25 Development, rights and the poor

Kaushiki Das

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The term ‘Development’ has become the catchword of the past few decades. Not only in popular parlance but also within academic circles, policy makers and civil society activists the term has been vigorously discussed and debated. A case in point are the 2014parliamentary elections in India which saw various political parties claiming to choose development as the centrepiece of their campaigns, as opposed to caste based electoral agendas. So what explains this obsession with development? This is because today development has become legitimised as a normative standard, as a desired goal that every nation should aspire to. Michael Goldman (2005) stated that post Second World War, development was championed for its positive connotations like liberation, modernization, cultural re-conquest and renewal, construction of nation, economic progress and the achievement of economic equality.

 

A look at the historical background will reveal that the legitimization has come from the pro-development scholarship, with its roots in Modernization Theory. It championed the Global North’s notion of development while the Global South was blamed for its failure to reach up to the former’s standards. From the 1950s that espoused the Keynesian worldview to the 1970s’ deregulation of international finance and to the 1980s’ removal of trade barriers, the modernization model has undergone several transformations to its current emphasis on fiscal austerity, currency devaluation, market liberalization and public-sector liberalization. Barring India, China and South Korea, the Global South unanimously accepted this model, as the only path to progress.

 

DEVELOPMENT AS A RIGHT

 

Moreover, development got institutionalised as a right. Adopted in 1986 by the United Nations General Assembly, the Declaration on the Right to Development bestows upon, “every person the right to access, partake in and contribute to development, enabling self-determination as well as full sovereignty over all their wealth and natural resources. It transfers the responsibility onto the states to ensure conducive environment for the achievement of human freedoms”.

 

The rights-based approach delineates two groups – rights holders (who lack rights) and duty bearers (who have to ensure the fulfilling of rights). The approach emphasizes on the accountability of state policies and endows people with claims. Secondly, it insists on ensuring that the development process is accountable, transparent, and enables every individual to have access to the fruits of the progress [Uvin, 2007: 8]. More importantly, it is meant to assure more chances for equitable participation, guaranteed by proper institutional mechanisms and grant self-sufficiency to the vulnerable sections of society. Participation has undergone a metamorphosis as it is no longer about measuring the needs of beneficiaries, but about nurturing citizens to stake claims and responsible mechanisms to fulfil their duties.

 

In addition, the rights-based approach enables that accountability is not only limited to the state but expands to include even non-state actors like the donor community, intergovernmental organisations and international NGOs. An instance of keeping tabs on accountability is the way financial assistance is now provided under this approach—from sector-specific project-based interventions to direct budget-support to the government. According to Andrea Cornwall and Celestine Nyamu-Musembi (2004), this enables the donor country to influence to some extent the beneficiary government’s policies.

 

Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi states that a rights-based approach provides a normative structure (which is based on international covenants and conventions) for shaping development cooperation, by highlighting ‘what ought to be’. They claim that it re-politicises development work which had so far been instrumentalist. Development agencies are now coerced to shift from the earlier stance of ‘unreflective patronage to the self-aware exercise of agency’ to help the vulnerable masses.

 

It is pertinent here to mention the difference between the earlier ‘needs-based welfare approach’ and the present rights-based approach. Unlike the needs-based, welfare approach which emphasized upon acquiring resources to deliver services to some groups, a rights-based approach demands resources to be shared equitably and aiding the vulnerable to stake claims to these resources. The former model stemmed from altruistic motives and perceived the vulnerable sections of society as objects of charity, instead of empowering them. The latter, on the other hand, is rooted in legal duties and perceives the marginalised as rights holders.

 

While work to build political capacities and to raise political consciousness as well as efforts to enhance participation in social change had been underway, even before this approach was introduced; yet there is no denying that the international legal backing of the rights-based approach has engendered a more radicalised development process [Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, 2007: 5].

