Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 20 October 2013, At: 09:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Third World QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20
Critical Development Theory: moving out ofthe twilight zoneFrans J Schuurman aa Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (cidin) , RadboudUniversity , Nijmegen, The NetherlandsPublished online: 11 Jun 2009.
To cite this article: Frans J Schuurman (2009) Critical Development Theory: moving out of the twilight zone,Third World Quarterly, 30:5, 831-848, DOI: 10.1080/01436590902959024
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590902959024
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Critical Development Theory:moving out of the twilight zone
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
ABSTRACT Since the onslaught of neoliberal triumphalism from the 1980sonwards, critical development theory increasingly found itself in a sort ofacademic twilight zone. With few exceptions development research becamecharacterised by an emphasis on empiricism, quantitative methodologies andpolicy-oriented project evaluations. Interpreting Third World problems in termsof the inner logic and shifting contradictions of a globalising capitalism waslimited to those situated in the critical theory twilight zone. However, a processof rethinking development research set in some time ago. This process has beenaccelerating since the end of 2008, when neoliberalism started to lose most of itstriumphalism because of the globalising financial and economic crisis. Thecurrent article focuses specifically on a number of challenges which have to befaced by critical theory when leaving the twilight zone.
Development studies has always been, and probably will always be, anuneasy discipline and, by default, so is development research.1 There is anumber of factors which explain this uneasiness right from the start ofdevelopment studies at the end of the 1960s but in time others have beenadded.First, nobody has ever agreed about what the exact object of development
studies actually is: processes of development and underdevelopment, povertyin the Third World, or causes of that poverty and attempts to do somethingabout it, etc. Development studies is not like sociology, for example, whichhas a clearly defined object. If I were to ask colleagues what they thought theexact explanandum of development studies was, I would get many differentanswers. However, and I am now getting to the second factor responsible forthe unease, all those different answers would have a common denominatorand that is that the object of development studies and development researchhas a significant degree of normativity. Content-wise, however, thisnormativity would differ enormously in terms of what ‘a good and decentlife’ would have to be about and how to realise that goal. In addition, toomuch emphasis on the latter (ie how to realise a good and decent life) wouldlead to development studies being seen as a policy-oriented applied sciencewhile in fact it is much more.
Frans Schuurman is at the Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Radboud
University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected].
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2009, pp 831–848
ISSN 0143-6597 print/ISSN 1360-2241 online/09/050831–18 � 2009 Third World Quarterly
DOI: 10.1080/01436590902959024 831
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
A third important factor is the interdisciplinary character of developmentstudies. Much could be said about that issue but I will limit myself topointing out that 1) interdisciplinarity tends to be associated with loweracademic prestige; and 2) because of the interdisciplinary approach,development studies continuously has to deal with the spill-over effects ofthe scientific flux in neighbouring disciplines.Although these factors have been responsible for a certain degree of
uneasiness for development studies they were at the same time treasured bythose involved as core characteristics of their discipline. Since its emergencein the late 1960s (in the case of the UK) or early 1970s (in the case of theNetherlands, for example), development studies was more or less able to dealwith this uneasiness successfully. It seems, however, that developmentresearch in general, and development studies in particular, has for some timenow shown signs of an increased uneasiness as it has moved into a twilightzone between neoliberal globalism and global neoliberalism. Things havechanged drastically for development studies and the uneasiness as anestablished fact of academic life has changed into an almost existential threat,specifically for critical development theory.First, there is an undeniable trend for development studies institutes, as
part of academia, to have to operate increasingly according to a market logic.Being involved in research into poverty, marginalisation and ‘into the plightof the Third World’ in general has not saved development studies fromhaving to justify itself in terms of input and output of students, the number ofpublications in highly ranked peer-reviewed journals, the annual count oflarge-scale outside-financed research projects, citation indices, (inter)nationalratings indicating academic prestige, and so on.Second, this trend stands in contradistinction to the original critical
contents of the mission and scientific object of development studies. Forexample, it is increasingly difficult to find funds for development researchwhich is not directly related to the UN Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) or which tries to assess critically the whole MDG-related media circus.As such, third, neoliberal thinking is having a growing influence ondetermining the research agenda of development studies, making itincreasingly difficult to maintain a critical research tradition.Fourth, although, on the one hand, the geographical scope of development
studies research nowadays incorporates Eastern and Central Europeancountries, and also Western European countries for that matter, on the otherhand, with respect to research in the traditional development countries, thegeographical focus seems to be reduced to Africa (a direct consequence of thefocus on Africa of the aid industry).Fifth, globalisation (whether as an ontological phenomenon and/or as a
discourse) has significantly challenged development studies in many respects.Although originally globalisation theories could be considered as a challengeto critical development studies, they have turned increasingly into a liabilitybasically because of their depoliticised and culturalist overtones.So I would venture that the present uneasiness is of a different nature from
before. It is probably exaggerated to speak of an existential crisis but if we
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
832
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
take a look, for example, at how British (in 2006), Austrian (in 2007) andDutch (in 2008) development studies institutes celebrated their lustra one getsan idea of what I mean. All these celebrations were organised around thetheme of ‘reinventing development research’ which actually came down to re-establishing the relation between critical theory and development research.Why is the unease related to that particular issue of a different nature from
what we were used to? To answer that question, allow me first briefly tocharacterise what the relation is between critical development theory and—let’s call it for the moment—‘the rest’ of development research. To start with:there is hardly a relation anymore. From the point of view of critical theorymuch of development research seems to hover in a sort of twilight zone,between neoliberal globalism and global neoliberalism. At the same timemany development researchers think that it is critical theory which finds itselfin a twilight zone between more or less obscure forms of historicalmaterialism, completely outdated socialist utopian ideas and a touch ofpost-developmental nihilism. Both zones are convinced that the other hasn’tgot a clue about how the world functions, that they don’t properlyunderstand how poverty came into the world, why it is concentrated in theglobal South, what people there actually think and expect, and what is thebest way to improve upon situations of poverty.Let me give an example from the point of view of critical theory of what
goes on in the other twilight zone. In a recent article about the tensionbetween critical theory and the policy-orientedness of development studies,Henry Bernstein quotes from an advertisement for Research Fellows at theUniversity of Manchester’s new Brooks World Poverty Institute, of whichJoseph Stiglitz is chair:
Successful applicants will have a demonstrated capacity to conduct innovativeand rigorous research that refines and extends our understanding of poverty,while also identifying plausible and politically supportable options for whatmight be done to reduce it.2
There doesn’t seem to be much communication between those two twilightzones in spite of the fact that they outwardly share a lot of concepts likesustainable development, poverty, attention to gender, etc; the interpretationof these concepts is very different, so much so that effectively they seem tobelong to different paradigmatic, phenomenological and epistemologicaluniverses. Constructive communication seems further blocked by a numberof other factors. For example, researchers from both twilight zones seem toinadvertently transmit a sort of moral righteousness which seems to be ratherirritating for the other party. If, for example, those directly or indirectlyinvolved in the praxis of international development co-operation are accusedof (unwittingly) being the Trojan horses of imperialism, then there isn’t muchcommon ground for a fruitful dialogue. Neither is it very helpful if criticaltheorists are accused of being ideologically blinded by an outdated Marxistframework supporting the search for an unrealistic socialist-like utopia. Thetwo zones differ significantly in terms of research objectives, researchquestions, and even research methodology. So what makes the present unease
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
833
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
in development studies different from previous periods? To answer thatquestion we will have to go back to the period in which development studieswas constituted as an academic discipline.Looking back at 35 years (or 40 in the case of the UK) of development
studies, its genealogy basically follows Robert Michel’s iron law of theoligarchy, Max Weber’s iron law of the bureaucracy and Foucault’s notionof governmentality. Development studies as an academic discipline emergedin the late 1960s and early 1970s from the womb of anti-imperialist socialmovements consisting of students and young university professors, and fromthe so-called ‘country-solidarity committees’. As such, there is no doubt thatthe ideological, political and intellectual roots of development studies arefirmly embedded within critical theory. The anti-modernisation Zeitgeist ofthat period, in combination with a pretty much particular body of theories(dependency theory and world-system approaches) and its interdisciplinary,comparative approach led to development studies being accepted (or perhapstolerated) as a separate academic discipline by the end of the 1970s. Manystudents saw in development studies a way to combine their solidarity withthe Third World with theoretical insights and a possibility to actually dosomething about poverty. It attracted an increasing number of students andas such became unavoidably enmeshed in the academic bureaucracy. Tieswith the social movements were redefined to fit academic rules. In addition,there emerged a job market for the graduate students in the field ofinternational development co-operation. Ministries of development co-operation in the various European countries, Northern development NGOsand United Nations organisations provided ample employment opportunitiesfor development studies graduates. Unavoidably this also affected theacademic curriculum of development studies; for example, knowledge abouthow to set up and run development projects was required as was how tomake a five-year development plan (which was very much in vogue in thatperiod). Both previously mentioned iron laws explain why developmentstudies slowly started to drift away from its original historical roots withincritical theory. Obviously the increasing hegemony of neoliberalism, incombination with the globalisation rhetoric from the 1990s onwards, meant adrastic change of the Zeitgeist in comparison to the 1960s and 1970s. Criticaltheory within development studies became increasingly sidelined specificallyfrom the beginning of the 1990s onwards as a result of the quickly growinghegemony of a depoliticised, post-cold war globalisation discourse and adepoliticisation of the development debate in general, of which thepresentation of the MDGs in 2000 is a clear example. Instead of seeing theMDGs as the epitaph of 50 years of development co-operation, the MDGs havebeen used to discipline development research towards neoliberal globalisa-tion discourses, further away from critical theory; a manoeuvre that Foucaultcould have labelled academic governmentality. Of course, there is still plentyof critique on, for example, international development co-operation butmuch of it seems to be geared to the question of how to make it moreefficient. There is much less debate on the issue of development research interms of what critical theory stands for, despite publications by authors like
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
834
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
James Ferguson, Robert Biel, Ben Fine, John Harriss, David Harvey, UmaKothari and, more recently, Ray Kiely just to mention some names whoshare perspectives derived from critical theory.3
However, critical development research is not a homogeneous package ofmeta- and substantive theories which can be taken out of the drawer. There isalso much ‘uneasiness’ with respect to critical development research. In spiteof accepting a Marxian political economy of capitalism as a broad commonframework, positions differ with respect to a whole range of issues, such as 1)the necessity of incorporating a radical praxeology (ie providing guidelinesfor anti-systemic movements); 2) disagreement about the characteristics ofthe supposed anti-systemic movements (ie the present analytical value of theconcept of socioeconomic classes); 3) the extent to which critical discourseanalysis (specifically focusing on the Eurocentrism in development narra-tives) should be incorporated; and 4) the degree to which actors areconsidered as free agents (ie the continuous actor–structure debate).It is time to move critical development research from its twilight zone into
the spotlight. In 2008 the contours of a partial meltdown of global financialcapitalism and the subsequent global recession in the real economy madeclear that there is more need than ever for critical development research tomove out of the twilight zone and to contribute to new, much needed insightsinto processes of development and underdevelopment and possible alter-native routes towards a more sustainable future. However, to move criticaldevelopment research forward in this sense, a number of contentious issueswill have to be addressed, the first of which I attempt in the next paragraph.The last section discusses the value of perspectives on new imperialism tomove critical development theory out of the twilight zone.
