Manufacturing consensus:(Geo)political knowledge and policy‐based lending

Abstract

This article examines the inter-relations between power and knowledge in the contemporary world order. It begins by examining recent contributions to development theory especially post-modern formulations. These are seen to foster an apolitical stand on development which relativises values and hence negates the possibility of emancipatory politics. However, the technique of deconstruction is useful in revealing the geo-political basis of power structures and by so doing can help enliven progressive political debate. The article then examines how the World Bank's universalising visions of the developing world in general and Africa in particular enables the Bank to prescribe uniform adjustment programmes. As such the article reveals the links between research and policy. It ends by calling for a revitalisation of political economy which can provide a structural account of the power relations in which development discourses circulate.

Africa’s Land Rush and the Embedded Neoliberal State: Foreign Agricultural Investment in Ethiopia and Mozambique

“…The other is an expanded conceptualisation of neoliberalism as a project and distinct governmentality that links together actors, values and interests, and the physical and intellectual organisation of space that is the state. As a project, the neoliberal state clearly benefits certain economically defined sectors of society, namely financial capital but also political elites who benefit from a form of governmentality that makes serious claims to rationality and objectivity in its policy-making (Samoff 1992;Mohan 1994;Ferguson 1994). To reconcile these literatures we must examine them in turn.…”

Beyond human rights – confronting atrocity with healing and reconciliation: Merging African perspectives in a globalising world

“…A mere act of benevolence from above, to blunt repression and exploitation, is primarily insufficient. A more benevolent structure with the above characteristics intact is still violent (Galtung 1996; see also Ekins 1992;Escobar 1992;Esteva 1992;Gronemeyer 1992;Hanlon 1984Hanlon , 1991Hayter 1971;Herman and Chomsky 1988;Latouche 1993;Mohan 1994;Odora Hoppers 1998;Sachs 1992). Clearly, the scale of these atrocities cannot be mediated by the formulations provided in the UDHR, which mentions neither healing nor forgiveness or reparations in any coherent manner.…”

Values, Religions and Education in Changing Societies

“…A more benevolent structure with the above characteristics intact is still violent (Galtung, 1996; see also Ekins, 1992;Escobar, 1992;Esteva, 1992;Gronemeyer, 1992;Hanlon, 1984Hanlon, , 1991Hayter, 1971;Herman & Chomsky, 1988;Latouche, 1993;Mohan, 1994;Odora Hoppers, 1998;Sachs, 1992). A mere act of benevolence from above blunting repression and exploitation is primarily insufficient.…”