Power, Prejudices and Poor: Rethinking Development

Abstract:

Development debates have always been centered on the edge of ‘powerful and powerless’ and
they become further ambiguous when the two are influenced by the development biases. In the
process of development the modernists argue in favor of a common ground where everyone
benefits from the modernization. On the other, the anti modernists put their views in a different
way: whether the modernization is positive or negative. In other words, if modernization brings a
common ground for all by alienating power divisions among gender, class and race or the
opposite. Despite the significance of modernization for introducing human civilization into the
world, critical concerns are on equities and empowerment. The challenges are thus to ensure
human freedom as a means and as an end so as to equalize the human capabilities for the well
being of every human being.
_______________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Starting from Marx against the class antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat,
Durkheim on organic vs. mechanical solidarity, and Habermas on public vs. private
sphere, no social theory is free from power analogy (Marx and Engels, 1998; Durkheim,
1984; Habermas, 1989). Development discourse has largely been centered within the
power paradigm. Power of modernization to bring the world into a parallel society is
debated against its power to create uneven society contributing to economic, political and
social inequalities (Abdo, 1996; Frank, 1966; Ruffin, 1990). Development of ‘a few’ is
perceived as an exploitation of ‘many’ and contributing to the ‘clash of civilizations’
(Huntington, 1993; Ikeo, 2003; Weede, 1998). Rationale of science and technology has
been questioned for undermining the social and cultural values, and ignoring the large
social cost of transition (Granato, Inglehart, and Leblang, 1998; Facio, 2004; Smith,
2005). Above all, economic progress for ‘human development’ or ‘human freedom’ has
been a critical one in late modernization (Chamber, 2005; Friedman, 1992; Sen, 1999).

1
Marx argued on expansion of human freedom (freedom to realize one’s fullest capacities)
as one of the basic criterion of human progress (cited in Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson,
2003: 153). In The Communist Manifesto Marx looks forward to a society “in which the
free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx and
Engels 1998: 41). However, this requires a continuous struggle to relieve the human
being from the existing restraints so as to alter their relation with nature and among
themselves. Such struggles continue to exist with the aspirations of human equality and
social justice, which requires the fullest realization of human capacities that permit an
intellectual growth as well as an abundance of material wealth (Marx et.al.,1998;
Blackwell, et.al.,2003).

Amartya Sen (1992, 1999) a modern economist brings his capability approach, which is
in line with Marxist views of human freedom. Sen argues that people’s real freedom for
leading valuable life is based on their capabilities to enjoy positive state of life such as
being politically active, being healthy or literate. The capabilities represent ‘what people
can do or be’, and not what they can consume or on their incomes (Sen, 1992: 50; Sen,
1999: 18). The latter are however, the means of well being. Sen disagrees with the
utilitarian judgments of an individual’s wellbeing which is only based on resources, but
ignores the intrinsic interpersonal capabilities (Deneulin, 2006; Ingrid, 2003; Sen, 1992).
People’s abilities to convert resources into capabilities differ based on the personal,
political and social factors such as physical and mental disability, tradition, social norms
and values, country’s infrastructures, climate and so on (Deneulin, 2006; Robeyin, 2003;
Sen. 1999). These factors highly contribute to inequalities in capabilities and thereby the
well being.

2. Power Paradigm and Modernization

As power relates to human capabilities, resources, and authorities, it is perceived as a tool

of strengthening or destrengthening one’s capacity over the other. More precisely, power
can be exercised by the one who have capacity to control others (Dean, 2006; Chambers,

2
2005). It operates at every level within human society; global, to local and at inter
personal level (Dean, 2006: 69). Since human society is evolved from individual, to
community and nation, the power functions at different level. Friedmann (1992: 32) in
his alternative development approach introduced three types of power: social (having
access to information and resources and organizations), political (access to decision
making process) and psychological power (potency of self esteem to be able to access to
social and political power). Empowerment as an alternative development strategy, he
focused on improving the conditions of people’s lives and livelihood that starts from the
household (Friedmann, 1992). Foucault (1982) sees power as a mode of actions upon
actions. His model includes understandings of resistance as a form of power (cited in
Rowlands, 1997:12). Foucault (1977) argues that power is present in every human
relations affecting one‘s actions over the other and penetrates throughout the society.
‘Power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the ‘privilege’ acquired or preserved,
of the dominant class, but the overall effect of its strategic positions (1977:26).

Marx illustrated the power of capitalism to suppress the consciousness of working class
and to blind them on their own exploitation (cited in Dean, 2006: 71). Durkheim (1984)
focused on differentiation as ‘specialization’ and as an ‘individual power’ so as to
contribute efficiently to the whole. Parsons (1964) underlined the role of structural
functionalism as an ‘effective tie’ to exercise power, by which the four functions
(adaptation, goal achievement, integration and maintenance) are plausible. Similarly,
Habermas (1989) emphasized on public sphere as a means to bring power and freedom to
people through a rational debate.

Next to modernity, Frank (1966) argued on the power of capitalism in Latin America to
divide the world into ‘development and underdevelopment’ through exploitation of
resources from satellites to metropoles. Supporting to the views of Frank, other scholars
such as Walter (1972), Wallerstein ((1977) argued strongly on dependency theory and
power of colonialism to create uneven development in Africa and Europe respectively
(cited in Chilcote, 1984). Marx (1972) also illustrated the power of British colonialism to
‘deconstruct India’ through destroying the native Indian handlooms and native industry.

3
(Abdo, 1996) argued that capitalism in Europe was possible only due to the exploitation
of natural and human resources from the third world that deprived the benefits of
capitalism.

In the development discourse, development in its different forms (modernization or

globalization) is perceived as a western domination and raising the power conflict among
nations (Huntington, 1993; Mehmet, 2001; Rowland, 1997). Nevertheless, globalization
has made a significant contribution to the world through trade, travel, migration, cultural
influences and dissemination of information and technology (Sen, 2002). Sen further
argues that the progress in science and technology is not necessarily the western. For
instance, the decimal system was first originated and developed in India and was later
used by Europeans for scientific revolution. Today, the mass communication technology
such as world wide-web has brought an enormous opportunity to the world population to
build up their knowledge and understanding in global phenomenon (Rajaee, 2002;
Stigtilz, 2002). Communication through public media such as internet plays a significant
role in bringing freedom and power to the people as they can be aware on the ongoing
issues (Habermas, 1989). In addition, the civil society has started to be globalized to
build up their transnational power for human rights and social justice (Clasen, 1999;
McCarthy, 1997; Rajaee, 2002).

In past three decades, countries in East Asia had made an unexpected economic progress
(sometimes better than USA to be able to make up in OECD) through the global market
policy (Smith, 2005; Stigtilz, 2002). They were able to close the technology gap by
taking advantage of global knowledge. These countries were able to set up their own pace
of change and even rejected the rules of ‘Washington Consensus’ which focused on
minimal role for government and rapid privatization (Stigtilz, 2002). Such progress
achieved by these nations with economic interrelations and modern technology can be
taken by other nations as well.

Above all, the western civilization that has been introduced to the modern world through
globalization can hardly be undermined for emancipating the world’s population from

4
social, political, and economic oppression (Rajaee, 2002; Stigtilz, 2002). In view of these
arguments, one can not stress that the globalization or modernization as a negative
enforcement from the western world. In addition, globalization itself is not an outcome
but a process.

3. Modernization and Development

The assumptions of modernization theory are: a) economic growth benefits all members
of society through trickle down effect, b) macro economic policies are gender neutral,
and c) the modern technologies are superior to the traditional (Conneley, Li, Mac Donald,
and Parpart, 2000). The economic policy of global financial institutions (IMF, World
Bank, USAID) is dominated by these assumptions.

Accordingly, three basic developments in modernization over the four decades include
capitalization of world agriculture (investment on larger productive lands eliminating the
subsistence lands), technology development (maximizing the ability to transform the
earth resources into usable commodities: industrialization) and institutional development
(emphasizing on organizational structures of state and corporate institutions: process of
bureaucratization) (Wallerstein, 1998: 288). Such development envisages another form of
development. For instance, subsistence farmers from larger part of the world concentrate
on urban areas for work: urbanization, resources tend to be focused on core areas for their
productive and profitable use and leaves periphery to remain underdeveloped
(Wallerstein, 1998).

As opposed to the theory of modernization, Frank (1966) clarified that it is the utilization
of the economic surplus (that has been centralized from satellites to metropolis), which
has resulted development and underdevelopment. Due to the monopoly structure of world
capitalist system, the capitalist countries were able to expropriate the surplus from
underdeveloped countries while preventing them to realize the surplus. He illustrated this

5
chain flow of the surplus from the remotest Latin American village to metropolis of New
York (Frank, 1966; Frank, 1967).

As a custom of dependency theory, the privileged nations tend to contribute towards

underdevelopment so as to benefit through international economic order (Chilcote1984;
Robinson, 1979; Weede, 1998). For instance, closing of all textile factories in India
during the British colony caused a huge socio-economic loss to the country as indicated
earlier. Similarly, African nations became underdeveloped with the colonization from
Europe (Chilcote, 1984). The colonial and capitalist system of development is not parallel
to development but ‘uneven development’ that contributed to polarization and
exploitation of resources from satellites to metropolis (Frank, 1966; Chilcote, 1984;
Ruffin, 1990).

Although used as a new development strategy, neo-liberalism still follows the capitalist
path of development ignoring the diverse contexts of development (Brohman, 1995;
Mehmet, 1995; Wylie, 2000). For instance, the neo-liberal model emphasizes ‘market-led
growth, increased savings and private investment based on high profits, low wages;
gradual industrialization, and outward-oriented development’ (Brohman, 1996:31). These
set of policies are regulated by the multilateral institutions, which exert global
governance without considering the socio-cultural circumstances of the recipient
countries (Brohman, 1996; Hartwick and Peet, 2003). Accordingly, globalization has
given a rise to global capitalism and multilateral institutions have gained a super
economic and political power over the national and local institutions (Berberoglu, 2005;
Dean, 2006; Applebaum and Robinson, 2005). The neo liberal model of development
simplifies the complex process of development, however, excludes much of the
developing world, which is based on subsistence economy, or landless rural workers and
rapidly growing numbers of urban laborers (Friedmann, 1992:14).

6
4. Modernization towards Equities:

Notwithstanding the positive influence of globalization especially among the developed

nations, there are some critical concerns (Bello, 2002, Henderson, 2005; Smith, 2005).
More than an economic efficiency, the most important aspects are; a) how the economic
prosperity has been used for human welfare, b) how the global forces are used to
reconcile the equities among nations, community and individual and, c) how the global
policy has based its steps towards institutional reforms (Bello, 2002; Clasen 1999;
Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs, 1997). The question is not whether globalization brings
potential benefits to all including the disadvantaged, but whether they share the equal
gains (Bello, 2002; Hajjar 2005; Sen, 2002). One does not need to emphasize that there
has been vast disparities in distribution of wealth, and unevenness in political, economic
and social opportunities and power (Phillips, 1999; Ruffin, 1990; Sen, 2002).

The inequalities are growing larger not only at international level but within intra
national. For instance, in 1992, UN found that 83 percent of the world’s wealth was
concentrated in the North benefiting 20 percent of the world population. The distribution
of wealth within countries indicates that richest 20 percent of the world people are 150
times richer than the poorest 20 percent (Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003: 88).

The global governance has in fact, created a class conflict of state permitting to grow
working class as a result of mass production and specialization, and low wage policy
(Berberoglou, 2005; Ruffin, 1990; Levine, 1998). Many countries in the third world such
as Cuba and Latin America have passed through this stage of transition following the
industrial revolution (Ruffin, 1990). In addition, the modern technologies initiated by
bilateral and multilateral institutions have been used at the expense of local communities
(Kazmin and Penh, 2002; Vivian, 1992). For instance, construction of large hydro dams
around Mekhong river in China has destroyed the large settlement in periphery, local
vegetation and the bio system affecting the whole socioeconomic settings of the local
community (Kazmin and Penh, 2002). Similarly, government supported logging activities
in Malaysia threatened the livelihood of the communities of the rainforests in Sarawak,

7
while the benefits were channeled to elites outside the region. These experiences were
repeated in India, Thailand, Philippines, and Brazil (Vivian, 1992: 74). Friedmann (1992:
124) has focused on ‘intergenerational equity or fairness in the distribution of
environmental costs and benefits’. His notion of an alternative development respects the
‘traditions of territorial communities, and historical continuity’ that indicates individual
and collective identity (1992:124).

Gender based inequalities has rather increased due to increase in women’s subordinate
roles in the household and in the market arena, as they entered into more labor force in
the world of technology (Agrawal, 1985; Bracke, 2004; Mies, 1986). Development of
modern technology has led to undermine traditional, indigenous knowledge and skill
which mostly comes from women as a strategy for their survival (Car and Sandhu, 1988).
For instance, women’s knowledge and skill in production and reproduction of household
energy is hardly acknowledged in planning alternative energy technologies (Mahat, 2006;
Cecelski, 2002).

The politics of identity has created hegemony over the nations of huge diversities such as
ethnic, religious and cultural (Philips, 1999; Jacobs, 2004). Although multiculturalism
has been accredited, the cultural identities of sub nations, communities, and individuals
such as Muslims are still subject to a threat and risk in Europe and North America
(Jacobs, 2004: 131).

5. Feminist Perspectives towards Modernization:

The modernization approach has mainstreamed neoclassical economics that emphasizes

on competitive market and efficiency, and sees all the human suffering as transitional
cost (Mies, 1986; Nelson, 2005). Feminists’ concern over neo-classical economics has
been on the (Gross domestic Production) GDP model, which discounts subsistence and
informal economic activity, and the unpaid domestic work which is mostly done by
women. In addition, the mathematical model of GDP does not consider power

8
differentials, role of customs, institutions, and most importantly the human factor (Mies,
1986; Nelson, 2005). Contrary to the capitalists’ view of production, which only focuses
on output, feminists tend to analyze the forces of production that involves processes e.g.
relation between human and nature (Mies and Shiva, 1993; Omvedt and Kelkar 1995).
This is in line with Marxist view of production who characterized the capitalists’
economy as an inherent nature of capital accumulation (Marx and Engles, 1998). Other
sociologists such as Weber indicated such economy as an iron cage, and Habermas
distinguished between the ‘lifeworld’ of communication with subjectivity, responsibility
and a ‘system’ arena driven by unconscious objectifying forces (Weber, 1978; Habermas,
1989).

Modernization has essentially initiated larger gender discrimination in the south

(Agrawal, 1994; Attanasio and Szekely, 2001; Mies and Shiva, 1993). For instance, short
term and long term migration due to the urbanization has increased women headed
households leading to intra household disparities (e.g. gender role and labor distribution)
(Agrawal, 1994; Attanasio and Szekely, 2001; Parrenas, 2005). In addition, such
migration for urban labor force as well as global work force has increasingly affected
emotional and social well being of the women and children (Parrenas, 2005; Pyle, 2005).
Mass production and specialization in production has assigned women into more labor
force as unskilled labor and their dual role has increased (Agrawal, 1994; Mies and
Shiva, 1993). Women’s alienation from modern technology is considered as a product of
the historical and cultural construction of technology as masculine (Cockburn and
Ormund, 1993; Wajcman, 1991). For instance, modern industrial revolutions, such as
Green revolution has especially disadvantaged women through dismissal of women labor
due to mechanization in agriculture (Agrawal, 1985: 112). Chipko movement in India
was against the ecological revolution that destroyed the women’s relation to nature as
large number of Indian forests was destroyed for commerce and industry (Mies and
Shiva, 1993: 2). Similarly increase in commercial and illegal logging in the third world,
has given a rise to women’s drudgery as they rely on resources from nature for their
living (e.g. fuel, food and livestock feeding) (Vivian 1992: 72).

9
While western women are more at work as equal as men, however, less equal in sharing
domestic responsibilities (Bracke, 2004: 98). In industrialized countries of Asia,
Americas and Europe, increase in women’s share of labor market participation has not
led to drastic changes on traditional household division of labor (Bracke, 2004; Parrenas,
2005: Phillips, 1999). As a result, women are bearing the larger cost of social
reproduction in capitalist society (Werlhoff, 1988; Thomson, 1988). In addition, women’s
role in household production is perceived as a forced labor enforced by the existing social
mechanism such as women’s sole responsibility as mothers for caring their children, and
women as a secondary source of income (Thomsen, 1988:121). Accordingly, more than
80 percent of women in North America choose jobs and career that accommodate the
demands of domestic labor (Jacobs, 2004: 215). This has a double disadvantage for
women: a) it has a negative effect on their children as they enter into second shift job and
b) the second shift job is invisible and unrecognized at workplace (Jacobs, 2004).

Constable (1997) points out that as a globalization of work force, domestic labor, and low
wage production involves considerable risk for women, such as abuses of human rights
(cited in Pyle, 2005: 249). This has multidimensional effect in women’s personal,
familial and social well being due to the deterioration of emotional and psychological
state of women.

