所有人面临的共同挑战?对新出现的疫情后发展研究愿景的关键参与

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Development and Change Pub Date : 2023-09-02 DOI:10.1111/dech.12785
Jörg Wiegratz, Pritish Behuria, Christina Laskaridis, Lebohang Liepollo Pheko, Ben Radley, Sara Stevano
{"title":"所有人面临的共同挑战?对新出现的疫情后发展研究愿景的关键参与","authors":"Jörg Wiegratz,&nbsp;Pritish Behuria,&nbsp;Christina Laskaridis,&nbsp;Lebohang Liepollo Pheko,&nbsp;Ben Radley,&nbsp;Sara Stevano","doi":"10.1111/dech.12785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The COVID-19 pandemic motivated calls for the field of development studies to be recast. This article analyses two prominent, future-gazing ‘pandemic papers’ to illustrate salient features of the ascendant trend towards a new ‘global development’ paradigm. By unpacking and interpreting major lines of reasoning put forward by two agenda-setting articles, this contribution appraises how these texts make the case for the future of development studies. Through this analysis, the article questions the core arguments that seek to shift the contours of the discipline, and thus the study of development generally. In making their call to adopt a universalist or global development framework that includes a focus on Europe and North America, the authors of the ‘pandemic papers’ overlook the Southern origins of and justifications for the North‒South framework they seek to overturn. The present article acknowledges the importance of and supports returning to and advancing — rather than jettisoning — the intellectual lineage anchored in non-Truman understandings of development, including as a popular project of Southern emancipation from colonial, imperial and structural subordination. Rather than de-centring the global North‒South framework, it suggests that the analytically more useful way forward is for development studies to (re)centre the global South and use global South theories and lenses to better understand the world economy and the majority world.</p>","PeriodicalId":48194,"journal":{"name":"Development and Change","volume":"54 5","pages":"921-953"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12785","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Challenges for All? A Critical Engagement with the Emerging Vision for Post-pandemic Development Studies\",\"authors\":\"Jörg Wiegratz,&nbsp;Pritish Behuria,&nbsp;Christina Laskaridis,&nbsp;Lebohang Liepollo Pheko,&nbsp;Ben Radley,&nbsp;Sara Stevano\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dech.12785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The COVID-19 pandemic motivated calls for the field of development studies to be recast. This article analyses two prominent, future-gazing ‘pandemic papers’ to illustrate salient features of the ascendant trend towards a new ‘global development’ paradigm. By unpacking and interpreting major lines of reasoning put forward by two agenda-setting articles, this contribution appraises how these texts make the case for the future of development studies. Through this analysis, the article questions the core arguments that seek to shift the contours of the discipline, and thus the study of development generally. In making their call to adopt a universalist or global development framework that includes a focus on Europe and North America, the authors of the ‘pandemic papers’ overlook the Southern origins of and justifications for the North‒South framework they seek to overturn. The present article acknowledges the importance of and supports returning to and advancing — rather than jettisoning — the intellectual lineage anchored in non-Truman understandings of development, including as a popular project of Southern emancipation from colonial, imperial and structural subordination. Rather than de-centring the global North‒South framework, it suggests that the analytically more useful way forward is for development studies to (re)centre the global South and use global South theories and lenses to better understand the world economy and the majority world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development and Change\",\"volume\":\"54 5\",\"pages\":\"921-953\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12785\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development and Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12785\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12785","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新冠肺炎疫情促使人们呼吁重塑发展研究领域。本文分析了两篇突出的、着眼于未来的“流行病论文”,以说明新的“全球发展”范式的上升趋势的显著特征。通过分析和解释两篇议程设定文章提出的主要推理思路,本贡献评估了这些文本如何为未来的发展研究提供理由。通过这一分析,文章对寻求改变学科轮廓的核心论点提出了质疑,从而对发展的总体研究提出了质疑。在呼吁采用一个以欧洲和北美为重点的普遍主义或全球发展框架时,“流行病论文”的作者忽视了他们试图推翻的南北框架的南方起源和理由。本文承认并支持回归和推进——而不是抛弃——植根于非杜鲁门对发展的理解中的知识谱系的重要性,包括将其作为南方从殖民、帝国和结构从属中解放出来的一个受欢迎的项目。它表明,在分析上更有用的前进道路是发展研究(重新)以全球南方为中心,并使用全球南方理论和视角来更好地理解世界经济和多数世界,而不是将全球南北框架从中心移开。
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
Common Challenges for All? A Critical Engagement with the Emerging Vision for Post-pandemic Development Studies

The COVID-19 pandemic motivated calls for the field of development studies to be recast. This article analyses two prominent, future-gazing ‘pandemic papers’ to illustrate salient features of the ascendant trend towards a new ‘global development’ paradigm. By unpacking and interpreting major lines of reasoning put forward by two agenda-setting articles, this contribution appraises how these texts make the case for the future of development studies. Through this analysis, the article questions the core arguments that seek to shift the contours of the discipline, and thus the study of development generally. In making their call to adopt a universalist or global development framework that includes a focus on Europe and North America, the authors of the ‘pandemic papers’ overlook the Southern origins of and justifications for the North‒South framework they seek to overturn. The present article acknowledges the importance of and supports returning to and advancing — rather than jettisoning — the intellectual lineage anchored in non-Truman understandings of development, including as a popular project of Southern emancipation from colonial, imperial and structural subordination. Rather than de-centring the global North‒South framework, it suggests that the analytically more useful way forward is for development studies to (re)centre the global South and use global South theories and lenses to better understand the world economy and the majority world.

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
Development and Change
Development and Change DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
3.30%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Development and Change is essential reading for anyone interested in development studies and social change. It publishes articles from a wide range of authors, both well-established specialists and young scholars, and is an important resource for: - social science faculties and research institutions - international development agencies and NGOs - graduate teachers and researchers - all those with a serious interest in the dynamics of development, from reflective activists to analytical practitioners
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information The Political Economy of Reparations and the Dialectic of Transnational Capitalism Mobilized Resilience and Development under Sanctions in Iran A Critical Framing of Data for Development: Historicizing Data Relations and AI
×
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