continue to exist with the aspirations of human equality and

social justice, which requires the fullest realization of human capacities that permit an

intellectual growth as well as an abundance of material wealth (Marx et.al.,1998;

Blackwell, et.al.,2003).

Amartya Sen (1992, 1999) a modern economist brings his capability approach, which is

in line with Marxist views of human freedom. Sen argues that peoples real freedom for

leading valuable life is based on their capabilities to enjoy positive state of life such as

being politically active, being healthy or literate. The capabilities represent what people

can do or be, and not what they can consume or on their incomes (Sen, 1992: 50; Sen,

1999: 18). The latter are however, the means of well being. Sen disagrees with the

utilitarian judgments of an individuals wellbeing which is only based on resources, but

ignores the intrinsic interpersonal capabilities (Deneulin, 2006; Ingrid, 2003; Sen, 1992).

Peoples abilities to convert resources into capabilities differ based on the personal,

political and social factors such as physical and mental disability, tradition, social norms

and values, countrys infrastructures, climate and so on (Deneulin, 2006; Robeyin, 2003;

Sen. 1999). These factors highly contribute to inequalities in capabilities and thereby the

well being.

2. Power Paradigm and Modernization

As power relates to human capabilities, resources, and authorities, it is perceived as a tool

of strengthening or destrengthening ones capacity over the other. More precisely, power

can be exercised by the one who have capacity to control others (Dean, 2006; Chambers,

2


3/22

2005). It operates at every level within human society; global, to local and at inter

personal level (Dean, 2006: 69). Since human society is evolved from individual, to

community and nation, the power functions at different level. Friedmann (1992: 32) in

his alternative development approach introduced three types of power: social (having

access to information and resources and organizations), political (access to decision

making process) and psychological power (potency of self esteem to be able to access to

social and political power). Empowerment as an alternative development strategy, he

focused on improving the conditions of peoples lives and livelihood that starts from the

household (Friedmann, 1992). Foucault (1982) sees power as a mode of actions upon

actions. His model includes understandings of resistance as a form of power (cited in

Rowlands, 1997:12). Foucault (1977) argues that power is present in every human

relations affecting ones actions over the other and penetrates throughout the society.

Power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the privilege acquired or preserved,

of the dominant class, but the overall effect of its strategic positions (1977:26).

Marx illustrated the power of capitalism to suppress the consciousness of working class

and to blind them on their own exploitation (cited in Dean, 2006: 71). Durkheim (1984)

focused on differentiation as specialization and as an individual power so as to

contribute efficiently to the whole. Parsons (1964) underlined the role of structural

functionalism as an effective tie to exercise power, by which the four functions

(adaptation, goal achievement, integration and maintenance) are plausible. Similarly,

Habermas (1989) emphasized on public sphere as a means to bring power and freedom to

people through a rational debate.

Next to modernity, Frank (1966) argued on the power of capitalism in Latin America to

divide the world into development and underdevelopment through exploitation of

resources from satellites to metropoles. Supporting to the views of Frank, other scholars

such as Walter (1972), Wallerstein ((1977) argued strongly on dependency theory and

power of colonialism to create uneven development in Africa and Europe respectively

(cited in Chilcote, 1984). Marx (1972) also illustrated the power of British colonialism to

deconstruct India through destroying the native Indian handlooms and native industry.

3


4/22

(Abdo, 1996) argued that capitalism in Europe was possible only due to the exploitation

of natural and human resources from the third world that deprived the benefits of

capitalism.

In the development discourse, development in its different forms (modernization or

globalization) is perceived as a western domination and raising the power conflict among

nations (Huntington, 1993; Mehmet, 2001; Rowland, 1997). Nevertheless, globalization

has made a significant contribution to the world through trade, travel, migration, cultural

influences and dissemination of information and technology (Sen, 2002). Sen further

argues that the progress in science and technology is not necessarily the western. For

instance, the decimal system was first originated and developed in India and was later

used by Europeans for scientific revolution. Today, the mass communication technology

such as world wide-web has brought an enormous opportunity to the world population to

build up their knowledge and understanding in global phenomenon (Rajaee, 2002;

Stigtilz, 2002). Communication through public media such as internet plays a significant

role in bringing freedom and power to the people as they can be aware on the ongoing

issues (Habermas, 1989). In addition, the civil society has started to be globalized to

build up their transnational power for human rights and social justice (Clasen, 1999;

McCarthy, 1997; Rajaee, 2002).

