سیر تطور مفهومی «توسعه» از منظر رادیکالیسم
محورهای موضوعی : سیاست پژوهی ایرانی (سپهر سیاست سابق)
1 - استادیار، روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
2 - دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه:
چکیده مقاله :
هدف این پژوهش بررسی انگاره‌ها و ایده‌آل‌های نظریه رادیکال در اقتصاد سیاسی جهانی با تاکید بر محور توسعه است. بنابراین، پرسش اصلی این نوشتار ماهیت و چیستی مفهوم توسعه در رویکردهای متنوع رادیکالیسم نظیر مطالعات استعمار و امپریالیزم، نظریه وابستگی، نئوکلونیالیزم، جهانی شدن و تطورات مفهوم توسعه در هر یک از این نظریات است. یافته‌های این پژوهش که به روش توصیفی – تحلیلی انجام شده و داده‌ها به روش کتابخانه‌ای گردآوری شده‌اند، نشان می‌دهد، در تمام نظریات، ارتباط و پیوندی ناگسستنی میان دینامیزم‌های نظام سرمایه‌داری و کارکردهای آن با مفهوم توسعه‌یافتگی یا توسعه‌نیافتگی در سطوح مختلف ملی، بین‌المللی و جهانی مطرح شده است که در تمامی آنها ویژگی‌های ذاتی نظام سرمایه‌داری کمابیش استثمار، نابرابری، و روابط غیرانسانی توصیف شده است. در حالی که درک ایده‌آل‌های رادیکالیست‌ها در نظریه رادیکالیسم در اقتصاد سیاسی جهانی یا روابط بین‌الملل پیچیدگی‌های فلسفی زیادی دارد، اما این ادبیات پیچیده در جهت نفی انسان ایده‌آل غربی به عنوان محور توسعه و تاکید بر نسبی بودن و بومی بودن ایده‌آل‌های جوامع مختلف در ارتباط با موضوع توسعه است. مفهوم توسعه به عنوان چگونگی ساختن جامعه‌ای برابر از لحاظ روابط اقتصادی و تولیدی دیگر در مرکز توجه رادیکال‌ها قرار ندارد، بلکه آنچه اهمیت دارد تاکید بر انسانی‌تر نمودن مناسبات موجود در همه سطوح است. رادیکال‌ها اگرچه در توسعه و ترویج ادبیات و فلسفه مرتبط با مباحث توسعه یافتگی یا توسعه نیافتگی نقش مهم و کلیدی داشته‌اند، اما واقعیت آن است که آنها عملا نتوانسته‌اند نمونه‌ای از یک مدل توسعه مبتنی بر آراء و مفروضات واقعی خود در سطح ملی و جهانی ارائه دهند.
The aim of this research is to study Radical theory ideals in Global political economy with emphasis on development. Thus, the main research question is the nature and meaning of development in the various Radicalism approaches including (such as) studies Colonialism and Imperialism, Dependency theory, Neocolonialism, Globalization, and the evolution of development concept in each theories. As his research is done in descriptive-analytic method and by desk research, the findings show that all theories has been presented (raised) permanent connection (relation) and links between dynamics of Capitalism system and its functions and the concept of development and underdevelopment in different national and international levels, and the inherent characteristics of capitalist system including exploitation, inequality, and inhuman relations has described in all theories. While understanding Radical’ ideals of Radicalism theory in global political economy or international relationships has many complicated philosophy, but it contradict ideal western human as development basis, and the emphasis is on relative and indigenous nature of different communities ideals in relation to the issue of development. The concept of development, as how to make society equal in the light of economic relationships and production is not in the focus (heart) of attention, but the important matter is the emphasis on humanizing the existing relationships at all levels. However, Radicals have key role in development and promotion of literacy and philosophy related to development and underdevelopment issues, but in fact, they cannot provide an example of development model based on their opinions and assumptions on the national and international level.
1. Baylis, J., & Smith, D, (2007). Globalization of world politics. London: Oxford University Press.
2. Bernestine, H. (2004). Development studies and the Marxists. University of London, Center for Global and Regional Studies.
3. Campbell, J. P., & Mackinnon, A. (2010). An introduction to global studies. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Coopre, Ch., & Fitz Gerald, E. Vv. (2016). Development Studies Revisited, Twenty-Five years of Jurnal of Development Studiese. Abingdon: Routledge.
5. Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (2012). An introduction to international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
6. Dunne, T., & Smith, S. (2016). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. London: Oxford University Press.
7. Dudley, S. (1969). The meaning of development, IDS, Institute of Development Studies, No. 44.
8. Escobar, A. (2000). Development: Past, post and Future. SID Publications.
9. Gosh, B. N. (2001). Dependency Theory revisited. Abingdon: Routledge
10. Foreign Policy (Spring, 1998), No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge.
11. Grant, I. (1998). Post modernism and development theory. Ontario: University of Guelph.
12. Handelman, H. (2000). The challenge of third world development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13. Harris, R., & Land, Mc. (2000). Critical perspectives on Globalization and Neoliberalism in the developing countries. Boston: Seid Brill.
14. Haynes, J., Hough, P., & Malik, Sh. (2011). World politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
15. Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2010). Introduction to international relations, Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
16. Kegly, W., Ch., & Blanton, Sh. (2013). World politics. California: Wadsworth.
17. Kuhnen, F. (1986). Causes of underdevelopment and concepts for development: An introduction to development theories, The Journal of Institute of DevelopmentDevelopment Studies, NWFP Agricultural, Vol. VIII, 1986, 1987 University, Peshawar.
18. Kothari, U. )2005). From colonial administration to development studies: A post colonial critique of the history of development studies. London: Zed.
19. Iain, G. (1998). Post modernism and development theory. University of Guelf, National Library of Canada.
20. Limcal, T. (2010). Theories of international relations: Radical approache. Los Angeles: Cal state la University.
21. Maddison, A. (2011). The world economy. Development Center Studies, OECD
22. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2000). After post development. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 175-191.
23. Nkurunziza, I. (2007). An overview of development studies. International Development Department, London: University of Birmingham.
24. Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development. New York: Guilford Press.
25. Rengger, N. J. (1995). Political theory, modernity, and postmodernity. Blackwell: Oxford.
26. Robbins, P. T. (2011). Sociology of development. London: University of London.
27. Roy, S. (2011). The Theoretical foundations of IPE. Longman Publisher, London.
28. Runis, G. (2004). The evolution of development thinking, theory and policy, May2004. No. 886, USA: Yale University.
29. Sahle, N. E. (2010). World orders, development &ttransformations. London: Palgrave.
30. Seligson, A., Mitchell, P., & Smith, J. (2003). Development & underdevelopment, Political economy of global economy. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
31. Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development. IDS communication, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
32. Shanumu, G. (2011). Development theory in historical perspectives & an overview of Development Studies, EDS410.
33. Veltmeyer, H. (2005). Development and Globalization as Imperialism. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 26(1), 89-106.
34. Walt, S. (1998). International relations, one world many theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29-32+34-46.
1. Baylis, J., & Smith, D, (2007). Globalization of world politics. London: Oxford University Press.
2. Bernestine, H. (2004). Development studies and the Marxists. University of London, Center for Global and Regional Studies.
3. Campbell, J. P., & Mackinnon, A. (2010). An introduction to global studies. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Coopre, Ch., & Fitz Gerald, E. Vv. (2016). Development Studies Revisited, Twenty-Five years of Jurnal of Development Studiese. Abingdon: Routledge.
5. Devetak, R., Burke, A., & George, J. (2012). An introduction to international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
6. Dunne, T., & Smith, S. (2016). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. London: Oxford University Press.
7. Dudley, S. (1969). The meaning of development, IDS, Institute of Development Studies, No. 44.
8. Escobar, A. (2000). Development: Past, post and Future. SID Publications.
9. Gosh, B. N. (2001). Dependency Theory revisited. Abingdon: Routledge
10. Foreign Policy (Spring, 1998), No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge.
11. Grant, I. (1998). Post modernism and development theory. Ontario: University of Guelph.
12. Handelman, H. (2000). The challenge of third world development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13. Harris, R., & Land, Mc. (2000). Critical perspectives on Globalization and Neoliberalism in the developing countries. Boston: Seid Brill.
14. Haynes, J., Hough, P., & Malik, Sh. (2011). World politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
15. Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2010). Introduction to international relations, Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
16. Kegly, W., Ch., & Blanton, Sh. (2013). World politics. California: Wadsworth.
17. Kuhnen, F. (1986). Causes of underdevelopment and concepts for development: An introduction to development theories, The Journal of Institute of DevelopmentDevelopment Studies, NWFP Agricultural, Vol. VIII, 1986, 1987 University, Peshawar.
18. Kothari, U. )2005). From colonial administration to development studies: A post colonial critique of the history of development studies. London: Zed.
19. Iain, G. (1998). Post modernism and development theory. University of Guelf, National Library of Canada.
20. Limcal, T. (2010). Theories of international relations: Radical approache. Los Angeles: Cal state la University.
21. Maddison, A. (2011). The world economy. Development Center Studies, OECD
22. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2000). After post development. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 175-191.
23. Nkurunziza, I. (2007). An overview of development studies. International Development Department, London: University of Birmingham.
24. Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development. New York: Guilford Press.
25. Rengger, N. J. (1995). Political theory, modernity, and postmodernity. Blackwell: Oxford.
26. Robbins, P. T. (2011). Sociology of development. London: University of London.
27. Roy, S. (2011). The Theoretical foundations of IPE. Longman Publisher, London.
28. Runis, G. (2004). The evolution of development thinking, theory and policy, May2004. No. 886, USA: Yale University.
29. Sahle, N. E. (2010). World orders, development &ttransformations. London: Palgrave.
30. Seligson, A., Mitchell, P., & Smith, J. (2003). Development & underdevelopment, Political economy of global economy. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
31. Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development. IDS communication, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
32. Shanumu, G. (2011). Development theory in historical perspectives & an overview of Development Studies, EDS410.
33. Veltmeyer, H. (2005). Development and Globalization as Imperialism. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 26(1), 89-106.
34. Walt, S. (1998). International relations, one world many theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29-32+34-46.