Search

Copyright of Globalizations is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The literature on industrial policy in Africa has generally explained its political origins in terms of ruling elites' distribution of benefits to their supporters. However, in competitive political contexts in which policies are deeply political and designed to satisfy clients, such as policies that support party donors, the problem of policy discontinuity is bound to arise because a change in ruling party is bound to alter the direction of distributional policies. The current paper uses Nigeria's backward integration policy (BIP), an industrial policy on cement production, to sharpen the analytical distinction between the origins and persistence. Although the ruling elites' political quest for survival explains the origin of Nigeria's industrial policy on cement (ruling elites were in search of re-election funds and teamed up with domestic capitalists for donations, who in turn influenced the political elites to create policies in their area of business), it does not explain the continuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the changing relations between core and periphery of the world capitalist system under conditions of globalization. Using a Coxian analysis of historical structures, it examines the coherent conjunction between certain material forces of globalization and the emergence of a new moral mandate and institutional form for intervention in the third world. This is identified as post-modern Imperialism. By way of illustration, the paper ends with a brief discourse analysis of the recently revitalized aid agenda for Africa including the commission for Africa Report, the Make Poverty History campaign, and the Live8 concerts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Globalizations is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Trade unions have a long history of transnational solidarity in different forms and flavours. Since the 1990s unions in Northern countries have increasingly established structural mechanisms to support their Southern counterparts, including through Official Development Assistance (ODA). We examine how the increased encapsulation of trade union internationalism within the global development paradigm is reshaping the relations between African and Northern unions. Based on empirical data across several African countries we argue that trade union development cooperation (TUDC) is not a one way street. African unions are not passive recipients of aid but have used ODA to address structural weaknesses such as a declining membership and consequential loss of funds. Nevertheless, TUDC in practice often translates into programmes driven by resource- and capacity building-logics. Both findings bring a layered understanding of the transformative potential of TUDC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a region of the world capitalist political economy, Africa has been the epitome of neoliberalism as a universal project to remake societies in its image. In Africa, the neoliberal project encountered a region already ensconced in state-forms that were authoritarian, albeit very often weaker than their analogues in Latin America or Southern Europe. In these circumstances, neoliberalism both reconstructed and relied upon authoritarian state practices: reassertions of law and order, rising technocracy, re-built bureaucracies, and 'choiceless democracy'. Liberal advocates of neoliberalism indulged authoritarian governance in the belief that economic liberalization would generate economic growth and transformation. Reviewing these authoritarian neoliberal constructions, one is struck by how poorly they performed as vehicles for market-based capitalist transformation. In a phrase, the pain of neoliberal adjustment was accompanied by no palliative of sustained economic 'gain'. Liberalization, executed by top-down and undemocratic governance, has generated fragile growth, instability, some enrichment and no economic transformation. This conjuncture is pivotal to an understanding of moves by some governing elites to explore and at times implement non-neoliberal development strategies. The article concludes by suggesting that neoliberalism is currently a somewhat besieged orthodoxy. However, the exploration of unorthodox development strategies has taken place within an authoritarian political shell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces Michel Foucault's concept of ‘counter-conducts’—‘struggles against the processes implemented for conducting others’—in order to rethink the relationship between power and dissent. It proposes an ‘analytics of protest’ to address forms of resistance, through which this article focuses on the mentalities, practices, and subjectivities produced at protests in South Africa at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. These protests were some of the largest public expressions of dissent since the end of apartheid, yet the article illuminates the ways in which power and resistance are mutually reliant and co-constitutive. These summit counter-conducts both contested and reinforced existing power relations, and were disciplined by discourses of civility/violence, partnership/disruption, and local/foreign from state authorities and the media. They were also disciplined by internal