 

TRAJECTORY OF RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT:

 

Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi (2004) state that starting from the era of colonialism to the World War II, the concept of development, to be pursued by economists, was considered to be separate from human rights, to be pursued by lawyers and activists. The 1960s and 1970s saw attempts to narrow the gap between the two, as newly independent nations of Global South became members of the United Nations and started putting forth their own demands. Peter Uvin (2007)too identifies three phases that witnessed the convergence of the development discourse with that of human rights—-firstly, the missionary zeal following the Cold War;

 

secondly, the drive for good governance due to the failure of the structural adjustment programmes; thirdly, the need for adding an extra dimension to the definition of development other than economic growth. Uvin particularly traces the inclusion of ‘development’ into the human rights lexicon to the debate on the ‘right to development’, first proposed in 1972 by the Senegalese jurist M’Baye. It was an important addition to the hitherto existing political and civil human rights. Uvinpoints out that the early 1970switnessed vigorous debate and discussion among the Third World nationalist leaders regarding the need for global redistribution of resources. They demanded reforms in the global political economy of trade, finance, investment, aid and information flows to usher in a New International Economic Order [Uvin, 2007: 3]. However, except for few international commodity agreements, there was not much headway in this direction and there was much focus on structural adjustment programmes instead.

 

It was only in 1986 that the UN General Assembly passed a resolution, called the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, which empowers each individual to partake and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development to ensure the achievement of their human rights. The positives, as per Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, were that it went beyond the state-citizen relationship and focussed on the collective duty of all states throughout the world to foster an environment to attain rights. It also entreated the industrially advanced nations to get rid of the obstacles like debt burdens and unjust trade regulations as well as lending assistance to the countries struggling to get a foothold in the international economic arena. Unfortunately, the second half of the resolution was diluted by the Global North countries as they voted against it. Also, since the declaration was sans any binding powers, the fallout was that it did not carry any obligations for the First World to transfer resources. This reeked of asymmetrical power equations.

 

But in 1993, Uvin states that there was a new ray of hope as the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna espoused the ‘right to development’, reflecting greater legal agreement globally. More specifically, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action emphasized on the ties between democracy, sustainability and development. It also emphasized on the indivisibility, imprescriptibility (that is, rights cannot be discontinued if they are not used properly or not used for a long time), interdependence and non-hierarchical nature of rights—economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. Another upside is that it later paved the way for the World Social Development Summit at Copenhagen in 1995 where humanitarian NGOS and development agencies came together to wage a more spirited campaign for a rights-based approach.

 

This too was not without criticisms, as Slinn (1999), Rojas (1999) and Obiora (1996) accused it of replicating earlier rights, rife with contradictions and the lack of clarity on the question of accountable parties. Uvin states that development agencies like UNDP and World Bank made self-congratulatory claims about how they had already ensured human rights through their programmes. Their mere rhetoric did not translate into concrete action on the ground. Jack Donnelly (1999) and Michael Windfuhr (2000) add that this kind of discourse only served to relegate human rights to a secondary ‘subset’ status. Sustainable human development was believed to subsume and automatically guarantee human rights, and hence the differences between the two were glossed over. In other cases, any reference to ‘right to development’ was conveniently excluded since it highlighted the global asymmetrical power equations. The UK Department for International Development, Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi point out, did not mention it in its poverty reduction strategy papers.

 

Uvin states that human rights itself had been attached as a sidebar to good governance mission in the 1990s. For instance, the World Bank (1998) claimed that since it improved accountability and transparency of governance and modernized financial institutions, it had guaranteed that human rights can be attained by individuals [Uvin, 2007: 5]. Uvin is highly critical of such a discourse as he claims that the trope of human rights is a convenient smokescreen to legitimize policies that are intended to boost free trade and enable the MNCs to purchase national assets, thus reinforcing the ‘status quo’ and brushing under the carpet ‘controversial topics’ like colonialism, asymmetrical environmental destruction and the problems of structural adjustment.

 

The 2000s ushered in a change in the definition of development. Development and human rights were reconceptualised as to sides of the same coin. Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom (1999) states that “development is the expansion of capabilities or substantive human freedoms, the capacity to lead the kind of life she reason to value” [Uvin, 2007: 6]. Sen identifies poverty, inadequate economic opportunities, neglect of public facilities and intolerance as hurdles to realizing freedom. More importantly, he elucidated that freedom was an essential constitutive element of development.

 

Uvin claims that this is not novel since the UN Secretary-General’s Agenda for Development had already identified in 1994 that democracy is crucial for development. It had declared that to the extent democracy exists in a country (a significant human right which empowers people to partake in the decision making process) development is possible. Yet, it was commendable that Sen’s work prompted practical action. UNDP’s Human Development Report (2000) had subsequently charted out some measures like ‘promoting human rights norms, promoting rights-enabling economic environment, strengthening the network of human rights organisation’ [Uvin, 2007: 7]. Still, Uvin opines that the sanctity of economic growth remains intact and the potential for this conceptualisation to fructify into meaningful, concrete action remains unexplored.

