It is argued that the idea of TD falls within the contemporary
assumption that sub-national spatial entities constitute an adequate
perimeter for political, economic and social rescaling
of development processes. It has led mainstream regional
science, planning agencies and development cooperation to
shift their approach to development from catch-up development
at a national scale towards the “integration of regions”
within globalized dynamics. The difference between TD and
the local development approach of the 1970s and 1980s is
then discussed. It is argued that the adaptation of the latter to
changing contexts of globalization and to the contemporary
competitiveness discourse went along with the mainstreaming
of the formally alternative concept.
The second section outlines the ways in which TD is currently
conceptualized by scholars and development agencies
addressing rural regional development in the Global South.
It shows that interpretations of this relatively recent concept
vary considerably. A succinct look into the way ongoing TD
projects are assessed highlights the argument that TD as a
new strategy in development practice does not stand for a
fundamental change in the conventional vision of development.
It is argued the TD rather represents highly normative
discourse and action as part of modernist developmentalism.
In the third part, the paper shows that territory has also
become a crucial element for social movements’ defense of
alternative life worlds. An increasing number of peasantmovement
projects are endeavoring to demonstrate that the
self-centered use of local resources (such as traditional
seeds), combined with social economy systems, can alleviate
the often destructive impacts of volatile global markets,
transnational firms and genetically manipulated seeds. Territory
turned out to be an important dimension for the spatialization
of such movements’ identity and for constituting
a political strategy for the defense of their “otherness”. The
scrutiny of alternative rural TD projects, such as the Navdanya
Indian peasant movement, shows that the territorial
rural development approach is used in a version much closer
to the original local development concept. It is argued, however,
that these alternative territorial projects do constitute a
novelty in the sense that they do not aim at development according
to the conventional regime of modernity.
The capacity the mobilization of territory has to reveal alternative
life worlds shows that it is interesting for future research
to go beyond the ongoing theoretical discussions on
the etymology of territory. Studying the varying meanings
actors in development attribute to the term according to their
systems of reference allows one to discern the plurality of
possible development paths beyond conventional modernity.
It is argued that the idea of TD falls within the contemporaryassumption that sub-national spatial entities constitute an adequateperimeter for political, economic and social rescalingof development processes. It has led mainstream regionalscience, planning agencies and development cooperation toshift their approach to development from catch-up developmentat a national scale towards the “integration of regions”within globalized dynamics. The difference between TD andthe local development approach of the 1970s and 1980s isthen discussed. It is argued that the adaptation of the latter tochanging contexts of globalization and to the contemporarycompetitiveness discourse went along with the mainstreamingof the formally alternative concept.The second section outlines the ways in which TD is currentlyconceptualized by scholars and development agenciesaddressing rural regional development in the Global South.It shows that interpretations of this relatively recent conceptvary considerably. A succinct look into the way ongoing TDprojects are assessed highlights the argument that TD as anew strategy in development practice does not stand for afundamental change in the conventional vision of development.It is argued the TD rather represents highly normativediscourse and action as part of modernist developmentalism.In the third part, the paper shows that territory has alsobecome a crucial element for social movements’ defense ofalternative life worlds. An increasing number of peasantmovementprojects are endeavoring to demonstrate that theself-centered use of local resources (such as traditionalseeds), combined with social economy systems, can alleviatethe often destructive impacts of volatile global markets,transnational firms and genetically manipulated seeds. Territoryturned out to be an important dimension for the spatializationof such movements’ identity and for constitutinga political strategy for the defense of their “otherness”. Thescrutiny of alternative rural TD projects, such as the NavdanyaIndian peasant movement, shows that the territorialrural development approach is used in a version much closerto the original local development concept. It is argued, however,that these alternative territorial projects do constitute anovelty in the sense that they do not aim at development accordingto the conventional regime of modernity.The capacity the mobilization of territory has to reveal alternativelife worlds shows that it is interesting for future researchto go beyond the ongoing theoretical discussions onthe etymology of territory. Studying the varying meaningsactors in development attribute to the term according to theirsystems of reference allows one to discern the plurality ofpossible development paths beyond conventional modernity.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..