Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September

This article advances the discussion of the contentious question of links between global inequalities of power and violent responses, focussing on globalisation and non-inclusive forms of governance. Drawing on international political economy, the article criticises the nationstate-centrism in much political discourse, suggesting that both authority and security need to be reconsidered - to account for less plausible national borders and controls. It suggests that human security (including issues of development and equality) ought to replace national security as the primary focus of public policy. It draws attention to the intractability of difference, insisting that the terrorism of 2001 has complex transnational antecedents. Realist approaches to international order have become part of a problem to be overcome through further intellectual debate.

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.

Knowledge, economy, technology and society: The politics of discourse

The WSIS is centrally interested in knowledge and has defined for itself a mission that is broadly humanitarian. Its development ‘talk’ is, rightly, replete with notions of equity, preserving culture, justice, human rights and so on. In incorporating such issues into knowledge society and economy discussions, WSIS has adopted a different posture towards knowledge than is seen in dominant discourses. This study analyses the dominant knowledge discourse using a large corpus of knowledge-related policy documents, discourse theory and an interrelational understanding of knowledge. I show that it is important to understand this dominant knowledge discourse because of its capacity to limit thought and action in relation to its central topic, knowledge. The results of this study demonstrate that the dominant knowledge discourse is technocratic, frequently insensitive to the humane mission at the core of the WSIS, and is based on a partial understanding of what knowledge is and how knowledge systems work. Moreover, I show that knowledge is inherently political, that the dominant knowledge discourse is politically oriented towards the concerns of business and technology, but that an emancipatory politics of knowledge is possible.