Big new research programme on empowerment and accountability in fragile settings gets under way – can you help choose its name?

October 31, 2016

10 Frontier Technologies for International Development

October 31, 2016

Links I Liked

October 31, 2016
empty image
empty image

Closed, repressed, obstructed, narrowed or open? Tracking civil society space. New interactive tool from CIVICUS, civicus-mapincluding country ratings and a searchable database

Michael Spence argues that by rebalancing power relationships in the world’s democracies, digital technology is partly responsible for the increased focus on inequality

Seven useful tips for new development masters students, especially on not obsessing about your grades

Brilliant and thought provoking. If women wrote men the way men write women… [h/t Tim Harford]

When the outlook is bad, the World Bank reaches for political explanations; when it’s good, it’s all down to economic policy. Naomi Hossain on Bangladesh and the Bank

The 74 articles in the 2016 World Social Science Report on inequality now have separate links, including to my 4 pager on the history of redistribution

16 mind numbing, gnaw-your-own-arms-off pieces of office jargon – and suggested alternatives, eg “When all the rhubarb is harvested.” (for ‘at the end of the day’)

rodrik-4-word-reviewSorry, you’ll have to put up with some book-related links for the next few weeks. I’m doing a Twitter chat on Thursday lunchtime. Talks at Sheffield, LSE, Edinburgh and DFID this week. Then off to Geneva to speak at UNRISD on 7th November. Then Netherlands 9-11th (details to follow). Other Geneva/Dutch organizations/individuals please let me know if you want to set something up.

Nice reviews from Diana Coyle and Jamie Pett, the best four word review ever steve-lewis-on-hchfrom Dani Rodrik, and a nice piss-take from Steve Lewis

1 comment

  1. Hi Duncan, re the CIVICUS monitor link, some caution may be warranted about the basis for their ratings – as with so many such international rating systems. At least for Vietnam, where I live, CIVICUS’s finding of “Closed” is inaccurate and misleading, and it seems to be based more on the view of one overseas human rights group than any civil society actors in the country. I wonder if readers in other countries have the same reaction?

    Civic space is a lot more complex than a label of “repressed”, “obstructed” and so on. Many contexts are restricted in some ways, open in others. The task for advocates is how to identify and support openings, while also acting to protect existing spaces. If anyone’s interested in a more in-depth view of civic space in Vietnam, see https://oxfam.app.box.com/files/0/f/11515238639/Oxfam_Civic_Space_Assessment_Vietnam (or for non-Oxfamers, feel free to ask me directly)!

Leave a comment

Translate »