WARWICK GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY
News Letter
MARCH 2003
Issue 1
IN THIS ISSUE
Globalisation and
Development
By Dr. Shirin Rai
The World Bank and its
World Development
Reports: insights from
Robert Wade.
By Jörg Wiegratz
Seeds
By Yvonne Li
Finally – Getting WGDS started
The first year of the MA in
Globalisation and Development also saw
the creation of the Warwick Global
Development Society. Thanks to the
encouragement and assistance of Dr.
Shirin Rai, the WGDS finally got off the
ground in early 2003. Adding to the
diversity of Warwick student organisations
WGDS seeks to provide a forum for
students from different cultural
backgrounds to exchange ideas on issues
relating to and resulting from the various
influences of globalisation.
contemporary concerns. The WGDS is
grateful for Dr. Rai`s contribution to this
issue and welcomes any suggestions or
articles for the future. The next issue
will be on «Global Futures: Challenges
for Development and Governance» in
preparation of panel discussion on April
29.
If you want to participate or join the
WGDS we encourage you to visit our
website at
www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/socs/su338
The Editor
Canada and Helping the
Poor
By Martin Franche
This is the first issue of our newsletter
(and its free!), discussing some pressing
Some thoughts on
changes to World Bank /
IMF Structural
Adjustment Policies
By Elizabeth Fortin
Kaleidoscope: ...no sight
of a bright future…
By Julia Timmermann
Our Mission Statement
The WGDS has been established
primarily as a forum for debate and
discourse for anyone with an interest in
the Development field. We hope to further
understanding and awareness of
development theory and practice through
a programme of talks and events. Our
programme intends to cover a variety of
topics from global governance, to the role
of trans-national corporations in today's
world, to the oft unexplored gendered
dimensions of development. We hope
to provide a critique of the dominant
models of development and to conceive
of alternate paths for the future. In
addition to inviting academics and
practitioners to host lectures we want to
know what YOU think, therefore each
meeting will be an opportunity to voice
your concerns or personal perspective
on the development process.
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 2 of 12
Globalisation and Development
The PAIS
Department has this
year started a new
MA, in Globalisation
and Development.
Shirin Rai, the
course director, gives
us her thoughts
about the beginning
of this exciting new
Masters programme
and some thoughts
about globalisation.
It gives me great pleasure to be
writing for the first Newsletter of the Global
Development Society of University of
Warwick. As we hurtle through the second
term on the programme I am reminded of
all the hopes and anxieties with which this
programme was launched. The idea was
to bring into focus two areas of study that
have framed intellectual conversations
regarding third world states/developing
societies/the South and to examine how
these continue to shape policy and
activism today. Has the world changed so
much since the Second World War? How
have states/institutions evolved during this
period? How have international politics
mediated these changes? Is globalisation
nothing more that the spread of capitalism
to fill the vacuum left by the retreat of state
socialism? Or is the retreat of state
socialism itself the result of the pressures
of globalisation? What kind of new politics
are emerging to respond to global
economic shifts? Some of you on the core
course, Globalisation, Governance and
Development, had an experience of this
new kind of politics in the anti-war march
th
on the 15 February.
Ideas don’t always take shape into
concrete outcomes. Universities are
wonderful arenas of individualist
endeavours and bureaucratic norms, so
bringing new programmes into being are
not always easy. However, Warwick does
encourage innovation and enterprise (the
up side of Warwick plc?) and I was able to
convince not only colleagues from PAIS
but also from Law and Economics that
such a programme could be an exciting
addition to our existing portfolio. Multidisciplinarity was important to the
envisioning of the programme. I think this
is something that needs further
encouragement– not enough crossing of
disciplinary boundaries and academic
traditions has taken place this year,
though some students are taking courses
in Law, Women and Gender, and
Economics. On the other hand, intradisciplinary boundary crossing has
resulted in the core course being taken as
an option by students from IR and IPE,
which has resulted in vigorous and varied
discussions in class – from geographies of
power to the economics of legitimacy.
