"Over a hundred years since the beginning of modern imperialism, the former colonial world is still prevented from joining the club of imperialist powers. The gap between rich and poor countries is not narrowing but growing. China is usually presented as challenging the dominance of the United States and other rich countries. However, imperialist domination over the most sophisticated aspects of the labour process gives the rich countries and their corporations control over the global labour process as a whole – including in China. Third World producers are forced to specialise in the opposite types of work – in relatively simple and low-end labour, for which major price markups and large profits are rarely possible. This is the kernel of unequal exchange in world trade. The imperialist system develops two types of capital – monopoly and non-monopoly capital – and two types of societies – rich, monopoly, imperialist societies and poor, non-monopoly, ‘Third World’ societies. China’s ascendance to become the most powerful Third World country in no way threatens to topple continuing imperialist dominance. Most contemporary Marxist writing has not been focused on global income polarisation and imperialist exploitation of the poor countries. For this reason, it has been unable to explain how exactly the same countries continuously reproduce their dominance. However, the actual conditions of the neoliberal world economy have made explicit how this happens through the labour process itself. In doing so it has also shown how Marx’s labour theory of value can be concretely applied to the conditions of monopoly capital today.
This book analyses the use of the past and the production of heritage through architectural design in the developmental context of Iran. It is the first of its kind to utilize a multidisciplinary approach in probing the complex relationship between architecture, development, and heritage. It uses established theoretical concepts including notions of globalism, nostalgia, tradition, and authenticity to show that development is a major cause of historical transformations in places such as Iran and its effects must be seen in relation to global political and historical exchanges as well as local specificities. Iran is a pertinent example as it has endured radical cultural and political shifts in the past five decades. Scholars of heritage and architecture will find the cross-disciplinary aspects of the book useful. The premise of the book is that transposed into other contexts, development, as a globalizing project originating in the West, instigates renewed forms of historical consciousness and imaginations of the past. This is particularly evident in architecture where, through design processes, the past produces forms of architectural heritage. But such historic consciousness cannot be reduced to political ideology, while politics is always in the background. The book shows this through chapters focusing on theoretical context, international exchanges made in architectural congresses in the 1970s, housing as the vehicle for everyday heritage, and symbolic public architecture intended to reflect monumental time. The book is written in accessible language to benefit academic researchers and graduate students in the fields of heritage, architecture, and Iranian and Middle Eastern studies.
ideologues’ promotion of institutional ‘capacity
building’ for ThirdWorlddevelopment.
Owing to its meagre financial resources, limited
established infrastructure and the relative underdevelopment of the
bulk of its own personnel, for the most part the Third World is only
able to provide relatively meagre financial subsidies, relatively
basic business services and support only
Third, Sweden practised an active brand of neutrality. Far
from isolationist, Swedish neutrality was the platform from which to
export core Social Democratic norms and values to the international
level. This is evidenced in an active neutrality policy that embraced
solidarity with the ThirdWorld, development cooperation, mediation,
peacekeeping, initiatives such as disarmament and non
History, time and temporality in development discourse
Development interventions are subsequently framed to help the so-called Third
World move into the future – not necessarily a future of their own imagining,
however, but a future as exemplified by the west. With the past imagined as a
place in the present, it is literally another country where they do things differently, allowing the west not only to live in the present but to represent the
The past is a contested historiography, therefore, but so is the future problematically framed. Development is a term used to both describe
Natural resources and development – which histories matter?
Economics and ThirdWorldDevelopment, London: Routledge, pp. 49–68
Woodruff, David M. (2000). ‘Rules for followers: institutional theory and the new politics
of economic backwardness in Russia’, Politics and Society 28(4): 437–82.
1 There is an enormous literature on this topic. See for example Atkinson and Hamilton
(2003), Bornhorst et al. (2008), Bulte et al. (2005), Collier (2006), (2010), Collier
and Hoeffler (2005), Gervasoni (2010), Humphreys et al. (2007), Jensen and
Wantchekon (2004), Knack (2009), Neumayer (2004), Omgba (2009), Ross
still either. This may also
make possible new waves, mini-waves, currents or countercurrents of
‘offshoring’ in hitherto little affected areas, thus
counterbalancing the tendency to concentrate increasingly mechanised
production in the imperialist states.
We now have post-war examples, occurring back to
back, of relative neglect of the ThirdWorlddevelopment
Jarle Trondal, Martin Marcussen, Torbjörn Larsson, and Frode Veggeland
leading actor on areas such as energy security, thirdworlddevelopment,
environmental sustainability and public sector management. In fact, today
it is quite difficult to point to any area of activity where the OECD does
not play some sort of inspirational and analytical role.
The broad scope of the organisation can be seen as both an advantage
and a weakness. Originally the OECD that replaced the Organisation for
European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) in 1961 was thought of as an
alternative producer of independent policy ideas. The organisation’s first
perspective on global empire that he put forward, especially
in the posthumously published 1980 book Imperialism, pioneer of capitalism.22 An interesting ‘dog that didn’t bark’ in this regard is Peter
Gibbon, third of the influential triumvirate with Paul Bew and Henry
Patterson, whose main interests moved from Ireland to Africa and
ThirdWorlddevelopment – and this later work, conducted in Tanzania,
then Sweden and Denmark, has existed in a quite separate compartment from the earlier Irish writings, with none of the potentially fascinating comparative reflection in which
intentions toward Western Europe, then it is easy to accept the
notion that military aid to NATO countries bought time for the rebuilding
and recovery of Europe’s industry.
The Gordon Gray and Rockefeller Reports: ThirdWorlddevelopment and
Washington’s security agenda
While implementing NSC 68’s approach in Europe was an enormous task,
it was quite finite by comparison with establishing effective social and
economic institutions in many former colonial areas. In the less developed
areas, functioning economic and social structures and institutions would