In past three decades, countries in East Asia had made an unexpected economic progress

(sometimes better than USA to be able to make up in OECD) through the global market

policy (Smith, 2005; Stigtilz, 2002). They were able to close the technology gap by

taking advantage of global knowledge. These countries were able to set up their own pace

of change and even rejected the rules of Washington Consensus which focused on

minimal role for government and rapid privatization (Stigtilz, 2002). Such progress

achieved by these nations with economic interrelations and modern technology can be

taken by other nations as well.

Above all, the western civilization that has been introduced to the modern world through

globalization can hardly be undermined for emancipating the worlds population from

4


5/22

social, political, and economic oppression (Rajaee, 2002; Stigtilz, 2002). In view of these

arguments, one can not stress that the globalization or modernization as a negative

enforcement from the western world. In addition, globalization itself is not an outcome

but a process.

3. Modernization and Development

The assumptions of modernization theory are: a) economic growth benefits all members

of society through trickle down effect, b) macro economic policies are gender neutral,

and c) the modern technologies are superior to the traditional (Conneley, Li, Mac Donald,

and Parpart, 2000). The economic policy of global financial institutions (IMF, World

Bank, USAID) is dominated by these assumptions.

Accordingly, three basic developments in modernization over the four decades include

capitalization of world agriculture (investment on larger productive lands eliminating the

subsistence lands), technology development (maximizing the ability to transform the

earth resources into usable commodities: industrialization) and institutional development

(emphasizing on organizational structures of state and corporate institutions: process of

bureaucratization) (Wallerstein, 1998: 288). Such development envisages another form of

development. For instance, subsistence farmers from larger part of the world concentrate

on urban areas for work: urbanization, resources tend to be focused on core areas for their

productive and profitable use and leaves periphery to remain underdeveloped

(Wallerstein, 1998).

As opposed to the theory of modernization, Frank (1966) clarified that it is the utilization

of the economic surplus (that has been centralized from satellites to metropolis), which

has resulted development and underdevelopment. Due to the monopoly structure of world

capitalist system, the capitalist countries were able to expropriate the surplus from

underdeveloped countries while preventing them to realize the surplus. He illustrated this

5


6/22

chain flow of the surplus from the remotest Latin American village to metropolis of New

York (Frank, 1966; Frank, 1967).

As a custom of dependency theory, the privileged nations tend to contribute towards

underdevelopment so as to benefit through international economic order (Chilcote1984;

Robinson, 1979; Weede, 1998). For instance, closing of all textile factories in India

during the British colony caused a huge socio-economic loss to the country as indicated

earlier. Similarly, African nations became underdeveloped with the colonization from

Europe (Chilcote, 1984). The colonial and capitalist system of development is not parallel

to development but uneven development that contributed to polarization and

exploitation of resources from satellites to metropolis (Frank, 1966; Chilcote, 1984;

Ruffin, 1990).

Although used as a new development strategy, neo-liberalism still follows the capitalist

path of development ignoring the diverse contexts of development (Brohman, 1995;

Mehmet, 1995; Wylie, 2000). For instance, the neo-liberal model emphasizes market-led

growth, increased savings and private investment based on high profits, low wages;

gradual industrialization, and outward-oriented development (Brohman, 1996:31). These

set of policies are regulated by the multilateral institutions, which exert global

governance without considering the socio-cultural circumstances of the recipient

countries (Brohman, 1996; Hartwick and Peet, 2003). Accordingly, globalization has

given a rise to global capitalism and multilateral institutions have gained a super

economic and political power over the national and local institutions (Berberoglu, 2005;

Dean, 2006; Applebaum and Robinson, 2005). The neo liberal model of development

simplifies the complex process of development, however, excludes much of the

developing world, which is based on subsistence economy, or landless rural workers and

rapidly growing numbers of urban laborers (Friedmann, 1992:14).

6


7/22

4. Modernization towards Equities:

Notwithstanding the positive influence of globalization especially among the developed

nations, there are some critical concerns (Bello, 2002, Henderson, 2005; Smith, 2005).

