Search results
"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.
ideologues’ promotion of institutional ‘capacity building’ for Third World development. 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
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.
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 Third World development
the Third World. 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 (global) future. The past is a contested historiography, therefore, but so is the future problematically framed. Development is a term used to both describe
Institutional Economics and Third World Development, 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. Notes 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 (2008
. 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 Third World, development cooperation, mediation, peacekeeping, initiatives such as disarmament and non
leading actor on areas such as energy security, third world development, 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 Secretary
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 Third World development – 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
developmental outcomes they wanted during the neoliberal period. China did not develop outside of this global framework, but in many respects exemplifies the so-called export-oriented industrialisation model touted as the path to Third World development. Its economic history in the period is characterised by cooperation with the operations of important MNCs. As the centre of export