 

Thus, the formulation of a rights-based approach to development had to undergo several legal wrangles and vigorous discussions, and continues to be scrutinized and redefined. At present, the rights-based approach has no doubt reformulated the relationship between the state and its citizens. It ensures that there is not simply a service oriented relationship between the state and its citizens but is a social guarantee that ensures justice for the vulnerable sections of the society. It entails a transition from perceiving human rights as benchmarks utilized to measure development programmes towards redirecting the programmes to achieve human rights. Paul Gready (2008) states that since there is a deeper convergence between development and human rights, the rights have become less declaratory and more operational now [Gready, 2008: 3].

CRITIQUE OF DEVELOPMENT

 

Over the years, the very idea of development was attacked on two fronts— initially owing to protest campaigns that berated its unfulfilled claims and later through theoretical scrutiny, particularly that of post-structuralism in the 1990s which questioned its desirability. The latter also contended that development was a singular, top down project of domination by Global North’s states, capital and professional experts.

 

Michael Goldman in the ‘Imperial Nature’ (2005) traces the roots of the development discourse to the World Bank. He argues that the Bank deviously defines the problems supposedly ailing the Third world (for egg. rural poverty in India, rebuilding of Afghanistan post-war) and then provides the solutions to correct them. This implicitly implies a dependence on Global North’s banks for loans to purchase aids from North’s firms—from tractors to turbines to expertise of professional consultants. So, the flow of capital is always unilateral—from the South to the North. What Goldman especially highlights is the insidious way the Bank exports this idea to the developing countries by positioning itself as policy-maker, global lender, civil society actor and knowledge-producer.

 

Contrary to its claims, most of the development projects by the World Bank do not appear to have much pragmatic value. For instance, Goldman cites the irrigation canal project in That Desert, which was projected as a triumph by the government, could not fulfil the promise of equitable distribution of water since the canal was improperly lined. Only the rich landowners raked in the profits while the small farmers suffered. Unfortunately, this is not simply an isolated instance, there are thousands of other such cases where the region’s capitalist class has got empowered owing to development projects. Hence, Goldman insists that we need to subject the development paradigm to a critical scrutiny.

 

Dependency theory, proposed in the 1950s, was especially critical of the idea that economic growth in industrially advanced countries leads to growth in the industrially backward counterparts. It identified certain binaries like dominant/dependent, centre/periphery and metropolitan/satellite. While the former category includes industrially advanced nations in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development/OECD, the latter category includes Asia, Africa and Latin America, having minimal gross national products/GNPs, exporting very few products for foreign exchange earnings and importing large number of products from western developed nations. The former extorts cheap labour and raw materials of the latter.

 

Renowned Marxist theorist Andre Gunder Frankin (1966, 1969) highlights the historical trajectory of under-development in the Third World. He argues that the current under-development can be traced to the historical and persisting exploitative relationship between the developed metropolitan nations and the impoverished satellite nations, the inevitable fallout of the international capitalist system. While the metropolitan countries become progressively richer and developed, the satellite countries become progressively poorer and backward, which Frank calls the development of the underdevelopment. Thus, in contrast to the Modernization theory,the Dependency theory rejects the idea that underdevelopment of satellite regions stems from their own internal faults and inefficiencies. Underdevelopment is not, as EmehI. E. Jeffrey (2012) puts it, an original state but introduced into a pre-capitalist society due to its unfair, unequal economic and political exchanges with the capitalist countries. Eminent environmentalist Vandana Shiva also launched a scathing attack on the destructive nature of development projects that celebrate the progressive domination of nature.

 

Theorists like Arce and Long (2000) suggest that alternative strategies of development will help generate multiple models of modernity. The solution put forth by the dependency theorists was that satellite nations must disconnect from the metropolitan centres and pursue a process of internal growth. Shiva ventures to offer an alternative in the form of Eco-feminism, linking environmental damage to women’s oppression. It stresses the role of women in sustainable development and the effectiveness of their farming practices.

