Development and
International Relation Studies – the Bias Issue in Research and Teaching?
By
Gorm Winther.[1]
‘The Sombre
Picture, often Painted of the social sciences stagnating in a sort of eternal
phrase paradigmatic hell, impregnated with values, suffused with ideology,
scratching endlessly at the empirical surface of phenomena seemed to me always
a bit excessive’
My mentor in my studies of the former Yugoslav system of worker-managed
socialism Eugen Pusic´, now a professor emeritus and a member of the Croatian
Academy of Sciences once said, that the often emphasized accusation regarding
social sciences being ‘an eternal phrase paradigmatic hell ’ seemed to him,
excessive. As he wrote in a paper presented at the course ‘Participation,
Workers’ Control, Self-management and Self-government’ at the Inter-university
centre in Dubrovnik in the early eighties, the problem of phrase paradigms,
rests on a science impregnated with values and suffused with ideology. To
Pusic´ it seemed a self-fulfilling pessimism – a false modesty or an ignoramus et ignorabimus, that serves to
maintain and encourage the ignorance it deplores (Pusic´, Dubrovnik, 1981).
Social Scientific analysis may occasionally have a hard time due to axioms
adopted beyond empirical analysis. System theory does in a positivistic sense
suggest rejection or modification. Even so it is the logics and coherence of
the system, that determines its reliability. If the system cannot be entirely
rejected in the positivist sence, it actually ends up being a matter of, what
the researcher believes in or what seems right to him as a result of an
introspective test (Kornai, 1971, Skarstein, 1976).
A paradigm is established as the basis on which knowledge creation takes
place. It will prevail as long as it reflects analysis of problems occurring
with economic, political and social development. Yet, if it to an increasing
degree faces scientific analysis, that put the normal scientific approach under
scrutiny, and if this demonstrates during yet another timely process, that the
scientific community begin to trust an alternative competing paradigm is under
way and adopt it – then we could be facing, what Thomas Kuhn labelled a
‘scientific revolution’ (op. cit. Pedersen, 1981, Kuhn, 1968). Hence, Marx’s
and Engel’s approach in ‘Das Kapital’ was not a revolution, because it was
based on classical theories on labor value already presented by Ricardo
(Blaugh, 1968 p. 96 f.). On the other hand Marginalism was a ‘scientific
revolution’, although it was an apologetic theory serving to contradict the
theory of surplus value and exploitation advocated by Marx and Engels.
Marginalism, as an approach to theories on value and pricing represented a
competing paradigm to the labor theory of value. Consequently, two different theories
may on the other hand make it difficult to give final and unequivocal ‘neutral’
answers to the cogency of the paradigms.
Pusic’ himself as a non-economist refers to sociological theories on the
social division of labor. Complementary notions of barter, exchange and markets
could be labelled the most ‘scientific’ example of the accusation of a phrase
paradigmatic hell being wrong – yet competing approaches of Adam Smith, Karl
Marx and Emile Durkheim gave different interpretations. Despite, the conceptualization
of ‘scientific revolutions’, it is a fact in social sciences that parallel
paradigms exist, and this most certainly calls for a pluralistic approach not
just in social scientific research, but also in the research based curriculums
we teach our students.
Referring to social scientific paradigms in development and
international relation studies, one can hardly try to separate basic paradigms
from the approaches at hand. The late Degnbøl Martinussen presented back in the
nineties a comprehensive presentation of competing paradigms and theories to
students of development and international relations (Martinussen (a), 1994,
Martinussen (b), 1994).[2]
These textbooks demonstrates the link between general social scientific
theories not referring to specific field studies or to a particular object of
research and development studies. Theoretical development research owes its
approach to basic paradigms, schools of thought or discourses in basic
economic, sociological and political sciences. It may represent theoretical
development in the sense of being ‘normal scientific’. Nevertheless, it does
not represent ‘scientific revolutions’, which explain, why some scientists do
not choose so called ‘third world countries’ as their only field of expertise.
