[governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 03/11/06 12:22 PM >>>
>And then, your pictorial treatment of the right to development 
>would have brought strong reactions from anyone involved in the 
>theory and practice of development. 

One thing that happens in an ideologically homogeneous environment is that people's critical faculties tend to atrophy. Its often useful to snap people back to reality in such a fashion. 

>If you still think my reaction was too strong, picture making
>similar derogatory statements on this list on issues like MSP
>or privacy

I think that either of those topics are legitimate areas of debate, especially MSP. Be my guest.

>in development thinking
>the role of state is considered very important for this purpose. 
>This directly implicates the issue of strong obligations on the 
>state, which brings in the language of rights.

As far as I know, the countries that have succeeded in developing in the post-colonial period have never done so by asserting a right to development. Various paths have been taken, Often development has been fostered by REDUCING an overly burdensome and protectionist role of the state. But perhaps you can provide me with an example of a specific country whose development has been aided by claiming or asserting a "right to development." What is the track record of this claim? Or is it, as I suspect, more of a rhetorical game?

Indeed, there is a danger such an assertion can act as a substitute for other, more necessary reforms. 

>Political thinking is evolutionary - and new issues get cast in terms of
>rights. 

But this is precisely what I am questioning, Parminder. I think it is not helpful, and may be harmful, to confuse rights with processes like development. You don't settle a debate by assuming you're right and reasserting it. 

>The right to development is now an accepted formulation of a 

Accepted by whom? If it is accepted by states and inter-state mechanisms, then I guess the problem of development is solved, huh? Good news! I eagerly await the impending delivery of this right by states....;-)

>And I don't see why I need to begin a discourse on this list on the 
>'right to development' which is a well theorized subject. 

Because, based on what I've seen, it is clearly not as well theorized as you think. 

>Looking at the examples of what you think could be construed 'legitimately'
>as rights, I am inclined to see that you mostly consider 'negative rights'
>as acceptable but not so the 'positive rights'...... And this conception has
>to do with the political ideology of what one thinks is the legitimate role
>of the state. It is difficult to get into a debate here on this other than
>to mention that 'development' thinking necessarily sees much greater
>positive intervention by the state than such a restrictive conception of
>rights and the role of the state allows. 

It should be obvious from history that an overly large role of the state can impede development. Certainly there are development economists who believe that more emphasis on individual rights and rule of law is more important for development.

>Contrary to what you suspect it is not at all difficult task. For anyone who
>as much as reads the daily newspaper in India knows that at least three
>distinct 'rights' have been decreed officially in India, over just the last
>two years. Right to information, right to education, and right to work. All
>these are 'positive rights', with strong 'development' implications, and
>cast strong and enforceable obligations on the state.(and if you want
>further details on how these rights are claimed and enforced, I can share
>them with you.)

That's fine with me. But none of them are "rights to development." You are proving my point for me. If you want to deliver something tangible to a population, you have to specific specific sectors and benefits - education, information, work, etc. 

>And all these rights can be directly derived from the broad language of the
>'right to development' as adopted by the international community..... 

No, I suspect that these rights stand on their own.  Certainly a right (entitlement) to education predates by centuries the concept of a right to development. There is a belief that education will help produce economnic development as well as social benefits. There is no need for a "right to development" here. So your example fails. 

>Still, I am not averse to an honest and open
>discussion of even these issues, but the manner in which the 'right to
>development' was rubbished offhand by you, represents to me a great
>insensitivity. (like your comment - "Or is the right to development just a
>request for a bag of cash?")

I am truly sorry if you viewed that as rubbishing. I guess it's an academic perspective in which I am discussing ideas and honestly and openly reflecting my own questions and views. I will try to be more sensitive. But if something doesn't make sense to me I am going to question it.
 
>That was the reason for my wonderment on regressive debates on
>right to development on this list. 

Again, I reject your assumption of an ideological homogeneity among civil society and I reject the notion that you have discovered the truth and any deviation from it is "regressive." Better use other rhetorical tactics. That one is not flying.
 



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance