Why is Rouhani Angry?

In 1990, right after the Berlin Wall fell, NPQ published our Spring edition, titled “The New World Disorder,” about the nationalistic chaos and up‐in‐theair sensibility of that fraught new historical moment. Nearly a quarter of a century later, the regime of globalization that had supplanted the Cold War world of blocs is itself coming apart at the seams. Even Henry Kissinger these days says “the world order is crumbling.” Will this New World Disorder 2.0 revert to a system of conflicting blocs, as during the Cold War, or will we be mature enough to save the interdependence of plural identities that is the foundation of a new global civilization? In this section our contributors offer their perspectives on what the future holds.     

Whose feminism counts? Gender(ed) knowledge and professionalisation in development

Gender and development (GAD) has become a transnational discourse and has, as a result, generated its own elite elements. This elitism has tended to be attributed to a Northern hegemony in how feminism has been articulated and then subsequently professionalised and bureaucratised. What has received less attention, and what this paper highlights empirically, is how Southern-based feminisms might themselves be sites of discursive exclusion. The paper interrogates these concerns through an analysis of how professionalisation is evidenced in feminist engagement among civil society organisations working on gender in New Delhi. The analysis suggests that efforts to create spaces for subaltern voices are constrained not only by the disciplining effects of neoliberal frameworks but also – and in tandem – by Southern elite feminist priorities. The implications of these findings are significant: processes of professionalisation and the elitism they engender may have the effect of potentially precluding the engagement of those people on the margins whose voices are so sought after as part of efforts to facilitate inclusive development.     

How Concessional is Aid Lending?

The method used by Development Assistance Committee countries for measuring the concessionality of aid loans has remained unchanged for nearly 20 years. It was designed to measure the net cost of aid to donors not the net benefit to recipients. The discount rate used takes no account of changes in the value of the currency of the loan or of changes in prices for goods traded by recipient countries. Furthermore, it does not consider the implications of tying of aid or of policy conditionality. This paper suggests an alternative measure that shows the real net benefit of aid finance to recipients. It argues that the discount rate used by the Development Assistance Committee is too high and that changes in the value of the currency in which a loan is taken out can be important. Nevertheless, real rates of interest for developing countries remain surprisingly high despite low nominal rates due to falling prices of traded goods. This finding has implications for the future real cost of debt service to recipients.