It is seen, that the basic approaches are applied to a wide array of empirical
studies covering very different spatial cases. Comparative studies or the
application and modification of basic science to development and international
relations studies may represent novel approaches to the community of
development researchers. As such this approach is as important as
anthropological observational field studies based on qualitative and
observational methods – evil tongues often labels this ‘advanced story telling’
and not a scientific approach based on reliable and valid confirmation of
theories and hypotheses. It should be noted however, that North American
anthropological studies of living conditions for indigenous people adopt
quantitative data compilations and theoretical statistics in analysis.
This also represents the dilemma between the use of a normal scientific
approach and its operationalism, where it could be difficult to adapt the
theory and the empirical study to each other. Theoretical approaches may take
place in an empirical vacuum and visa versa, and it may end in a blind alley,
where the option of a mutual transformation of the two are very little
(Goldschmidt, 1976). And it probably explains why development theory as such to
a higher degree represents the transfer of theories based on paradigms and
schools developed in other institutional circumstances than third world
countries. Critics of this approach points to a pre-understanding reflecting
ethnocentrism or ‘euro-centrism’, yet as genuine approaches to third world
based theories rarely are seen, the issue of ignoramus et ignorabimus should not be forgotten. Does this
implicate, that all theoretical transformations and modifications are
impossible? Of course not! It is the researchers task to modify or even move
toward the much waited ‘bird phoenix’ of a new development studies paradigm to
occur. It is not our task to sit back and blame each other for being more or
less attached to development research, whatever our inclinations are towards
theory or practice – or both! And moreover, whatever our theoretical work is
underpinned by basic science having an universal applicability or not!
Another issue takes us back to Pusic´ and the opening remark of social
sciences as a phrase paradigmatic hell. The myth cannot totally be rejected! It
has to do with the question of what David Ellerman in his recent book called
‘social engineering’(Ellerman, 2006). In development aid there are according to
Ellerman several Dont’s and do’s, and one of the dont’s relates to aid offered
on conditionalities based on thoughts on privatizations and liberalizations
stemming from neo-classical development theories - in the jargon of political
economy ‘neo liberalism’. Such an approach is intimately related to curriculums
in main stream economics developed on the base of ‘homo oeconomicus’, which
seems to be an antropologization of a behavior related to capital ownership and
capital accumulation. The axiom of utilitarian ethics and its general
equilibrium super-structure penetrated by this creed of mans behavior is often
considered self-evident truths placed beyond empirical tests (Skarstein, 1976,
Horvat, 1980). The results of policy recommendations based on this paradigm has
not been an unequivocal success. One case in mind is recent developments in
Latin America, and local populations rejections of policy recommendations from
the Worldbank and the IMF (Stieglitz, 2002, Ellerman, 2006)
Moreover, an approach rooted in the heydays of University Marxism is an
almost ‘religious’ approach to an analysis of international relations
underpinned by the approach of imperialism, post-colonialism or dependency
theories. Here it is considered a self-evident truth, that economic
international relations only can be explained by theories on the limits to
capital accumulation, center – periphery relations, exploitation and capital
exports.
If the phrase paradigmatic hell really appears, it is by some explained
by the forerunner of social engineering in what Ellerman labeled ‘unhelpful
help’, when analyzing aid programs implemented by ‘the Bank’ (Ellerman, 2006).
Research based teaching of graduate students has a bias that may not just be
paradigmatic – it could also be of a political and ideological nature. Blaug
has in this connotation stressed the following in relation to economics only,
but probably similar trends are found in other disciplines as well (Blaugh,
1968, p. 677):
-
The selection of questions to be investigated by economists may be
ideologically biased
-
The answers that are accepted as true answers to (these) questions may
be likewise biased, particularly since economics abounds in Contradictory
theories that have not yet been tested
-
Even purely factual statements may have emotive connotations and hence
may be used to persuade as well to describe
-
Economic advice to political authorities may be value loaded because
means and ends cannot be neatly separated and hence policy ends cannot be taken
as given at the outset of the exercise
-
Since all practical economic advice involves interpersonal comparisons
of utility and these are not testable or at least not yet testable, practical
welfare economics most certainly involves value judgements.
