Akosua Adomako Ampofo: Please find bio on the plenary speakers' page

Abstract

Surprising Joy in times of Crippling Fear

The title of the lecture borrows from CS Lewis’ partial autobiography, Surprised by Joy. I seek to show both how the advent of joy can surprise us when we least expect it, as well as the extraordinary power of joy in defeating fear. Joy is the much needed ingredient to banish the feelings of hopelessness fueled by our current social, political, and environmental insecurities. However, joy is not engendered in a vacum, it is planted, nurtured and thrives in community and solidarity. In this lecture I ask, “how can our intellectual and creative practices contribute to expressions of human rights, community healing and the envisioning of joyful hope”? I suggest how therapeutic narratives can be activated via the philosophical and ethical regimes of African cosmologies of human/familial celebratory interconnectedness, read through contemporary ideas such as “cosmopolitanism” (a la Kwame Appiah) and and afro feminism. I submit that an appreciation of multiple cultural viewpoints, the interplay between them, and an understanding of the political dynamics and historical contexts that inform and reflect our perceptions and practices can engender joyful human connections.

Jean Drèze : Pease find bio on the plenary speakers' page

We live in times of spectacular contrasts in the value systems of different classes and creeds. At one extreme, the most oppressed and deprived community on earth – the people of Gaza – is giving us a sterling example of commitment and solidarity. At another, a bunch of billionaires are wrecking the planet and people’s lives in their insatiable greed for wealth and power. The destructive tendencies of the capitalist system extend to destroying the ideas and values that stand in the way of this greed. For instance, the system undermines solidarity and cooperation by turning us into alienated workers, passive consumers and divided citizens. Scholars can easily become a tool of this destruction, but they can also help to resist it. Drawing on India’s recent experience, I shall discuss some examples of this battle for ideas and possible signs of hope.

Chaired by Prof. James Copestake (University of Bath)

Jayati Ghosh: Please find bio on the plenary speakers' page.

Abstract:

Time for a rethink

The ongoing overlapping crises that are afflicting Global Majority countries expose major concerns about mainstream “knowledge creation” and dissemination in both economics and development studies, which ideally should result in rethinking and re-orientation. This criticism obviously does not refer to all practitioners of these disciplines, but rather to some of the more dominant strands that have had unfortunate impacts on policy making. In economics, the inadequate recognition of power dynamics and the celebration of unfettered market functioning have given rise to a global capitalism that is increasingly unequal, extractive and yet stagnant in important ways. In development studies, the predilection for pursuing particular policy interventions (effectively serial fads) as the “silver bullets” for poverty reduction has diverted attention from the broader macro and institutional changes required for sustained and sustainable development. The current context of volatility and uncertainty is hardly desirable; yet rejection of earlier accepted approaches provides an opportunity for creative synergies for progressive change. 

Diego Sánchez-Ancochea: Please find bio on the plenary speakers' page.

Abstract:

Economics and Development Studies: where next in addressing the (poly)crisis?

This presentation will consider the relationship between the Political Economy of Development—what Sumner (2022) calls “classical Development Studies”—and Development Economics.  Originally, the Political Economy of Development and Development Economics were one and the same thing. The so-called Pioneers of Development (authors like Raul Prebisch, Albert Hirschman and Paul Rosenstein-Rodan) focused on “big” issues: they considered the (internal and external) obstacles to economic development and how they could be overcome.  Methodologically, they generally avoided the use of mathematics and often adopted a multidisciplinary perspective.

Starting in the 1970s, however, the two fields of research diverge in two different stages.  First, in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a theoretical separation regarding the role of the state. Many orthodox development economists questioned state intervention and promoted trade and financial liberalization. By contrast, exciting work in Political Economy focused on the East Asian miracle and highlighted the role of industrial policy.  

The second divergence has been methodological. Since the early 2000s, development economics has been at the heart of the “credibility revolution”: the growing accent on the identification of causal effects through experimental methodologies. The extensive use of randomized control trials has focused on concrete policy interventions but has failed to answer the big macro-questions in development.

Unfortunately creating conversations between development economics and development studies has become harder than ever because of differences in language. Instead, it may be more useful to: (a) create conversations with other mainstream economists like Thomas Piketty who are exploring big issues and recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary research; and (b) strengthen communication between the political economy of development and other approaches to development economics.

Chaired by  Prof. Joe Devine 

Please find Yuen Yuen Ang's bio on the plenary speakers' page

The conventional paradigm in political economy routinely treats living, complex, adaptive social systems as machine-like objects. This treatment has driven political economists to oversimplify big, complex social processes using mechanical models, or to ignore them altogether. In development, this has led to theoretical dead ends, trivial agendas, or failed public policies. This article proposes an alternative paradigm: adaptive political economy. It recognizes that social systems are complex, not complicated; complexity can be ordered, not messy; and social scientists should be developing the concepts, methods, and theories to illuminate the order of complexity, rather than oversimplifying it. The author illustrates one application of adaptive political economy by mapping the coevolution of economic and institutional change. This approach yields fresh, important conclusions that mechanical, linear models of development have missed, including that market-building institutions look and function differently from market-sustaining ones.

To shape the discussion, read the open access article here. Further reading a review of the essay by Suyash Rai at Carnegie India and an earlier response by Duncan Green at LSE.