Notes on contributors

This paper examines the impact of development, including the impact of government and donor programmes, on ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia. Through an examination of government policy, it considers arguments that mainstream development strategies tend to generate conflicts between states and ethnic minorities and that such strategies are, at times, ethnocidal in their destructive effects on the latter. In looking at more recent government policy in the region, it considers the concept of ethno-development (ie development policies that are sensitive to the needs of ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples and where possible controlled by them), and assesses the extent to which such a pattern of development is emerging in the region. Since the late 1980s, it argues, governments across the region have made greater efforts to acknowledge the distinct identities of both ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples, while donors have begun to fund projects to address their needs. In many cases, these initiatives have brought tangible benefits to the groups concerned. Yet in other respects progress to date has been modest and ethnodevelopment, the paper argues, remains confined to a limited number of initiatives in the context of a broader pattern of disadvantage and domination.     

Notes on contributors

A right to health is one of a range of socioeconomic rights for which states accept an obligation under international law. However, the politics of rights has meant that socioeconomic rights are rarely given the same status as liberal freedoms associated with civil and political rights. This article discusses the liberal rationale for rejecting socioeconomic claims as rights and examines the basic rights challenge to liberal arguments. Given the dominance of liberalism, the article concludes with an examination of the potential for promoting a right to health within the context of globalisation.