When Pusic found the issue of a phase paradigmatic Hell somewhat
exessive one may of course contemplate, whether that has to do with the fact,
that a value free science does not exist or something else. The reason why it
seems an excessive argument has not so much to do with the bias issue, as it
has to do with the question of evidence. It is not ideology or politics, that
constitutes ‘phrase paradigmatism’, but the lack of evidence whatever ones
ideological inclinations are.
Gunnar Myrdal presented similar thoughts on the ideology question not
just addressing economics but social sciences in general. He emphasized the
naiveté of social scientists and economists never even having the thought of
being influenced by opportunistic interests in the society in which they live
and operate (op. cit. Pedersen, 1981).
Knowing that values are a part of social sciences does of course raises
the question, whether we are preachers obligated to teach our students research
with the ideological undertones, we emotionally prefer, or whether our
obligation is to disseminate accumulated knowledge of the whole field of different
approaches and let the students judge themselves? Are we preachers at something
resembling a Marxist-Leninist Party school or a Koran school, or is our task to
present knowledge on the collection of value impregnated paradigms, schools or
discourses giving the student the true picture of biased theories. The last do
not imply indoctrination – instead, it is an autonomy respecting relation to
the students, allowing the students to reflect on their own in their problem
oriented work and their absorption of the curriculum.
The basics of problem oriented and multi-disciplinary learning raises
the question, whether the teacher can affect a person by outside influence, so
that he will not permit himself to be affected by outside influence? Teaching a
student one sided ‘truths’ taking the form of laws, rules and axioms constrains
the students autonomy. Furthermore, learning represents an anomaly of didactics
vs. auto-didactics – is education at all possible, if it requires
self-determination in the learning process?
It is this pedagogy Paolo Freire practiced working with poor and
oppressed people through dialogue and praxis progression, and it is a decent
lesson, telling the students not to commit to social engineering in the future
of either neo-liberalism or Marxism or whatever ‘ism’ unless otherwise being
inquired by autonomous local decision-makers to do so. The gist of the matter
is respect for local development preferences, local participation and
self-management within the framework of a humanist approach to social sciences.
(Freire, 1970, Vanek, 1980, Ellerman, 2006).
Development and
International Studies as a ‘Normal Science’
The approaches to the study of so-called ‘third world countries’ are all
rooted in basic paradigms, school or discourses. With this I am arguing that
the creation of pluralistic knowledge among students is a prerequisite for an
autonomy respecting pedagogic model as just described. As such a broader
perspective on studies on the economy, sociology and politics of development and
international relations should involve a broad based approach to the study:
-
Classical theory on growth (The Harrod-Domar model, op.cit. Shoene,
1989) and Neo-classical theories on growth narrowly defining factor inputs as
explanatory to the variance in the output (GDP). Although many researchers
defines growth and development as something dissimilar, there are neo-classical
economists that do not separate the too. While most researchers would say that
both growth and development are prerequisites in development research, the
neo-classicists have no problem with discussing aid efficiency in terms of
correlations between the aids GDP shares and economic growth alone (the aid
efficiency literature, Paldam, 1997, 2005).The theory advocates free markets,
private initiative and rolling back the frontiers of the State as necessary for
the creation for development,
-
Keynesian theories putting more emphasis on statism and regulated
markets, aggregate demand and in some cases the issue of human capital and
technologies and the process of diffusion of technologies and adaptive learning
capacities related to these.
-
Theories on international trade, exchange rate regimes and the lack of
currency in relation to technology transfer and the diffusion processes in
developing economies. Moreover a crucial part of understanding international
economy and exchange rate regimes in crisis can be both related to mainstream
literature as well as literature in the field of political economy (Altvater,
1969)
-
Gunnar Myrdals expansion of mainstream economics (Martinussen, 1994).
Growth and development is not a question of the propensity to invest alone.
Myrdal extended Harrod and Domars one factor analysis to a multi-factor model.
Focusing on agriculture as the vehicle for growth and development the issue is
to create accumulation in this sector and moving resources from agriculture to
industrialization projects. This line of thought was not at all new. It was
already seen in relation to the industrialization debate in Soviet Russia in the
twenties where Preobrazhensky advocated the ‘plundering’ through taxation of
non-socialist forces like private capitalists in urban areas and the Kulaks in
the rural areas in order to create an industrialization and an industrial
proletariat (Preobrazhensky, 1926).
