A political analysis of the PRSP initiative: Social struggles and the organization of persistent relations of inequality

The current global development project appears to be premised on the assumption that underlying political debates over development have been settled. An upshot of this is that development is reduced to the theoretical, ideological and legal framework of a neo-liberal political order. However, implicit, and sometimes explicit, political dynamics of development can be rendered from a perspective that foregrounds social struggles. I offer a political analysis of the PRSP initiative by examining its evolution and implications considered within social and political contexts, and by specific reference to the 'poverty reduction' interventions that emerged in the 1980s. I argue that the PRSP initiative is best understood as the formation of a comprehensive extension of neo-liberal strategic responses that emerged in the 1980s. In this context, I discuss the example of microcredit schemes in relation to the PRSP process and demonstrate the analytical significance of micro-political social relations for political analyses of development. The approach I adopt reveals social struggles as relationally constitutive of formations of a hegemonic development discourse otherwise ostensibly rendered in de-contextualized terms. From the perspective of critical development analysis such struggles are the concrete expressions of the contradictions immanent to the dialectic of development through inequality and immiseration in the (re)production of social power.

Reclaiming Community? From Welfare Society to Welfare State in Australian Catholic Social Thought

Influenced by both conservative and left wing communitarian thinking, current debate about welfare governance in Australia reflects an inflated evaluation of the potential role of the third sector or civil society organisations in the production fo welfare. This paper gives an overview of twentieth century Australian Catholics social thinking about state, market and civil society relations in the production of welfare. It highlights the neglected, historical role of the Catholic Church in promoting a 'welfare society' over a 'welfare state' in Australia. It points to the reasons for the Church's later embrace of the welfare state and suggests that these reasons should make us deeply sceptical of the current communitarian fad.

A legitimate paradox: Neo-liberal reform and the return of the state in Korea

This article examines the neo-liberal reforms that the Kim government implemented in post-crisis Korea. It argues that by embracing the reforms, the state, paradoxicaliy, re-legitimised itself in the national political economy. The process of enacting the reforms completed the power shift from a collusive state-chaebol alliance towards a new alliance based on a more populist social contract - but one that nonetheless generally conformed to the tenets of neo-liberalism. Kim and his closest associates identified the malpractices of the chaebols as the main cause of the crisis, so reforming the chaebols would be the key to economic recovery. Combining populism and neo-liberalism, they drew on support from both domestic and international sources to rein in, rather than nurture, the chaebols.

'Faith-based' organisations and contemporary welfare

This paper explores issues arising from the welfare reform process in the United States and Australia. The involvement of faith-based organisations in both countries has evolved in different historical, social, political and cultural contexts. The paper will explore three main themes. First, it examines the relevance of the term 'faith-based' to describe the nature of the relationship between charities and churches in the mixed economy of welfare in the Australian context. Second, it provides a critical analysis of the reform processes, suggesting implications for the future of church-based organisations. Third, it maps directions for cross-comparative research of church-based social services provision in both countries.

Liberal Democracy and the Inferior 'Other'Other’: Could the peace liberal democracy promises to bring not extend to ‘Others’?

Advocates of liberal democracy argue that its principles and practices contribute directly to peace (at both inter-state and domestic levels). They rely on ideals such as the rule of law, institutional checks and balances on power, an ethos of tolerance, and free market economics to deliver the liberal peace. Liberals, however, overlook three important features embedded in the construction of liberal democracy which can serve to facilitate political violence: 1) the fixed and thus non-negotiable nature of liberal democracy’s core principles, 2) the inferior manner in which it conceives ‘Other’ social orders that do not share its core principles, and 3) the urge to proselytise Others. Together, these constitutive qualities can facilitate moves by leaders of Other groups to argue that liberal democracy threatens ‘their’ preferred identity, and thus its promised peaceful outcomes can be put in doubt.

No more free beer tomorrow? Economic policy and outcomes in Australia and New Zealand since 1984

There are no controlled experiments in macroeconomic policy, nor in systematic programs of microeconomic reform, but a comparison between New Zealand and Australia over the period since 1984 provides as close an approach to such an experiment as is ever likely to be possible. From quite similar starting points the two countries pursued liberal reform programs that differed sharply, mainly as a result of exogenous differences in constitutional structures and the personal styles of the central actors. Australia followed a more cautious, piecemeal, consensus-based approach, whereas New Zealand, in contrast, adopted a radical, rapid, 'purist' platform. The NZ reform package was generally seen by contemporary commentators as representing a 'textbook' model for best practice reform. However, Australia since 1984 has performed much better than New Zealand, whose per capita GDP growth indeed ranked at or near the bottom of the OECD. In this paper, we assess a variety of explanations for the divergences in policies and outcomes.