More than an economic efficiency, the most important aspects are; a) how the economic

prosperity has been used for human welfare, b) how the global forces are used to

reconcile the equities among nations, community and individual and, c) how the global

policy has based its steps towards institutional reforms (Bello, 2002; Clasen 1999;

Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs, 1997). The question is not whether globalization brings

potential benefits to all including the disadvantaged, but whether they share the equal

gains (Bello, 2002; Hajjar 2005; Sen, 2002). One does not need to emphasize that there

has been vast disparities in distribution of wealth, and unevenness in political, economic

and social opportunities and power (Phillips, 1999; Ruffin, 1990; Sen, 2002).

The inequalities are growing larger not only at international level but within intra

national. For instance, in 1992, UN found that 83 percent of the worlds wealth was

concentrated in the North benefiting 20 percent of the world population. The distribution

of wealth within countries indicates that richest 20 percent of the world people are 150

times richer than the poorest 20 percent (Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003: 88).

The global governance has in fact, created a class conflict of state permitting to grow

working class as a result of mass production and specialization, and low wage policy

(Berberoglou, 2005; Ruffin, 1990; Levine, 1998). Many countries in the third world such

as Cuba and Latin America have passed through this stage of transition following the

industrial revolution (Ruffin, 1990). In addition, the modern technologies initiated by

bilateral and multilateral institutions have been used at the expense of local communities

(Kazmin and Penh, 2002; Vivian, 1992). For instance, construction of large hydro dams

around Mekhong river in China has destroyed the large settlement in periphery, local

vegetation and the bio system affecting the whole socioeconomic settings of the local

community (Kazmin and Penh, 2002). Similarly, government supported logging activities

in Malaysia threatened the livelihood of the communities of the rainforests in Sarawak,

7


8/22

while the benefits were channeled to elites outside the region. These experiences were

repeated in India, Thailand, Philippines, and Brazil (Vivian, 1992: 74). Friedmann (1992:

124) has focused on intergenerational equity or fairness in the distribution of

environmental costs and benefits. His notion of an alternative development respects the

traditions of territorial communities, and historical continuity that indicates individual

and collective identity (1992:124).

Gender based inequalities has rather increased due to increase in womens subordinate

roles in the household and in the market arena, as they entered into more labor force in

the world of technology (Agrawal, 1985; Bracke, 2004; Mies, 1986). Development of

modern technology has led to undermine traditional, indigenous knowledge and skill

which mostly comes from women as a strategy for their survival (Car and Sandhu, 1988).

For instance, womens knowledge and skill in production and reproduction of household

energy is hardly acknowledged in planning alternative energy technologies (Mahat, 2006;

Cecelski, 2002).

The politics of identity has created hegemony over the nations of huge diversities such as

ethnic, religious and cultural (Philips, 1999; Jacobs, 2004). Although multiculturalism

has been accredited, the cultural identities of sub nations, communities, and individuals

such as Muslims are still subject to a threat and risk in Europe and North America

(Jacobs, 2004: 131).

5. Feminist Perspectives towards Modernization:

The modernization approach has mainstreamed neoclassical economics that emphasizes

on competitive market and efficiency, and sees all the human suffering as transitional

cost (Mies, 1986; Nelson, 2005). Feminists concern over neo-classical economics has

been on the (Gross domestic Production) GDP model, which discounts subsistence and

informal economic activity, and the unpaid domestic work which is mostly done by

women. In addition, the mathematical model of GDP does not consider power

8


9/22

differentials, role of customs, institutions, and most importantly the human factor (Mies,

1986; Nelson, 2005). Contrary to the capitalists view of production, which only focuses

on output, feminists tend to analyze the forces of production that involves processes e.g.

relation between human and nature (Mies and Shiva, 1993; Omvedt and Kelkar 1995).

This is in line with Marxist view of production who characterized the capitalists

economy as an inherent nature of capital accumulation (Marx and Engles, 1998). Other

sociologists such as Weber indicated such economy as an iron cage, and Habermas

distinguished between the lifeworld of communication with subjectivity, responsibility

and a system arena driven by unconscious objectifying forces (Weber, 1978; Habermas,

1989).

Modernization has essentially initiated larger gender discrimination in the south

(Agrawal, 1994; Attanasio and Szekely, 2001; Mies and Shiva, 1993). For instance, short

term and long term migration due to the urbanization has increased women headed

households leading to intra household disparities (e.g. gender role and labor distribution)

(Agrawal, 1994; Attanasio and Szekely, 2001; Parrenas, 2005). In addition, such

migration for urban labor force as well as global work force has increasingly affected

emotional and social well being of the women and children (Parrenas, 2005; Pyle, 2005).

Mass production and specialization in production has assigned women into more labor

force as unskilled labor and their dual role has increased (Agrawal, 1994; Mies and

Shiva, 1993). Womens alienation from modern technology is considered as a product of

the historical and cultural construction of technology as masculine (Cockburn and

Ormund, 1993; Wajcman, 1991). For instance, modern industrial revolutions, such as

Green revolution has especially disadvantaged women through dismissal of women labor

due to mechanization in agriculture (Agrawal, 1985: 112). Chipko movement in India

was against the ecological revolution that destroyed the womens relation to nature as

large number of Indian forests was destroyed for commerce and industry (Mies and

Shiva, 1993: 2). Similarly increase in commercial and illegal logging in the third world,

has given a rise to womens drudgery as they rely on resources from nature for their

living (e.g. fuel, food and livestock feeding) (Vivian 1992: 72).

9


10/22


11/22

differentials in wealth and power between the developed and underdeveloped nations

(Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003).

Especially at individual level, when they are labeled as single parent, poor or low

class, they are often degraded from the natural human being (Conneley, Li, Mac Donald,

and Parpart, 2000; Howard, 1995). The process by which individual is differentiated is

highly significant because they often include unnatural factors. Howard (1995: 166)

pointed out that the most degrading characteristic one can possess in modern north

American society is to be part of the class of permanently poor as they are labeled as

less dignified people. The culture of capitalism measures persons status by their ability

to produce wealth, but disregards the processes, by which, human freedoms (leading to

their capabilities) are restricted (Howard, 1995; Sen, 1999). Howard further comments

that the structural factors in capitalist society largely prevent people for acting efficiently,

while those victims of capitalism are blamed for their own fate. Sen (1999) also

underlines that absence of economic, political and social freedoms perpetuates social

inequalities among gender, race and ethnicities.

The hegemony of common identity that has been advocated in the modernized world has

been largely debated by the scholars both from the north and south (Bannerji, 1995;

Jacobs, 2004; Simpson, 1998). Ideas have been emerged on existence of multiple

identities not only at international level but within intra national.

Bannerji (1995: 20) points out that identity has been a common political vocabulary in

North American society and the process of defining it goes beyond individual, to

historical and a collective process. But, who takes it as positive as that of creating

community or negative as exclusion is of concern. For instance, in North America and

Europe, a most extreme racist argument linking race with intelligence is claimed by

most respectable academics (Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003: 43) The racial

identity (based on physical and cultural characteristics) justifies ones superiority over

another race and allows some groups to have more wealth and power because of their

genetic characteristics and not because of social and political conditions (Blackwell,

11


12/22

et.al., 2003). Such practices help to promote social stratification and inequalities (e.g. less

investment for less intelligent). Simpson (1998: 2) illustrates how black races were

discriminated in USA in post civil rights generation and cited an example of teachers

and staffs ignorance of books about blacks in the library that were demanded by the

black kids.

McCarthy (1997) outlined that transnational identities can be formed through global

integration especially by increasing personal contacts and communication. However,

such contacts can also reinforce nationalists or sub nationalists identities, and activist

identities such as Islamic terrorists (1997: 248). He relates the transnational identity with

transnational activism, which requires the source of motivation for activism. Jacobs

(2004) sees the role of integration to provide access to minority groups to participate in

the mainstream institutions of civil society and governance. However, such integration

may cause a diversity threatening to their cultural identity (2004:131). The rhetoric of

national identity can undermine the legitimacy of sub cultural identities such as

aboriginals in Australia and Maori in New Zealand (Augustinos and Reylonds, 2001).

On the other, construction of such identities as divisive can also cause a threat to the

national identity (Augustinos et.al. 2001).

7. Development Paradigm and Social Policy

Development in modern era has brought a radical paradigm shift as indicated in Human

Development Report (cited in Chambers, 2005). Unlike in the past, development

symbolized an economic growth transforming the underdeveloped to developed through

industrial revolution, it focuses on human development permitting people to achieve their

well being through overall economic, social, and cultural progress (Chambers, 2005;

Denuelin, 2006). Chambers (2005: 193) in his development vision puts emphasis on

livelihood and capabilities as both ends and means, and well being as an overarching

end. Livelihood is based on two principles: equity and sustainability that qualify the

livelihood to become secured and responsible (Chambers, 2005).

12


13/22

Sen (1999) visions development as a removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave

people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency (1999:

xii). The focus is on personal dimensions that shape individuals capabilities and their

well being (Sen, 1992; Sen, 1999). Thus in an ideal society an effort should be made to

equalize the human capabilities (which depends on freedoms both as a means and as an

end) and not the goods per se (De Martino, 2000; Deneulin, 2006; Sen, 1999).

Lately, social development has been a new theory of development emphasizing on

development of social and human capital. OECD (Organization of Economic

Cooperation and Development) has focused on social development as a strategy for

capacity development at local, regional and national level (Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs,

1997; Gomez, 1999). An underlying assumption is that development of social capital

(capacity of collective entity to make competent decisions) and human capital (individual

capacity to make effective decisions) enables to strengthen the capacities of individuals,

groups and whole societies to learn, adapt and cooperate (Gomez, 1999). Following the

World Summit for Social Development (WSSD), UN has insisted on social policy

emphasizing on orientation of values, objectives and priorities towards the well-being of

all and strengthening capacity of institutions and policies (cited in Gomez, 1999). Thus

two policy implications of social development are: a) welfare state model is inappropriate

in many countries to meet the social needs, b) poverty is only a part of the problem

(Gomez, 1999).

While global policy (e.g. Beijng Declaration for Platform and Action, 1995, UN

Convention, 1990) overwhelmingly emphasized on equalities and empowerment as a

strategy for social development, the end practices are far from reality (Chambers, 2005;

Classen, 1999; Nelson, 2005). Structural Adjustment policy initiated under neo-liberalism

for instance, has cut off some social services in the less developed countries such as

health that mostly disadvantaged women and children (Brohman, 1995; Nelson, 2005).

Similarly World banks approach for structural adjustment in Africa focused on growth

as an outcome of right policies. Accordingly, measures were taken to reform the

policies that initiated interventions and actions for development. However, the social

13


14/22

development was only a secondary focus to other development. The challenges were then

the factors that affect economic growth (Classen, 1999; Gomez, 1999).

Although neo global policy encourages the social policy to focus on neo-development

strategy, the process is still dominated by the capitalist system of development (Brohman,

1995; Dean, 2006; Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs, 1997). For instance, the subsidies in public

services like electricity and water supply are justified to help the poor however,

disproportionately benefits the elites (Craig and Porter, 2006; World Bank, 1994). In

developing countries, the poor use kerosene or candles rather than electricity for lighting,

rely on public standpipes rather than in house connection for water supply, and are

infrequently served by sewerage systems (Weede, 1998: 377). Nevertheless, countries

like Vietnam and Uganda, have enormously gained through the private investment and

public aids respectively (Craig, et.al. 2006).

8. Conclusion:

Modernization has transmitted a positive development especially in terms of advanced

knowledge and technology that helps to build internal as well as external power. For

instance, neo-communication tools, multi-media and modern educational devices have

not only enabled human to be exposed to the super world but also provided a way of

strengthening their power through global interaction and advanced knowledge.

Transnational movement has allowed people to escape from domestic, political and social

oppression and to utilize the frontiers for their development. In addition, the global

activism has enabled to penetrate the heart of minorities as well as to secure their

integrity through a bonded tie. Most importantly, the focus of neo-global policies on

human development can lead to human freedom for increasing their capabilities and

thereby their wellbeing.

Despite the rewards of modernization, the complexities have grown up within its process,

which should not be overlooked. The issues of marginalization under dependency theory,

14


15/22

equities, and socio-cultural inequalities are critical among others. Naturally, joint

responsibility holds among people, civil society and governance at local, regional,

national, and international level to work for accomplishment of modernization.