-
Institutional theories on innovation systems and the dissemination of
industrial innovations as the base for studies of innovations in developing
economies (Schumpeter 1934, Freeman 1987) and Economic Power (Veblen, 1921,
Galbraith 1983, 2004). In terms of economic power the Veblen’s approach deals
with the engineer layer of the techno-structure and later Galbraiths detailed
approach of the same within large transnational corporations are of course
important approaches to analysis of international economic relations. The
Corporation is not just internal power relations its also external in the sense
that huge corporations control its environment and its internal organization
through what Galbraith labelled conditioned power along with condign and
compensatory powers.
-
Comparative Systems Theory and economic systems impact on growth and
development potentials (Rosser and Rosser, 2004)
-
Marxist theories on imperialism, dependency and international political
economy (op. cit. Martinussen, 1994).
-
Theories on Modernization or initially the so-called anticommunist
manifest written by Rostow (op. cit. Martinussen, 1994).
-
Theories on Social Capital – the question of trust in other citizens,
social networks, political and economic institutions has recently been included
in development research (Putnam, 1995, Fukuyama, 2006, Goodwin, 2006, Paldam
& Tinggård Svendsen, 2006).
-
Humanist theories, human development and freedom, measurements of human
development through indices (Lutz and Lux 1988, Sen, 1994, Ellerman, 2006)
-
Political theories on State and democracy, the Colonial and
‘over-developed’ post-colonial State, Oligarchy, the Islamic State (op.cit
Martinussen, 1994)
-
Planning cum Market, etatism and state control, the neo-classical
counter revolution, public choice theories (Op. cit. martinussen, 1994, Rosser
and Rosser, 2004).
-
Social Scientific theories on participation, self-management and
self-government as a part of a peoples centred development model. These
theories cover a broad spectrum of theories and not just gender studies and
anthropological studies as hitherto being a dominant part of a semester course
bloc. The approach can be economics, political science, organization and
sociology (Vanek 1970, 1975, 1980, Horvat et. Al. 1971, Gran, 1983, Friedman, 1992, Ellerman, 2006),
These theories and other theories consists of a huge field of general
paradigms underpinning ‘normal scientific’ modifications within development
research and research on international economics and/or international political
economy.
Of course paradigms used by different research environments in Denmark
in some cases reflect a paradigmatic bias as described by Blaugh above. However
in terms of curriculum building and teaching students development and
international relations studies, it is obvious that a pluralist study would 1)
be autonomy respecting in the Freirean sense and 2) give the students a better
ballast in future job situations encountering colleagues trained in this way.
Even worse, if a paradigmatic bias does not reflect mainstream approaches, but
to a large degree - as is the case at Development and International Relation
Studies program at Aalborg University -
reflects a one sided approach putting emphasis on Marxism and International
political economy, then the future master in development and international
relation studies could become quite alienated in relation to communications
with future colleagues trained in main-stream centres of social scientific
thought in North-America and Europe. Another side to this is reflected in
teachings, where the students for instance learn to criticise Worldbank and IMF
policies without having the slightest idea about, what the paradigmatic
mainstream underpinning of these institutions recommendation is based of.
Critiquing neo-liberalism without knowledge of the schools of neo-classical
thought, supply side economics and monetarism cannot be other than an
intellectual hoax. The same goes for a supply sider like Paldam critiquing
Marxist development based on so-called ‘classic models of Socialism without the
necessary basic knowledge of the paradigm. There is no classical definition in
a Marxian sense! (Paldam, 1998).
Ideological skizzophrenia -
paradigms as multiple Instruments?