Critical theory: some contentious issues
What is critical development research about?
In order to answer this question we will have to look at the explanandum(object), the explanans (explanatory framework) and the methodology ofcritical development research. Critical theory as a meta-narrative orparadigmatic-like perspective would read something like Robert Biel proposes:
International capitalism will always need a South to exploit. If countries fromthis area were to become successful latecomers, the accumulation system wouldsuffer a double blow: the size of the exploiting area would increase while theterritory available for exploitation would shrink! This is the fundamentalreason why all the talk about generalised growth is pure nonsense.4
However, the same author comes close to interpreting critical theory as asubstantive explanatory framework with the following observation:
The problem of poverty, which has become the central problem of developmenttoday, cannot be understood outside the context of capital accumulation, andfundamentally can never be resolved while capital accumulation is the rulingprinciple of the international system.5
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
835
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
Andrew Sayer’s emphasis on what critical theory is specifically concerns theexplanandum, ie substantive normative issues, as the object of research (eginjustice, poverty) without linking that choice explicitly with a particulartheory or meta-narrative.6 That would not be my preferred option because inthat sense practically all research within the development studies communitywould be critical. In Appelbaum and Robinson’s anthology, CriticalGlobalization Studies, several chapters (eg the editors’ introduction as wellas James Mittelman’s ‘robust conceptualisation’ of critical globalisationstudies) are quite useful for elaborating in a broad sense the essence of criticaldevelopment research.7 As such, a shortlist of the most importantcharacteristics of critical (globalisation) theory, mentioned in Appelbaumand Robinson would contain the following: 1) reflexivity: the acknowl-edgement that the society in which we live, or other societies, is only onepossible form of society; 2) knowledge is power; 3) critical theory attempts touncover historic processes which link the various elements of a particularsocial reality without falling into the trap of reductionism; 4) critical theory istransdisciplinary in the sense that it tries to establish crossovers with criticalapproaches in other disciplines (like cartography or critical legal studies); 4)critical theory is subversive, ie it challenges accepted ideas, ideologies,policies, etc; 5) critical theory questions the positivist faith in empiricism, ie itquestions the distinction between facts and values; 6) critical researchinvolves decentring, taking into account perspectives not only from theepicentre but also from the so-called margins.The minimum position which I would prefer for characterising critical
development research is a combination of 1) an object of research whichconcerns the lack of emancipation of large groups of people, the structuralcauses thereof and attempts to do something about it; 2) an explanatoryframework using the inner (but globalising) logic of the capitalist system interms of production, market and consumption; and 3) challenging acceptedideas, ideologies and policies (something which Robinson calls the‘subversive’ side of critical theory).
Critical theory and the academic curriculum
What does it mean for the educational curriculum of a development studiesinstitute to be functioning in an academic setting which is increasingly beinginvaded by a market logic? In order to survive, concessions have had to bemade. Original mission statements, which were strongly normativelyinspired, started to act as barriers in the survival strategy. In the 1970s acommon view shared by students and staff in development studies was thatdevelopment projects were an extension of Northern-based imperialism (abasic view of ‘Third Worldists’ or ‘tier-mondistes’) or at most a way to evademore fundamental changes in North–South trade relations and politicalregimes in underdeveloped countries themselves. There is currently littlereason to believe that development co-operation has changed dramaticallyfrom these (un)intended consequences.
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
836
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
Yet development studies underwent large shifts in terms of its explanan-dum, explanans and subject (methodology). In terms of its object,development studies went from a structural analysis of the mechanics ofunderdevelopment to studying the efficiency of development projects. In thisshift an approach inspired by critical theory was entirely lost. In fact, ingeneral the adjective ‘critical’ lost its original meaning. Many developmentstudies students nowadays reduce the adjective ‘critical’ to delivering critique.In addition, there has been a shift (not only in development studies but alsoin the social sciences in general) from structural analysis to actor-orientedanalysis. Studying or evaluating development projects in terms of efficiencyand impact means a shift from macro- to micro-level analysis. Now there isnothing wrong with an actor-oriented analysis as long as the structuralcontext is not lost from sight.8 But this is exactly the point, the broadercontext in project-based evaluation studies often remains outside theanalytical framework (partly also because it falls outside the sphere ofinfluence of policy makers—ministries of development co-operation as wellas NGOs—which often finance these studies in the first place).Another example of the shift within development studies from structural to
actor-oriented analysis is the way that notions like poverty and inequality areconceptualised. We see here a historic shift in the level of analysis from macroto meso to micro. Poverty in the Third World used to be conceptualised interms of differences between rich and poor countries. Admittedly thedefinition of poverty has been much improved through the years (from apurely income-oriented definition to a much broader set of indicators) butpoverty is now often reduced to an individual characteristic with individualsolutions (eg through micro-credit schemes). This trend is also reflected inanalytical frameworks like, for example, the currently much favouredlivelihood approaches where individual actors are plotted into a matrixaccording to their access (or lack thereof) to assets or different forms ofcapital (financial, social, human, etc). The livelihood framework is useful topoint out the heterogeneity existing within a particular local space, somethingwhich has always been a notoriously weak point in critical theory.9 But thiscan hardly compensate for the lack of a much more systematic analysis ofstructural components. In other words, the shift within development studiesfrom research inspired by critical theory to research according to a neoliberalagenda is accompanied by dramatic shifts in object, subject and explanatoryframework.How could the above be seen from the student’s point of view (ie more
