回到未来?Aidland不太新趋同的特征图表

IF 1.1 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Pub Date : 2020-12-12 DOI:10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753
Simon Pahle
{"title":"回到未来?Aidland不太新趋同的特征图表","authors":"Simon Pahle","doi":"10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\n During the last decade, the liberal paradigm, hegemonic in development assistance from the 1980 and well into the 2000s, has seen a fracturing. Rather than an impasse or outright conflict between ‘aid with Chinese characteristics’ and that of traditional donors, we might now be witnessing an evolving convergence. Through a concise review of China’s aid –its modalities, motives, substance, underlying conceptions of development, and morals – I extrapolate the following key features across the Chinese approach: Collateralization of development finance; neo-mercantilism; a preference for aid to tangibles; a deep-seated ‘growthmentality’; and a non-moralizing politics. I then take these features as referents for charting possible convergence in a case study of recent shifts in the development assistance of Norway – a hitherto ardent advocate for liberalist thinking and practices in aidland. In ways of thinking and acting, there seem to be some clear commonalities emerging. Convergence around said referents may owe much to the fact that these are not so novel – they exhume much of that which is associated with the modernization paradigm, which traditional donors now seem to re-discover as both feasible and desirable templates for aid.","PeriodicalId":45207,"journal":{"name":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to the Future? Charting Features of the Not-So-New Convergence in Aidland\",\"authors\":\"Simon Pahle\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract\\n During the last decade, the liberal paradigm, hegemonic in development assistance from the 1980 and well into the 2000s, has seen a fracturing. Rather than an impasse or outright conflict between ‘aid with Chinese characteristics’ and that of traditional donors, we might now be witnessing an evolving convergence. Through a concise review of China’s aid –its modalities, motives, substance, underlying conceptions of development, and morals – I extrapolate the following key features across the Chinese approach: Collateralization of development finance; neo-mercantilism; a preference for aid to tangibles; a deep-seated ‘growthmentality’; and a non-moralizing politics. I then take these features as referents for charting possible convergence in a case study of recent shifts in the development assistance of Norway – a hitherto ardent advocate for liberalist thinking and practices in aidland. In ways of thinking and acting, there seem to be some clear commonalities emerging. Convergence around said referents may owe much to the fact that these are not so novel – they exhume much of that which is associated with the modernization paradigm, which traditional donors now seem to re-discover as both feasible and desirable templates for aid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2020.1851753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年中,自由主义范式,从20世纪80年代到21世纪初的发展援助霸权,已经出现了断裂。“中国特色援助”与传统援助国之间并没有陷入僵局或直接冲突,我们现在可能看到的是一种不断演变的趋同。通过对中国援助的方式、动机、实质、潜在的发展概念和道德的简要回顾,我推断出中国援助方式的以下关键特征:发展融资担保;neo-mercantilism;对实物援助的偏爱;根深蒂固的“增长心态”;以及一种非道德化的政治。然后,我将这些特征作为参考,在对挪威最近发展援助转变的案例研究中绘制可能的趋同图-挪威迄今为止一直是自由主义思想和实践的热心倡导者。在思维和行为方式上,似乎出现了一些明显的共同点。围绕上述指标的趋同可能在很大程度上要归功于这样一个事实,即这些指标并不那么新颖——它们发掘了许多与现代化范式相关的东西,传统捐助者现在似乎重新发现现代化范式既是可行的,也是可取的援助模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Back to the Future? Charting Features of the Not-So-New Convergence in Aidland
Abstract During the last decade, the liberal paradigm, hegemonic in development assistance from the 1980 and well into the 2000s, has seen a fracturing. Rather than an impasse or outright conflict between ‘aid with Chinese characteristics’ and that of traditional donors, we might now be witnessing an evolving convergence. Through a concise review of China’s aid –its modalities, motives, substance, underlying conceptions of development, and morals – I extrapolate the following key features across the Chinese approach: Collateralization of development finance; neo-mercantilism; a preference for aid to tangibles; a deep-seated ‘growthmentality’; and a non-moralizing politics. I then take these features as referents for charting possible convergence in a case study of recent shifts in the development assistance of Norway – a hitherto ardent advocate for liberalist thinking and practices in aidland. In ways of thinking and acting, there seem to be some clear commonalities emerging. Convergence around said referents may owe much to the fact that these are not so novel – they exhume much of that which is associated with the modernization paradigm, which traditional donors now seem to re-discover as both feasible and desirable templates for aid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
FORUM FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Forum for Development Studies was established in 1974, and soon became the leading Norwegian journal for development research. While this position has been consolidated, Forum has gradually become an international journal, with its main constituency in the Nordic countries. The journal is owned by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the Norwegian Association for Development Research. Forum aims to be a platform for development research broadly defined – including the social sciences, economics, history and law. All articles are double-blind peer-reviewed. In order to maintain the journal as a meeting place for different disciplines, we encourage authors to communicate across disciplinary boundaries. Contributions that limit the use of exclusive terminology and frame the questions explored in ways that are accessible to the whole range of the Journal''s readership will be given priority.
期刊最新文献
A Quest for State Contracts: Public Procurement and the Shaping of Competitiveness in Development Consulting Bridging the Divides? How Christian Faith-Based Antitrafficking Organizations Construct Co-Ownership in Buddhist South-East Asia The Current Role of Western Development Actors as Knowledge and Policy Providers: The Making of Good Governance of Natural Gas Resources in Tanzania Welfare Goes Global: Making progress and catching up Power, Politics, and the Supernatural: Exploring the Role of Witchcraft Beliefs in Governance for Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1