The exciting mix of students has made
this first year of the programme rewarding
indeed. Despite the enormous amount of
‘setting-up’ work involved, I have felt
enthused by the work that the students
have put in. The Development Society, for
example, is entirely an outcome of student
initiative and organisation. This will be a
resource not only for students this year,
but also for the later generations of
Globalisation and Development students.
So, thank you for this! I hope the
programmes envisioned through the
Society will be successful and add to the
research culture of students in the
Department.
Dr. Shirin Rai, Director, MA in
Globalisation and Development
Programme
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
maintained.
A good starting point for insights in
this respect might be to read some of the
work of Robert Wade, a professor of
Political Economy and Development at the
LSE. His analysis shows how contested
the debate about development issues can
become within the Bank itself, and how
influential actors inside and outside the
institution are trying to make the language
of the Bank’s public statements, or the
central message of such, coherent with
the core assumptions of its orthodoxy.
Wade’s research displays the importance
of the study of both ideas and discourses
when we attempt to understand the
evolution of the politics and policies of
development over the last decades as well
as in more recent time.
As students of development we are
often confronted with the studies,
statements and figures of the World Bank,
the core organisation of the Bretton
Woods institutions in matters of
development, and, without a doubt, the
most influential development agent in the
field.
But, even though we are so
engaged with that institution and its
policies what do we actually know about
the World Bank? Especially, to what
extent
are
the
Bank’s
policy
recommendations
and
their
implementation a result of a careful
analysis of empirical data, case studies
and expertise in the relevant fields, or, in
other words, scientifically proved? Or, do
we have to realise that the Bank’s
publications are biased towards creating
and maintaining its fundamental
commitment to its orthodoxy, “the idea of
mutual benefits from free markets” (Wade
2002, 201), and therefore are a result of
US influence (mainly US treasury) and
power relations, or are strategic moves to
respond to the critics of the Bank to
ensure that the prevailing paradigm is
Wade uses two case studies, “the
firing of chief economist Joseph Stiglitz
and the resignation of director of World
Development Report 2000, Ravi Kanbur,”
(loc. cit.) in trying to give a picture of the
mechanisms of hegemonic influence and
the current state of the Bank’s autonomy.
In this respect, he sees the World
Development Report as both « a researchbased document and a political document,
in the sense that as the Bank’s flagship »
its message must reflect back the
ideological preferences of key
constituencies and not offend them too
much, but the message must also be
backed by empirical evidence and made
to look ‘technical’ ... [in order] to project an
image of WDR independence” (Ibid, 20607).
Wade describes in greater detail how
the drafts of the WDR 2000/01, in this
case the report about poverty reduction
strategies, has been going internally
through a process of language changing
and shaping and how the emphasis and
the message or argument of the report
has changed during that process of
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 3 of 12
The World Bank and its World Development
Reports: insights from Robert Wade
Page 4 of 12
« By changing the
order of paragraphs,
cutting out some of
them or rewriting
single words,
especially in respect
of crucial
assessments
regarding empirical
data-sets, the Bank
tried to interpret the
relationship between
[(tell the story of)?]
markets, openness,
growth and poverty
in a way in which it
thought would
accomplish the
political purposes
and interests of its
report .»
internal debate between the main players.
By changing the order of paragraphs,
cutting out some of them or rewriting
single words, especially in respect of
crucial assessments regarding empirical
data-sets, the Bank tried to interpret the
relationship between [(tell the story of)?]
markets, openness, growth and poverty in
a way in which it thought would
accomplish the political purposes and
interests of its report. However,
inconsistency in the argument of the WDR
was the consequence of such adjustment
and of complying with [various] political
pressures. “[T]he changes did just what
the Bank and the Treasury had earlier said
the WDR must not do: they blurred the
message” (Ibid, 215). To get an
impression about the way in which Wade
is trying to make his point let us look at
this:
“The much revised box 3.3 on
‘Divergence and worldwide income
inequality’, for example, says that
‘income inequality between countries has
increased sharply over the past 40 years’,
followed a few sentences later by the
much more cautious, ‘there have been
some increases in worldwide inequality
between individuals in past decades’. The
box concludes on an upbeat by saying,
‘the increases in worldwide inequality in
recent years are small relative to the
during the 19th century’ – ignoring
the earlier caution that data about the
19th century are subject to large
margins of error and ignoring the
accompanying graph which shows
much faster rise in world inequality
in recent years than anything in the
19th century according to the results
of recent research from within the
Bank itself.” (Ibid, 216).
Careful analysis like this makes it very
much worth reading Wade. He gives
other examples of the flavour given above,
offers Bank staff comments or describes
the sequence of events in the matter of
Stiglitz and Kanbur with a lot of insightful
remarks, all which makes it not only
worthy but also interesting to read.
Furthermore, without being aware of these
internal processes and discourses within
the World Bank, as well as the position of
other discursive actors outside the Bank,
and, more importantly, the wider political
battles surrounding the creation of the
WDR in general, we would probably lose
fruitful analytical understanding and
insights and would probably not be able to
contextualise it as a whole and, hence, be
sufficiently critical.
Jörg Wiegratz
MA Internationanl Political Economy
much larger increases that occurred
Reference :
Wade, Robert (2000) « Japan, the World Bank, and the Art of Paradigm Maintenance: The East Asian Miracle
in Political Perspective », in Richard Higgott and Anthony Payne, eds., « The New Political Economy of
Globalisation », Vol. 2. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 98-131.
Wade, Robert (2001) « Showdown at the World Bank », New Left Wing, 7, pp. 124-37.
Wade, Robert (2002) « US Hegemony and the World Bank: The Fight over People and Ideas» Review of
International Political Economy, vol. 9, pp. 201-29.
World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Homepage Professor Robert Wade: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/destin/wader.html
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 5 of 12
Seeds
Wind from the North,
Blowing, blowing, blowing,
Across the fields,
Across the oceans.
Seeds - sown and grown;
Some blossomed, some withered.
(wither), for example, countries in Latin
America and Africa experienced economic
downturn after adopting the Structural
Adjustment Programs (SAPs) offered by
the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF).
Past and present,
Wind is changing the landscape.
From the north to the south, from the left
to the right,
From the top to the bottom.
Who are the actors? What are the factors?
To grow, to blossom,
Seeds - have to be at the right places,
At the right times and by the right hands.
From the past to the present,
globalisation (wind) is changing the
political economy (landscape), from the
developed countries in the North to the
developing countries in the South; from
Marxism (the left) to liberalism (the right)
and from the state (the top) to civil society
(the bottom). Who are the actors? And
what are the factors? Is technology the
dominating factor in catalysing the
process of globalisation?
Only if a
country can adopt the neo-liberal
economic policies (seeds) in the right
areas (right places), at the right time,
operated and monitored by the right
actors (right hands), the prospect of its
development may be successful.
My Thought :
Seeds stand for neo-liberalism,
carried by the driving force of globalisation
(the wind) from the developed countries
(the North), spreading (blowing) across
different nations (fields and oceans).
However, not every country benefits from
neo-liberal economic policies. Some
countries succeed and gain economic
growth (blossom), some countries fail
Yvonne Li
MA Globalisation and Development
Canada and Helping the Poor!
It is common sense that Canada is a
beautiful country to live and most
Canadians are at some point proud of it,
except, of course, for particular groups like
to the natives and the Québécois that do
not share the same enthusiasm. Few
years ago when Canada was on the top of
the HDI (now third, after Norway and
Sweden), the Prime Minister of Canada,
Jean Chrétien, was declaring to basically
every one he was meeting that “Canada
was the best Country of the World” and
being the best for Chrétien implied a
“special responsibility towards the less
fortunate peoples of the world”. Speeches
and conferences promising policy reforms
were made to celebrate this new
enthusiasm to help developing countries.
Primer Minister Jean Chrétien
thumbs up for more Aid to
Developing Countries at the UN
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 6 of 12
Page 6 of 12
Since the last
decade, the
percentage of Gross
National Income
(GNI) going to
development aid was
cut down massively.
According the OECD
statistics, the net
official development
assistance disbursed
of Canada dropped
from 0.44 % in 1990
to 0.22% of GNI in
2001.
However, looking closely at the
numbers, Canada does not seem to have
taken all this responsibility seriously.
Since the last decade, the percentage of
Gross National Income (GNI) going to
development aid was cut down massively.
According the OECD statistics, the net
official development assistance disbursed
by Canada dropped from 0.44 % in 1990
to 0.22% of GNI in 2001. These massive
cuts in aid have repositioned Canada from
the 6th to the 12th position of the most
generous donors list and have made more
difficult the official aim of reaching the
United Nations target of 0.7% of GNI.
developing countries paying for feasibility
studies for ventures suggested by
Canadian firms, training workers o
providing social or environmenta
assessments for ventures already
underway. A good example is the trans
national Bombardier Inc. which
participated in a CIDA-funded programme
to train Romanian officials to privatise
state enterprises, and then won a contrac
to sell aircraft to the privatised companies
Nothing was said in the development aid
programmes that aid was included in the
wider export–oriented strategies o
Canadian Government
In terms of balance of payments, last
year the official aid represented $ 2.4
billion, and adding the trade relations,
developing countries received an
additional few millions from Canada.
However, Canada received more than $ 9
billion from developing countries through
trade relations. This is a way of saying
that we will not give you more of what we
are taking from you!
More recently at the UN Conference
on Financing Development in Monterrey
and again at the Johannesburg World
Summit, Prime Minister Chrétien again
made promises to raise Canada’s
contribution to development aid by
increasing the aid envelop by 8 % pe
year. However, this increase is no
meeting Canada’s share of the UN
Development Millennium goals that would
require an additional $ 3 billion for this
year which according the present aid
programme will no be reach until 2011.
Since the beginning of the last
decade, the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), responsible
of more than 80% of the Canadian aid
portfolio, has had to assume an everexpanding set of objectives with, ironically,
a decreasing set of monetary resources
legitimised at the beginning by the
government’s deficit reduction strategies
but which was not improved significantly
since the recovery of the government’s
finance.
Also, CIDA was especially criticised
for her lack of effectiveness and
responsibility. Nearly half of Canada’s
assistance has gone to Canadian
companies seeking to do business in
The development aid program
unfortunately reinforced the paradox o
Canada’s internationalism where you can
observe an increasing determination to be
involved in a hide range of social issues
but with minimum material implications. In
the end, all are losers! Canada loses
credibility towards the internationa
community and the developing countries
do not get what they expected.
Martin Franche
MA International Political Economy
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
it is assumed will improve things. There is
no review of success or otherwise of its
policies to date, except a recognition that
in implementing the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Programmes (PRSPs), “progress
has been uneven”. There is no real
review as to why this is the case, how
such uneven success has been measured
or the human consequences of such
uneven success except to state that such
is a result of each country’s “starting point,
capacity and priorities”. There is no
acknowledgement anywhere in the report
that a modicum of responsibility for such
mixed results might be down to the IMF’s
own mistaken policies.
World Bank/IMF admissions
According to the World Bank’s 2001
Annual Report, broad-based, job creating
growth remains “a challenge”, as does
progress in “mainstreaming gender,
environmental and private sector
development objectives”. These issues
remaining a challenge apparently reflects
“a lack of interest by many countries”.
Furthermore, the “development outcomes
of IDA programs” (those carried out in the
least developed countries) have been only
“partially satisfactory”. No elaboration of
this is made. According to the Bank’s own
Annual Review of Development
Effectiveness, while efforts to improve
development effectiveness over the last
five years are “beginning to show results”,
this is not uniform across all sectors.
Such statements are wishy washy and
largely unhelpful for those concerned with
the impacts of World Bank adjustment
lending but they do indicate that even the
Bank’s own review bodies are highlighting
problems in meeting its “poverty reduction”
goals.
The IMF’s 2002 Annual Report
reviews the state of the economy around
the world and relevant IMF policies which
The policies
While adjustment programmes initially
were created for countries in severe
financial difficulties, today they are
increasingly being conceived as having a
"more developmental perspective focused
on medium-term structural, social and
developmental issues”. The details of
structural adjustment programmes agreed
by the IMF and the Bank are not disclosed
but it is known that such programmes
advocate devaluation of the currency, cuts
in government spending, a tightening of
domestic credit, increases in tax revenues,
liberalisation of trade regimes,
privatisation and reductions in subsidies.
Such policies have far-reaching
effects; they affect the daily lives
predominantly of those people who are
most likely to feel the effects of a
tightening of domestic credit, increases in
taxes, reductions in subsidies and cuts in
government spending on public goods,
namely the poor. In the World Bank’s own
words, such structural adjustment loans
may cause “real pain to real people”.
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 7 of 12
Some thoughts on changes to World Bank / IMF
Structural Adjustment Policies
Page 8 of 12
External assessments
« Neither the
IMF/World Bank’s
methods of
measuring poverty
nor their approach to
poverty alleviation
have met with
resounding praise
even though both
have significantly
There have been many studies
undertaken by civil society and academics
on the success or otherwise of the
structural lending programmes. In 1996
the Structural Adjustment Participatory
Review Initiative (SAPRI) was launched.
This was a four-year multi-country
participatory investigation into the effects
of specific structural adjustment policies
on a broad range of economic and social
sectors and population groups. The one
common denominator highlighted across
all of the countries is the relationship
between adjustment programs and
poverty and inequality. This should be
chastening for both the IMF and the World
Bank after over 20 years of
implementation of such programmes but
instead, even though the initiative initially
involved the World Bank, as the final
report was completed the Bank officially
withdrew from SAPRI and did not endorse
the report and while the report has been
published on the World Bank website,
neither the IMF nor the World Bank have
acknowledged its implications.
widened in the last
few years. »
SAPs/ESAPs and PRSPs – what has
changed?
Neither the IMF/World Bank’s
methods of measuring poverty nor their
approach to poverty alleviation have met
with resounding praise even though both
have significantly widened in the last few
years. In 1999, the President of the World
Bank proposed the creation of a new
“Comprehensive
Development
Framework” (CDF). It was intended to
promote “ownership” of the development
goals of the country at the same time as
stressing participation and involvement
from all development actors. On the basis
of the CDF, the Bank together with the
IMF, launched the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper Program (PRSP) which
like the CDF is to be “country-driven”. The
preparation of such programmes will be
prerequisites to qualifying for the Heavily
Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) debt-relief.
Loans, or Poverty Reduction Support
Credits (PRSC) will be granted “to support
a country’s policy and institutional reform
1
program” .
While devising a more “holistic”
approach to poverty reduction and
development is to be welcomed, a number
of tentative points can be made. Firstly
and most importantly, the IMF/World
Bank’s macro-economic policies and
approaches to development have not
changed. This is significant as it is likely
to determine the extent to which such
projects can be “country-driven”. It has
been argued time and again that while the
Bank would be applying unchallengeable
conditionalities to structural adjustment
loans which, even the Bank has admitted,
may cause “real pain to real people”, the
responsibility for putting in place measures
to alleviate such pain and implement the
policies would fall on the country. As one
writer succinctly put it, “On the one hand,
the Bank furthers the process of
globalization that undermines the third
world state; on the other, the Bank
simultaneously allocates to the state the
responsibility of securing the basics of
social welfare for its people …”. This will
be enhanced with the promotion of
“country-ownership” of such policies as
such a concept will no doubt simply serve
to deflect any responsibility of the
IMF/World Bank for the negative
consequences
of
the
policies
implemented. The shallowness of the
concept of “ownership”.
is further
supported by the IMF’s revealing
statement that ownership “should reflect a
shared vision and an active support of
programme objectives by the country
authorities and the IMF”.
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 9 of 12
academic over ten years ago, “there is a
very significant risk that, at the end of the
day, the World Bank will define good
governance solely in terms of efficient and
non-corrupt public sector management,
and the rule of law, as requiring freedom
of contract and enterprise and
predictability in the outcome of legal
disputes over investment.”; in other words,
such concepts will be used for the purpose
of promoting what Upendra Baxi has
termed, “trade-related-market-friendly
“human” rights”. It appears that the risk
has materialised. Moreover, it has been
argued that the adoption of this good
governance agenda has led credence to
the “anti-statist, neo-liberal agenda”.