6. Identity and Modernization

The anti modernists have also reexamined the practices through which Western nations
have imposed modernization on, and exerted control over the South in the postcolonial
era. These practices include labeling, such as, ‘backward’ and ‘underdeveloped’; and
arranging experts, projects, and programs for their development so as to integrate them
into modernization (Conneley, Li, Mac Donald, and Parpart, 2000). As indicated earlier,
the capitalist system of development tend to contribute to such labeling as ‘backward’
and ‘underdeveloped’ through their strategy to redistribution of surplus from satellites to
metropolis (Frank, 1966; Robinson, 1979; Ruffin, 1990). These labeling justifies the

10
differentials in wealth and power between the developed and underdeveloped nations
(Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003).

Especially at individual level, when they are labeled as ‘single parent’, ‘poor’ or ‘low
class’, they are often degraded from the natural human being (Conneley, Li, Mac Donald,
and Parpart, 2000; Howard, 1995). The process by which individual is differentiated is
highly significant because they often include unnatural factors. Howard (1995: 166)
pointed out that ‘the most degrading characteristic one can possess in modern north
American society is to be part of the class of permanently poor’ as they are labeled as
‘less dignified’ people. The culture of capitalism measures persons’ status by their ability
to produce wealth, but disregards the processes, by which, human freedoms (leading to
their capabilities) are restricted (Howard, 1995; Sen, 1999). Howard further comments
that the structural factors in capitalist society largely prevent people for acting efficiently,
while those victims of capitalism are blamed for their own fate. Sen (1999) also
underlines that absence of economic, political and social freedoms perpetuates social
inequalities among gender, race and ethnicities.

The hegemony of common identity that has been advocated in the modernized world has
been largely debated by the scholars both from the north and south (Bannerji, 1995;
Jacobs, 2004; Simpson, 1998). Ideas have been emerged on existence of multiple
identities not only at international level but within intra national.

Bannerji (1995: 20) points out that identity has been a ‘common political vocabulary’ in
North American society and the process of defining it goes beyond individual, to
‘historical and a collective’ process. But, who takes it as ‘positive’ as that of creating
community or ‘negative’ as exclusion is of concern. For instance, in North America and
Europe, a most extreme racist argument linking ‘race with intelligence’ is claimed by
most respectable academics (Blackwell, Smith and Sorenson, 2003: 43) The racial
identity (based on physical and cultural characteristics) justifies one’s superiority over
another race and allows some groups to have more wealth and power because of their
genetic characteristics and not because of social and political conditions (Blackwell,

11
et.al., 2003). Such practices help to promote social stratification and inequalities (e.g. less
investment for less intelligent). Simpson (1998: 2) illustrates how black races were
discriminated in USA in post civil rights generation and cited an example of teacher’s
and staff’s ignorance of books about blacks in the library that were demanded by the
black kids.

McCarthy (1997) outlined that transnational identities can be formed through global
integration especially by increasing personal contacts and communication. However,
such contacts can also reinforce nationalists or sub nationalists identities, and activist
identities such as Islamic terrorists (1997: 248). He relates the transnational identity with
transnational activism, which requires the source of motivation for activism. Jacobs
(2004) sees the role of integration to provide access to minority groups to participate in
the mainstream institutions of civil society and governance. However, such integration
may cause a diversity threatening to their cultural identity (2004:131). The rhetoric of
national identity can undermine the legitimacy of sub cultural identities such as
‘aboriginals’ in Australia and ‘Maori’ in New Zealand (Augustinos and Reylonds, 2001).
On the other, construction of such identities as divisive can also cause a threat to the
national identity (Augustinos et.al. 2001).

7. Development Paradigm and Social Policy

Development in modern era has brought a radical paradigm shift as indicated in Human
Development Report (cited in Chambers, 2005). Unlike in the past, development
symbolized an economic growth transforming the ‘underdeveloped to developed’ through
industrial revolution, it focuses on human development permitting people to achieve their
well being through overall economic, social, and cultural progress (Chambers, 2005;
Denuelin, 2006). Chambers (2005: 193) in his development vision puts emphasis on
‘livelihood and capabilities’ as both ends and means, and ‘well being’ as an overarching
end. Livelihood is based on two principles: equity and sustainability that qualify the
livelihood to become secured and responsible (Chambers, 2005).

12
Sen (1999) visions development ‘as a removal of various types of unfreedoms that leave
people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency’ (1999:
xii). The focus is on personal dimensions that shape individual’s capabilities and their
well being (Sen, 1992; Sen, 1999). Thus in an ideal society an effort should be made to
equalize the human capabilities (which depends on freedoms both as a means and as an
end) and not the goods per se (De Martino, 2000; Deneulin, 2006; Sen, 1999).

