{"id":134,"date":"2013-10-30T13:58:06","date_gmt":"2013-10-30T13:58:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jugu.org\/gblog\/?p=134"},"modified":"2013-10-30T15:31:52","modified_gmt":"2013-10-30T15:31:52","slug":"commentary-on-thomas-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jugu.org\/gblog\/2013\/10\/30\/commentary-on-thomas-2000\/","title":{"rendered":"Commentary on Thomas 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"

My process of commentary is first to highlight and extract those parts of a paper which “speak to me” and seem most likely to be the parts I will retain and may use for future reference. \u00a0Then, based on those extracts, I will publish my own reactions to the paper in this blog – which reactions may be subjective (whether I like the paper or style) or objective (commenting on particular points made or views taken).<\/p>\n

Thomas, A. (2000) \u2018Meanings and views of development\u2019 in Allen, T. and Thomas, A. (eds)\u00a0Poverty and Development into the 21st Century<\/i>, Oxford, OUP and The Open University, pp. 23\u201348<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thomas 2000 is a sobering return to study. \u00a0As the first paper in a new module it is long, complex and somewhat intimidating in attempting to define development through multiple perspectives. \u00a0I guess my main takeaway is that development reflects at least as much about the developer as the developee. \u00a0I retain most strongly the (negative) ideas of development being a way to manage the disorder arising from development of capitalism (spontaneously or intentionally) or the colonial attempt to impose established European (class system) or US (money = class) attitudes on the rest of the world, as if such attitudes were automatically aspirational.<\/p>\n

Various cuts of development definition are presented –<\/p>\n