I wanted to share a book review I recently published on a book on international community development and neighborhood planning. The book review of "Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 344 pages." is attached to this post. Here is a short summary:
Economic development projects seem to be inevitably stuck between project proponents and the communities displaced by them. Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities lays out this impasse between pro- and anti-development positions, and works diligently to frame a common ground to overcome it. As a first step, the book defines what the opposing positions argue. The pro-development or managerial perspective tends to adopt an interventionist conception of development “aiming to improve living conditions and ameliorate harmful consequences of economic processes” (p. 15). The antidevelopment or movementist perspective is “inclined to regard development as an invasive and harmful process that calls for all-out resistance” (pp. 15–16). As experience confirms, these diverging conceptions of development result in an all-too-common polarization between proponents and detractors of projects.
I wonder what do others think about this issue of displacement and development and the "development ethics" framework it uses.
Discussion » Displacement and Development
Displacement and Development
I wanted to share a book review I recently published on a book on international community development and neighborhood planning. The book review of "Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 344 pages." is attached to this post. Here is a short summary:
Economic development projects seem to be inevitably stuck between project proponents and the communities displaced by them. Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities lays out this impasse between pro- and anti-development positions, and works diligently to frame a common ground to overcome it. As a first step, the book defines what the opposing positions argue. The pro-development or managerial perspective tends to adopt an interventionist conception of development “aiming to improve living conditions and ameliorate harmful consequences of economic processes” (p. 15). The antidevelopment or movementist perspective is “inclined to regard development as an invasive and harmful process that calls for all-out resistance” (pp. 15–16). As experience confirms, these diverging conceptions of development result in an all-too-common polarization between proponents and detractors of projects.
I wonder what do others think about this issue of displacement and development and the "development ethics" framework it uses.