Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Kunal Sen
(University of Manchester)
Sam Hickey (University of Manchester)
- Chair:
-
David Hulme
(University of Manchester)
- Discussant:
-
James Robinson
- Location:
- Room 14 (Examination Schools)
- Start time:
- 13 September, 2016 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
The panel addresses how politics shapes economic/social development through a focus on the findings of the Effective States and Inclusive Development research centre. The presentation of the findings will be followed by a discussion of their implications for rethinking the politics of development.
Long Abstract:
The past decade has witnessed a growing level of disillusion regarding the capacity of new institutionalist thinking to offer clear insights into why some countries are more developed than others. In response, leading proponents such as Douglass North and James Robinson have revised their approaches to take greater account of the central role that politics plays in shaping long-run processes of development. However, there is a sense that these revised approaches continue to suffer from a range of ontological, methodological and ideological tendencies that prevent them from grasping the actual ways in which politics shapes development. The panel addresses the 'big question' through a focus on the findings of a major research effort into the politics of development by the Effective States and Inclusive Development (ESID) research centre (www.effective-states.org). ESID has spent five years investigating the comparative politics of development in 16 countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, with a focus on economic growth, social provisioning, women's empowerment and governance reform. It has employed an adapted version of the 'political settlements' framework, which has emerged recently as a challenger to the 'new' new institutionalist approach, and which focuses explicitly on how politics is shaped by relations of power and seeks to go beyond problems such as methodological nationalism and a narrow rational-actor understanding of politics that downplays the role of ideas. A summary of ESID's findings will be presented before leading authorities in the field discuss the implications for rethinking the politics of development
Accepted paper:
Session 1Kunal Sen (University of Manchester) Sam Hickey (University of Manchester) Sohela Nazneen (Institute of Development Studiesies, University of Sussex)
Paper short abstract:
We address the ‘big questions’ of the politics of development through a focus on the findings of the ESID research centre. Our findings suggest that the underlying forms of power and politics have different institutional effects in different kinds of political settlements.
Paper long abstract:
That politics has a defining influence over development processes and outcomes is now broadly accepted within international development theory and practice. However, there is less agreement over which forms of politics matter most, how these can be conceptualised and what kinds of policy implications flow from thinking politically about development. One approach has sought to go beyond 'new institutionalist' thinking whilst remaining committed to 'open' and 'inclusive' institutional orders. An alternative has placed greater emphasis on the capacity of public institutions rather than their inclusivity per se. Each approach suggests alternative policy agendas.
This panel addresses these 'big questions' through a focus on the findings of Effective States and Inclusive Development research centre. We employ an adapted version of the 'political settlements' framework use a comparative case-study method to apply it to the politics of accumulation, redistribution and recognition across Africa and Asia. Our findings suggest that these underlying forms of power and politics have different institutional effects and outcomes in different kinds of political settlement, which suggests the importance of ensuring that policy reform efforts are carefully aligned to the incentives and ideas that flow from these different kinds of political contexts. Although we suggest that development policy and practice needs to be rebalanced in favour of a stronger focus on state capacity overall, particularly through bureaucratic pockets of effectiveness, we also emphasise the routes through which combinations of capacity and accountability can emerge through the critical role played by coalitions at multiple levels of politics and governance.