Search results

Global policy for development emerges out of a process that reaches from the grass roots to global organizations. From a Third World perspective, several typologies of local, national, and international development organizations are presented, along with case studies examining problems encountered in their relationships. From a First World perspective, local development education and advocacy organizations are examined, along with links between these organizations and national organizations, international organizations, and grass-roots organizations in the Third World. Given the strong participatory assertions from the grass roots, is it possible that development (i.e. full development of human potential) can only be achieved by a highly decentralized global policy process? What kinds of state and global institutions, if any, would this imply?

Rather than confining global development policies to processes that occur in international conferences & organizations, it is suggested that, pragmatically & normatively, any research on processes contributing to such global policies incorporate both grass-roots & worldwide organizations. Classifying the various local, national, & global developmental organizations under the rubrics grass-roots nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, national NGOs, states, international NGOs, & international governmental organizations, case studies taken from examples in both Third World & European countries demonstrate beneficial & detrimental linkages between each type of organization & indicate their diversity. It is possible that the full development of human potential can be realized only with a highly decentralized global policy process, exemplified by the assertiveness of participation at the grass-roots level. 2 Figures, 29 References. J. Sadler

Peace studies should be in the midst of four crossroads. First, peace studies must be at the crossroads of peace research, peace education, and peace action. In a century-long learning process, 21 approaches to peace have been developed in the twentieth century. In response, peace studies must be at a second crossroads, between approaches of negative peace—stopping violence—and those of positive peace—overcoming social injustice. Peace studies must also be at the crossroads of a growing array of movements at the grass roots, a challenge to more traditional peace-research methodologies. Peace studies should endeavor to create a new crossroads, between grass-roots movements and global organizations. Only through grass-roots practice can the peace efforts of global organizations acquire legitimacy.