Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text


Showing 1 through 5 of 15,168 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 3034 - Next  Jump:
2017 - Comparative and International Education Society CIES Annual Meeting Words: 739 words || 
1. Misiaszek, Greg. "Development? : Teaching Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) through critical questioning “Development” and “Sustainable Development”" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society CIES Annual Meeting, Sheraton Atlanta Downtown, Atlanta, Georgia, Mar 05, 2017 <Not Available>. 2018-10-17 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Historically, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), emergent from Environmental Education (EE), was constructed to teach socio-environmental issues to understand and determine development actions that are sustainable without (or minimizing) negative socio-environmental issues, with particular attention to long-term negative consequences. EE models were often critiqued for overlooking social issues that stem from environmental issues and vice versa. However, ESD models have been increasingly taken over by the “development” framing of ESD (“esD”) with excessively centering economics. Economics, especially economic justice, is a very important aspect to development, but is problematic when: 1) economics is the sole factor of analysis; 2) economics is measured within a neoliberal framing in which sustaining and/or increasing hegemony rather than economic justice is sought; and 3) development is non-contextually, singularly framed as Western development largely affected by globalization. This paper provides an ecopedagogical (e.g., critical) analysis of reinventing ESD for transformation with inclusivity of all the world’s diverse societies and populations, as well as factors of livelihood as determinants of what is “development”? Rooted in critical theories and popular education movements in Latin American, through reinvention of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy, ecopedagogy is transformative teaching in which educators dialectically problem-pose the politics of socio-environmental connections through local and global lenses. To question esD vs. ESD, ecopedagogues center the questions “What is?”, “For who?”, and “Who defines?” the terms of “development” and its “sustainability” in teaching and conducting research.

The paper utilizes two qualitative, comparative education research studies on: 1) ecopedagogy in Brazil, Argentina, and USA and (2) the dis/connections between citizenships (local to national to global to planetary spheres), environmental pedagogies, and globalizations (from above/below). The paper provides recommendations on reinventing current environmental pedagogical models by questioning the politics of education as a tool for “development”, with specific attention to critical analysis of ESD.

Emergent Themes
Throughout the paper I discuss the following themes that emerged from the two research studies
Teaching to De/Reconstruct Progress and Development
Notions of development and striving towards development in order to “progress” is often seen as the root of problematic environmental issues. It is not that progress is negative; instead, progress needs problem-posing multi-perspective, multidisciplinary socio-environmental analysis to determine positive and negative aspects. Although development is a key universal goal of education (Olmos & Torres, 2009), definitions and acts towards development are always political, historical and contextual, especially when concerning socio-environmental wellness. However, environmental teaching often occurs as though it is apolitical, ahistorical, and acultural.

Teaching Socio-Environmental Reflection, Not Environmentalism
The goal of ecopedagogy is for students’ actions towards ending socio-environmental oppressions; however, what if students’ praxis (actions emerging from deep critical reflection) is not framed socio-environmentally “good?” A conundrum exists within environmental pedagogies in that critical teaching should not teach students how to think (Author, 2009); however, it is impossible for a teacher or a learning space to be apolitical (Freire, 2000), as an environmentalist (Author, 2009).
Teaching Development: A Colonial Past and Globalizations Possible Futures
Teaching various connections with colonialism are important to understand oppressions which are inherently historical (Apple & Au, 2009; Gadotti, 1996; Held, 1980); including the systematic connections between teaching what development is, and its associated actions, and how this relates to colonialism in an increasingly globalized world?
Teaching Development Locally and Globally
Critical problem-posing the deeper aspects of and rationales for developmental goals from various perspectives - rather than a singular universal one - in learning spaces is essential. Gadotti (2008), in his writings in The Earth Charter, described the need for “universal” environmental pedagogies to be not fixed (i.e., static) in detail but rather for them to provide common socio-environmental goals to help guide locally constructed environmental pedagogies; applying this, the determination of a society’s development must not be globally fixed only by global aspects of development but by locally contextual aspects, as well. As discussed previously, within and increasingly globalized world, the contested terrain of globalization both helps and hinders such a bottom-up defining of development, and thus constructs of sustainable development.
Countering False Environmentalism-Development Ideologies
My research on ecopedagogy in the Americas highlighted the need for a paradigm shift in understanding development as it relates to one’s relation to livelihood and environmental wellbeing, and both of these as they relate to multiple spheres of spheres of citizenship (e.g., local, national, global, planetary) (Author, 2011, 2016). In later research, I found that connections between critical Global Citizenship Education (GCE) and ecopedagogy are increasingly needed in an increasingly globalized world (Author, 2015).