 

Even the rights-based approach which promises to correct the deficiencies within development has not been immune to the criticisms. Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi point out that the marginalised may not be able stake any claims if they do not have access to the implementing institutions. Also, the process of recognizing and claiming rights is compounded by the presence of a plethora of legal systems that monitor and determine their access to entitlements. More importantly, as the group Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa points out, people do not rely excessively on formal legal systems but may use different stratagems to achieve their rights outside this institutional framework. John Farrington adds that the principle of indivisibility advocated by the rights-based approach is just not feasible when there are limited resources and certain rights have to be privileged over the others. Malcome Malone and Deryke Belshaw (2003) aver that the approach is oblivious to the fact that all development targets are not of equal importance, feasibility and cost [Malone and Belshaw, 2003: 12].

 

Another flaw of the approach is accountability. The accountability of international NGOs and bilateral development institutions to their beneficiary communities as well as to the recipient state government is still questionable, given their reliance on the financial largesse of the First World nations. Similarly, recipient state governments too do not owe to the donor countries to be transparent since there is not much legal enforcement. The ambiguity regarding the accompanying duties helps water down the potential of the approach, which may be a reason, Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi speculate, why First World nations have endorsed it instead of the ‘right to development’. In addition, Shrilatha Batliwala (2007) points out that the individual focus of the rights discourse is problematic and the focus needs to shift to collective rights. She states that the present set of rights from a European Rousseauvian viewpoint of the individual as both the object and subject of rights and have become the goal of a modern-day civilizing project in the non-Western world [Batliwaala, 2007: 2]. Batliwaala adds that the rights-based approach is conceptualised in such broad terms that the duty bearers can shirk off their responsibilities by claiming that their policies already integrated human rights. In addition, Hugo Slim (2002) vehemently argued that discussing about claims, entitlements and rights are contingent upon the location of the individual or group. He states,“While the use of rights-talk in Washington or Paris might be used piously as new words for the same old liturgy in the cathedrals of international trade and development. . . But from another place. and spoken from another voice (that of a poor man or woman land rights lawyer) the same words of rights-talk could function prophetically as a demand for redress to change and challenge power. ” [Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, 2004: 6]

 

Slim insists that development agencies seriously reflect on their location. There is always an inherent danger of their interventions (that promise participation and rights) being driven by neo-colonialist and imperialist motives. Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi add that a rights-based approach to development cooperation tends to depend upon external pressure and harps on ‘good governance’ as the only solution to minimising poverty. This reeks of condescension by the donor First World nations towards Third World nations, particularly their assumed superiority in determining the best interests of the latter.

 

DEVELOPMENT: AT WHAT COST?

 

There are several instances of development projects rendering various sections of society poor, vulnerable and marginalised. A look at some of the development projects throughout the world reveals the disastrous after-effects of some development projects. Two of the particular fallouts of development projects are acquisition of lands and zoning attempts.

 

Impact of Land Acquisition: Over the years, there has been an escalated spate of land acquisitions in the country. For instance, in 2011, at Bhatta Parsaul village in Greater Noida, fertile agricultural land was snatched away from farmers for the eight-lane Yamuna Expressway.

 

In Orissa, the Balimela reservoir displaced 250 villages, which isolated them from the mainland, preventing government supplies from reaching them. Arjan de Haan and Amaresh Dubey (2005) point out that around 3-5 million people have been forced to evacuate since 1950, out of which 50 percent are composed of tribal population. Already, 184 industrial projects have been approved of, which would require extraction of minerals, resulting further in the impoverishment of the region. This despite the fact, that the acquisition drive has clearly contravened the Forest Rights Act (2006). Those whose lands were acquired were absorbed into menial jobs, mainly as wage-paid labour. In fact, the Lambada tribal communities in Andhra Pradesh actually sold their land and instead of an uncertain agricultural livelihood, settled for gangmen’s jobs in the Railways. This ensured living quarters, health facilities and education for their children.

 

Those who tilled their own land or were dependent on forests have been reduced to being landless workers, doing odd jobs for a living and leading a life of penury. For example, in Dharmjaigarh block of Raigarh district, Chattisgarh, members of the Gond and Oraon tribe have been displaced by the Sterlite Balco company that has occupied 1070 hectares. The tribes have  lost their source of income, the forest produce like Mahua and tendua leaf. They have now been forced to be rag-pickers and daily wage workers.The land acquisition drive has eroded traditional land rights, destroying their resource base, livelihood and their homes. Also, their social organisation and cultural identity have been threatened, making them vulnerable to exploitation. The discontent and conflicts, stemming from land alienation, have often erupted in naxalite violence.

