Development Politics and International Cooperation
Joint CMEPS Seminar POLS 5245-01 | Fall 2018
Professor: Dr. Ibrahim Elnur ([email protected]) Office: HUSS 2007, Department of Political Science Office Hours: By appointment
Office Extension: 1549
MEETING DETAILS OF THE COURSE
• Sunday, 2 September to Tuesday, 18 September 2018
• Daily sessions (Sundays through Thursdays): 12:00 - 3:00PM / 12h - 15h
• Saturday session (15 September): 12:00 - 3:00PM / 12h - 15h
• Two 'site visits' to development-related locations/organizations to take place on:
o Saturday, 8 September and Sunday, 16 September
• Location: AUC New Campus, HUSS/Waleed C144 AIMS AND STRUCTURE OF THE COURSE
This seminar is a required course and major component of the Joint MA Program in Comparative and Middle East Politics and Society (CMEPS), with students from both home and host institutions (AUC and Tübingen). The course itself focuses on five main areas: the definition and redefinition of development, with emphasis on paradigm shifts; development actors, with a focus on external actors; challenges of sustainable development; revisiting development strategies in the 21st century; and finally, an exploration of the development-democracy-governance linkages shaped by the international institutional context in the current phase of globalisation and changing conditions for ‘catching up’.
The course will be in the form of a seminar with readings from academic texts. Active class discussion of the reading material will constitute the basis for the seminar sessions. Five student-led sessions will be structured as “roundtables” to discuss in depth specific development issues and case studies. All students are expected to read before each session the required texts and to be prepared to contribute to the class discussions.
The seminar will also provide practical insight from the field of development. Two visits will be organised with practitioners, and one speaker will come to AUC (details to be announced). It is compulsory for all students to attend these visits/talks.
N.B. The course schedule might be subject to minor changes, to be announced in class and/or via e- mail.
GRADES AND EVALUATION
Each student will receive grades evaluating his/her participation in seminar discussions; one visit report; a class presentation based on assigned articles from the reading list; the moderation of a roundtable
session; a short reaction paper; and a substantial end of semester research paper. It is anticipated that the research paper will be worked on throughout the semester.
Details of these assessments are outlined below, along with relative weights and word count expectations (in each description).
Assessment Percentage Due Date
I. Attendance and Participation 2 ECTS (UT) / 20% (AUC) All Sessions II. Presentations (2) + Response Paper (1) 2 ECTS (UT) / 30% (AUC) Dates Vary
III. Visit Report 2 ECTS (UT) / 20% (AUC) October 19
IV. Final Research Paper 3 ECTS (UT) / 30% (AUC) December
1 Total Credit Awarded for Course 9 ECTS (UT trans) / 3 Cred (AUC trans) N/A
N.B. This joint seminar will appear for UT students on their AUC transcript (as 3 credits), and it will appear for the AUC students on their UT transcripts (as 9 ECTS).
I. Attendance and Participation (20%)
The first step to success in this course is attendance, and each student is expected to attend all classes and events. Obviously things come up-- whether sickness, personal issues, or something else. As such, you are allowed, in accordance with AUC Registrar policy for a graduate seminar, the equivalence of three absences from our sessions though we encourage you to minimise the number as much as possible. Please note that any absence counts towards this three-count limit, meaning that university- sanctioned activities, sickness with medical clinic documentation, and any other such absence count.
Without documentation that we approve, missed assignments are calculated as ‘zero’ toward the final course mark. Any student missing more than the equivalent of three sessions will automatically fail the course with no exceptions. After all, we can likely all agree that missing that much time would call into question what you are able to get out of this course. Attendance is not marked for evaluation as a learning outcome, but is taken per session to ensure the student has not surpassed the maximum limit.
As for participation, by far the easiest way to guarantee a strong participation assessment is with substantive contribution to class discussion in our sessions; that means quality takes precedence over quantity. However, we understand that in a class of close to 20 people, some students may not feel comfortable speaking in a crowd. We suggest trying to overcome that reticence, but because
personalities vary, participation can also be maintained with visits to office hours and e-mail contact which directly discuss the course readings, topics, concepts and the like. In short: make your contributions count whichever way you feel most comfortable; the point is to engage with the class and its material and to demonstrate clearly that you are doing so.
II. Presentations + Response Paper (30%)
Throughout the seminar, we have both Lectures and Roundtable discussions. For this assignment you are expected to select two sessions (one Lecture and one Roundtable) during which you will briefly present the sessions’ assigned readings of your choice— in coordination with the other presenters. Each
presentation will focus on different texts. For sessions that include a case study, one of the presentations will focus on a specific development issue/policy practice.
For each sessions, two to three students will be responsible for leading/moderating the session and class discussion. The moderators are expected to do research on the roundtable’s topic beyond the core readings in order to be able to introduce the key issues and case studies. Discussion points and case studies are listed in the syllabus to serve as a general guide to the focus of each roundtable session. The moderators are free to choose specific angles and examples to address these issues/cases. It is the responsibility of the students to coordinate with the other moderators to plan the session.
Length of each presentation should be around 15-20 minutes, with the remaining time dedicated to discussion and moderation (run by the presenters with reflections by lecturer. The aim of this exercise is to highlight the author’s or authors’ key arguments and to engage critically with the text – meaning that you can raise questions about the text; stress its contribution to the literature/understanding of the issue, or if you disagree with the argument, identify gaps etc.
The Response Paper is to be written on the Roundtable selection by the students presenting. While each student is expected to prepare for each session, writing this paper in detail alongside the presentation allows for a nuanced reading of the material. Each reaction paper should address the roundtable topic by discussing the assigned texts. You are not expected to write a summary of the texts, but to focus on what you see as their most relevant or problematic aspect, how they relate to debates discussed in the course and raise questions we might explore in the roundtable. Length: 500-700 words max.
III. Visit Report (20%)
Each student will prepare a short report for one of the two visits that will take place. The aim of this assignment is to raise issues discussed in the literature and to relate them to the activities of the organisation that we visited.
• Deadline: October 19, 2018
• Length: 1500 words maximum IV. Final Research Paper (30%)
• During the last session(s) of the seminar (September 18) students will briefly introduce their paper topic • Deadline: December 1, 2018 (details to be discussed throughout the term)
• Length: 2500 words maximum
Plagiarism, which means copying or paraphrasing material without citing the source, will result in incontestable failure of the submission(s) and possibly further action. Please consult with the AUC policies on academic integrity (available here).
SCHEDULE OF READINGS
Please note well that ALL of the following readings are required for the course. Additional 'further readings' can be found under the lecture topic for each session.
PART I: DEVELOPMENT: DEFINITIONS AND THEORIES
1. Introduction to the Course: Defining and Measuring ‘Development’
• Kolawole, Oluwatoyin Dare. (2010) Inter-Disciplinarity, Development Studies, and Development Practice. Development in Practice 20(2): 227-39.
• Randall, Vicky. (2004) Using and Abusing the Concept of the Third World: Geopolitics and the Comparative Political Study of Development and Underdevelopment. Third World Quarterly 25(1):
41-53.
• Sen, Amartya. (2000) "The Perspective of Freedom" in Development as Freedom: 13-34. New York: Knopf.
2. Theories of Development: Paradigm Shifts in Development Discourse
• Brohman, John. (1995) Universalism, Eurocentrism, and Ideological Bias in Development Studies: From Modernisation to Neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly 16(1): 121-40.
• Gore, Charles. (2000) The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries. World Development 28(5): 789-804.
• Schuurman, Frans J. (2000) Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained? Development Studies in the Twenty-First Century. Third World Quarterly 21(1): 7-20.
3. Roundtable 1: The Challenges of Post-2015 MDGs
• Amin, Samir. (2006) The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the South. Monthly Review 57(10): 1-15.
• Corbett, Hannah. (2012) Using Human Security Principles to Develop a Post-2015 Framework. IDS In Focus Policy Briefing 24(1): 1-2.
• Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko. (2011) Theory and Policy in International Development: Human Development and Capability Approach and the Millennium Development Goals. International Studies Review 13(1): 122-32.
• Unterhalter, Elaine, and Andrew Dorward. (2013) New MDGs, Development Concepts, Principles and Challenges in a Post-2015 World. Social Indicators Research 113(2): 609-25.
PART II: DEVELOPMENT ACTORS
4. Aid Actors: Bilateral Aid and Multilateral Aid
• Alesina, Alberto, and David Dollar. (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? Journal of Economic Growth 5(1): 33-63.
• Copelovitch, Mark S. (2010) Master or Servant? Common Agency and the Political Economy of IMF Lending. International Studies Quarterly 54(1): 49-77.
• Kuziemko, Ilyana, and Eric Werker. (2006) How Much Is a Seat on the Security Council Worth?
Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations. Journal of Political Economy 114(5): 905-30.
5. Roundtable 2: Rising Powers in International Development
• Dreher, Axel, Peter Nunnenkamp, and Rainer Thiele. (2011) Are 'New' Donors Different?
Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid between NonDAC and DAC Donor Countries. World Development 39(11): 1950-68.
• Neumayer, Eric. (2004) Arab-Related Bilateral and Multilateral Sources of Development Finance:
Issues, Trends, and the Way Forward. The World Economy 27(2): 281-300.
• Woods, Ngaire. (2008) Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance. International Affairs 84(6): 1205-21.
