Development Issues

Critical Thinking about the World’s Development

On Alternative Development

On Alternative Development

 

The Hague, 16/Jan/2006 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br

ISS – Institute of Social Studies | Master student in Development Students 2005/2006

 

 

Introduction

 

Development, as a field of study and a planed practice, is on the spotlight since the end of the World War II and the creation of the United Nations, back in the 1940s. It was not accepted by anyone that after two wars of world proportions in half a century peace would not prevail. Hope was everywhere, and with it, development ideas and ideals were born towards a planet that was in poverty and disgrace.

 

Soon after this period, still during the reconstruction of European and Asian countries, the world became divided between two main paths towards development, two main ideals and two main ways of doing politics. Capitalism and socialism were starting another dispute, an ideological dispute. Suddenly the world was facing the brink of a new war, a Cold War.

 

Developmental ideas (and ideals) were also divided in two. In the end, those who believed that the path to development lies on free-market and liberal politics won that cold battle against those who believed that its path was more likely to lie on state control of the means of production. That “victory” happened by the beginning of the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

Hereafter, I will focus on what happened in between the extremities of this cold battle, with the very hearts and minds of some people who started to believe in alternatives out of the two main paths. Moreover, I will also focus on the current debate on alternative development and contrast it with the nowadays’ conventional development approach, a direct offspring of the victorious part of the Cold War.

 

Understanding Alternative Development

 

Historically, I identify three main facts related to the raise of an alternative development thinking and practice: (a) the Non Aligned Movement; (b) the emergence of new social movements; and (c) an intellectual academic production aiming towards alternatives.

 

The Non Aligned Movement was a worldwide political movement of governments declaring not to be aligned with either the socialist or the capitalist blocks. Over 100 countries formed this movement which the origin “can be traced to a conference hosted in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The world’s ‘non-aligned’ nations declared their desire not to become involved in the East-West ideological confrontation of the Cold War” (Wikipedia, 2005). This was a political signal of dissatisfaction with the way politics and development were being addressed by the middle of the 20th century.

 

Another fact was the emergence of the called new social movements, during the 1960s. Friedman says that many people “know the sixties as the decade of a ‘movement politics’ that stirred the world from Beijing to Paris” (1992:1). He talks about the new social movements of ecology, peace and woman, the China’s Cultural Revolution, the America’s Black Power movement and the Paris student uprising of May 1968 (most of these movements were youth led). Moreover, I stress that there were many others movements like, for instance, the reclaiming the streets youth movement in London (Weinstein, 2004:181), and the Zurich youth riots, the squatter movements in Berlin and Amsterdam and the runway-west conflicts in Frankfurt (Eckert and Willems, 1986); as well as in Latin America all the re-democratisation social movements, along the 1970s and 1980s. Before these movements emerge, there was basically the workers movement (said to be the “old movement”) in the social movement arena, and they were very aligned with the socialist block. Now, civil society gained force, and also it achieved some emancipation to do politics. Differently of the unions, the new social movements were doing politics outside the institutionalised framework of the political parties. In their agenda, they were reclaiming rights towards the state and society, and also they were bringing about new and alternative politics.

 

Influenced by both the previous two facts, among others, a new intellectual academic production emerged from the 1970s and on, looking for alternatives to our divided world. Scholars like Andre Gunder Frank (dependency theory), Paulo Freire (pedagogy of the oppressed), Jürgen Habermas (post-modernity), Ivan Illich (development as planed poverty), Majid Rahnema (post-development), John Friedman and David C. Korten (people-centred development), Dilip P. Gaonkar (alternative modernities), and many others, led to a complete new scene in development literature. For a more deeply understanding of the framework of alternative development thinking, let us focus on three of these contributions: post-development, people-centred development, and alternative modernities.