Another issue in the discussion on paradigms reflects ‘political
correctness’ and the mistake that paradigms, schools of thought or discourses
do not and should not overlap. In the heydays of Marxism at the universities,
when we sat in small groups and read ‘Das Kapital’, it was quite common to reject
so-called bourgeois theories on the doubtful merit of being non-socialist
alone. This is of course largely bogus because theories play an instrumental
role instead of being one single ‘gospel of truth’. In the instrumental sense
one needs not to be a skizzophrenic, if an economist uses Marx’s long term
analysis on Development, argues for state interventionism according to Keynes
philosophy in order to correct market failures and uses neo-classical tools and
econometrics in analysis (Kurt Pedersen et. Al., 1992). This does of course not
constitute a ‘class traitor’ in the making. Studies in Development and international relations
cannot uphold ‘a Chinese Wall’ demarcating the different schools of thought.
The market socialist school of thought most certainly could be an
inspiration in relation to alternative development models. Especially this
school of thought represents socialist economics applying the tools of the
neo-classical school, and despite the axiom of utilitarianism and the assumed
behaviour of rational decision-making. Oscar Langes dispute with the Austrians
does represent case of this (Lange and Taylor, 1974). Additionally, theories on
the market socialist variant of workers’ management is based on competitive
markets in the neo-classical sense for micro studies and at the macro level
Keynesian economics (Vanek, 1970, Horvat 1984).
Writings without or little
Evidence as the Road to the Phrase-paradigmatic Hell?
At a recent exam I conducted with some of my students in Development and
International Relations Studies at Aalborg University, I met the tendency of
students presenting mere descriptions without any theoretical and
methodological reflections at all (!). This is not uncommon at our master
program, and the question is of course whether our teaching gives the students
the impression, that this type of presentation leads to satisfactory results?
The student had four minutes to present subjects related to a project on
‘Post-conflict Angola: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) and
the participation of women’. The project tried to put this into a perspective
of Walt Rostows theory on development phases, and furthermore postmodernist,
feminist and organizational theories were presented. Nonethles, one of the
students only told us about effects on the war in Angola on child soldiers, and
the ‘unfavorability’ of the DDR to Child soldiers. In his conclusions he tried
to present elements to successful reintegration of these children. Taking
theoretical perspectives up in the examination the student was as seen in many
instances from other students totally blank of answers. Taking into
consideration that this was an eight semester student, we most certainly have a
problem – a problem that could be based on research based teaching failing to
learn the student about interactions between theories and empirical studies and
between methodology and empirical studies. Or at least one could expect
students using secondary sources also reflect critically over the methodologies
used in these studies? This is very seldom the case even though the methodology
course given to our students explicitly tell them that.
Returning to Pusic´ and the question of phrase-paradigms in social
sciences and Marc Blaugs description on a political paradigmatic bias, it is
obvious that value judgements and ideological inclinations are unavoidable. But
that is acceptable as long as scientific methods are followed characterizing or
underpinning the specific paradigm, school or discourse in question. One basic
claim in relation to value impregnated statements in social sciences is
empirical evidence on findings, Otherwise the writings may tend to a higher
degree to be descriptive personal observations and/or political journalism.
Researchers should of course not abstain from journalism, because it is a part
of disseminating ones research results. Results however, based on evidence that
cannot be generalized or have an explanatory power is more conjectures, than it
seems to fulfil the requirements to scientific analysis. The requirements
related to validity and reliability cannot be fulfilled. As already mentioned,
It is probably here the issue of a phrase-paradigmatic hell really comes into
question. Paradigms may lead to findings based on evidence – but without evidence,
we only have mere phrases!
This is of course not to say that meta-studies referring to ‘analysis of
analyses’ are superflous (Glass, 2000). Paldams study on the ‘aid efficiency
literature’ is such a study, that although not unproblematic still suggests interesting
results (Paldam, 2005) – the principle is an attempt to screen a large
collection of development studies in order to either integrate the findings or
find new interpretations on the empirical material.
The famous ‘Hawthorne studies’ at general Electric back in the thirties
was an example of a study, that lead to new findings. Where the experiment
initially attempted to reach conclusions on the association between different
strength of lights in a factory room and productivity, the findings later lead
to conclusions on the lurking variable workers participation in
decision-making. The problem of meta-analysis according to Glass is that the
person reviewing the literature may have an overwhelming task in relation to a
huge magnitude of sources, and consequently resort to a small sample of it.