discourses of liberal dissent and radical protest from within the movements themselves. The article concludes that, from a Foucauldian perspective on counter-conducts, forms of dissent that are strategic, reversible, and flexible are preferable to those that are sedimented and entrenched. Este artículo presenta el concepto de las ‘contra-conductas’ de Michel Foucault—‘luchas contra los procesos implementados para conducir a otros’—para replantear la relación entre el poder y la disidencia. Propone un ‘análisis de protesta’ para enfrentarse a las formas de resistencia, a través del cual, este artículo se enfoca en las mentalidades, prácticas y subjetividades producidas en las protestas de Sudáfrica, en la Cumbre Mundial de Johannesburgo 2002, sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible. Estas protestas fueron unas de las mayores expresiones públicas de disidencia desde el fin del apartheid, no obstante, el artículo ilumina las maneras como el poder y la resistencia dependen mutuamente entre sí y son co-constitutivas. Esta cumbre contra-conduce las relaciones de poder existentes tanto controvertidas como reforzadas, y fueron disciplinadas por las autoridades estatales y los medios, a través de debates sobre civilidad/violencia, sociedad/disturbio y local/extranjero. De igual manera, fueron disciplinados por debates internos de disidencia liberal y protesta radical desde el interior de los mismos movimientos. El artículo concluye que desde una perspectiva Foucaultiana sobre las contra-conductas, las formas de disidencia que son estratégicas, reversibles y flexibles, son preferibles a aquellas que están sedimentadas y arraigadas. 为了重新思考权力和异议二者间的关系，本文引入了米歇尔•福柯的概念“反抗行为”，即“对控制他人而实施的进程加以抵制和斗争”。本文提出了“抗议分析法”，用来分析反抗的形式。通过该分析法，本文重点研究了在2002年南非约翰内斯堡可持续发展世界峰会上抗议行为所表现出的心态、实践活动和主体意识。这些抗议行为是自种族隔离政策结束以来异议最公开表达的一部分。然而本文阐明的是权力和抗议是如何相互依存和相互建构的。此次峰会上的抗议行为既质疑又加强了现存的权力关系，且被政府当局和媒体的文明与暴力、合作与破坏、本土与外邦等话语所支配。它们也被来自抗议运动本身的自由派异议和激进派抗议的内部话语所规训。本文的结论是：从福柯式反抗行为的视角看，战略性、双向和灵活的异议形式比那些传统的、固步自封的方式更为可取。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses current EU–African migration policy, but argues that it must be understood in its historical context. Whereas migration today is to be managed in the framework of an EU-African partnership model built on equality and mutual ‘win–win’ dynamics, a closer look at the history of EU-African migration reveals striking parallels between past and present. Throughout the period from the 1920s and onward, the migration policies devised within various frameworks of European integration have been shaped by demographic projections. Each time demography has governed European migration policy vis-à-vis Africa, what has first been introduced as a mutual interest has quickly been transformed into a geopolitical relationship, where one partner has channelled migration to its own benefit. It is thus argued that unless scholars start to attend to European integration's crucial colonial history, current power asymmetries between the ‘partners’ will not only remain obscure; we will also fail to recognize the continued, even increasing, currency of colonial ideology in the EU's African relations. Este artículo analiza la política de la migración entre la Unión Europea y África, pero sostiene que debe entenderse dentro del contexto histórico. Considerando que la migración hoy en día debe conducirse en el marco de un modelo de asociación entre la Unión Europea y África, con fundamento en la igualdad y las dinámicas “mutuamente beneficiosas”, un análisis más detenido de la historia de la migración entre la Unión Europea y África, revela paralelos sorprendentes entre el pasado y el presente. A través del periodo que va de 1920 en adelante, las políticas de migración concebidas dentro de varios marcos de la integración europea, se han moldeado por proyecciones demográficas. Cada vez que la demografía ha regido la política de la migración europea con respecto al África, lo que se ha introducido como un interés mutuo, se ha transformado rápidamente en una relación geopolítica, en la que uno de los socios ha canalizado la migración para su propio beneficio. Por lo tanto, se plantea que a menos que los académicos comiencen a prestar atención a la historia crucial de la colonia, las asimetrías de poder entre los “socios” quedarán poco claras. También fallaremos en reconocer la vigencia continua e inclusive en aumento de la ideología colonial, en las relaciones entre la Unión Europea y África. 本文分析了当前欧盟对非洲的移民政策，认为必须在历史背景下理解这一政策。尽管当前欧盟对非洲移民问题的政策框架以平等和双赢为基础，但进一步考察移民史可发现，历史与现状有着很多相似之处。从20世纪20年代至今，每次欧洲一体化进程中的移民政策都是由人口统计学推动塑造的。人口统计学每一次都主导了欧洲的对非移民政策，因此起初以互利引入的移民政策最终都转变为地缘政治关系，其中一方依据自身利益来引导移民。因此，本文认为，除非学者关注欧洲一体化的殖民史，否则就无法认清当前“伙伴”关系间的权力不对称，也就认识不到欧盟对非关系中持续的甚至不断强化的殖民主义意识形态。 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Globalizations is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article criticizes the commentaries by Tim Kelsall and Lansana Gberie on the report "Our Common Interest: An Argument," by the Commission for Africa. Both works reflect on Africa's position within the present configuration of the capitalist world-system. It is asserted that the nature by which Africa is being underdeveloped is too uncritical and under-analyzed in both commentaries. In addition, the imperialist drive behind the gentrification process is thought to influence their economic development.