precisely: my perspective on their perspective)? Development studies stillattracts, perhaps remarkably so, quite a number of students. The reasons forstudying development studies have not changed over the years. Studentscontinue to have a genuine concern for the plight of the poor in the ThirdWorld, indignation about the unequal distribution of resources on a globalscale and the urge to do something about this. Students also are still veryactive outside the university although the characteristics of their activitieshave changed somewhat. In the ‘old days’ students joined anti-imperialismworking groups and as such were well equipped with theoretical knowledge
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
837
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
which enabled them to discuss the relevance of Marx’s 18th Brumaire onthe same level as their professors. Nowadays students join United NationsYouth Forums and travel to Washington to meet their peers from othercountries to discuss good governance. So extra curricular activities are stillthere and still express a basic concern with the ‘Other’. In fact, theseactivities should perhaps be appreciated more than in the old days becausenow many students work at least 20 hours per week to earn theirlivelihood.The job market for development studies students is still largely composed
of employment in the domain of international development co-operation,although this means being sent overseas significantly less than before. Only asmall percentage manages to proceed to undertake a PhD. Many graduatesfind jobs in ministries of development co-operation, NGOs, embassies orinternational development organisations and become directly involved in thedomain of development management and policy making. This particular jobmarket requires critical students but in a more generalised sense of the word.Above all, there is a need for students who know how to prepare, manageand evaluate development projects, who know how to measure efficiency andincrease the impact of projects. The job market does not particularly emitsignals that it needs students who think that the MDGs are the latest exampleof depoliticising the development debate. However, this could be too sombrea take on things. In an interesting article on what MA students indevelopment studies ought to be taught, Michael Woolcock of the WorldBank’s Development Research Group, surprisingly perhaps, states thefollowing:
but students whose confidence stems from, and identity is solidly grounded in,possession of technocratic skills alone risk—as David Halberstam (1974)famously noted of the Vietnam War architects—becoming part of the problemrather than the solution. Why? Because a good measure of the repeated failureof the ‘aid industry’ over its 50-year history can be attributed to the enormouslystrong organizational imperatives and institutional incentives to frame alldevelopment problems in terms that are amenable to the logic, techniques, andsensibilities of technocrats and bureaucrats (Scott, 1998), of which quantitativeskills are a central component. Policy school faculty members are thus requiredto manage a difficult tension between seeing quantitative expertise as both anecessary but very insufficient component of the development professional’soverall skill portfolio.10
Although this is not exactly an immediate invitation for critical scholars toapply for a job at the World Bank, it offers at least some reason to relax thepartly self-imposed academic governmentality to overemphasise the narrowempiricist approaches in development research. As such, it is also vital toincorporate into critical theory elements of an enlightened deconstructivepostmodernism not only to deconstruct mainstream development conceptsbut also to increase critical theory’s capacity for self-reflexivity because it hasstrong eurocentric overtones.11
In so far as students are not ignorant of what critical theory is, it seems tobe generally considered as a relic of the turbulent past of development studies
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
838
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
instead of an approach of any immediate use in research projects or in futurejobs. Besides, by now every European university has implemented theBologna Treaty, which means that officially the academic period for studentsconsists of a three-year BA followed by a one-year MA. Time for fieldwork islimited, which means that students need a pragmatic ‘toolkit’ for local-levelresearch. Critical theory is rather abstract and needs considerable oper-ationalisation to be used in short term micro-level MA research projects. Itcan be considered as a major challenge for development studies to try toreincorporate critical theory into that pragmatic toolkit.
Critical theory and the de/repoliticisation of the development debate
The end of real existing socialism in 1989 led the political left into anideological impasse which is one of the reasons for the depoliticisation trendin the development debate. Frantically searching for an acceptablereplacement for socialist ideals, the left chose political participation atnational and, especially, local levels as the closest thing to a progressivepolitical agenda.However, experiences with participation of civil society organisations in
local government, for example, show in general that these are rather devoidof serious political discussions and target-micro material issues above all.There is nothing inherently wrong with that but the idea of politicalemancipation does not appear to come any closer. In her booklet, On thePolitical, Chantal Mouffe has aptly described this process and emphasisesthat we should return to ‘the political’ in the sense of what she calls agonisticconfrontations.12 Hegemonic in the mainstream development debate areversions of globalisation rhetoric rampant with depoliticised notionsassociated with multiculturality, civil society and good governance (like,for example, the notion of social capital). There are emerging attempts, alsowithin development NGOs, to repoliticise the development debate and it isimperative that critical theorists participate in those attempts.13
However, as has, hopefully, become clear in the presentation of theprevious ‘contentious issues’, the contributions of critical development theoryto a repoliticisation of the development debate will not have a unifiedcontent. Instead of interpreting this as a sign of weakness it should, on thecontrary, be seen as a welcome enrichment to current development debates.
Should critical development research incorporate a praxeology, that is:should it present strategic and tactical suggestions for actors whichwould lead to political transformation?
