Paper short abstract:

The idea of merit often overlaps neatly with certain cultural markers associated with dominant populations. In their most pathological forms, such norms aid political projects used to marginalize communities whose marginalization is then seen as a natural outcome of the practices of the community.

Paper long abstract:

The paper proposes that a new vocabulary of merit is being created in India which derides the Muslim community as regressive (anti-meritocratic) while fashioning a consolidated (progressive-meritocratic) Hindu identity against it. In Karnataka, the BJP (India's Hindu right party), brought about guidelines for pre-university colleges, which resulted in a de facto ban on the hijab. A populist narrative, helped along by a pliant media, created a binary between wanting education and holding on to one's religious beliefs. After decades of Bahujan (non-upper caste) assertion, and given the BJP's recent Bahujan outreach (where symbolic representation substitutes for structural change), it is no longer possible to parade old myths about meritocracy and caste in mainstream narratives. However, it is easier, and acceptable, to paint the Muslim community as regressive, and consequently, anti-meritocratic. Adverse outcomes on socio-economic parameters are then the community's own choice. While religion has never been kind to women, this discourse is specifically Islamophobic. The role of the higher judiciary (still seen as independent) remains central to legitimizing this narrative. While there has been analysis of judicial decisions around this issue, it has not focused on how this might be aiding the creation of a more insidious regime of merit, which helps polarize communities, essentialize identities, and freeze developmental outcomes. The article is in line with recent scholarship which suggests that Indian constitutional courts have allowed the Modi government to give respectability to moves that would otherwise be seen as overtly partisan in an ostensibly secular state.

https://youtu.be/NptraiHKd1k

Paper short abstract:

A systematic empirical re-evaluation of the merit and impact of Western education on development in the global South through "technocrats"

Paper long abstract:

Economic policy models coined in North America and Western Europe have been a powerful feature of globalization and policy diffusion across societies, spreading to developing countries through various channels and considerably influencing their development trajectories. Education in Western countries has been one such channel. A thriving literature provides fascinating accounts of the impact of Western-educated “technocrats” in their developing countries, regarding them as agents in this diffusion of ideas. But how do the policy ideas, attitudes and identities of these elites differ, if at all, from those of their peers without Western degrees? Do these differences translate into dissimilar impacts? What historical, institutional, and social factors affect the agency of Western-trained technocrats in local battles for power over economic policy?

The present study investigates these questions through a mixed-method comparative historical study of post-independence economic policymakers in Azerbaijan and Georgia. These two countries provide a fertile ground for exploring these ideas because they were considerably similar under the Soviet rule but embarked on distinctly diverse economic and political paths since the USSR’s collapse and Western-educated policymakers played strikingly different roles in them. The evidence is based on 60 in-depth elite interviews, four focus groups with experts, and an original dataset of biographical information on 100+ economic policymakers over time. Through an in-depth, systematic and historically-grounded comparison, this study remedies key conceptual and methodological shortcomings of existing research by examining purported causal links, calibrating the actual agency of Western trainees, and tackling endogeneity concerns.

Presentation: https://video.leidenuniv.nl/media/t/1_lw5aung8

Paper short abstract:

This paper discusses the nexus between René Dumont’s ‘class colonialism’ and the socioeconomic development antinomies in Sub-Saharan Africa. It also highlights the negative impact of the ‘cult of mediocrity’ (Achebe, 1984) on development initiatives in Africa.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines the nexus between ‘class colonialism’ and the socioeconomic development antinomies in Sub-Saharan Africa. In his book 'False start in Africa', the French agronomist, economist, and sociologist René Dumont pointed out that, the postcolonial administrative machinery hinges on ‘class colonialism’, that is, a system of exploitation, oppression, and prevarication by the urban bourgeoisie to the detriment of the poor masses, which he presaged, would hinder development initiatives in Africa. Drawing on empirical evidence, the paper aims to discuss the factuality, the currency, the conduits, and the new forms and dimensions of class colonialism, and its influence on the socioeconomic development of Sub-Saharan African countries.

While the paper acknowledges the general colonial and postcolonial roots of development challenges in Africa, it argues that, in contemporary Africa, internal paradoxes, the ubiquitous cult of mediocrity and shared complicities, immensely contribute to the former colonies’ quagmire. External geoeconomic, geopolitical and geostrategic agendas, and neocolonial forces are not solely responsible for the African development malaise as some scholars have observed. The paper demonstrates how political interference and instability, social injustice, leadership tussles, greed, the cult of mediocrity, the erosion of confidence in regional economic communities, hamper the socioeconomic development of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Methodologically, qualitative research methods, especially document analysis, are used for the research in this paper. Accordingly, the focus has been on secondary data, including background papers; memoranda, books, articles, brochures, newspapers, press releases, radio and television programme scripts, survey data, public records, and reports.

Paper short abstract:

Deconstructing meritocracy by employing the theoretical frameworks of critical pedagogy, anti-oppressive pedagogy, and ableism by examining the implementation of inclusive education for the disabled in a 'model' school in India and questioning the assumptions derived from Global North frameworks.

Paper long abstract:

Recently, considerable attention has been paid to exploring inclusive education for students with disabilities in India. However, there is still a lot that remains to be investigated and requires an in-depth examination. Within the purview of a sociological inquiry, I study the evolving concept of inclusive education and how it has been employed by a ‘model’ school in India that has implemented the concept. The employment of a model of education conceptualised in the Global North, envisaged with the aim of market-oriented education, is ignorant of the Global South’s historical, contextual, and local conditions and realities. Therefore, based on a pilot study, I aim to analyse the elements of inclusive education through the contributions of different stakeholders of the school ecosystem, such as school management, teachers, non-teaching staff, parents/guardians, and everyday life. Previous works on inclusive education in India recognise the challenges disabled students face but fail to acknowledge the role of larger structures and intersectionalities, including gender, caste, class location, religious affiliation, and how a student’s experiences are shaped by society, economy, polity. Using the theoretical frameworks of critical pedagogy, anti-oppressive pedagogy, and ableism, the exchange would reflect on the educational experiences of a marginalised group. It questions the meritocratic assumptions in implementing inclusive education, contributing to the broader discourse on social justice and development within the global context. By delving into the multifaceted nature of inclusive education, this seeks to go beyond conventional analyses and illuminate the complexities of ensuring equitable educational opportunities for marginalised groups.

Presentation: https://youtu.be/egRhsampA44

Paper short abstract:

The paper counts on our lived experiences to illustrate the way we developed ideas about merit as a social good, its reduction to meritocracy, and critically assess the role of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in countering the measures of meritocracy in relation to human capital development.

Paper long abstract:

From ancient times, merit is a system of reward for making valued contributions to promote goodness or comply with rightness in the society – a distinct character of social good. The modern institutes appropriated merit as a constitutive fix to set as benchmarks for excellence and achievement. This posits merit into the static category of absoluteness, which is often akin to personification (but not action), standarisation (in opposition to diversification), and quantification (instead of qualification). This is the structure of meritocracy, which is indifferent to the idea of social good. Instead, it nurtures the status of individual greatness. While the opposition to this very interpretation of merit (i.e. meritocracy) may be illuminating in the political and ethical spheres, such as the decolonisation movement, the instrumental character (in comparison to constitutive form) of merit that depends on the association of success with collective and social values should be given primacy over others. The practice of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in higher academia is a popular mechanism across the world to promote justice in delivering human capital development. While the DEI at the individual-level (i.e. in student-teacher/mentor relationship) is often subjective and determined by multiple factors, but in the collective sphere it is imperative to know how the DEI strategies can produce 'equal outcome' and not just create 'equal opportunities'. The paper critically assesses how the DEI as a matrix has the capacity to ‘unchain’ merit for collective wellbeing by nurturing the values of distribution, rights, and epistemic plurality.

https://vimeo.com/968392303?share=copy