Suchergebnisse

This article analyzes the political activities of residents in a 50-year-old slum in New Delhi. Based on long-term fieldwork undertaken periodically between 2004 and 2019, we describe the forms of oppression experienced by slum residents, how they cope in their everyday lives and how they have responded to their oppression. In order to understand the nature of slum residents' political activity, we also analyze forms of group consciousness and solidarity among residents. We identify three main channels through which slum residents act politically: by voting, by taking part in protests and demonstrations, and by using informal intermediaries. We show that they are fully aware of being oppressed and express dissatisfaction with the government and 'the rich'. However, their political activities are quite limited and constrained by the structural context within which they act. Their primary goal is to be included on equal terms in the existing system, not to change that system. Hence, their strategies can be described as affirmative rather than transformative. The analysis brings out three main points: First, that without external assistance slum residents lack the organizational capacity for sustained political mobilization; second, therefore their main way to seek political influence is through local intermediaries; and third, that while their reliance on intermediaries enables them to access certain goods and services it also paradoxically reinforces their marginalization.

Scholars of global governance have made much use of the public–private distinction in their exploration of the power of non-state actors and the constitution of authority beyond the state. But is this distinction analytically adequate? We subject the public–private distinction to analytical scrutiny and argue that it does not hold when analysing phenomena beyond the domestic setting. State actors are universal at the domestic level, but they are particularistic at the global level, being responsible primarily to its territorially defined constituency. The difference between public and private actors qua participants in global governance is thus overstated. We differentiate between public as a category of analysis and a category of practice. As a category of analysis, public denotes a particular configuration of accountability and capacity, which can, in principle, be found at the global level. As a category of practice, public is a claim to universality and responsibility that different types of actors use to legitimize what they do. We illustrate the added value of this conceptualization through a discussion of possibly emerging global public actors, and of how actors' claim to 'publicness' in an incomplete public sphere serves to conceal their particularistic character, thereby undermining 'publicness' at the global level.

Source at https://www.nupi.no/Publikasjoner/CRIStin-Pub/The-Fisheries-Sector-in-Ghana-A-Political-Economy-Analysis . ; The fishery sector of Ghana is beset with problems, including widespread illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.This report analyses the political economy of fisheries in Ghana, focusing on the power and interests of key actors in the sector and the constraints and opportunities faced by the government in addressing the existing challenges. There are three main challenges facing the sector. The first is limited administrative capacity, including limited knowledge of actual catches. The second is a lack of trust in authorities and lack of alternative livelihoods for fishing communities. The third and most important is that there are strong political interests that prevent the implementation of more sustainable fisheries management, including risks of electoral losses and resistance from political elites who profit from overfishing.

The fishery sector of Ghana is beset with problems, including widespread illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.This report analyses the political economy of fisheries in Ghana, focusing on the power and interests of key actors in the sector and the constraints and opportunities faced by the government in addressing the existing challenges. There are three main challenges facing the sector. The first is limited administrative capacity, including limited knowledge of actual catches. The second is a lack of trust in authorities and lack of alternative livelihoods for fishing communities. The third and most important is that there are strong political interests that prevent the implementation of more sustainable fisheries management, including risks of electoral losses and resistance from political elites who profit from overfishing. ; publishedVersion