The questions however, remain unanswered at the end are the processes, by which human

values are degraded through the reproduction of social inequalities: class, race and

gender. Development by no means a development, unless it counts the human factors,

which is a power of universe.

15


16/22

References

Abdo, N. (1996) Orientalism, Eurocentrism and The Making of Theory in Abdo, N.

(Ed.) Sociological Thought: Beyond Eurocentric Theory, Canadian Scholars

Press, Toronto.

Agarwal, B. (1994) Gender and Command over Property: A Critical Gap in

Economic Analysis and Policy in South Asia, World Development22(10): 1455-

1478.

Agrawal, B. (1985) Women and Technological Change in Agriculture: The Asian and

African Experience in Ahmed I. (Ed) Technological Change and Rural Women:

Conceptual and Empirical Issues, George Allen and Unwin, London.

Augoustinos. M and Reynolds K. J. (2001) Understanding Prejudice, Racism and Social

Conflict, Sage Publications.

Bannerji, H. (1995) Thinking Through: Essays on Feminism, Marxism, and Anti-Racism

Toronto: Womens Press, at 17, 20-1.

Bello, W. (2002)Deglobalization, Ideas for a New World Economy, Zed Books, London

Berberoglu, B. (2005) Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global

Capitalism, Lexington Books.

Blackwall, J., Smith, M., and Somernson, J, (2003): Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in

Critical Social Science, Broad view Press.

Bracke, S. (2004) Different Worlds Possible: Feminist Yearning for Shared Future, in

Kerr, J. Sprenger, E and Symington, A. (Eds.) The Future of Womens Rights:

Global Visions and Strategies, Zed Books, London and New York.

Brohman, J. (1996) Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of

16


17/22

Development, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK.

---------- (1995) Universalism, Eurocentrism, and Ideological Bias in Development

Studies: From Modernization to Neo liberalism Third World Quarterly, Vol.

16 (1) 121-140.

Carr, M. and Sandhu, R. (1988) Women, Technology and Rural Productivity, An Analysis

of the Impact of Time and Energy Saving Technologies on Women, UNIFEM,

New York.

Cecelski, E. (2002)Enabling Equitable Access to Rural Electrification: Current Thinking

and Major Activities in Energy, Poverty and Gender, Briefing Paper Preparedfor a Brainstorming Meeting on Asia Alternative Energy Policy and Project

Development Support, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 26-27 January,

2000.

Chambers, R. (2005)Ideas for Development, Earthscan, London

Chilcote, H. R. (1984) Theories of Development and Underdevelopment, Westview

Press, Boulder and London.

Classen, J. (1999) Comparative Social Policy: Concepts Theories and Methods,

Blackwell Publishers

Cockborn, C. and Ormord, S. (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making, Sage

Publications, London.

Conneli, P., Li, M.T., Macdonald, M. and Parpart, L.J. (2000) Feminism and

Development: Theoretical Perspectives, in. Parpart, L.J., Connelly M.O., and

Barriteau E.V. (Eds.) Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development

IDRC, Canada.

Craig, D. and Porter D. (2006)Development beyond Neoliberalism: Governance Poverty

17


18/22


19/22

Gomez, M.D. (1999) Transnational Social Policies: The New Development Challenges

of

Globalization, IDRC, Earthscan.

Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into

a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Hajjar, L. (2005) Toward a Sociology of Human Rights: Critical Globalization

Studies, International law and The Future of War in Robinson, I. W. and

Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New

York and London.

Harwick, E. and Peet, R. (2003) Neo-Liberalism and Nature: The Case of WTO, The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 590 (1)

188-212

Henderson, J. (2005) Governing Growth and Inequality: The Continuing Relevance of

Strategic Economic Planning, in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)

Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New York and London.

Howard, E.R. (1995)Human Rights and Search for the Community, Westview Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1993) The Clash of Civilizations?Foreign Affairs,pp. 22-49.

Ikeo, A. (2003) Economic Development in Twentieth Century East Asia: The

International Context, in Abbot, P.J. (Eds.)Developmentalism and Dependency

in Southeast Asia, Routledge Curzon.

Ingrid, R. (2003) Sens Capability Approach: Selecting Relevant Capabilities,Feminist

Economics, 9(2-3) pp. 61-92

Jacobs, A.L. (2004) Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of

Egalitarian Justice, Cambridge University Press

19


20/22

Kazmin, A. and Penh, P. (2002) Asia-Pacific: Six Nations Agree Plans for Mekong

Hydro-Power Scheme,Financial Times, London

http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/news/energy_emails/energy_email45.html

Levine, P.R. (1998) Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical

Debates, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Mahat, I. (2006) Gender and Rural Energy Technologies: Empowerment Perspective, A

Case Study of Nepal, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Vol. XXVII

(4).

Mehmet, O. (2001) Globalization as Westernization: A Post Colonial Theory of Global

Exploitation in Ghosh, N.B. (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Development

Economics, Routledge, London and New York.

Marx and Engels (1998) The Communist Manifesto, Monthly Review Press. New York.

McCarthy, D.J. (1997) The Globalization of Social Movement Theory, in Pagnucco, R.,

Chatfield, C. and Smith, J. (Eds.) Transnational Social Movements and Global

Politics: Solidarity beyond the State, Syracuse University Press, New York.

Mies, M. (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the

International Division of Labor, Zed, London and New Jersey

Mies, M. and Shiva, B. (1993)Ecofeminism, Kali for Women Press, New Delhi

Nelson, J. (2005) Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from FeministEconomics, The Good Society 14(3): 58-62,

Omvedt, G. and Kelkar, G. (1995) Gender and Technology: Emerging Visions from Asia,

GenDev. Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok

20
http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/news/energy_emails/energy_email45.htmlhttp://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/news/energy_emails/energy_email45.html


21/22

Parrenas, S. R. (2005) The International Division of Reproductive Labor: Paid

Domestic Work and Globalization in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)


Parsons T. (1964)Evolutionary Universals in Society in American Sociological Review,

Vo. 29 (3) pp. 339-357.

Phillips, A. (1999) Which Equalities Matter? Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.

Pyle, L. J. (2005) Critical Globalization Studies and Gender in Robinson, I. W.

and Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New

York and London.

Rajaee, F. (2002) Globalization on Trial: The Human Condition and the Information

Civilization, IDRC, Kumarian Press.

Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R.(2005) Introduction: Toward a Critical

Globalization Studies-Continued Debates, New Directions, Neglected Topics in

Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies,

Routledge, New York and London.

Robinson, J. (1979)Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment, Cambridge

University Press, London, New York and Melbourne.

Rowlands, J (1997) Questioning Empowerment: Working with women in Honduras,

Oxfam Publication.

Ruffin, P. (1990) Capitalism and Socialism in Cuba: A Study of Dependency,

Development and Underdevelopment, Macmillan.

Smith D. (2005) NeoLiberal Globalization and Resistance: A retrospective Look at

the East Asian Crisis in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)


21


22/22

Simpson, Y.A. (1998)Identity and Political Attitudes in the Post-Civil Rights

Generation.: The Tie that Binds, New York University Press.

Sen, A. (2002) How to Judge Globalism, The American Prospect, Vol. 13 (1)

Sen, A. (1999)Development as Freedom, New York

Sen, A. (1992)Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz E. J. (2002) Globalisms Discontent, The American Prospect, Vol. 13 (1)

Vivian, M. J. (1992) Foundations for Sustainable Development: Participation,

Empowerment and Local Resources Management in Ghai, D. and Vivian, J.M.

(Eds) Grassroots Environmental Action: Peoples Participation in Sustainable

Development, Routledge, London. 50-77

Weede, E. (1998) Why People Stay Poor Elsewhere, in Seligson, A.M., Smith, P.T. J.

(Eds.)Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Global

Inequality, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Boulder London

Wajcman, J. (1991)Feminism Confronts Technology, Cambridge: Polity Press

Wallerstein, I. (1998) The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality, in Seligson,

A.M., Smith, P.T. J. (Eds.) Development and Underdevelopment: The Political

Economy of Global Inequality, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Boulder London

World Bank (1994) World Development Report, Oxford University Press, New York.

power and prejudices

Documents