Often reviewers do not review critically, and when the reviewer is active
herself in the field in question, there could be a bias towards not electing
evidence contrary to the pre-understanding or own position of the reviewer.
Bringing sources together of a non-quantitative type without even
presenting a critique of the sources or without analyzing the results obtained
by different sources in similar fields of research leaves nothing much back
than non-quantitative descriptions. This is to a higher degree an example of
descriptive journalism or an account of the situation e.g. in relation to NGOs
and peoples’ self-government in rural Bolivia or a left ving perspective on the
economic crisis of South East Asia, than it is research based on evidence even
from a meta-study. And if evidence is presented, it is not evidence, that the
author had compiled her(him-)self. Instead it is sources that the reader cannot
control at a first glance. It then also comes as no surprise, that the
conclusion often is a collection of descriptions, it is blurred or postulatory,
it is none existing or it is ‘talk at cross purposes’ formed as a ‘yes and no’
answer (e.g. Andersson, 2006, 2008, Dragsbæk Schmidt, (a) and (b) 2007).[3]
Descriptive approaches can of course not be entirely excluded if the
represent something really novel, that could lead to further developments in
terms of theoretical, conceptual and methodological approaches. But if the
writings are mere referrals or compilations of random extracts of existing
sources as in the Johannes Dragsbæk Scmidt case, telling something that is
already said, one can hardly say it is knowledge cration and hence science? And
even if the exemplifying papers in question here did present novel findings,
the lack of theoretical reflections represent the vacuum problem mentioned
above. In this case the empirical study takes place in a theoretical vacuum.
One could say it takes place in a methodological vacuum, because no scientific
method is used in the paper in question. Finally, one could as in the Vibeke
Andersson quotation even say that the issue of paradigmatic bias does not come
in to question, because no paradigm, school or discourse is present!
It is possible to work with international political economy using simple
descriptive Statistics. Moreover, it is possible to attempt to demonstrate
theoretical Marxian approaches validity using descriptive statistics. Ernest
Mandel is one good example, which comes to mind here. In his book ‘The Second
Slump’ from the late seventies, he tried to show, that the recessions in the
seventies was a part of a reversal of Kondratieff long waves. Likewise, he
tried to demonstrate that, what was faced then was a classic ‘over production
crisis’. One can always mention the problem of the transformation from value to
price in ‘Das Kapital’, and argue whether descriptive statistics can portray
theory on labor values. One could also conjecture, whether we actually went
into a long wave of decline at that time? This is not the point in question
here – the point is, that Mandel at least tried to underpin his Marxist
approach by statistical evidence in the form of tables and diagrams directly
accessible to the reader. He used statistical sources and economic outlooks
from the OECD, GATT, ‘the Economist’, Business week, and other similar sources,
where evidence were available, and he demonstrated powerful overview and
insights into both his theory and the empirical data used (Mandel, 1980).
Concluding remarks.
Kurt Pedersens analysis of Kuhns theory of paradigms in the basic
economic analysis could also be said to be the underpinning to economic
analysis in development and international relation studies. The broad
perspectives drawn by Degnbøl Martinussen lend support to that. Operating with
five ‘revolutions’ as Pedersen did from classical liberalism (Smith and Ricardo)
and the Marxian approach via microeconomics (the marginalist ‘revolution’) and
the Austrians to Keynes one can get different ‘sets of revolutions’ in the
history of economic thought. According to Pedersen, Kuhns paradigms theory
collapses, due to ideology. The researchers individual preferences rule what is
to be chosen as analytical tools - every theory still has proponents. In a
non-Darwinist way one could say, that they are all suitable on each owns
premises (Pedersen, 1986). That being the case a paradigmatic bias is less
compatible with autonomy respecting teaching. The students have as the
researchers the same right to follow individual preferences. Consequently it
should be nothing but our ‘duty’ to teach all economic approaches to
development and international relation studies. There are two sides to this
array of thought namely general growth and development studies and general
approaches to international economy as something underpinning development and
international relation studies in a ‘normal scientific’ sense. One should in this context abstain from
presenting development and international relation theories as something novel
from general theories on development
As much of our writings reflect the creation the mentioned vacuum, where
theoretical approaches take place in an empirical vacuum and visa versa, it may
end in a blind alley, where the option of a mutual transformation of the two
are very little. This seems reflected in pure descriptive writings suggesting
that we should work more intense on cross cutting analysis between theoretical
and empirical analysis. The pure descriptive writings taking the form of
political journalism or the like cannot be said to fulfil this requirement, and
it is not an example to set our students.
