In response to Tom Abeles' comments in the Development Gateway,
following on from John Garrisson's input defending its legitimacy.
The internet, like any other forum, is a political space, and I believe
Tom Abeles is right to cast a critical eye towards the Bretton Woods
intitutions on their wish for a presence. I do not believe it is
"wrong" for them to wish to have a prominent place in this development
debate, as they do in all others. It is just what is to be expected
from what has always been a politically motivated institutuion.
John Garrison's defence focusses on how the Development Gateway is doing
all the right things from a technical/ professional point of view. This
has always been the WB and IMF's argument for their political
interventions. Whilst the Development Gateway may provide some usefull
services, despite its top down nature, it is mainly about giving the
Bretton Woods institutions a firm base in the discourses surrounding
ICTs, especially since they are so closely tied to political discourses
on "Good Governance"
> Let us not forget we are all engaged in a form of Social Engineering,
> where we all assume, right or wrong, that good communications will
> further our liberal democratic ideals of personal liberty. Bretton
> Woods has always been about such modernisation and political
> intervention, but we also need to examine our own political assumptions.
There is a problem in that by engaging with the Bretton Woods
institutions we aid them in sharpening up thier political rhetoric, by
providing our knowledge as a foil for their arguments: "Participation"
has been taken up by the Bretton Woods institutions as a buzzword from
the NGO Community. However if we don't engage and make our opinions
heard, how can we ever expect reform from these institutions, which are
central to every development debate weither we like it or not? We can
always ignore them and hope they go away,but that I fear is a bit naive.
Maybe the development community needs the development Gateway as a means
of influencing the World Bank, so that in our peer to peer
communications we are not just talking about the disasterous effects of
the next World Bank Mega Project. Maybe it is a window for advocacy
from NGOs and the grassroots, even if it is not such a usefull mode of
providing information in itself. If important discussions on the
Gateway were mirrored on other independent sites, this might publicise
the problems and issues, making it harder for these institutions to
ignore them.
Does anyone have any case studies of issues and projects that have been
discussed via the Gateway, with suggestions being taken on board by the
World Bank?
Daniel Taghioff
------------
***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:
<http://www.globalknowledge.org>