Lately, social development has been a new theory of development emphasizing on

development of social and human capital. OECD (Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development) has focused on social development as a strategy for
capacity development at local, regional and national level (Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs,
1997; Gomez, 1999). An underlying assumption is that development of social capital
(capacity of collective entity to make competent decisions) and human capital (individual
capacity to make effective decisions) enables to strengthen the capacities of individuals,
groups and whole societies to learn, adapt and cooperate (Gomez, 1999). Following the
World Summit for Social Development (WSSD), UN has insisted on social policy
emphasizing on orientation of values, objectives and priorities towards the well-being of
all and strengthening capacity of institutions and policies (cited in Gomez, 1999). Thus
two policy implications of social development are: a) welfare state model is inappropriate
in many countries to meet the social needs, b) poverty is only a part of the problem
(Gomez, 1999).

While global policy (e.g. Beijng Declaration for Platform and Action, 1995, UN
Convention, 1990) overwhelmingly emphasized on equalities and empowerment as a
strategy for social development, the end practices are far from reality (Chambers, 2005;
Classen, 1999; Nelson, 2005). Structural Adjustment policy initiated under neo-liberalism
for instance, has cut off some social services in the less developed countries such as
health that mostly disadvantaged women and children (Brohman, 1995; Nelson, 2005).
Similarly World bank’s approach for structural adjustment in Africa focused on growth
as an ‘outcome of right policies’. Accordingly, measures were taken to reform the
policies that initiated interventions and actions for development. However, the social

13
development was only a secondary focus to other development. The challenges were then
the factors that affect economic growth (Classen, 1999; Gomez, 1999).

Although neo global policy encourages the social policy to focus on neo-development
strategy, the process is still dominated by the capitalist system of development (Brohman,
1995; Dean, 2006; Deacon, Hulse and Stubbs, 1997). For instance, the subsidies in public
services like electricity and water supply are justified to help the poor however,
disproportionately benefits the elites (Craig and Porter, 2006; World Bank, 1994). In
developing countries, the poor use kerosene or candles rather than electricity for lighting,
rely on public standpipes rather than in house connection for water supply, and are
infrequently served by sewerage systems (Weede, 1998: 377). Nevertheless, countries
like Vietnam and Uganda, have enormously gained through the private investment and
public aids respectively (Craig, et.al. 2006).

8. Conclusion:

Modernization has transmitted a positive development especially in terms of advanced

knowledge and technology that helps to build internal as well as external power. For
instance, neo-communication tools, multi-media and modern educational devices have
not only enabled human to be exposed to the super world but also provided a way of
strengthening their power through global interaction and advanced knowledge.
Transnational movement has allowed people to escape from domestic, political and social
oppression and to utilize the frontiers for their development. In addition, the global
activism has enabled to penetrate the heart of minorities as well as to secure their
integrity through a bonded tie. Most importantly, the focus of neo-global policies on
human development can lead to human freedom for increasing their capabilities and
thereby their wellbeing.

Despite the rewards of modernization, the complexities have grown up within its process,
which should not be overlooked. The issues of marginalization under dependency theory,

14
equities, and socio-cultural inequalities are critical among others. Naturally, joint
responsibility holds among people, civil society and governance at local, regional,
national, and international level to work for accomplishment of modernization.

The questions however, remain unanswered at the end are the processes, by which human
values are degraded through the reproduction of social inequalities: class, race and
gender. Development by no means a development, unless it counts the human factors,
which is a power of universe.

15
 References

Abdo, N. (1996) ‘Orientalism, Eurocentrism and The Making of Theory’ in Abdo, N.

(Ed.) Sociological Thought: Beyond Eurocentric Theory, Canadian Scholars
Press, Toronto.

Agarwal, B. (1994) ‘Gender and Command over Property: A Critical Gap in

Economic Analysis and Policy in South Asia’, World Development 22(10): 1455-
1478.

Agrawal, B. (1985) ‘Women and Technological Change in Agriculture: The Asian and
African Experience’ in Ahmed I. (Ed) Technological Change and Rural Women:
Conceptual and Empirical Issues, George Allen and Unwin, London.

Augoustinos. M and Reynolds K. J. (2001) Understanding Prejudice, Racism and Social

Conflict, Sage Publications.

Bannerji, H. (1995) Thinking Through: Essays on Feminism, Marxism, and Anti-Racism

Toronto: Women’s Press, at 17, 20-1.

Bello, W. (2002) Deglobalization, Ideas for a New World Economy, Zed Books, London

Berberoglu, B. (2005) Globalization and Change: The Transformation of Global

Capitalism, Lexington Books.

Blackwall, J., Smith, M., and Somernson, J, (2003): Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in
Critical Social Science, Broad view Press.

Bracke, S. (2004) ‘Different Worlds Possible: Feminist Yearning for Shared Future’, in
Kerr, J. Sprenger, E and Symington, A. (Eds.) The Future of Women’s Rights:
Global Visions and Strategies, Zed Books, London and New York.

Brohman, J. (1996) Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of

16
 Development, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK.

---------- (1995) ‘Universalism, Eurocentrism, and Ideological Bias in Development

Studies: From Modernization to Neo liberalism’ Third World Quarterly, Vol.
16 (1) 121-140.

Carr, M. and Sandhu, R. (1988) Women, Technology and Rural Productivity, An Analysis
of the Impact of Time and Energy Saving Technologies on Women, UNIFEM,
New York.

Cecelski, E. (2002) Enabling Equitable Access to Rural Electrification: Current Thinking

and Major Activities in Energy, Poverty and Gender, Briefing Paper Prepared
for a Brainstorming Meeting on Asia Alternative Energy Policy and Project
Development Support, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 26-27 January,
2000.

Chambers, R. (2005) Ideas for Development, Earthscan, London

Chilcote, H. R. (1984) Theories of Development and Underdevelopment, Westview

Press, Boulder and London.

Classen, J. (1999) Comparative Social Policy: Concepts Theories and Methods,

Blackwell Publishers

Cockborn, C. and Ormord, S. (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making, Sage
Publications, London.

Conneli, P., Li, M.T., Macdonald, M. and Parpart, L.J. (2000) ‘Feminism and
Development: Theoretical Perspectives’, in. Parpart, L.J., Connelly M.O., and
Barriteau E.V. (Eds.) Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development
IDRC, Canada.

Craig, D. and Porter D. (2006) Development beyond Neoliberalism: Governance Poverty

17
 Reduction and Political Economy, Routledge, London and New York.

Durkheim, E (1984) The Division of labor in Society, Free Press, pp. 70-132

DeMartino G.F. (2000) Global Economy and Global Justice: Theoretical Objections and
Policy Alternatives, Routledge, London and New York.

Deacon, B., Hulse M., and Stubbs, P (1997) Global Social Policy: International
Organizations and the Future of Welfare, Sage Publications

Deneluin, S. (2006) The Capability Approach and Praxis of Development, Palgrave

Macmillan, New York.

Facio, A. (2004) ‘Confronting Globalization: Feminist Political Spirituality as a Strategy

of Action’ in Kerr, J. Sprenger, E and Symington, A. (Eds.) The Future of
Women’s Rights: Global Visions and Strategies Zed Books, London and New
York

Frank, G.A. (1966) ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review, Vol. 18

(4) New York Sept. pp 17-31.

Frank, G.A. (1967) ‘Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America’, Monthly

Review Press, New York.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Panthen Books, New
York.

Friedmann, J. (1992) Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development, Blackwell

Publishers.

Granato, J., Inglehart, R., and Leblang, D. (1998) ‘The Effect of Cultural Values on
Economic Development’ in Seligson, A.M. and Smith, T.J. (eds) Development
and Underdevelopment : The Political Economy of Global Inequality, Lynne
Reinner Publishers, Boulder London.

18
Gomez, M.D. (1999) Transnational Social Policies: The New Development Challenges
of
Globalization, IDRC, Earthscan.

Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into
a Category of Bourgeois Society, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Hajjar, L. (2005) ‘Toward a Sociology of Human Rights: Critical Globalization

Studies, International law and The Future of War’ in Robinson, I. W. and
Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New
York and London.

Harwick, E. and Peet, R. (2003) ‘Neo-Liberalism and Nature: The Case of WTO’, The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 590 (1)
188-212

Henderson, J. (2005) ‘Governing Growth and Inequality: The Continuing Relevance of

Strategic Economic Planning’, in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)
Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New York and London.

Howard, E.R. (1995) Human Rights and Search for the Community, Westview Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1993) ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs, pp. 22-49.