 

Land acquisition for development is not a recent phenomenon in the country. In the early years of Independence, land was acquired from various regions for the construction of huge dams. During the setting up of the Hirakud Dam in 1948, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had told displaced villagers, “If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country. ”

 

This pattern of exploitation has intensified further today. For instance, the Mithivirdi Nuclear Energy Plant, an ambitious project estimated to be around Rs. 64, 000 crore, has been launched by the government in Gujarat. Under the pretext that the salinity of land had rendered it unsuitable for farming, the latter allocated considerable plots of land to various companies. However, it threatens to evict 15, 000 people from twenty-four villages. They also stand to lose a very profitable livelihood, mango and coconut farming which brings extensive projects. What’s worse is that at the public hearing organized for the project, the villagers were not allowed to voice their concerns. Even the Environmental Impact Assessment report was not revealed.

 

Most of the public hearings of developmental projects are a sham. Only the beneficiaries—the nearby town residents get to speak, while the pleas of those victimized are sidestepped. For instance, a recent writ petition was filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court accuses DB Power Ltd (one of the group’s companies) of using illegal measures through company-owned newspapers to influence the outcome of a public hearing over an open cast coal mine. This illustrates that the present model of development is exclusionary, hardly participatory in the true sense.

 

Many a times the feasibility studies become a casualty in the rush to capitalize on the profits accruing from the development projects. For e.g.: at a public hearing for the Jindal Power and Steel Plant, when the residents of Gaare village voiced their anger against the way their approval was acquired on false pretexts, they were lathi-charged. Goldman also emphasizes that even if feasibility studies are vigorously undertaken, yet there are subtle ways in which these are manipulated to present the development project in a positive light. To illustrate this, he mentions how in the case of the displacement due to the Mekong river dam in Laos, the Asian Development Bank tried to gloss over it and labelled it as migration rather than resettlement.

 

Impact of Zoning: Goldman argues that notwithstanding its promise of sustainable development, the World Bank continues the same destructive activities as before; peddling old wine in a new bottle. ‘Green neoliberalism’ (that is, development projects that promise to be eco-friendly) has become a deadly weapon in its armoury, helping it intervene in Eastern Europe and global South. The latter’s network of development agencies, governments, NGOs, and chambers of commerce further transplant it into their architecture of local governing institutions, thus foreclosing any other imagination of development and sustainability. World Bank and Asian Development Bank‘s relentless drive to build hydroelectric dams on tributaries of Mekong River faced opposition from the hill residents in Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand. Ironically, they blamed the latter for the supposed environmental degradation caused by slash and burn cultivation, illegal logging and too rapid production. Hence, the inhabitants, they claim, have to be moved away for the sake of protecting and preserving the forests.

 

In Mumbai, the 70, 000 workers’ dwellings occupying Borivali National Park were cleared away. The environmental group which lobbied for it blamed them for sullying the land. The government further aggravated matters by demanding that they pay Rs. 7000 for allotment of land as well as finance their own schools and houses.

 

In 2003, the Yamuna bank too underwent massive overhauling into a riverside boulevard, under the initiative of the Tourism Ministry. It inevitably displaced 35, 000 families, comprising of construction workers, rickshaw pullers, domestic workers and rag pickers. All these displacements were justified in the name of environmental protection.Dana Cuff points out that, “Current development contentions often pit the developer-owner’s private property against the community’s common property” [Blomley, 2008: 8].

 

In retaliation to such acts of enclosure, varied protests by indigenous communities are surfacing on the horizon. Pat Lauderdale (2009) states that whether it be the Mapuche in Argentina protesting against oil contamination; the struggle against deforestation in the Amazonia and Congo basin; the resistance against uranium poisoning by tribal in Jharkhand belt, India or the anger of the Marindugue Islanders in the Philippines, it is certain that development projects are not being uncritically accepted by the local residents.

 

No doubt, the post development theories justifiably criticize the development discourse; but at the same time there is a need to be cautious about rejecting anything associated with development model of the West and uncritically championing the ‘local’ traditions. One of the faults of the post-development literature, according to its critics, is that it tends to neglect the real interests of the people, especially their need for livelihood. In fact, they point out that some of the extant struggles are about claiming access to development. This is not to deny the pitfalls of the prevailing development and its ramifications of impoverishment and environmental degradation. The need of the hour is to balance the concerns of both parties, to aim for a more holistic, participatory and egalitarian approach to development.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, development has been reconceptualised as an essential human right. Economic development alone cannot remedy the situation wherein people are unable to get access to proper  sanitation, health care and clean water. As Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002, puts it, “The logic of human rights is inescapable.” [Belshaw and Malone, 2003: 2] Hence there have been serious efforts to converge the hitherto separate realms of development and human rights.