2007 - American Sociological Association Pages: 19 pages || Words: 7370 words || 
2. Weinstein, Liza. "Developing a Consensus: Authoritarian Development, Participatory Planning, and Negotiational Politics in Mumbai's Dharavi Development Project" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2018-10-17 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the process by which a consensus was reached and approval was garnered for the Dharavi Development Project, a billion dollar initiative to redevelop Mumbai’s most infamous residential and industrial squatter settlement. Initiated in the context of neoliberal politics and devolved municipal governance, technocratic planning schemes – with their roots in both the British Civil Service and Nehruvian Soviet-style planning – are no longer political viable and a certain degree of local support, if not direct community participation, is required to secure both state backing and private investment. Employing a cadre of Community Development Officers (CDOs), the state government recognized neighborhood-level political support to be a prerequisite for the project’s successful implementation. Utilizing the neighborhood’s institutional infrastructure – including ward-level politicians, social service providers, and professional and worker collectives – CDOs spent more than three years convincing constituents and making side payments to build consensual support for the project. Although a certain amount of resistance remains, the opposition has been marginalized as institutional support expanded. This paper examines both the rationale and the process by which this consensus was secured for Dharavi’s current redevelopment. It uses this case to examine the prevailing practices and theories of authoritarian development, on one hand, and participatory planning, on the other, and identifies the rise of “negotiational politics” as a political third way. Drawing upon Selznick’s classic study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, this paper argues that “negotational politics” (similar to what Selznick called cooptation) remain an important, though currently under-theorized, aspect of development.

2007 - Southern Political Science Association Words: 443 words || 
3. Chen, Liang-chih. "Development First, Democracy Later? Or Democracy First, Development Later? The Controversy over Development and Democracy" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel InterContinental, New Orleans, LA, Jan 03, 2007 <Not Available>. 2018-10-17 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The central research question in this paper is to investigate the sequence of economic development and democracy in the process of democratization of developing countries. Basically, at least, there are five theoretical models arguing the issue of the priority of development and democracy: First, modernizationists, such as Seymour Lipset, argue that economic growth would lead to democracy, so that “development first, democracy later.” Second, however, Samuel Huntington proposes an alternative explanation of democratization from the perspective of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to political decay; then the political system under instability would move toward democracy after institutionalization. Third, in contrast to modernization theory, scholars, who support “democracy first, development later,” such as Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin, argue that democracies consistently outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic development in developing nations. Forth, some scholars, such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, argue that although politics indeed influences economic performance, the impact of regime type might not be significant on states’ economic growth; and people do not know whether democracy improves or limits economic development. Fifth, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs find that in the case of China, the result of economic development would not lead to democracy because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid political liberalization on the other. Their finding runs counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the necessary result of economic development.
After reviewing these five models above, this paper would not have any inclination of supporting any specific theoretical position but attempts to point out that the controversy over the priority of development and democracy should depend on particular cases. In other words, in some cases development leads to democracy: South Korea and Taiwan; in others, democracy is prior to development: India, Dominican Republic, and Mozambique. In addition, this study would attempt to pre-hypothesize that the shift of the international system—from the Cold War to the post-Cold War—is the key to influence the debate of development and democracy: “development first, democracy later” in the era of the Cold War; then “democracy first, development later” under the period of the third wave of global democratization, the post-Cold War, and Anti-terrorism War. Finally, according to these debates above, what would be the implication of American foreign policy of promoting democracy in the world? To the underdevelopment world, should the U.S. assist to develop economy first or to improve democracy first? Or should the U.S. do these two simultaneously?

2010 - Theory vs. Policy? Connecting Scholars and Practitioners Pages: 41 pages || Words: 12225 words || 
4. Barry, Jack. "Microfinance, The Internet and Political Development in the Developing World: An Analysis of Microfinance Institutions, the Rise of Internet Technology and the Impact of Both on Political Development" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Theory vs. Policy? Connecting Scholars and Practitioners, New Orleans Hilton Riverside Hotel, The Loews New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LA, Feb 17, 2010 Online <PDF>. 2018-10-17 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Microfinance has emerged as a successful international development policy over the past 30 years. One primary reason for this is its ability to sidestep prevalent corruption in developing world state governments. In this analysis, I step outside traditional measurement of success for microfinance, which focuses on its impact on economic development, and instead investigate the political ramifications of microfinance. I analyze emerging trends in microfinance: (1) the emergence of the Internet as a new funding and global networking paradigm; (2) a shift towards for-profit microfinance institutions; (3) the rise of individualized, rather than group microfinance lending. I argue that microfinance institutions influence social capital, political empowerment and thus democratization. This research contributes a new way of conceptualizing microfinance institutions in their influence on political development. It also investigates seven prominent microfinance institutions in a case study analysis: non-profits Kiva, Global Giving, Calvert Organization and MicroCredit Enterprises and for-profits MicroPlace, Micro Vest, Oikocredit. My preliminary findings indicate that as a development policy, different types of microfinance have unique characteristics that can influence political development. It is important for policy makers and theorists alike to understand how and why microfinance can be beneficial for political development, particularly in the developing world, where social capital, political empowerment and democracy, has had intermittent success.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 3034 - Next  Jump:

©2018 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy