The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Why Measurement Matters

In the last year or so, markedly different claims have been heard within the development community about just how much progress is being made against poverty and inequality in the current period of 'globalization'. This article provides a non-technical overview of the conceptual and methodological issues underlying these conflicting claims. It argues that the dramatically different positions taken in this debate often stem from differences in the concepts and definitions used and differences in data sources and measurement assumptions. These differences are often hidden from view in the debate, but they need to be considered carefully if one is properly to interpret the evidence. The article argues that the best available evidence suggests that, if the rate of progress against absolute poverty in the developing world in the 1990s is maintained, then the Millennium Development Goal of halving the 1990 aggregate poverty rate by 2015 will be achieved on time in the aggregate, though not in all regions. The article concludes with some observations on the implications for policy-oriented debates on globalization and pro-poor growth.     

Reflections on the Economic-Noneconomic Debate: A Radical Geographical Perspective from the European South

This paper expands upon the economic/noneconomic (cultural turn) debate in economic geography and proposes an alternative radical perspective through the lens of the European South. Based on the experience of Greece, the paper argues that no matter how important the cultural issues might be, the great political economy problems of distorted growth and incomplete development, sociospatial inequalities, and weak, incoherent and contradictory territorial policies continue to have a primary importance. The paper reviews some basic points of the cultural turn debate and then examines the orientations of radical spatioeconomic thought in postdictatorial (post-1974) Greece in arguing that this thought was mostly problem-driven, policy-oriented and focused upon the political economy of Greek socioeconomic and territorial restructuring. It is argued that a southern radical agenda has to be based more deliberately on holistic and inclusive interdisciplinary resyntheses in which cultural issues are given due attention, but not to the detriment of a radical understanding of the territorial workings of economy, society and power relations. The concluding suggestion of the paper is that it is a political turn , rather than a cultural turn, that is best suited to a radical interpretation of South European economic geographies.     

Activism, Restraint, and the Debate about Judicial Policymaking

Books reviewed in this articles:
Richard A. L. Gambitta, Marlynn L. May, and James C. Foster (eds.), Governing Through Courts
Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb (eds.), Supreme Court Activism and Restraint
Gary L. McDowell, Equity and the Constitution; The Supreme Court, Equitable Relief, and Public Policy     

Equal Access to International Debate: Visas and Their Implications

This paper describes the experience of Jordanian student who is studying for a PhD degree in Museum Studies in the UK. She outlines the difficulties that she has met in getting a visa to travel to conferences and feels that the difficulty of obtaining a visa has impacted upon her development as a scholar. One outcome is that she ignored so many conferences and calls for papers because she knew that she could not get a visa in time to attend. She questions why the process of applying for a visa has to be so difficult.     

权力与自由:美墨战争期间美国外交大辩论研究

美墨战争发生在19世纪美国大陆扩张进入高潮时期,是美国以武力进行领土扩张的开始,在美国国会内部引发了一场有关美国国家目标的外交大辩论。辩论从得：克萨斯兼并开始,涉及宣战、拨款、领土兼并以及奴隶制的扩展等诸多问题,但其核心主题在于扩张性的外交政策与美国的自由事业是否相容,美国的国家目标是追求领土的扩大,还是自由的延续,从而体现了当时美国人对权力与自由两者之间关系的思考。     

Alexis de Tocqueville,John Stuart Mill,and the Modern Debate on the Enlightenment

This article discusses Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views of the cultural progress of indigenous colonial societies in the context of the current debate about the Enlightenment. The analysis of their philosophical outlooks tends to support Jonathan Israel’s interpretation of the Enlightenment, yet with one important difference: while Israel emphasizes the Radical Enlightenment as the chief instigator of the movement towards modern democracy, Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views emphasize the preponderance of the Moderate Enlightenment, which, while sharing the radical advocacy for rationalism, broad education, religious toleration, the critique of despotism, and other enlightened ideals, nonetheless shunned support of full democracy or universal suffrage. Tocqueville’s and Mill’s Eurocentric views regarding the possible ameliorative influence of colonialism emphasize how the ideals of the Moderate Enlightenment had an overriding effect on the emergence of nineteenth-century liberalism. While this conclusion broadly accepts Israel’s outline of the intellectual history of the Enlightenment, it gives greater weight than he does to the Moderate Enlightenment.     

Jazz and the Great Samba Debate,and Vice Versa

This paper will argue that jazz emerges as samba’s kindred foil in Brazilian popular music discourse of the 1940s and 1950s. Eager to underscore “blood” ties between idealized samba do morro and early blues and jazz, contributors to journals such as Diretrizes and Revista da Música Popular nonetheless tended to equate postwar bebop and big band with the menacing venality of the US music industry and the “vulgar” fandom to which it was associated. It was amidst such critical ambivalence toward jazz that bossa nova arrived on the scene, acutely vulnerable to accusations not just of appropriation but also servile imitation and therefore second-hand “decadence.”     

Gustaf Dalman, Anti-Semitism, and the Language of Jesus Debate

The theory that Jesus of Nazareth spoke and taught exclusively in Aramaic rather than Hebrew achieved its present dominant position just over a century ago due largely to the labour of Gustaf Dalman. His primary motivation was not the recovery of the historical Jesus, however, but to support his deep commitment to the Protestant movement to convert Jews. This movement did not escape the impact of escalating anti-Semitism in society, intensified by rapid progress towards German national unification. One Christian response to anti-Semitism was to "extract" Jesus from Judaism by contrasting him with "Jewish" attitudes and values held by Jewish spiritual authorities. Dalman's contribution was to extract Jesus from the ethnically exclusive Hebrew language by insisting that he spoke only the more widely used lingua franca of the region, Aramaic. By overstating his case and going beyond the evidence, Dalman revealed his indebtedness to the anti-Semitic spirit of his age.     

The Debate in the House of Lords on 'No Peace without Spain', 7 December 1711: A New Source

The debate in the house of lords on 'No Peace without Spain' in December 1711 was the first test of the strength of the administration of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, in the upper House. Though there are more sources for this debate than is normal for proceedings in the Lords, few can claim to be by eyewitnesses. A newly 'discovered' anonymous letter from an eyewitness found in the papers of the lord great chamberlain's office in the Parliamentary Archives gives a detailed account of this important debate.     

Deconstructive vs Pragmatic: A Critique of the Derrida–Searle Debate

ABSTRACT

This article presents a critical account of the debate between Derrida and Searle in which I defend Austin’s and Searle’s pragmatic analysis of speech against Derrida’s complex deconstructionist approach. I first formalize Derrida’s argument, reducing it to its main tenets that can be positively identified and critically reviewed. On the basis of this formalization I argue that the apparent incompatibility between Derrida’s and Searle’s approach to language becomes clear once we formalize, according to their type and content, the three concepts of “intention” that are confusedly referred to under one and the same label in the debate. This formalization reduces and clarifies the obscurity associated with the Derrida–Searle debate, and helps demonstrating the shortcomings of Derrida’s position.