Development and Change最新文献

Limited progress in World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade negotiations has led to calls to expand plurilateral processes through which groups of member states can negotiate new agreements. These calls have manifested in Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs), covering issues such as investments and e-commerce. To their proponents, JSIs offer a path to update rules and move towards flexible multilateralism. However, critics argue that JSIs marginalize developing countries and reinforce the dominance of advanced economies. Notwithstanding this criticism, a growing number of developing countries are joining these initiatives. Through data collected from in-depth interviews with officials from 60 WTO member states, this article examines the drivers for growing JSI membership among developing countries. It illustrates that many are joining JSIs to avoid being excluded from agreements that might become binding in the future. While such membership is driven by fear of exclusion and the preference to ‘be in the room’, the negotiation processes of the JSIs often mean that developing countries have little actual influence over the negotiation outcomes. The article concludes that JSIs represent a significant change in the organization of multilateral trade negotiations and enable larger economies to restore their ‘go-it-alone power’ in multilateral trade governance.

This article considers why Brazilian industrial policies have varied across sectors since the mid-1990s. It relies on a Polanyian-inspired framework to propose that the strength of counter-movements against corporate welfare shapes the sector-specific capacity of policy makers to exert state discipline over business interests and diverges from neoliberal scripts of industrial policy making. The authors use prototypical case studies on the automotive, animal protein and pharmaceutical sectors to support their argument. In the automotive industry, the continuous pressure from powerful and cohesive labour unions led to the emergence of a neo-corporatist sectoral regime that was characterized by a tripartite policy design and encompassed conditionalities. In the case of animal protein, the lack of bottom-up pressure culminated in a disembedded neoliberal sectoral regime, in which business owners received almost unconditional benefits, turning industrial policies into corporate welfare. Finally, in the pharmaceutical industry, the combination of diffuse societal demands and unions with intermediate relevance led to an embedded neoliberal sectoral regime that combined selective conditionalities with some space for non-business participation in policy design.

The need for emerging economies to develop infrastructure in order to drive catch-up growth has become a common refrain in policy circuits. The dominant norm promulgated and disseminated by global development institutions to countries facing infrastructure deficits is the public–private partnership (PPP) model of project finance, a market-based model that seeks to transform infrastructure into a financial asset. Institutionalizing this model requires the deepening of market rationality in governance and the establishment of markets for infrastructure projects and infrastructure debt, underpinned by regulatory and institutional changes aimed at de-risking global investments. However, this model is neither overriding nor monolithic. It is contested, modified and augmented by alternative state-led models, rationalities and practices, animated by developmental politics. The article examines the embeddedness of the PPP model in Indonesia, where it is selectively appropriated by politicians and bureaucrats in line with state development objectives by mobilizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as developers, insurers and financiers of infrastructure projects. Beyond establishing the conditions for market exchange and de-risking capital, the state, through SOEs, is an active market participant, competing and partnering with private sector actors, while advancing state-led alternatives where the market-based model fails to address development needs. This case highlights the potential for developmental politics to shape the broad use of capital in the face of disciplinary pressure from global finance.

Attempts to boost rural development in the Global South tend to focus on ways in which people can transform their lives. Interventions are often designed to help overcome specific envisioned constraints and push individuals onto a pathway out of poverty. Research has contributed to nuancing this vision by documenting the non-linearity of pathways, which often results in people being left in limbo or stuck, rather than moving forward. Based on a study in two villages in Malawi and Lesotho, this article argues that even these nuances do not fully capture the real-life experiences of the 63 young people who participated. Interviews tracing the course of their lives between 2007–08 and 2016–17 reveal trajectories that are circular rather than linear, and show the detrimental effects of being stuck in these frustrating loops of taking action without progressing. Conceptualizing rural young people's livelihood trajectories in contexts of severe poverty as loops highlights the structural issues that need to be addressed if their lives are to be transformed. Understanding development as emancipation from sources of unfreedom means focusing on the structural constraints that keep some people in poverty, and the importance of attaining agency if they are to put their needs on the agenda and demand basic rights.

This article explores the significance of initiatives to formalize the labour market participation of refugees. Many practitioners believe that formalization is a panacea for improving the lives of marginalized workers, including refugees. This article argues, however, that in practice it easily becomes an indicator-oriented exercise, where readily quantifiable targets are prioritized over substantive improvements. To this end, the article analyses the trajectory of the Jordan Compact, a flagship initiative that brought together humanitarian, development and labour actors to create ‘win-win’ solutions for Syrians and Jordanians. Drawing on years of qualitative fieldwork in Jordan, the article traces how the Jordan Compact has made formalization an end in itself, with little regard for how much it actually benefits workers. It examines three central areas of programming: work permits, home-based businesses and working conditions. In each area, the article demonstrates how the chosen indicators have shaped initiatives while undermining meaningful reform. Bringing together insights from humanitarianism, development and critical labour studies, the analysis shows that indicator-oriented formalization, a form of measurement-driven governance, ostensibly produces impressive results, yet it can simultaneously undermine longer-term, multidimensional processes that would benefit workers more. The article advocates shifting the focus onto the individual and collective power of workers so that they can better realize the potential benefits of formalization.

This article addresses aesthetic politics in the Chinese rural toilet revolution. Toilet retrofitting is conventionally regarded as an issue of sanitation improvement, but in the emerging trend of rural post-productivism transformation, toilets have become contested sites of aesthetic governance in rural development. Using the case of a village in Northern China, the authors show that, in order to beautify the rural environment, toilet identification, selection, placement and demolition are all directed by aesthetic norms for a beautiful village. Additionally, the aestheticization of village development has legitimized state-led development by creating a common-sense understanding of and imagination for the future. However, aesthetic logics can represent a mismatch with the realities of local lives, resulting in place alienation and suspended development. This article unpacks the logics, mechanisms and spatial-social processes of aesthetic governance in the Chinese toilet revolution.

This article uses a process-tracing approach to understand changes in Singapore's health sector from the start of self-rule in 1959 to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. Singapore is a developmental state recognized for its effective management of healthcare costs and its lack of political freedom. In both respects, the ‘Singapore model’ is of interest to other cities and nations. The standard narrative is one of technocratic proficiency in a context in which civic freedoms are heavily constrained, but this article identifies the surprisingly important role of social voices at key moments. It finds episodes in which effective changes to social policies are not the product of a state embedded in an organized society, but rather are influenced by the independent organizational capacity of certain social groups providing inputs to state elites on social grievances and policy needs. Effective policy changes require a responsive state elite that — even if it is technocratically dominated, as is the case in Singapore — can listen to social claims and provide answers that are not repressive. The article conceptualizes these dynamics as ‘grievance politics’ and shows their role in explaining health reforms. It contributes to understanding global health systems and policy making in developmental states by a fruitful cross-fertilization with social movement studies.