No abstract

Geographers have a responsibility to examine persistently, collaboratively, and critically the geographical grounds of hope and fear. We can help debunk false hopes and groundless fears, and in so doing we can also advance more sensible hopes based on more embodied and accountable experiences of fear. The case of the Iraq war shows how the groundless geopolitical fears about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections were combined with equally groundless geoeconomic hopes about making the middle of the Middle East into a bastion of peace and freedom through free-market reforms. These geopolitical and geoeconomic discourses were imagined as part of a foreign policy of accumulation by dispossession. Other, more grounded accounts of the real fears created by dispossession can lead instead to more realistically hopeful geographies of repossession.

This paper argues that the Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle makes manifest the complex geographies of power that subvert efforts to read cross-border regionalization as a straightforward geographical corollary of 'globalization'. As such, the region needs to be examined not simply as a complementary transborder assemblage of land, labour and capital, but rather as a palimpsest in which the imagined geographies of cross-border development and the economic geographies of their uneven spatial fixing on the ground are mediated by complex cultural and political geographies. We seek to unpack these by triangulating how the geographies of capital (including its uneven development and its links to the geo-economics of intra-regional competition), land (including post-colonial relations across the region, the geopolitics of land reclamation and the enclaved landscapes of tourism) and labour (including the divergent itineraries of migrant workers) overlay and complicate one another in the region. By charting these complex triangulations of space and place, we seek to problematize narratives of the Growth Triangle as an exemplary embodiment of the 'borderless world'. key words Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle borders geoeconomics globalization uneven development

No abstract

This paper outlines the emergence of a New Washington Consensus associated with leading philanthropies of the new millennium. This emergent development paradigm by no means represents a historic break with the market rationalities of neoliberalism, nor does it represent a radical departure from older models of early 20th century philanthropy. Rather, it is new in its global ambition to foster resilient market subjects for a globalized world; and new in its employment of micro-market transformations to compensate for macro-market failures. Focusing on reforms pioneered by the new philanthropic partnerships in education and global health, the paper indicates how the targets of intervention are identified as communities that have been failed by both governments and markets. The resulting interventions are commonly justified in terms of "return on investment". But the problems they target keep returning because the underlying causes of failure are left unaddressed.