 

Post-development

 

Development achieved its end! That is the main Rahnema’s claim (2001:378) about the failure of the development strategies to achieve development. Rahnema refers to development as it was proposed in its early days, back to the 1940s and 1950s. He argues that development “was an ideology that was born and refined in the North, mainly to meet the needs of the dominant powers”; it was “imposed on its target populations”, being “the wrong answer to their true needs and aspirations” (ibid.:379). Once development has failed, now we live in an era of post-development. In addiction, Korten (1992:54) says that 650 million people lived in absolute poverty in 1970, and twenty years afterwards this number almost doubled to something in between 1 and 1.2 billion people. Consequently, how can we attribute any success to development at all throughout the second half of the 20th century?

 

The post-development era “does not imply in the end of a search for new possibilities of change”. Otherwise, it is a time to shift the focus, giving “birth to new forms of solidarity and friendship”. Furthermore, this shift “should prompt everyone to begin the genuine work of self-knowledge and self-polishing” (Rahnema, 2001:391). Rahnema argues that “if we want to change the world”, we should start “changing ourselves”, “overcoming our fears of the unknown and looking at things as they are, and not as we want them to be” (ibid.:392). The central point in post-development is the possibility to unmake development, as it was once planed, and give it many brand new faces, where everyone can be the example for a collective processes of positive change, where people can be in the centre of the action.

 

People-centred development

 

The people-centred development approach is the basis of the alternative development thinking, and it was pushed by militants (new social movements) and leftwing academics. They all opposed the way development was being held. Soon around the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, they discovered some obvious things. The first one was that poverty and hunger were in higher levels than in the time United Nations was created, even with high level of production in both dominants economic systems, capitalism and socialism; the first one centred on the market forces, and the second one centred on the state force. Therefore, a second obvious issue was observed: where are the people? Must development agenda be market-centred, state-centred or, alternatively, people-centred? And that was not all: capitalism and socialism are both production-centred systems. Economic growth and its social implications was an important concern for both. It was natural, due to the increasing levels of production in both systems, to realise a third obvious thing: the world is finite and the environment should have been observed and respected, and that was not the case. After the collapse of the socialist doctrine the market forces found themselves free to explore and to exploit the resources of the planet in order to generate economic growth. For how long can our planet support an unsustainable growth centred-development?

 

John Friedman (1992) describes a moral justification for people-centred development, in harmony with the environment. He sustains his argumentation affirming that to be people-centred is to focus on the basic needs of the people, basically food, water and shelter; and in order to be in harmony with the environment, the planetary sustainability should be respected, and therefore growth should be limited. This view is in direct opposition to the mainstream development agenda, based on growth maximisation. Friedman also states that to defend this alternative development approach “has more to do with morality than facts” (ibid.:10). He shows us three foundations for a morally justified alternative people-centred development: “human rights, citizen rights and ‘human flourishing’” (ibid.). Firstly, on human rights, he defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stressing its civil, political, economical and social rights, including liberty and basic needs. He says that a “wilful exclusion from these rights is a kind of violence on the person excluded” (ibid.). Secondly, on citizen rights, he brings about the importance of the “citizens’ relative autonomy vis-à-vis the state”, presuming, “therefore, a modern, democratic state, where the holders of authority are ultimately accountable to the people organised as a political community” (ibid.:11). Lastly, his third moral foundation is about “human flourishing”, an “evocative and open-ended” term (ibid.) that has to do with the possibility of each human being live up to her or his capacity.

 