 

The inclusion of human rights into development has widened its ambit and has added a political and moral dimension to it. However, pursuing this approach does not mean that one relies on legal realm alone. Uvin states that a rights-based approach can only be actualised if there are persistent political struggles such as, rallying international development coalitions, grassroots organizations and citizens associations to challenge violation of rights as well as the formation of institutional grievance reporting mechanisms.

 

The rights-based approach has to encompass all four dimensions— normative principles, a set of instruments (international conventions), as a component to be integrated into programming, and as the underlying justification for interventions aimed at strengthening institutions [Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, 2004: 19]. The neglect of any one dimension would mean a mere re-clothing of old development programmes in a new garb.

 

References

 

·        Bardhan, P. (2004)The Impact of Globalization on the Poor, Globalization, Poverty, and Inequality, pp. 271-284, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25063196

·         Batliwala, S. (2007) When Rights Go Wrong – Distorting the rights based approach to development, Available:http://www.india-seminar.com/2007/569/569_srilatha_batliwala.htm

·         Bhan,G. (2009) This is no longer the city I once knew : Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi, Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 21, no.1, pp. 127–142

·        Blomley, N. (2008) Enclosure, Common Right and the Property of the Poor, Social and Legal Studies, 17:311, Available: http://sls.sagepub.com/content/17/3/311

·        Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004)Putting the ‘Rights-Based Approach’ to Development into Perspective, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 1415-1437 Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993794

·     Dubey,A. And   Haan,A.D. (2005) Poverty, Disparities, or the Development of Underdevelopment in Orissa, Economic and Political Weekly,Vol.40, No.22-23, Available: http://www.epw.in/journal/2005/22-23/special-articles/poverty-disparities-or-development-underdevelopment-orissa

·        Eberstadt, N. (1997) The United Nations’ “Development Activities”: What Impact on Third World Development?, World Affairs, Vol. 159, No. 4, pp. 151-157, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672497

·        Francis, K.H. (et al.) (1988)Privatization of Public Development Projects, American Society of International Law, Vol. 82, pp. 578-593, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25658446

·         Goldman, M.(2005) Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization, London: Yale University Press

·        Gready, P. (2008)Rights-Based Approaches to Development: What is the Value-Added?, Development in Practice, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 735-747, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27751980

·        Lauderdale, P. (2009) Global Development: From Resistance to Social Change Collective Indigenous Rights and Global Social Movements in the Face of Global Development: From Resistance to Social Change,Journal of Developing Societies, Vol.25: 371, Available: http://jds.sagepub.com/content/25/3/371

·        Malone,M. And Belshaw, D. (2003) The Human Rights-based Approach to Development: Overview, context and critical issues, Transformation, Vol.20, No. 2, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43052562

·        Marquand, R. (2000) India’s moral dilemma over evicting poor, The Christian Science Monitor, Available: http://www.csmonitor.com

·         Meher, R. (2009) Globalization, Displacement and the Livelihood Issues of Tribal andAgriculture Dependent Poor People: The Case of Mineral-based Industries in India,Journal of Developing Societies,45:457, Available: http://jds.sagepub.com/content/25/4/457

·        Patnaik, P. (2010)A Left Approach to Development,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 30, pp. 33-37, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20764335

·        Pieterse,JN. (2000) After Post-Development, Third World Quarterly,Vol. 21, No.2,pp.175-191, Available:http://www.uvm.edu/~bgreene1/Bibliography2014/Topic04/PieterseAfter PostDevl.pdf

·         Sengupta, A. (2001) Right to Development as a Human Right, Economic and Political  Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 27, pp. 2527-2536, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4410829

·        Thomas, K.J.A. (2002)Development Projects and Involuntary Population Displacement: The World Bank’s Attempt toCorrect Past Failures, Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 339-349, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40230792

·        United Nations Human Rights, “Declaration on the Right to Development”, Available: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm

  • Uvin, P. (2007)From the Right to Development to the Rights-Based Approach: How ‘Human Rights’ Entered Development, Development in Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4/5, pp. 597-606, Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25548258m

WEB LINKS