For varying reasons critical development research is often expected to comeup with ‘something better than capitalism’. This issue has become all themore pertinent since the crisis of global capitalism emerged in 2008.Alternatives on offer range from anarchy to forms of participatory economicsand direct democracy but not everyone into critical development researchfeels that coming up with viable alternatives should top the list. In an article
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
839
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
on critical theory and international relations Roger Spegele is very explicit,however: ‘Critical theory should contribute to the emancipation of X fromstructure or condition Y in order to achieve Z ’.14 Spegele does not limitstructure or condition Y to global capitalism. It is worth quoting Spegele alittle more extensively, if only to indicate the large variety in criticalpositions:
Thus, for example, X might refer to the working classes, the exploited poor,women, nations, ethnic groups, the marginalized, religious groups, minorities,climate, forests, modernist philosophy and so forth. Quite clearly, we aredealing with a large class of theory here, both actually and potentially. Y, onthe other hand, could be filled in with: class structures; patriarchy; sovereignty;nationalism; colonialism; liberalism and neo-realism; the state-system; militar-ism; global capitalism; Christianity; modernism; greenhouse gas emissions;deforestation, etc. Z would be filled in with ideas concerning the goals ofliberation: a Kantian kingdom of ends [meaning rational individuals boundtogether by universal laws], communism, a world state, global citizenship,anarchy, Otherness, a nongendered world, a maternal world, and so on.15
The political philosopher James Bohman also emphasises that criticaltheories are supposed to come up with practical guidelines to supportpolitical agency towards societal transformation, guidelines which should, hesays, be verified by those participating in the practice of transformation, averification which for Bohman, is part of the research process itself.16 Thisposition is very similar to the idea of action research which was popular inthe 1970s and 1980s.Harry Dahms, however, finds that a critical theory should in the first place
be about ‘pertinent questions’ and much less about providing guidelines for astrategic praxeology for social, economic and political change.17 The latteroption will most likely lead, he says, to unsound reductionist, prescriptiveand deterministic guidelines which we have in the past seen go astray.According to Maeve Cooke:
Critical social theory is a mode of reflection that looks critically at processes ofsocial development from the point of view of the obstacles they pose forindividual human flourishing. It has an in-built emancipatory perspective: itseeks to liberate human beings from the social chains that bind them byshowing them how certain social mechanisms and institutions prevent themfrom fulfilling their potentials as human beings, and by drawing attention to theessential contingency of these social arrangements. Emancipation takes theform of eliminating the social obstacles to human flourishing by way oftransformative social action.18
While in need of an ethical reference point, critical social theory finds itselfbetween a rock and a hard place:
Critical social theory has an uneasy relationship with utopia. On the one hand,the idea of an alternative, better social order is necessary in order to makesense of its criticisms of a given social context. On the other hand, utopian
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
840
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
thinking has to avoid ‘bad utopianism’, defined as lack of connection with theactual historical process, and ‘finalism’, defined as closure of the historicalprocess.19
In other words, critical theory must come up with an ethical reference pointwhich is within the grasp of actors with a transformative potential but itshould be able to adapt to changing circumstances in order to avoid anauthoritarian finalism. So it would be unwise for critical scholars to comeup with utopian idea(l)s from behind their desks but at the same time itbegs the question of who decides which actors are the ‘chosen ones’ withenough transformative potential to work towards whichever utopia ischosen. There is an additional point here in terms of the spatial level forstrategic action. Suppose that critical theory needed to engage in apraxeology, what would be the level of analysis that such a critical theorywould engage in: macro or micro? In other words, would such a criticaltheory direct the ‘transformative actors’ towards the local, national orglobal level?If one insists that critical theory qualitate qua needs a praxeology then that
would probably not only be an undesirable task but also a ‘missionimpossible’. It will then have to incorporate actors’ perspectives (which areundoubtedly much more heterogeneous than assumed), preferably in adialogical inter-perspectival way (but with whom exactly does the criticalsocial scientist communicate?), take into consideration all sorts of structuralconstraints and possibilities (which could also differ between the actorsinvolved), then theoretically relate actors and structures, and finally come upwith sound strategic advice which, preferably, would take into considerationunintended consequences. The impossibility of this task is exactly the reasonwhy mainstream development theory doesn’t work. This is a ‘missionimpossible’ indeed and leads to the suggestion that those insisting on criticaltheory’s incorporation of a praxeology should seriously reconsider. First andforemost, critical theory should be about pertinent questions and not aboutcorrect answers.20 A preliminary conclusion here could be that there is noreason to suppose that, even if the explanatory framework of a criticaldevelopment theory explicitly consisted of a political economy of capitalism,this should imply the simultaneous construction of alternatives to capitalismand/or guidelines for a political strategy to realise those alternatives.However, as we will see in the next section, the plausibility of this preliminaryconclusion depends to a large extent on what exactly is meant by ‘politicaleconomy of capitalism’.
Moving beyond ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ versionsof a political economy of capitalism
Whether the core issues of critical development theory, as I indicatedearlier, consist indeed of a political economy of a globalising capitalismand a critical discourse analysis, depends on how a political economy ofcapitalism is interpreted. Although a distinction is not generally made
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
841
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
between a ‘weak version’ and a ‘strong version’ of political economy,for the purpose of our present discussion it can be useful. In discussingcritical human geography in relation to Marxist geography, Kevin Coxpresents the political economy approach within critical human geographyas follows:
For ‘political economy’ the focus is material inequality, the condition of the lessprivileged, and how these are expressed spatially. Ideas of spatial orenvironmental justice are part of the implicit framing of work in this genre.The interpretive framework is dominated by ideas of market forces, especiallycompetition, and the superior leverage enjoyed by capital, particularly themajor firms, like the multinationals. The ‘political’ part of ‘political economy’enters in through the way in which state agents are mobilized or affected in theiractions by corporations. Major recent foci of interest have includedglobalization, including world cities, and neo-liberalism, with the latter nowcoming up very strongly and overtaking the former. The same concern for therelation between state and economy is evident, however, with some theoreticalgloss given to it through references to regulation theory which, as a result of theway it foregrounds competition and consumption and marginalizes ideas ofclass and production, is a significant choice anyway.21
This use of political economy as an explanatory framework could be calledthe ‘weak version’ (in Cox’s terms: the neo-Smithian version). It emphasisesmaterial inequality as a consequence of the discriminatory logic within thesphere of circulation. In contradistinction, the ‘strong version’ emphasises thesphere of production and class analysis, ie takes Marxist historicalmaterialism as an explanatory framework. Discussing the influence of the‘culturalist’ turn in critical human geography, Cox laments that:
The emphasis is on practices of exclusion and the discursive construction of theOther as the basis for exclusion: exclusion from recognition/votes/governing/citizenship/jobs. Interpreted thus one can see why class cannot be an object ofstudy in the politics of difference.22
In the historical materialist interpretation of political economy (the ‘strong’version) critical discourse analysis would form part and parcel of a criticalapproach as an ‘Ideologie-Kritik’. As such, the issues discussed in theprevious section (the need for the outlines of a non-capitalist utopia and asubsequent praxeology) would have much more stipulated answers (iesocialism and class struggle) than using a ‘weak version’ of political economy.In the latter sense ‘classifying’ actors in terms of, for example, ethnic identity,religion and gender would make more sense in understanding (material)inequality. Alternatives to capitalism and a strategic praxeology, ifconsidered opportune after all, would show a much greater variation thanin the ‘strong version’ of political economy.Although it is useful and worthwhile to discuss how weak and strong
versions of political economy in combination could increase our under-standing of how, for example, race and ethnicity could be combined with aclass analysis, the characteristics of a globally evolving capitalism urgentlyrequire an additional angle. In the past two decades the dynamics of global
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
842
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
capitalism has increasingly been influenced by the transnational financialsector. Currently it seems more adequate to characterise global capitalism asa transnational rentier economy than in terms related to the real economy.The question then is how to insert the notion of class within that context andwhat the analytical surplus value would be. At the same time, when all thefinancial soap bubbles have finally evaporated what is left is still the realeconomy (and more specifically the material production within the realeconomy). For critical development theory the challenge is to integrate the‘weak’ and ‘strong’ version of the political economy of capitalism with specialattention to the dynamics of global financial capitalism.
Critical theory towards new imperialism?
The way that globalisation (as a theory and as a phenomenon) has generallybeen incorporated into development research/theory is largely devoid of theissues that form part of the realm of critical development theory. Conceptslike interconnectedness, network of networks, transnational spaces, de- andreterritorialisation, hybridity, glocalisation, cosmopolitanism, good govern-ance, global civil society, etc. now form part of any self-respectingdevelopment research project but are usually stripped of the issues discussedin the previous section. Thus globalisation has turned from a challenge into aliability for critical development research.However, there is no reason why globalisation could not be incorporated
into critical development theory. Robinson formulates the starting point asfollows:
capitalism has changed fundamentally since the days of Lenin, Hilferding, andBukharin. We have entered a qualitatively new transnational stage in theongoing evolution of world capitalism, which is marked by a number offundamental shifts in the capitalist system, among them: the rise of trulytransnational capital and the integration of every country into a new globalproduction and financial system; the appearance of a new transnationalcapitalist class (TCC), a class group grounded in new global markets and circuitsof accumulation, rather than national markets and circuits; the rise oftransnational state (TNS) apparatuses, and the appearance of novel relationsof power and inequality in global society. The dynamics of this emerging stagein world capitalism cannot be understood through the lens of nation-statecentric thinking. This is not to say that the nation-state is no longer importantbut that the system of nation-states as discrete interacting units—the inter-statesystem—is no longer the organizing principle of capitalist development, or theprimary institutional framework that shapes social and class forces andpolitical dynamics.23
Critical development theory is still busy building a convincing newtheoretical bridge between the globalising logic of capitalism and thepolitical regulatory role of national states, however.Also, as previously discussed, critical theory encountered problems in
theoretically incorporating the shift from the centrality of materialproduction towards services and specifically towards the rapidly growing
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
843
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
importance of the financialisation of capitalism and the meaning of all of thisfor class analysis. Perhaps recent publications about ‘new imperialism’ offercritical development theory new beckoning horizons.24 Before I try to dealbriefly with the major characteristics of the new imperialism perspective, it isimportant to demystify at least one so-called globalisation myth, which isthat nation-states have lost their erstwhile priority status.25 This is importantbecause talking about new imperialism begs the question about the units ofanalysis. As Robinson pointed out, all the old imperialism theories referredto the relations between states, or nation-states for that matter. If, however,globalisation discourses are correct in pointing out the demise of the stateand that to understand global capitalism it is the market as an institutionalarrangement which is important to understand and not the relations betweennation-states as actors, then the imperialism perspective loses its spatial andgeopolitical connotations, which are its most central characteristic. This is atricky issue even among authors who adhere to notions of imperialism, suchas Hardt and Negri, who in their best-seller, Empire, picture a globalisedimperialist capitalism without a clear geopolitical centre.26 To demystify theglobalisation myth about the demise of the role of nation-states in globalcapitalism, Leo Panitch emphasises that:
globalisation is a process that is authored by active states; states that are notvictims of the process but active agents of making globalisation happen, and areincreasingly responsible, I would argue, for sustaining it, and even burdenedwith the increasing responsibility of managing its contradictions and crises.27
