Development and Change最新文献

The relationship between educational level and the age at which women start families has been extensively researched. However, studies have primarily explored how additional schooling shifts the mean or, more broadly, only one point of the age at first union and first birth distributions. This ignores variation in the association between education and the timing of family formation, and the fact that schooling might shape behaviours of vulnerable and more privileged women differently. Using quantile regressions, this article examines heterogeneity in the relationship between education and the age at first union and first birth across the distribution of these events within 50 low- and middle-income countries. It investigates whether additional schooling shifts relatively early union formation and childbearing (that is, lower parts of distributions) similarly or differently than it shifts other parts of the distributions. It finds that association between an additional year at school and the age at first union and birth is weaker in the lower than the upper parts of the distributions. Education has a relatively weak effect on the reduction of early first unions and births and plays an unequalizing role in shaping family formation within countries. These findings are key to understanding persistently high levels of early marriage and pregnancy, despite the expansion of education.

The Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 has placed reparations firmly on the international agenda. This article discusses the concept of ‘reparations washing’ with reference to the measures of two British businesses, Greene King and Lloyd's of London, in acknowledgement of their historical roots in the slave trade, and the Government of the Netherlands’ public apology for the country's history of slavery. Reparations washing occurs when corporations or governments give a token nod to reparatory justice to enhance their image and to absolve them of institutional guilt. The article employs Malcolm X's metaphor of slavery, as sticking a knife into the back of the enslaved, to argue that in order to repair the harm caused, the knife needs to be removed and the wound healed. It then analyses the reparations demands contained in CARICOM's Ten Point Plan for Reparatory Justice which exposes the limits of reparatory justice campaigns. The paradox of reparations campaigns is that they ultimately leave intact a system founded on White supremacy and the exploitation of the Global South. It is therefore impossible for reparations to be realized without bringing an end to the current political and economic system. The article concludes that, ultimately, the value of reparations campaigns lies in their highlighting the need for revolution.

India's struggle for independence held the promise of an end to poverty and redemption from the communal-cum-class-based inequality which had kept the peasant economy backward. But the planned substitution of the agrarian-rural fabric for an industrial-urban way of life failed to materialize. Casualization and contractualization of waged work indicated that labour had become thoroughly commodified in a state of ongoing footlooseness. It was a proletarianization which did not allow for the collective action precondition to raise and settle the social question. The onslaught of neoliberal capitalism in the last quarter of the 20th century ended the brokerage of the nation state to secure the interests of labour next to those of capital. Less than 10 per cent of the workforce has continued to enjoy formalized occupational engagement, mainly in the downgraded public economy. Corporate capital in collusion with statist autocracy has not only effectuated the deregulation of employment but also abandoned the legal code of formality. The outcome is a state of lawlessness for the people at the bottom of the pile. Besides big business, politics and governance are identified in this reconfiguration as stakeholders in a brutal regime of informality, erosive of equality, democracy, welfare and civil rights.

Development is an important, yet contentious word, in the history of post-colonial Sri Lanka. Typically, it is linked with economic progress and societal change, intricately woven into political processes and frequently utilized as a platform to promote Sinhala-Buddhist ethnonationalist agendas. This article looks at post-colonial Sri Lanka's ‘core development project’ — the Mahaweli Development Programme — and its post-war revival with the military as a key actor. Through a detailed ethnographic study, it traces the way in which the military assumed extraordinary powers and became vital to the post-colonial project of development and the militarized practices that enabled this. The author argues that this project of militarized development unfolds in a fourfold manner: by normalizing the presence of the military; by ensuring the military is seen as charitable; by blurring the boundaries between the military and civilians; and lastly by portraying the work carried out by the military as transformative. The article concludes by demonstrating that this militarized project of development is the latest iteration of the long-standing post-colonial project of Sinhala-Buddhist state expansion, enabled through development.

This article considers the challenge of ensuring that international reparations payments are effective in benefiting the recipient countries of such reparations. To guarantee that these financial flows provide long-term benefits to the recipient economies, the article recommends the adoption of a developmental state approach to the use of the funds. It also considers in detail the advantages of establishing a Bank of International Reparations that serves as a trustee for the receipt and distribution of reparations, facilitates coordination of the use of reparations across countries to avoid disadvantageous forms of competition, provides investment banking services to support the use of the reparations to fund a domestically focused ‘sovereign wealth fund’, and provides ‘public option’ commercial banking services to recipient country firms in order to foster the growth of recipient country economies. Finally, the article finds that the most effective means of funding the reparations would be to use Special Drawing Rights (or SDRs).

In 2015 the German government acknowledged that the Empire committed genocide in its colony South West Africa, known since its independence as Namibia. This acknowledgement marked a new reference point in how to engage with colonial crimes. Since then, Germany has fallen short of bearing full and unconditional responsibility for and recognition of the crime in terms of restorative justice. While Germany deserves credit for its commemoration and remorse over the Holocaust during World War II, victims of other forms of extermination with the intent to destroy still crave adequate recognition, commemoration and compensation in the form of reparations. This article presents the Namibian case to illustrate the contradictions and limitations that emerge when general notions are tested and undermined by asymmetric power relations of Realpolitik.