@article{683d94eef594431084e74323d0c0a8c8,
title = "Global Development: is this a reframing of power, agency and progress?",
abstract = "This special section on global development has been developed from a conference roundtable event run by the Development Geographies Research Group of the Royal Geographical Society. In this special section, we (some of the committee) introduce the four papers and their critical contributions to emerging debates. These extend early work on how the “global” is being made, focusing on the projects of multilateral development agencies and state institutions to examine how (and whether) the rebranding of “international development” as “global development” constitutes a shift in thinking and practice. Together, the papers draw our attention to the considerable opportunities and implications that this reframing offers, while highlighting that critical attention is required as to how that framing is deployed and by whom. They reveal disparity between global development as a much-needed reframing of power, agency, and progress and global development as produced by mainstream development actors and interventions, necessitating more critical research into how this normative agenda is adopted and enacted in dominant policy and practice.",
keywords = "financialisation, global development, research funding, sustainable development",
author = "Gemma Sou and Jessica Hope and Kate Maclean and cordelia freeman and Raksha Pande",
note = "Funding Information: Finally, McKay's paper turns attention to the ways that global development is being located and made through academic research funding, specifically the UK's GCRF funding scheme. In analysing data on GCRF funding, McKay reveals the gaps and inequalities hidden in this new global. At the time of publication, the UK government had slashed its funding from the £422 million allocated last year to £125 million this year (Times Higher Education, 2021 ). This meant cutting projects that were midway through and devastating hard‐built relationships across North and South, as well as undermining a range of development and environment objectives. The speed and severity of these cuts further demonstrate the relevance of these streams to the creation of global development and remind us how dependent such schemes are on the historical, uneven, and unequal relationships within development aid. Publisher Copyright: The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). {\textcopyright} 2021 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/area.12752",
language = "English",
journal = "Area",
issn = "0004-0894",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd",
}