- We are pleased to provide you with the May issue of the EADI Research Monitor. To subscribe to our monthly newsletter, please use the form on the ResearchMessage 1 of 2 , May 14, 2012View Source
EADI Research Monitor - May Issue (2012)
We are pleased to provide you with the May issue of the EADI Research Monitor.
To subscribe to our monthly newsletter, please use the form on the Research Monitor homepage.
If this message is illegible or incomplete, click here.Contents:Separated at Birth, Reunited in Rio? A Roadmap to Bring Environment and Development Back Together
Inequality and Identity: Causes of War?
From Property Rights and Institutions, to Beliefs and Social Orders: Revisiting Douglass North's Approach to Development
Beyond the BRICs: Alternative Strategies of Influence in the Global Politics of Development
Reforming the EUs Common Agricultural Policy
More Research HighlightsSeparated at Birth, Reunited in Rio? A Roadmap to Bring Environment and Development Back Together
2012/04- Overseas Development Institute (ODI); Authors: Claire Melamed, Andrew Scott and Tom Mitchell
2015 will be a defining year for international policy on development and the environment. The negotiation of both new goals and a new agreement on climate change offer an opportunity to finally reunite the twin tracks of development and environmental policy, which have remained stubbornly separate since the first Rio conference in 1992.
The history of trying to link development and environmental objectives through actual policy initiatives is not encouraging. 'Sustainable development', a concept originating in the Brundtland Report of 1987, has become the mantra in global policy circles since the first Rio conference in 1992, but it has had remarkably little impact on actual policy. Despite much academic work and many innovative ideas in this area, the two have remained stubbornly separate on the terrain of politics and implementation. This paper sets out to explain why reconciling the two agendas has been so difficult at a practical level, and suggests how Rio+20 could start to bridge the gaps between the two.
Download the full publicationInequality and Identity: Causes of War?
2012/04 - The Nordic Africa Institute (NAI); Author: Göran Holmqvist
In the first part four theories on the causes of civil war are reviewed: one associated with Paul Collier, one by Frances Stewart, a third theory identified with William Zartman and one associated with the World Bank /World Development Report 2011. They lead to quite different policy conclusions. Their strengths and weaknesses, and their claimed empirical support are discussed.
The second part of the paper presents empirical explorations, based on Afrobarometer data, to shed additional light on some of the mechanisms that underpin these theories: how horizontal inequalities between ethnic groups are linked to grievances; how horizontal inequalities compare with vertical inequalities as a correlate of conflict indicators and how some of the elaborated indicators have evolved over time in the case of a recent violent conflict (Kenya). No claims on directions of causality are made, but results do indicate that horizontal inequalities, in different dimensions, are important factors in grievances and violent conflicts. Future research directions are identified.
Download the full publicationFrom Property Rights and Institutions, to Beliefs and Social Orders: Revisiting Douglass North's Approach to Development
2012/04 - Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB), University of Antwerp; Author: Sebastian Dellepiane-Avellaneda
The impact of North's ideas in the area development cooperation can hardly be overstated. This paper contends, however, that North's ideas are widely cited, but not always properly understood. Moreover, some of his core arguments have been overlooked, ignored, or misrepresented, not least by the aid community.
This paper provides a systematic assessment of the content and evolution of North's writings, from his pioneering works on property rights and institutions in the 1970s, to his recent scholarship on beliefs and political violence. The focus is on identifying the key analytical problems and remaining challenges of the institutional approach to development. The paper also takes issue with the inconsistencies and policy gaps of the good governance consensus. In doing so, it also reflects upon the future of the research program on institutions and development. Would the renewed emphasis on politics, conflict, inequality, and context lead to an improved governance agenda or to a shift towards a post-institutionalist paradigm?
Download the full publicationBeyond the BRICs: Alternative Strategies of Influence in the Global Politics of Development
2012/04 - European Journal of Development Research (EJDR); Authors: Matthias vom Hau, James Scott and David Hulme
This introductory essay situates the subsequent special issue within a comparative framework that helps to unpack the new global politics of development. It argues that there is a set of countries beyond Brazil, Russia, India and China that are emerging to a position of increased international prominence and which merit greater attention than they have hitherto received.
Recent economic risers such as South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico are responding to their economic growth and seeking to secure greater influence within regional and global affairs. The analytical framework developed here distinguishes between four distinct strategies of international engagement: issue leading, opportunity seeking, region organising and region mobilising. The framework further suggests the need to focus on new global opportunities and pressures, as well as the specific interests and capacities of states when accounting for the adoption of a particular strategy of engagement.
Download the full publicationReforming the EUs Common Agricultural Policy
2012/04 - Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS); Author: Carsten Daugbjerg
Agricultural trade became fully integrated into negotiations on trade liberalisation in the Uruguay Round commencing under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986 and has been the cause of much discontent ever since - every major setback in the GATT and World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rounds has been caused by lack of progress in agricultural trade ne-gotiations.
The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has often been a source of conflict between the EU and its trade partners, first within the GATT, and then the WTO. In the Doha Round agriculture was again a sticking point, resulting in setbacks and delays. The position of the EU is pivotal because the CAP sets limits for agricultural trade liberalisation, blocking progress across the full compass of the WTO agenda. However, the CAP has not been stat-ic but has evolved considerably over the last two decades, responding to the developments in the WTO farm trade agenda as set out in the Agreement on Agriculture. This policy brief discusses how the integration of agricultural trade into the WTO trade regime has influenced the evolution of the CAP through a succession of reforms.
Download the full publicationMore Research Highlights
2012/04 Institute of Development Studies (IDS); Authors: Ugo Gentilini and Andy Sumner
2012/04 - Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI); Author: Magnus Hatlebakk
2012/04 - Society for International Development (SID); Report with the support of the TradeMark East Africa
2012/04 - London International Development Centre (LIDC); Authors: Charlotte Creed et al.
2012/05 - Zentrum fuer Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF); Authors: Jean-Jacques Dethier and Alexander Moore
2012/05 - United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD); Author: Laura Rival
2012/05 - European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM); Author: Francesco Rampa
2012/05 - Overseas Development Institute (ODI); Authors: Poverty Analysis Discussion Group - Sabina Alkire et al.
The EADI Research Monitor is published by the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI)
The views expressed in this e-newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official position of EADI. Please use our feedback form if you have any suggestions, questions or feedback.
If you want to change your profile or cancel your subscription, please use this form.