David Korten (1984, 1992) also defends a people-centred approach for development and describes the main principals for an alternative development agenda. For him, poverty, environment degradation and communal violence are the three main elements of a global crisis (1992:54). To begin with poverty, he stresses the crescent number of people living in absolute poverty from the 1970s to the 1990s, as well as the inequality problem: “the trend toward increasing poverty accelerated in the 1980s as the gap between rich and poor grew at an alarming pace” (ibid.). Additionally, he highlights the mistreatment with the environment and the high levels of pollution, mainly caused by a production-centred logic: “the dominant logic of the industrial era was a production logic and its dominant goals were production centred” (1984:299). Then, he says that communal violence “is a manifestation of the increasing disintegration of our social fabric” (1992:55). In other words, violence is becoming common; it is becoming part of our day-by-day life, especially in Southern countries. For him, these problems are also related to the division of classes we face today. He divides the society in three classes: over-consumers (20% of the world population), sustainers (60%) and marginals (20%) (1992:59). Are those who are over-consumers ready to reduce their living standard in order to favour the inclusion of those marginals? To summarise, he says that “the survival of our civilization depends on committing ourselves to an alternative development practice guided by the three basic principals of authentic development: justice (priority must be given to ensuring a decent human existence for all people), sustainability (Earth’s resources must be used in ways that ensure the well-being of future generations), and inclusiveness (every person must have the opportunity to be recognised and respected contributor to family, community, and society)” (1992:60-61). These three principals are the main ones to understand and to define what alternative development is.

 

Alternative modernities

 

Alternative development aims for people, and people live in the local level: in our cities, communities, neighbourhoods and families. Each local space develops its own culture that interacts with a developing global culture. This interaction provokes changes and a constant scale shift: local-global and global-local. My perception tells me that the predominant tendency observed today is the global-local flow; thus, the local is being much more influenced by the global than the other way around. For the alternative development approach, more equilibrium in this equation is needed.

 

To better understand this global culture, we need to understand modernity. “Modernity is a term used to describe the condition of being ‘modern’. Since the term ‘modern’ is used to describe a wide range of periods, modernity must be taken in context” (Wikipedia, 2006a). For our recent world context, modernity has to do with a set of societal and cultural transformations that has taken place mostly, but not exclusively, in the western world. “Important events in the development of Modernity in this context include the arrival of the printing press, the English civil war, the American revolution, the French revolution, the revolutions of 1848, the Russian revolution, and the first and second world wars” (ibid.). For Gaonkar, modernity “has arrived not suddenly but slowly, bit-by-bit, over the longue durée–awakened by contact; transported through commerce; administered by empires, bearing colonial inscriptions; propelled by nationalism; and now increasingly steered by global media, migration, and capital” (2001:1). Modernity is composed by two pillars: societal and cultural modernisation. In one hand, he describes societal modernisation as those cognitive transformations that imply in a scientific consciousness with a secular outlook and a bureaucratic administrative structure seeking for efficiency, among others, being a source of convergent thinking. In another hand, he defines cultural modernity as a source of divergence that aimed to break traditions and was “repelled by the middle-class ethos” (ibid.:2). There were no norms for expressions; all kinds of expressions were valid. To look at this in another way, in one side societal modernity brings about ideas on progress and efficiency, and, in another side, cultural modernity brings about ideas on freedom and liberty; thus we can see that we are talking about liberal ideas. This liberal modernity is spreading around the whole world, and step-by-step it is becoming this single global culture that exercises some influence in our local contexts.

 

Once this is modernity, where do we find alternative modernities? Gaonkar’s conclusion is that modernity itself is not one, but many; it is not new, but old and familiar; and it is incomplete and necessary. Depending on the way one interpret the world, different and alternative modernities can emerge.

 

In alternative modernities the local should exercise some influence in the global. Vandana Shiva gives us examples on how western science is destroying local knowledge. She says that “modern science is projected as a universal, value-free system of knowledge which has displaced all other belief and knowledge systems by its universality and value-neutrality” (Shiva, 1989:162). Moreover, while quoting Keller and Harding, she adds an important feminist critique to it stating that the “founding fathers of modern science are almost all white, middle-class, bourgeois males” (ibid.).

 

Altogether, the possibility of thinking in alternative modernities means that it is not all about change. Some things, like local cultures, should be kept, if this is the whish of their owners. Alternative modernities open space to balance the initial equation on the scale influence balance, making local-global flow at the same influence level of the global-local flow. It is true that the local is becoming global, but equating the equation the global can also have the opportunity to become local.