PART III: THE CHALLENGES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
SITE VISIT
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Visit to NGO: Development and Waste Management in Cairo: Association for the Protection of the Environment (APE), Muqattam
6. Gender and Development (Case Study: UN Women Program)
• Chant, Sylvia, and Matthew C. Gutmann. (2005) "Men-Streaming Gender? Questions for Gender and Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century" in The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism, edited by Marc Edelman and Angelique Haugerud: 240-49. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Cornwall, Andrea, Jasmine Gideon, and Kalpana Wilson. (2008) Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism: Gender and Neoliberalism. IDS Bulletin 39(6): 1-9.
• Griffin, Penny. (2010) Gender, Governance and the Global Political Economy. Australian Journal of International Affairs 64(1): 86-104.
• Wood, Julia T. (1996) "Gender, Relationships, and Communication" in Gendered Relationships, edited by Julia T. Wood: 3-17. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
7. Roundtable 3: On the limits to Growth: Exhaustion of Non-Renewable Resources, Deforestation and Desertification
• Bardi, Ugo. (2011) The Limits to Growth Revisited. Springer Briefs in Energy: Energy Analysis.
New York: Springer.
• Eastin, Josh, Reiner Grundmann, and Aseem Prakash. (2011) The Two Limits Debates: 'Limits to Growth' and Climate Change. Futures 43(1): 16-26.
8. Urban Development and Pollution
• Fahmi, Wael, and Keith Sutton. (2010) Cairo's Contested Garbage: Sustainable Solid Waste Management and the Zabaleen's Right to the City. Sustainability 2(6): 1765-83.
• Kumi, Emmanuel, Albert A. Arhin, and Thomas Yeboah. (2014) Can Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals Survive Neoliberalism? A Critical Examination of the Sustainable Development-Neoliberalism Nexus in Developing Countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability 16(3): 539-54.
• Pawłowski, Artur. (2008) How Many Dimensions Does Sustainable Development Have? Sustainable Development 16(2): 81-90.
PART IV: GLOBALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY 9. Globalization and Challenges of Inequality and Poverty (Case Study: US Cotton Subsidies)
• Bassett, Thomas J. (2010) Slim Pickings: Fairtrade Cotton in West Africa. Geoforum 41(1): 44-55.
• Deaton, Angus. (2005) Measuring Poverty in a Growing World (or Measuring Growth in a Poor World). The Review of Economics and Statistics 87(1): 1-19.
• Keane, Jodie, and Claire Melamed. (2014) Trade and the Post-2015 Agenda: From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. ODI Briefings 89(1): 1-6.
• Laderchi, Caterina Ruggeri, Ruhi Saith, and Frances Stewart. (2003) Does It Matter That We Do Not Agree on the Definition of Poverty? A Comparison of Four Approaches. Oxford Development Studies 31(3): 243-74.
10. Roundtable 4: The Catching-Up Processes: NICs and After
• Cepni, Elif. (2010) Does Convergence Matter If It Takes 100 Years? Different Scenarios of Convergence. Futures 42(8): 882-94.
• Chibber, Vivek. (2003) "Introduction" in Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India: 3-12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Polidano, Charles. (2001) Don't Discard State Autonomy: Revisiting the East Asian Experience of Development. Political Studies 49(3): 513-27.
11. Good Governance and Conditionality (Case Study: USAID Good Governance Program)
• Doornbos, Martin. (2003) Good Governance: The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor. Journal of International Affairs 57(1): 3-17.
• Kaufman, Joshua, Carol Sahley, and Barbara Smith. (2013) USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. Washington: US Agency for International Development (USAID).
• Schmitz, Andrea. (2006) Conditionality in Development Aid Policy. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) 71-27.
• Woods, Ngaire. (2000) The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves. World Development 28(5): 823-41.
SITE VISIT
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Visit to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Country Office in Cairo 12. Roundtable 5: Development Challenges in Transition Economies: Eastern Europe and Post-
‘Arab Spring’
• Carothers, Thomas. (2002) The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy 13(1): 5- 21.
• Gledhill, John. (2013) Conclusion: Managing (in)Security in Post-Arab Spring Transitions. PS:
Political Science and Politics 46(4): 736-39.
• Moghadam, Valentine. (2011) Engendering Democracy. International Journal of Middle East Studies 43(3): 387.
• Solnick, Steven L. (1999) Russia's 'Transition': Is Democracy Delayed Democracy Denied? Social Research 66(3): 789-824.
13. Conclusion: Post-Development?
Presentations Research Topics
• Easterly, William. (2007) "Planners and Gangsters" in The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good: 112-61. New York: Penguin.
• Escobar, Arturo. (2000) Beyond the Search for a Paradigm? Post-Development and Beyond. Development 43(4): 11-14.
October 19, 2018 Visit Report Due December 1, 2018 Research Paper Due