Secondly, while human development
factors are included as factors to be taken
into account, they do not include human
rights. Thirdly while the principle of
participation has been stressed, there is
also a continuing awareness that
frequently rhetoric does not match with
reality. Even though this is still early days,
reviews are indicating that the “closer the
document gets to finalisation and
discussion with multilateral and bilateral
institutions, the more it recedes in to the
opaque board-rooms of these institutions”.
The creation of adequate mechanisms for
ensuring accountability is essential if
respect for such a principle is to be more
than window-dressing.
Good governance – a cause for hope?
In 1989, the World Bank first
considered the relevance of the notion of
“good governance” in its development
lending and this concept is now central to
its concerns.
From a human rights
perspective, good governance promotes
participation and the rule of law, both
essential to individuals if their needs are to
be taken seriously. For the Bank, taking
into consideration “good governance” is
necessary for its economic development
activities. As was forewarned by one
What can people adversely affected by
the policies do?
The short answer to this is “nothing”.
It is interesting however, that the Bank will
grant access to (limited) justice to those
adversely affected by its project lending.
In 1993 the World Bank created an
Inspection Panel to which any two persons
or a group can complain if they are
adversely affected by a project of the
World Bank and it is contrary to its
policies. Its very existence indicates the
World Bank’s acknowledgement of the
importance of enabling people adversely
affected by its actions to hold it to account.
However, in addition to there being no
equivalent body for reviewing the policies
of the IMF, structural adjustment loans are
not subject to the same operational
policies as project lending. According to
the World Bank, “applying the safeguard
policies that have been developed for
investment projects to policy-based
lending would be neither feasible nor
appropriate". There is no explanation as
to why this is the case and I can think of
no good reason why people adversely
affected by structural adjustment
conditionalities should not also be able to
hold to account the body imposing such
policies.
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 10 of 12
Conclusion
In the World Bank-speak – attaining
the goal of poverty reduction by way of
structural adjustment policies appears to
have remained “a challenge” beyond the
IMF/World Bank’s grasp for over twenty
years. While the shift since 1999 made by
the World Bank and the IMF, to the extent
to which it has adopted discourse referring
to “poverty reduction”, consider the
impacts of structural adjustment policies
on the poor is to be welcomed, such a
shift will not countenance a change to the
policies themselves. It is apparent that
such policies have been a major cause of
the poverty which will require the creation
of safety nets.
The notion of
“participation” must be promoted at every
stage of the policy creation process –
without this, talk of “good governance” is
simply shown up as being empty rhetoric.
Elizabeth Fortin
MA Development and Globalisation
Reference :
The World Bank Annual Report 2001
World Bank, Operations Policy and Counrty Services – From Adjustment Lending to Development Policy Support
Lending: Key issues in the update of World Bank policy – 6/6/02,
(www1.worldbank.org/operations/OP860Consultations/EnglishVersion/1OPBP8.60public06-06-02pc.pdf)
Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network – The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty,
April 2002, (www.saprin.org/SAPRIN_Findings.pdf ), see particularly Chapters 1 and 9
See generally From Adjustment Lending to Development Policy Support Lending; and Alex Wilks and Fabien Lefrancois –
Blinding with Science or Encouraging Debate? How World Bank Analysis Determines PRSP Policies, 2002, Bretton
Woods Project & World Vision, (www.brettonwoodsproject.org/topic/adjustment/blinding/blindful.pdf )
ActionAid – An ActionAid contribution to the first Global Poverty Reduction Strategies Comprehensive Review in
IMF/World Bank – External Comments and Contributions on the Joint Bank/Fund Staff Review of the PRSP Approach,
February 2002.
Korinna Horta – The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Greening International Institutions, Jacob
Werksman (Ed.) (Earthscan Publications Ltd., London) 1996.
Kaleidoscope: ... no sight of a bright future…
A last word about wasteful packaging: Kaleidoscope Café for your library breaks? The
following article may make you think again …
A thought about our study environment
Another day in the library with loads of
work to do. What is on the agenda today?
Lets see: war, poverty, terrorism, and
corruption; pollution of the atmosphere,
the oceans and the mountains; cutting
down of the rainforests – Brazilian,
Indonesian, and all the others as well …
From certain perspectives the world is
sometimes a very ugly place.