 

Contrasting Conventional and Alternative Development Today

 

As previously said, the current conventional development approach is a direct offspring of the victorious side of the Cold War. It is very much linked to the mainstream modernity (societal and cultural), as well as it is very much committed to the promotion of economic growth via free-markets (production-centred). The combination of these two characteristics forms the so called neo-liberalism, because together they mix liberal politics and market-oriented economics.

 

Accordingly to Michael Peters (1999), Friedrich von Hayek is one of the fathers of neo-liberalism. He says that Hayek defends the idea of market as a “spontaneous product of human action”, not predicted by human “intelligent design”. Furthermore, he says that “Hayek’s liberalism emphasized: methodological individualism; homo economicus, based on assumptions of individuality, rationality, self-interest; and the doctrine of spontaneous order” (ibid.).

 

In neo-liberalism, individuals are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can. Its ethical justification lies on the fact that equity is based on equal opportunities (not on equal access to resources). Theoretically, if everyone has the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, and one does not succeed, it is his or her individual fault only. For those who historically could not accumulate wealth, whatever reason, the answer is not to share the current wealth; otherwise, it is to make economic growth happen once again, so that those who are not wealthy enough can try another time, using his or her labour force, on the opportunity sea of the new surplus-value created. This becomes clearer when we look at the concept of homo economicus: “Homo economicus is a term used for an approximation or model of Homo sapiens that acts to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself given available information about opportunities and other constraints, both natural and institutional, on his ability to achieve his predetermined goals” (Wikipedia, 2006b).

 

Globalisation has an important role to play in the neo-liberal development agenda. Through it, neo-liberalism is achieving more global influence and power, in our anarchic international political system. For Thirlwall, it is a question of interdependence: “the term globalisation refers to all those forces operating in the world economy that increase interdependence and at the same time make countries more and more dependent on forces outside of their control” (2003:13). Accordingly to him, among these forces are: the “widening and freeing of trade”; the “growth of global capital markets”; “more foreign direct investment”; a “greater movement of people breaking down cultural barriers”; the “spread of information technology”; and “new international institutions as the World Trade Organisation, reducing national autonomy” (ibid.:13-15).

 

The conventional neo-liberal development is a system where women and men serve the economy. On it, people become economic commodities in the spontaneity of the market, which only helps to increase the world inequality gap. This is in direct opposition to the alternative development approach, once it is people-centred, and it leads to social justice, a sustainable future, and an inclusive political and economical society. On the alternative development approach, economy serves people, and local level realities and power are very much important, once it is there where people is born, live[1], and die.

 

 

Comparing Developments

 

To establish a straight forward comparison among the old and the new conventional development and the perspectives on alternative development, it is important to define some criteria. Firstly, by conventional development we will focus on the old socialism and the current neo-liberalism. Secondly, by alternative development we will focus on the people-centred approach and on alternative modernities. Lastly, to analyse altogether, we will briefly look at their rationale, objectives, principals, actors and practices, as follows:

 

 

Criteria

Conventional development

Alternative development

Old Socialism

Neo-liberalism

People-centred Development

Alternative Modernities

Rationale

State-centred (state controls the means of production).

Power exercised by the proletariats (single party system).

Materialistic.

Growth-centred.

Individualism (homo economicus).

Free market forces.

Power at individuals to decide in democratic systems.

Secular and scientific outlook.

People-centred.

Basic needs and environment.

Empowerment of people.

Local access and control of resources.

Modernity is not one, but many.

Modernity is not new, but old and familiar.

Modernity is incomplete.

Objectives

Redistribution of resources.

Wealth generation.

Growth maximisation.

Globalisation.

Justice, sustainability and inclusiveness.

Global network of local economies.

Participatory democracies.

Many modernities.

From local to global.

Privilege culture specific knowledge.

Principals

Collectivism.

Equality.

Freedom and liberty.

Representative democracy.

Competitiveness.

Privet property.

Human rights, citizen rights and human flourishing.

Cooperation and self-reliance.

Harmony with the environment.

Continuous process.

Multiculturalism.

Solidarity.