Panitch adds the following (and we are now already moving towards one ofthe characteristics of new imperialism):
there was certainly a restructuring of states (but not a bypassing of states) inrelation to: the rapid movement of capital; the changing balance of class forcestransnationally towards financial capital; the increasing orientation of each ofthe world’s nation-states to external trade. [What was taking place in thatcontext was] . . . a shift in the hierarchy of state apparatus, whereby those statedepartments that were more closely associated with the forces of internationalcapital—treasuries, central banks, and so forth—were increasing their status atthe cabinet table, if you like, vis-a-vis departments of labor or departments ofwelfare that were more closely associated with domestic subordinated classforces.28
Government departments of international development co-operation aregenerally also affected by a reshuffling of the hierarchy in the state apparatus.Humanitarian aid (once the prerogative of development co-operation), forexample, nowadays means above all sending troops and diplomatic missionsto conflict areas, activities carried out under the responsibility of ministries ofdefence and foreign affairs.Another defining characteristic of new imperialism (in reference to older
variants of imperialism) is that in spite of the post-World War II inter-imperialist economic rivalries between European, US and Japanese capital,this did not result (as in the ‘old days’) in military conflicts between the
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
844
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
imperialist powers. What is interesting about this particular issue is thatimperialist powers have joined forces in some military operations indeveloping countries (although not always wholeheartedly) and that, inwhat is considered as a specific characteristic of new imperialism, the USAhas taken the lead in many of these military campaigns. Columnist ThomasFriedman (in the New York Times on 28 March, 1999) puts it as follows:
The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist . . . andthe hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies iscalled the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The increasingly unilateral political ideology in the USA (of going it alone, soto speak, boycotting international treaties to regulate environmentalpollution, boycotting the International Court of Justice in The Hague, etc)is seen as an important characteristic of the new imperialism. It remains to beseen whether under the presidency of Barack Obama this will change.According to Michael Peters, Europe and the USA do not necessarily
share a common strategic culture anymore.29 He quotes neo-conservativeRobert Kagan (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace) who stipulates that:
Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, betweenfriends and enemies . . . They favor coercion over persuasion, tending towardsunilateralism. They are less inclined to act through the United Nations or otherinternational institutions and more skeptical of international law. By contrast,Europeans see a more complex picture . . . They are both more tolerant offailure and more patient, preferring peaceful solutions, negotiation, diplomacy,and persuasion to coercion.30
At the same time Kagan points out that the EU, with its new EasternEuropean members and possibly Turkey in future could become involved in aprocess of evolving identity, changing the importance of national prioritiesand shifting international agendas.Let me move on to another characteristic of the new imperialism
perspective, namely that spreading the gospel of democracy and goodgovernance is seen as an ideological instrument meant to detain the poor,marginalised, exploited masses in the Third World from engaging in politicalupheavals. What is specifically interesting here is the role awarded to civilsociety.Much has been said and can be said about the role of civil society, specifically
in the context of the support it receives through international developmentassistance. Supposedly strengthening civil society forms part of good governance(empowering the powerless through participation in national or local politicalinstitutions). In the context of a perspective derived from new imperialism, (thenotion of) civil society is created and supported by international donors, andfunctions (if it functions at all) as a means to keep a check on Southern statesbecoming too independent from the North. Through supporting civil societyimperialist powers can indirectly influence how government policies in theSouth are shaped. According to Henry Veltmeyer:
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
845
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
Radical political economists . . . tend to view NGOs as instruments [Trojanhorses], oftentimes unwitting and unknowing, of outside interests and regardboth economic development and democracy as masks for an otherwise hiddenagenda: to impose the policy and institutional framework of the new worldorder.31
Political transformations through revolutionary changes are not consideredreal options anymore once a supposed democracy is in place. The rhetoricspread by the international development community has firmly establishedthat accepting the synergy between democracy and market-orientedeconomic growth is the only way forward not just for nation-states but alsofor individuals. The current crisis of global financial capitalism and theconsequences for the real economy have apparently, for the time being atleast, led only to a minor blow for the hegemonic triumphalism of theneoliberalist ideology in the sense that governments are expected: 1) to bailout banks and private companies in trouble; and 2) to award central banks,albeit grudgingly, greater vigilance over the global banking system. However,the neoliberal analysis of the current crisis of global capitalism is verysuperficial compared with the analyses of new imperialism by authors likeRobert Biel and David Harvey who have examined the crisis-prone role offinancial capitalism to counteract the continuing problems of over-accumulation and falling rates of profit in global capitalism.Let me try to sum up the most important characteristics of the new
imperialism perspective as follows:
1. There is definitely still a clear geopolitical spatiality attached to globalcapitalism. The core–periphery hierarchy of old may have additional newcharacteristics (viz the changing positions of China and India) but therestill remains a North–South power hierarchy.
2. At the same time it is true is that the units in that power hierarchy arenot just nation-states but consist of an amalgam of actors, amongwhich are supranational institutions, multinational corporations, NGOsand social movements. However, nation-states can still be regarded asmajor actors.
3. The USA takes up a primordial position in the globalised powerhierarchy. There has been an increasing unilateralism in how the USAmanifests itself based upon its military hegemony.
4. The dynamics in the globalised power hierarchy are based upon changingcharacteristics of the capitalist mode of production which, however, arestill leading to imperialist, exploitative relations between North andSouth and increasing worldwide inequality between and within countries.Imperialism by necessity was and still is closely attached to the survivalstrategy of the capitalist mode of production.
5. These imperialist relations are sustained on the one hand through anideological legitimisation in the form of globalism and on the other handthrough direct military intervention, specifically in a unilateral way bythe USA.
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
846
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
6. Methods of absolute surplus appropriation seem to have returned:intensifying work regimes, reducing real wages, and restructuringemployment away from full-time and secure employment into part-timeand insecure work, something which David Harvey has labelled as‘accumulation by dispossession’ which relies on ‘power, with the use ofnumerous techniques, ranging from stock market manipulation, throughdebt crises, to the commodification of nature, and open militaryconquest’.32
7. Development assistance, currently with the emphasis on good govern-ance, democracy and the involvement of civil society, depoliticises thedevelopment debate and prevents the rise of alternative forms of socialorder with emancipatory potential for the world’s poor.