Feeling slightly frustrated and weak, I
question whether attending various
marches and demonstrations will really
resolve any of the causes of this? What
am I doing here? Will all my reading be of
any help to hold just one TNC accountable
for destroying the Ozone layer?
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Page 11 of 12
Does the analysis of environmental
policies prevent any spillage of oil into the
seas?
But come on - I cheer myself up knowledge is power! And hey, hopefully
someday my degree will open doors to a
place where change happens, where
responsibility to future generations is put
into practice, not just words, a place which
will make ethical values more valuable
than profits. Someday … hopefully …
maybe …
For now there is University with the
odd petition signing or protest march and
a good conversation with some friends. In
those we assess that changes are needed
and reassure each other that one day we
will make them. After all, who if not us?
Educated, liberated, multilingual,
hardworking and inspired. Even more:
living in a wealthy country, in a
democracy, enjoying freedom of speech,
freedom of choice, human rights. We
have all the possibilities to make it a better
world. At least here in our ‘Warwick
bubble’ everything is how it should be and
from here we will carry it with us outside
and spread the word to ‘make Good, not
Bad’ and put it into action.
Exhausted from the readings and
longing for a break I make my way to
Kaleidoscope for some lunch, a cup of tea
and to enjoy the certainty that “someday,
we will make a difference”.
Hmm lunch, what will it be? Jacket
potato, on plastic or tomato soup, in
plastic? The choice is mine. I love this
place!
But did I not just read about the waste
crisis? Isn’t England running out of waste-
space and therefore trash gets thrown
‘overboard’? Not in my name! “Normal
plate please!” “Not available? Why not?”
“Too complicated to implement”, “not
enough staff to wash”, “too expensive” …
OK, skip lunch, a tea will do. “No, no
styrofoam cup, every child knows how
damaging it is.”
My God, this place is not for me. How
many tonnes of trash do they produce
each week on plastic plates and styrofoam
cups alone? Nobody wants to answer my
question …
I count around 60 people between
12:05 and 12:15 pm; probably lunch rush
is just around the corner and lets not talk
about dinner….
Defeated I leave the place but keep
wondering: if the University is to create a
conscious alumnus, isn’t it supposed to
show a bit of consciousness first? If the
University is supposed to raise
awareness, isn’t it supposed to
demonstrate awareness itself? If the
University is supposed to release
responsible people into this world, isn’t it
supposed to show responsibility towards
the world as well?
I cannot help thinking that the
University is aware of its shortcomings but
just does not care. And I ask, if this place
- the shaper of the future – does not care
about environmental as well as ethical
values such as responsibility and
consideration, in which place will they be
cared for and by whom?
Somehow I fail to cheer myself up…
Julia Timmermann
MA International Relations
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003
Warwick Global
Development
Society
Future Events
MARCH
Speaker Event (not organised by the WGDS)
For a better future…
Globalisation and Region by James A. Beckford
Wednesday 12 March, 16h, Room RO 14
General Info :
Shahida. A. Hamid
(President)
APRIL
•
Nia Williams
(Secretary)
Forum on Global Futures: Challenges for Development and Governance
Thuesday, 29 April ( location details to come)
Potential Speackers :
General Email :
su338@sunion.warwick.
ac.uk
o
Amartya Sen (Cambridge University)
o
Nailla Kabeer (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University)
o
Robert Wade (London School of Economics and Political Science)
o
Leslie Skair (London School of Economics and Political Science)
MAY
•
We’re on the Web!
See us at:
http://www.sunion.warwick.
ac.uk/socs/su338
Job Fair (all details should be available at the end of Avril)
And much more
To become a Member of the Society
Simply go register at the Union North at the Secretariat
NEXT ISSUE
APRIL 2003
DEAD LINE FOR
SUBMISSION
OF ARTICLES
31 MARCH 2003
For Further Information about the
News Letter or submission of
articles please contact :
Conny H. Heine
c.h.heine@warwick.ac.uk
Martin Franche
M.Franche@warwick.ac.uk
Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved  2003