Respect to the local cultures.

Actors

Classes.

Communist party.

State and government.

Individuals.

Companies (market).

International institutions: IMF[2], WTO[3], WB[4], and so forth.

The community.

People.

Social movements.

NGOs[5].

Grassroots organisations.

Civil society.

Local societies.

People.

Practices

Dictatorship of the “proletariat”.

Armed repression to keep the control.

Profit maximisation.

Exploitation of the environment.

Imperialism.

Market force to keep the control.

Poverty and inequality.

Local empowerment and participation.

Economics: social economy, LETS[6] and SHG[7].

Gender outlook.

Social movement protests.

Fight against the oppressors.

Local and global civil society encounters.

Creativity.

Self-awareness.

Inclusiveness.

Acceptance of diversity.

Cultural resistance.

 

This table shows the differences and similarities between the different approaches. The importance of adding the old socialist system in this comparison is due to the historical moment when alternative development approach was first discussed. Nowadays, undoubtedly, the mainstream is the neo-liberal approach. The fact that the socialist system is not anymore on the scene does not mean that neo-liberalism is completely free to make the game the ways it likes it. Today the principal obstacles for neo-liberalism, as seen on the table, are originated by people themselves, forming a wide range of local alternatives under the umbrella of alternative development.

 

Network of Solidary Resistance, a Case Study

 

To illustrate this reflection, let us focus on the example of an alternative development practice, original from the city of Recife, north-eastern Brazil.

 

Accordingly to its constituency project (Rede de Resistência Solidária, 2005), the Network of Solidary Resistance, is an “affective and solidary space of provocative dialog for the raising of new community practices”. It is an autonomous and informal organisation, “constituted by cooperated individuals and collectives[8] who are searching for social transformation”, through the logic of a social economy system. The Network proposes “new labour and social relations, more equalitarian and with more solidarity”. It is focused on the communities of its members, and the initiatives are led by the proponents in a horizontal and human internal relation.

 

The Network is the direct result of the agglutination of force among many marginalised people and collectives from the periphery of Recife. They intended to strengthen themselves to overcome their exclusion. Recife is one of the largest Brazilian cities, and also one of its more unequal cities. It has a municipal population of 1.5 million, and a total metropolitan population of about 3.6 millions inhabitants[9]. It is located in north-eastern Brazil, that accordingly to UNDP[10] it is the most unequal region in Brazil (PNUD, 12/12/2005). Recife’s Gini index, 0.68, is the highest among all Brazilian capitals (ibid.). These data gives some clue about the social conditions in Brazilian big cities. It is not all, beside inequality violence is one of the worst problems facing Recife day-by-day life.

 

To explore more details about this case let us focus in some important aspects that can be linked to the discussion on this paper:

 

The rationale behind the Network of Solidary Resistance is based on resistance and fight against inequality. Deliberately, it opposes the neo-liberal ideals and intends to empower people in their own communities. One of the most important facts is to guarantee local control of their means of subsistence, through networks of self-help and social economy. It is very close to the rationale of the people-centred approach.

 

The three main objectives of the Network are: “to network (articulation where everyone is an independent and solidary cooperated); to resist (through democratization of their means of production and diffusion of local information, culture, education and work); and solidarity (to give and to receive in the benefit of all)” (Rede de Resistência Solidária, 2005). Another time, it is linked to the people-centred approach with some confluence to alternative modernities’ objectives.

 

The guiding principals of the Network are: “liberty, self-reliance, solidarity, collective action, honesty, equality and affectivity” (ibid.). Here there is a mixture of principals from the four models analysed.

 

With one year of activity – it was constituted in January 2005 – the main actors of the Network are approximately 250 individual and around 50 grassroots organisations affiliated. They are all responsible for managing the Network. In general, these organisations are all youth led organisations, informal and with strong community ties. Among them, there are: community radios “(Radio Viração FM)”, communication producers “(Ventilador Cultural, Revista Salve S.A., IN-Bolada Record’s, Zine De Cara com a poesia, Núcleo Gráfico Maloca de Sonhos)”, youth NGOs “(Coletivo Êxito D’Rua, Academia de Desenvolvimento Social)”, fair-trade shops “(Seres Sub-Shop)”, gender issue groups “(Rosas Urbanas, Força Mista)”, cultural groups “(Atitude Real, Mustar rap, 4E crew, A.P.S. Crew, Movimento Hip Hop Gospel Crer, Rima vs Rua, Mangue Crew, L.E. Crew, Inquilinus, 33 Gets Crew, Irmanadas, Donas, OPG Crew)”, community associations from at least 30 communities, and so forth (ibid.). Altogether, they clearly reflect the actors described as from people-centred approach and alternative modernities.

 

On its practice, the Network is gathering once a week to plan its actions. It divides its practice in three main pillars: “action (five radio programs, a monthly graffiti collective action, an artistic-solidary space, some fanzines, one alternative magazine and awareness campaigns); structure (a music recording studio, an independent musical seal, a fair-trade shop, t-shirts production, a graphical centre, a community school); and ethical internal management (empowerment of those cooperated and self-reliance, among others)” (ibid.). Once more, it fits better in the people-centred and alternative modernities approaches.

 

The Network has already achieved some short-term impacts, and it has planned its middle and long-term impacts as follows: in the short-term, it already achieved the “union of individuals and collectives, all previously actives in society, to make their actions more confident, interlinked and solidary”; “in the middle-term, it is intended to make all action self-reliance on each community”; and in the long-term, “economical liberty through new kinds of organisation for sustainability” is on its aim (ibid.).

 

Galo de Souza, founding member of the Network of Solidary Resistance, and originally from Coletivo Êxito d’Rua, says that “we need to produce solutions that bring the oppressed ones to be cooperative for their own liberation; we need to produce food, information, clothes, music, films, ideas and community ideals, reflecting ourselves. The community must consume what is produced there, what is expressed, felt and thought to its liberation” (de Souza, 2005:2).

 

He is referring to “community liberation” (ibid.) and to new forms of local economic systems jointed with local culture and self-awareness. The ground is the local social economy system, as an alternative to neo-liberalism. Social economy system is said to be a very good alternative for the emancipation and growth of local economies, based in solidary and cooperative values of production. Paraphrasing Williams, Aldridge and Tooke (2003:154-155), social economy is a way to tackle social exclusion, and it is an alternative to both formal and informal sectors of conventional economy.

 

In general, it is clear that through this kind of initiative, grassroots and community organisations, and people, are trying to break on through the great inequality gap of Brazilian cities. They are bringing about hope not only for themselves, but to many others, in the sea of fear that ordinary life of marginalised people has become.

 

Conclusions

 

Hope! This is the most important thing about alternatives approaches towards development. Marginalised people need hope to keep on fighting for a better life.

 

Alternative development has emerged in between waves of fear, during the Cold War. From social movements to politics, from feelings to scientific literature, it has been breaking on through the tides of pessimism and fear of recent history. From the Cold War to the neo-liberal world of today, alternative development is opening up possibilities of a better future for those who believe there is something wrong in the world, the way it has been organised in the last centuries.

 

Socially, alternative development gives voice, power and emancipation to people to decide about their own present and future; furthermore, it points to social justice, human and civil rights, and environmental sustainability as important issues to be set on the agenda. Economically, it is drawing concrete and inclusive alternatives to the current economic system, especially in the local level; however, the path ahead is still tremendously huge, as huge as the international powers of neo-liberalism. Politically, participatory democracy is starting to challenge representative democracy in the debate on the quality and the level of democracy. Morally, it is very well grounded and committed to people; additionally, it is not a singularity in itself, once it is not proposing any miracle blueprint to development. Academically, it has been a promising space for new thinking and for questioning of the present; however, it still lacks more space and recognition. Practically, it has already a great number of adopters, worldwide. Even not necessarily aware of the subject, they are proposing, implementing and achieving new practices, behaviours, relations and hope for society. Altogether, alternative development is a way to promote the promised people’s revolution without guns.