References:
Altvater,
Elmar. Kapitalismens valutakriser, Demos, 1973.
Andersson, Vibeke: Is Water a human Right or a
Commodity’ unpublished, conference paper,
2006http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/12324316/is_water_a_human_right.pdf
Andersson, Vibeke: ’Social Organizations and Large
NGOs in Rural Bolivia, Unpublished conference paper, 2008
(http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/14366899/LA-paper.doc)
Blaugh, Marc: ’Economic
Theory in Retrospect’ Heineman, 1968.
Ellerman, David: ‘Helping
People Help Themselves’, University of Michigan Press, 2006.
Friedman, John: Empowerment,
the politics of Alternative development, Blackwell, 1992.
Freeman, Christoph and Soete, Luc: The Economics of industrial Innovations 3.
ed., The MIT Press.
Freire, Paolo: The
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, continuum, 1970.
Fukuyama, Francis: Social Capital and Civil Society,
Paper prepared for the IMF Conference second generation reforms, 1999.
Galbraith, John Kenneth: The Anatomy of power’, Houghton Miflin, 1983
Galbraith, John Kennth: ‘The Economics of innocent Fraud’, Houghton Mifflin, 2004.
Glass Gene V.: http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html
january 2000
Goldschmidt,
Werner: ‘Tolkningsproblemer I studier af fremmedkulturer – eksemplificeret ved
Grønlandsforskning’, I ‘Studier I historisk metode xii: Fortolknigsproblem I
historien. Foredrag fra Nordisk fackkonferencen i Esbo, 1976.
Goodwin, Neva R.: ’Five Kinds of Capital: Useful
Concepts for Sustainable Development, Global Development and Environment
Institute Working paper no. 03-07, Tuffs University, Medford 2003
Gran, Guy: ‘Development
by People, Citizens Construction of a Just World, Prager, 1983.
Horvat, branko et. Al.: ‘Self-governing Socialism’, International Arts and Sciences press,
1975
Horvat, Branko: ’Utilitarian Ethics’, Economic and Industrial Democracy – an
International Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 1980.
Horvat, branko: The
Political Economy of Socialism – a Marxist social Theory, Sharpe, 1984
Kornai, Janos: Anti
Equilibrium, Amsterdam, 1971.
Kuhn,
Thomas: ‘Videnskabens Revolutioner’,
Fremad 1968.
Lange,
Oscar and Taylor, Fred. M.: ‘Om Socialismens økonomiske teori’, Blytman, 1974.
Lutz and Lux: The
Challenge of Humanistic Economics, bootstrap press, 1988
Mandel, Ernest: ’The Second Slump, Verso, 1980.
Martinussen,
John B. (a): ’Samfund, stat og marked
– en kritisk gennemgang af teorier om
udvikling i dent redje verden’, Mellemfolkeligt samavirke, 1994.
Martinussen,
John B. (b): ’Teorier om samfund og
udvikling i den tredje verden’, Mellemfolkeligt samavirke, 1994.
Nove, Alec and Nuti, Mario: ’Socialist Economics’, Pinguin books, 1976.
Paldam,
Martin: ‘Dansk U-landshjælp, altruismens
politiske økonomi’, Århus Universitetsforlag, 1997.
Paldam,
Martin: ‘Det stadigt skrøbeligere rigsfællesskab’ I Samfundsøkonomen 8, 1998.
Paldam, Martin and Tinggård Svendsen, Gert: ‘Missing
Social Capital and the Transition in Eastern Europe, Journal for institutional Innovation, Development and transition,
vol 5, 2001
Paldam,
Martin: Skaber udviklingshjælp udvikling, i ’udenrtigs’ 4, 2005, pp 62-75.