Ikeo, A. (2003) ‘Economic Development in Twentieth Century East Asia: The

International Context’, in Abbot, P.J. (Eds.) Developmentalism and Dependency
in Southeast Asia, Routledge Curzon.

Ingrid, R. (2003) ‘Sen’s Capability Approach: Selecting Relevant Capabilities’, Feminist

Economics, 9(2-3) pp. 61-92

Jacobs, A.L. (2004) Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of
Egalitarian Justice, Cambridge University Press

19
Kazmin, A. and Penh, P. (2002) ‘Asia-Pacific: Six Nations Agree Plans for Mekong
Hydro-Power Scheme’, Financial Times, London
http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/news/energy_emails/energy_email45.html

Levine, P.R. (1998) Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical
Debates, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Mahat, I. (2006) Gender and Rural Energy Technologies: Empowerment Perspective, A

Case Study of Nepal, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Vol. XXVII
(4).

Mehmet, O. (2001) ‘Globalization as Westernization: A Post Colonial Theory of Global

Exploitation’ in Ghosh, N.B. (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Development
Economics, Routledge, London and New York.

Marx and Engels (1998) The Communist Manifesto, Monthly Review Press. New York.

McCarthy, D.J. (1997) ‘The Globalization of Social Movement Theory’, in Pagnucco, R.,
Chatfield, C. and Smith, J. (Eds.) Transnational Social Movements and Global
Politics: Solidarity beyond the State, Syracuse University Press, New York.

Mies, M. (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the

International Division of Labor, Zed, London and New Jersey

Mies, M. and Shiva, B. (1993) Ecofeminism, Kali for Women Press, New Delhi

Nelson, J. (2005) ‘Rethinking Development and Globalization: Insights from Feminist

Economics’, The Good Society 14(3): 58-62,

Omvedt, G. and Kelkar, G. (1995) Gender and Technology: Emerging Visions from Asia,
GenDev. Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok

20
Parrenas, S. R. (2005) ‘The International Division of Reproductive Labor: Paid
Domestic Work and Globalization’ in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)
Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New York and London.

Parsons T. (1964) Evolutionary Universals in Society in American Sociological Review,

Vo. 29 (3) pp. 339-357.

Phillips, A. (1999) Which Equalities Matter? Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.

Pyle, L. J. (2005) ‘Critical Globalization Studies and Gender’ in Robinson, I. W.

and Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New
York and London.

Rajaee, F. (2002) Globalization on Trial: The Human Condition and the Information
Civilization, IDRC, Kumarian Press.

Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R.(2005) ‘Introduction: Toward a Critical

Globalization Studies-Continued Debates, New Directions, Neglected Topics’ in
Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds) Critical Globalization Studies,
Routledge, New York and London.

Robinson, J. (1979) Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment, Cambridge

University Press, London, New York and Melbourne.

Rowlands, J (1997) Questioning Empowerment: Working with women in Honduras,

Oxfam Publication.

Ruffin, P. (1990) Capitalism and Socialism in Cuba: A Study of Dependency,

Development and Underdevelopment, Macmillan.

Smith D. (2005) ‘NeoLiberal Globalization and Resistance: A retrospective Look at

the East Asian Crisis’ in Robinson, I. W. and Applebaum P.R (Eds)
Critical Globalization Studies, Routledge, New York and London.

21
Simpson, Y.A. (1998) Identity and Political Attitudes in the Post-Civil Rights
Generation.: The Tie that Binds, New York University Press.

Sen, A. (2002) ‘How to Judge Globalism’, The American Prospect, Vol. 13 (1)

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, New York

Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz E. J. (2002) ‘Globalism’s Discontent’, The American Prospect, Vol. 13 (1)

Vivian, M. J. (1992) ‘Foundations for Sustainable Development: Participation,

Empowerment and Local Resources Management’ in Ghai, D. and Vivian, J.M.
(Eds) Grassroots Environmental Action: People’s Participation in Sustainable
Development, Routledge, London. 50-77

Weede, E. (1998) ‘Why People Stay Poor Elsewhere’, in Seligson, A.M., Smith, P.T. J.
(Eds.) Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Global
Inequality, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Boulder London

Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology, Cambridge: Polity Press

Wallerstein, I. (1998) ‘The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality’, in Seligson,
A.M., Smith, P.T. J. (Eds.) Development and Underdevelopment: The Political
Economy of Global Inequality, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Boulder London

World Bank (1994) World Development Report, Oxford University Press, New York.

22