Does new imperialism offer a beckoning perspective to critical developmentresearch, wedged as it is between global neoliberalism and neoliberalglobalism? One way of answering this question is to look at how newimperialism deals with the earlier mentioned contentious issues.However, at the same time, my intention of drawing attention to these
issues was not to insist on definite answers but to increase the reflexivity orsensitivity of those interested in critical (development) theory about theseissues. Also, in this sense, Harry Dahms’s remark about preferring ‘pertinentquestions to correct answers’ is applicable. In conclusion, quite apart fromnew imperialism’s ‘score’ on the contentious issues, I would like to makethree additional remarks. First, in building up a critical perspective fordevelopment research based on the concept of new imperialism, one has totake care not to be dragged into conspiracy-like theories, which are oftenfascinating but cannot form the basis of a reconstruction of criticaldevelopment studies. Second, in order to lead to empirical research, thenew imperialist perspective has to be operationalised. In other words, if newimperialism exists at a paradigmatic level it should be connected to middle-range critical theories to enable research ‘on the ground’. Third, and inconnection with the previous point, a reconstruction of critical developmenttheory and research should re-establish the relationship between academicsand social movements.
Notes
Thanks are due to Detlev Haude for suggestions and critical comments.1 Cf A Sumner & M Tribe, International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research andPractice, London: Sage, 2008.
2 H Bernstein, ‘The antinomies of development studies’, Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik, 23 (2), 2007,p 20, emphasis in the original.
3 J Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power inLesotho, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994; R Biel, The New Imperialism: Crisis andContradictions in North/South Relations, London: Zed Books, 2000; B Fine, Social Capital versusSocial Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium, London: Routledge,2001; J Harris, Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Delhi: Leftword,2001; D Harvey, The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005; U Kothari (ed), ARadical History of Development Studies: Individuals, Institutions and Ideologies, London: Zed Books,2005; and R Kiely, The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism, Hegemony,New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY OUT OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE
847
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
4 Biel, The New Imperialism, p 35.5 Ibid, p 20.6 A Sayer, ‘Who is afraid of critical social science? A critique of the decline of critique’, Lecture,Radboud University Nijmegen, 12 November 2008.
7 R Appelbaum & W Robinson (eds), Critical Globalization Studies, New York: Routledge, 2005.8 For a useful discussion on post-structural challenges in development theory see D Simon, ‘Politicalecology and development: intersections, explorations and challenges arising from the work of PiersBlake’, Geoforum 39, 2008, pp 698–707.
9 Cf R Munck & D O’Hearn, Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm, London:Zed Books, 1999.
10 M Woolcock, ‘Higher education, policy school and development studies: what should Masters degreestudents be taught?’, Journal of International Development, 19, 2007, p 62. Cited in this quote are DHalberstam, The Best and the Brightest, Random House: New York, 1974; and J Scott, Seeing Like aState: How Well-intentioned Efforts to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998.
11 Munck & O’Hearn, Critical Development Theory.12 C Mouffe, On the Political, London: Routledge, 2005.13 Cf M Burawoy, ‘The critical turn to public sociology’, in Rhonda Levine (ed), Enriching the
Sociological Imagination: How Radical Sociology Changed the Discipline, Boulder, CO: ParadigmPublishers, 2005, pp 309–323.
14 R Spegele, ‘Emancipatory International Relations: good news, bad news or no news at all?’,International Relations, 16 (3), 2002, p 384, emphasis added.
15 Ibid.16 J Bohman, ‘How to make a social science practical: pragmatism, critical social science and
multiperspectival theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2002, 31 (3), 2002, pp 499–524.17 H Dahms, ‘Sociology in the age of globalization: toward a dynamic sociological theory’, Current
Perspectives in Social Theory 21, 2002, pp 287–320.18 M Cooke, ‘Redeeming redemption: the utopian dimension of critical social theory’, Philosophy and
Social Criticism, 30 (4), 2004, p 418.19 Ibid, p 413.20 Dahms, ‘Sociology in the age of globalization’.21 K Cox, ‘From Marxist geography to critical geography and back again’, Keynote address at the
Annual Critical Geography Conference, Miami University, OH, 28 October 2005, p 6.22 Ibid, p 12.23 W Robinson, ‘Beyond the theory of imperialism: global capitalism and the transnational state’,
Societies without Borders, 2, 2007, pp 7–8.24 Cf Biel, The New Imperialism; and Harvey, The New Imperialism, as well as D Harvey, Spaces of Global
Capitalism, London: Verso, 2006.25 The way in which national governments have currently acted to prevent a complete global meltdown of
capitalism already answers this question. Faulty banks are bailed out by the state, companies on theverge of bankruptcy are supported, etc. As usual the final bill is passed down the line towards thepeople as wages and pensions are frozen, retirement ages increased, etc.
26 M Hardt & A Negri, Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.27 L Panitch, ‘Roundtable conference’, Historic Materialism, 9, 2001, p 10.28 Ibid, p 10.29 M Peters et al (eds), Global Citizenship Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publications, 2008.30 Ibid, p 9.31 H Veltmeyer, ‘Democratic governance and participatory development: the role of development NGOs’,
Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, summer/fall 2005, p 91.32 Harvey, The New Imperialism, ch 4.
Notes on Contributor
Frans Schuurman is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for InternationalDevelopment Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Radboud University Nijmegen. Hehas published widely on development theory and globalisation. Most wellknown are Beyond the Impasse (1993) and Development Studies andGlobalisation—Challenges for the 21st Century (2001).
FRANS J SCHUURMAN
848
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
09:
04 2
0 O
ctob
er 2
013