Pedersen,
Kurt: ‘Den økonomiske teoris rødder’,
Systime publishers, 1981.
Pedersen,
Kurt et. Al.: ‘Økonomisk teori I internationalt perspektiv’ Jurist og
økonomforbundets forlag, 1992
Preobrazhensky, Evgeny: ’Socialist primitive
Accumulation’ in Nove and Nuti: ’Socialist
Economics’, pinguin books, 1976.
Pusic’, Eugen: Freedom and Constraints in Cooperative
Systems, Paper presented at the Postgraduate course ‘Participation, Workers’
Control, Self-management and Self-government’ at the Inter-university centre in
Dubrovnik, 1981.
Putnam, Robert: ‘Making
Democracy Work: Civic Transition to in Modern Italy, Princeton NJ, 1995.
Rosser and Rosser: ‘Comparative Economics in a
transforming World Economy’, The MIT Press, 2004.
Schmidt, Johs. Dragsbæk
(a): ‘Debating Thailands September 2006 Military Coup d’etat’, Asia Insights. 2007 ; vol. 39, nr. 3, December.
Schmidt, Johs. Dragsbæk
(b): ‘Perspectives for Development Friendly Financial Markets: No One Side Fits
All Approach’, Unpublished Conference paper, 2007
Schumpeter, Joseph A.: The Theory of Economic Development, an Enquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Harvard University press, 1934.
Sen, Amartia: Development
and Freedom, 1998.
Shoene, Ronald: ’Open
Economy Macroeconomics, harvester wheatsheaf, 1989.
Skarstein,
Rune: ‘Socialøkonomiens Elendighet’
Unipax, 1976
Stieglitz, Joseph: Globalization
and its discontents’, Pinguin Allen Lane, 2002.
Vanek, jaroslav: ‘The
General Theory of Labor-managed Market Economies’, Cornell University
press, 1970.
Vanek, Jaroslav: ‘The
Participatory Economy’, Cornell university press, 1970.
Vanek, Jaroslav (ed): ‘Self-management – Economic Liberation of Man’, Pinguin Books, 1975.
Vanek, Jaroslav: ‘Yugoslavia as the Pathbreaker for
Global Society’, Economic Analysis and
Workers Management 4, xiv, 1980
Veblen, Thorstein: ‘The Engineers and the Pricing System’, forst printed in 1921 in
Batoche books, Kitschener, 2001.
[1] Gorm Winther is a professor with
special assignments on the Political Economy of Northern Regional Development
(POENOR) at the department of History, International studies and Social
Relation Studies, at the university of Aalborg. He teaches Development and
international relation studies, and he is a member of the Development,
Innovations and International Political Economy Research Group (DIIPER) and the
Center for Comparative Integration Studies
(CCIS) at the same department. This paper is based on his experiences
and his affiliation to the development and international relation studies
master program at the University of Aalborg since the Fall of 2005.
[2] Although these textbook are very
useful, when the goal is to give a general overwiew of the literature, they are
books for high school and under graduate studies. It is remarkable that these
books still at the master level often is a part of our curriculum instead of
the literature the textbooks present.
[3] Due to the ‘publish or perish
syndrome’ and the bureaucratic tyranny of so-called research evaluation and the
duty to report everything in to databases (published work, unpublished work,
journalism, activities and fund raising) we have for quite a while witnessed
reporting of what alledgely is claimed to be research. This goes for unpublished
conference papers that never will pass a pier review, random sampled quoted
pieces of thoughts taken the form of a so-called research or working paper, it
even goes for ppt presentations being nothing but sketches. Some journalism is
also labelled ‘science’. In essence most of the proclaimed ‘scientific’ is not
pier reviewed in the sense that it is a ‘blind reviewed’ paper published in
acknowledged journals. Individual
evaluations and evaluations of whole department will of course as is the case in
planning processes lead to issuing of exaggerated lists of publications in
order to individually or collectively maximize positions, because rewards are
attached to this. Quantity is henceforth superior to quality.