Teju Cole wrote a story for Twitter. A Piece of the Wall explores the desert spaces between Mexico and the United States and the ugly discourse around immigration; the direct and concise nature of the medium makes it all the more powerful. Cole talks about the piece here (H/T for both links to Tom from A View from the Cave).
I’ve been exploring Chris Blattman’s excellent advice for development students: Ten Things I Tell Undergraduates is a good place to start, but check out the sidebar for a wealth of helpful information.
Bill Easterly wrote The New Tyranny for Foreign Policy, based on his latest book, The Tyranny of Experts. I’m three chapters in, and so far its been a stimulating look at the history of ideas about development, and the conditions that make a paternalistic, rights-negating approach to development possible.
This is an old one but required reading: How To Write About Africa, by Binyavanga Wainaina.
On the state of economics: Michael Sandel calls for more explicit engagement with political philosophy in Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning. I think his argument is compelling. Dani Rodrik’s What is Wrong (And Right) in Economics is a reminder that many economists are already engaging in these kinds of questions.
On Venezuela, A Historic Low for El Nacional seems like a fairly innocuous story but is, I think, tremendously significant. Fans of liberal democracy find it easy to sympathise with the Venezuelan opposition. This is a timely reminder that elements of the opposition are as sensationalist, populist and closed off to genuine dialogue as the chavistas.
Posted in What I've Been Reading
Tagged africa, Bill Easterly, Chris Blattman, Dani Rodrik, development studies, economics, immigration, Michael Sandel, teju cole, twitter, venezuela
Aid on the Edge of Chaos take a look at Philip Tetlock’s research on expert judgement and draws some compelling lessons for the development field.
Anthony Faramelli examines the Duggan inquest in the UK and what it tells us about the politics of fear and security in the post-9/11 world:
the pre-emptive doctrine utilized by state sponsored manhunts works because the non-existence of what has not actually happened, but might one day happen becomes more real than reality due to the affective nature of fear. The felt reality of threat legitimates preemptive action, once and for all.
It’s an interesting dissection of the construction of sovereignty and nationhood:
national identity is negatively constructed in terms of what it isn’t, or rather what it must be protected from. However this Other does not necessarily have to reside outside the national boundaries … The Manhunt Doctrine as elaborated by Grégoire Chamayou explicitly applies to all 21st century wars that are fought by governments against existential threats that do not have a national allegiance and, as such, may be located anywhere and everywhere around the world, including (and especially) within the national territory (the wars on drugs, crime, terrorism, etc.).
Seth Kaplan’s op-ed in the New York Times, What Makes Lagos a Model City, is another addition to the growing grey literature on successful cities – Bogotá is a frequently cited example – and argues for continued devolution to local government. As globalisation continues to erode accountability at a national level there’s something to be said for new experiments in devolved governance.
Spain’s judges have been very active in the prosecution of egregious violations of international human rights law, but it looks like their leash is going to be considerably shortened: David Bosco for Foreign Policy places the blame squarely on Chinese pressure. Kate at Wronging Rights puts it best:
With the latest change, the courts will now be limited to hearing cases in which both perpetrator and victim are Spanish nationals or residents. Which is pretty much what the Spanish courts would be doing anyway.
I’ve been tweeting a lot of Venezuela but haven’t read much commentary in English. A pair of interesting Spanish links:
From BBC Mundo’s live blogging of the Venezuelan elections (my translation):
Venezuela’s borders were closed at midday Saturday and will not reopen until 11:59 pm tonight [Sunday].
Nevertheless, some braved the strong waters of the Táchira River this Sunday, in order to vote.
For the last few hours I’ve been hitting refresh on Mundo’s blog and watching the flickering, fast-moving and frustratingly speculative flow of tweets with Lanata’s Periodismo para Todos on in the background. #ComiendoUñas indeed (biting my nails). I was feeling shirty and anxious.
Then I saw this photo. Tweeted it. That tweet got favourited, and in the twitter feed of that person appeared this one:
#WeAreVenezuela RT @jeffersonparada: They crossed the Tachira River just to exercise their right to vote.
There was a historic turnout and enormous participation amongst Venezuelans living overseas. That, at least, is a triumph for democracy. Here’s hoping the elections are clean and the elected president manages to unite a divided country.
#WeAreVenezuela. I wish you all well.
Edited 10 minutes later to add: So, that’s it. Chávez 54%, Capriles 44%. Enormous turnout of 80.4%. I’m incredibly disappointed. May the opposition remain united and strong: this was an inspiring practice run for 2019.
Son dos modelos opuestos: el modelo personalista, populista y discrecional de Venezuela frente a la gobernabilidad al estilo uruguayo: abierta al dialogo y la crítica, transparente y, tal vez, no tan fácil para llevar adelante. Las personalidades fuertes contra las instituciones. Argentina parece inclinarse hacia la primera, y el informe identifica la llamada enfermedad argentina: “crisis y debilidad institucional suelen fortalecerse mutuamente” .
Es una lástima que los últimos años de crecimiento económico no se hayan aprovechado para fortalecer las instituciones del país, impidiendo que la Argentina avance en el camino al desarrollo más allá de la influencia de los personalismos que caracterizan a los gobiernos peronistas.
El artículo competo se encuentra en la página web Análisis Latino, aquí.