 


References

 

·         De Souza, Galo (2005) Liberdade Comunitária. Recife: Rede de Resistência Solidária.[11]

·         Eckert, Roland & Willems, Helmut (1986) Youth Protests in Western Europe: Four case studies. In: Lang, Kurt & Lang, Glayds Engel (1986) Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, Vol. 9. London: Jai Press Inc.

·         Friedman, John (1992) Empowerment – The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

·         Gaonkar, Dilip P. (2001) On Alternative Modernities. In: Gaonkar, Dilip P. (ed.) Alternative Modernities. Durham: Duke University Press.

·         Korten, David C. (1984) People Centred Development: Toward a Framework. In: Korten, David C. & Klauss, Rudi (1984) People Centred Development. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

·         Korten, David C. (1992) People-Centred Development, in Bauzon, Kenneth E. – Development and Democratization in the Third World – Myths, Hopes, and Realities. New York: Yeshiva University.

·         Peters, Michael (1999) Neoliberalism. On 15/Jan/2005, at http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm [12]

·         PNUD, Boletim Diário Brasil (12/12/2005) Capitais nordestinas são as mais desiguais. Brasília: UNDP Brazil, at http://www.pnud.org.br/pobreza_desigualdade/reportagens/index.php?id01=1667&lay=pde [13]

·         Rahnema, Majid (1997) Towards Post-Development: searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigms, in: Rahnema, Majid & Bawtree, Victoria (1997) The Post-Development Reader. Dhaka: University Press LTD.

·         Rede de Resistência Solidária (2005) Projeto de Constituição. Recife: Rede de Resistência Solidária.[14]

·         Shiva, Vandana (1989) Western Science and its Destruction of Local Knowledge, in: Rahnema, Majid & Bawtree, Victoria (1997) The Post-Development Reader. Dhaka: University Press LTD.

·         Thirlwall, A. P. (2003) Growth and Development. New York: Palgrave.

·         Weinstain, Mark (2004) Political Activism and Youth in Britain. In: Todd, Malcolm J. & Taylor, Gary (2004) Democracy and Participation: Popular protests and new social movements. London: Merlin Press.

·         Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2005) Non-Aligned Movement. On 14-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

·         Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006a) Modernity. On 14-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

·         Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006b) Homo economicus. On 15-Jan-2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

·         Williams, Coin C.; Aldridge, Theresa & Tooke, Jane (2003) Alternative Exchange Spaces. In: Leyshon, Andrew; Lee, Roger & Williams, Colin C. (2003) Alternative Economic Spaces. London: Sage Publications.

 


[1] For Friedman (1992:10), people should not only live but also flourish.

[2] IMF: International Monetary Fund – http://www.imf.org/

[3] WTO: World Trade Organisation – http://www.wto.int/

[4] WB: World Bank – http://www.worldbank.org/

[5] NGO: Non Governmental Organisations

[6] LETS: Local Exchange Trade Systems – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS

[7] SHG: Self-Help Groups

[8] By collective it means all kinds of grassroots and community based organisations.

[9] Accordingly to City Population ©, in 01 July 2005: http://www.citypopulation.de/Brazil.html

[10] UNDP: United Nations Development Program: http://www.pnud.org.br/ (Brazilian website)

[11] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: De Souza, Galo (2005) Community Liberty. Recife: Network of Solidary Resistance.

[12] The link only works with the capital letters on for “ENCYCLOPAEDIA”.

[13] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: UNDP, Daily Bulletin Brazil (12/12/2005) North-eastern capitals are the most unequal. Brasília: UNDP Brazil.

[14] This original text is in Portuguese. All translations were done by the author. Reference in English as follows: Network of Solidary Resistance (2005) Constituency Project. Recife: Network of Solidary Resistance. 

Advertisements

16 January, 2006 - Posted by | Development, Intl Cooperation

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: