Whose world? Development,civil society,development studies and (not only) scholar activists

The current international development discourse focuses much on the Millennium Development Goals (mdgs) as part of a global social contract in support of international cooperation and governance, with the debate on the post-mdgs and the Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) indicating a shift. These goals are at least in part addressing developmental constraints confronting the world as a result of the effects the dominant growth models have had on limited resources and global goods. Rio+20 was a forum which brought to the fore the conflicting issues at stake and the challenges for any development paradigm seeking to enhance global justice and equality. This article explores the discrepancies between dominant paradigms cultivated in official discourses, on the one hand, and alternatives for another development presented as anti-hegemonic counter-models for survival strategies. It considers the role of civil society agencies and scholar activists in development studies.     

(Neo-)extractivism – a new challenge for development theory from Latin America

This paper addresses new challenges and identifies starting points for development theory following recent debates in Latin America on ‘new or neo-extractivism’. It focuses on the concept of neo-extractivism and the context of its emergence, and on the changing role of the state. Looking at a number of social economic indicators, we find that, even after considering differences between countries, (neo-)extractivism is not merely a temporary economic strategy in the region. Instead, it exhibits features of a consolidated development project. Empirical evidence from the region shows the fundamental implications of resource-based development paths in politics, social relations and territorial orders. To grasp these implications conceptually, we argue for a shift in theoretical perspectives related to the link between development and resource extraction. Key elements for such a shift are to be found in recent studies in rentier theory and politics and new approaches in the field of political ecology.     

The extraterritorial dimensions of biofuel policies and the politics of scale: live and let die?

Despite criticism, global biofuel production continues to rise, using primarily food crops. Between 2001 and 2012 it increased nearly six-fold, driven primarily by domestic policies, yet raising strong international concerns, eg over impacts on global food prices. Nevertheless, little international biofuel governance has emerged. This article examines the various extraterritorial dimensions of domestic biofuel policies and investigates why international biofuel governance has remained vague, despite its controversial nature. It uses the politics of scale to analyse why countries may wish to frame it as a global or domestic issue. Three extraterritorial dimensions are identified: global environmental impacts, global socioeconomic impacts, and attempts at extraterritorial control over biofuel production abroad. While major producers have successfully avoided liability for impacts by preventing the scaling up of much biofuel governance to the international level, major importers have tried to fill perceived governance gaps using policies aimed at extraterritorial control. We show that both the rise of nationally oriented development policies with extraterritorial impacts and of unilateral sustainability rule making primarily affect weaker countries, making global inequalities more pronounced. It is essential that adaptation governance take into account both environmental and global socioeconomic changes, such as higher agricultural commodity prices.