Bibliothèque Université Don Bosco de Lubumbashi
Accueil
Détail de l'auteur
Auteur Ian Taylor |
Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur (2)
Affiner la recherche Interroger des sources externes
Botswana as A ‘Development-Oriented Gate-Keeping state’: A Response / Ian Taylor in African Affairs, Vol. 111/444 (2012)
[article]
Titre : Botswana as A ‘Development-Oriented Gate-Keeping state’: A Response Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Ian Taylor, Auteur Année de publication : 2012 Article en page(s) : 466-476 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : Ellen Hillbom's contribution to the debate on the nature of the state in Botswana is most welcome. The relative success, despite important qualifiers, of Gaborone stands in stark contrast to many of its neighbours. Explaining this is important for studies of comparative African development. However, I disagree with Hillbom's negation of Botswana as a developmental state and her characterization of it as a gate-keeping state. Instead, I would argue that Botswana is an example of a state that has broadly pursued certain policies in the construction of a formative hegemony, to use Antonio Gramsci's concept. Doing so has led to what might be regarded as a developmental state to emerge – a state that pursues policies that coordinate investment plans; has a national development vision (implying that the state is an entrepreneurial agent); engages in institution building to promote growth and development; and, finally, plays a role in domestic conflict management. A key theorist of the developmental state, T. J. Pempel, indeed argues that ‘These fusions of state and society are reflected in specific public policy profiles akin to what Antonio Gramsci called “hegemonic projects”.
Six major components define the developmental state model: a determined developmental elite; relative autonomy; a powerful, competent and insulated bureaucracy; a weak and subordinated civil society; the effective management of non-state economic interests; and legitimacy and performance. Botswana's state since independence conforms to such indicators, managed by the Botswana Democrtaic Party (BDP). Its authoritarian nature alongside such features of its political economy is in keeping with ‘typical’ developmental states.
in African Affairs > Vol. 111/444 (2012) . - 466-476[article] Botswana as A ‘Development-Oriented Gate-Keeping state’: A Response [texte imprimé] / Ian Taylor, Auteur . - 2012 . - 466-476.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in African Affairs > Vol. 111/444 (2012) . - 466-476
Résumé : Ellen Hillbom's contribution to the debate on the nature of the state in Botswana is most welcome. The relative success, despite important qualifiers, of Gaborone stands in stark contrast to many of its neighbours. Explaining this is important for studies of comparative African development. However, I disagree with Hillbom's negation of Botswana as a developmental state and her characterization of it as a gate-keeping state. Instead, I would argue that Botswana is an example of a state that has broadly pursued certain policies in the construction of a formative hegemony, to use Antonio Gramsci's concept. Doing so has led to what might be regarded as a developmental state to emerge – a state that pursues policies that coordinate investment plans; has a national development vision (implying that the state is an entrepreneurial agent); engages in institution building to promote growth and development; and, finally, plays a role in domestic conflict management. A key theorist of the developmental state, T. J. Pempel, indeed argues that ‘These fusions of state and society are reflected in specific public policy profiles akin to what Antonio Gramsci called “hegemonic projects”.
Six major components define the developmental state model: a determined developmental elite; relative autonomy; a powerful, competent and insulated bureaucracy; a weak and subordinated civil society; the effective management of non-state economic interests; and legitimacy and performance. Botswana's state since independence conforms to such indicators, managed by the Botswana Democrtaic Party (BDP). Its authoritarian nature alongside such features of its political economy is in keeping with ‘typical’ developmental states.Sino-African Relations and the Problem of Human Rights / Ian Taylor in African Affairs, Vol. 107/426 (2008)
[article]
Titre : Sino-African Relations and the Problem of Human Rights Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Ian Taylor, Auteur Année de publication : 2008 Article en page(s) : pp. 63-87. Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : China's political and economic activities in Africa are increasing at an exponential rate. Equally, they are attracting criticism, chiefly over Beijing's no-strings-attached stance on human rights and governance. It is clear that many African states that enjoy Chinese support not only trample on civil and political rights (as per Western ideas of human rights), but also subvert their citizens’ economic and social rights (as per China's discourse on human rights). If whilst adhering to the principle of non-interference, Chinese activities actually make things worse for some in Africa, then Beijing's argument that basic socio-economic rights are more important for the poor than abstract political rights is potentially problematic. This is because there is a danger that Beijing's engagement in Africa might be exploited by autocrats on the continent for their own, well-understood, reasons. Doing no harm, rather than a studied disinterest, needs to be part of China's overall African policy, something that Beijing is bound to recognize.
in African Affairs > Vol. 107/426 (2008) . - pp. 63-87.[article] Sino-African Relations and the Problem of Human Rights [texte imprimé] / Ian Taylor, Auteur . - 2008 . - pp. 63-87.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in African Affairs > Vol. 107/426 (2008) . - pp. 63-87.
Résumé : China's political and economic activities in Africa are increasing at an exponential rate. Equally, they are attracting criticism, chiefly over Beijing's no-strings-attached stance on human rights and governance. It is clear that many African states that enjoy Chinese support not only trample on civil and political rights (as per Western ideas of human rights), but also subvert their citizens’ economic and social rights (as per China's discourse on human rights). If whilst adhering to the principle of non-interference, Chinese activities actually make things worse for some in Africa, then Beijing's argument that basic socio-economic rights are more important for the poor than abstract political rights is potentially problematic. This is because there is a danger that Beijing's engagement in Africa might be exploited by autocrats on the continent for their own, well-understood, reasons. Doing no harm, rather than a studied disinterest, needs to be part of China's overall African policy, something that Beijing is bound to recognize.