The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Development discourse
Abstract
Two different discourses, development and globalisation, can be identified as successively dominating global North-South relations in the past decades. A concise analysis of both discourses is relevant and insightful because notions of development and of globalisation are conceptualising social change in strikingly different ways and with different attitudes towards social engineering. Globalisation discourse in line with neoclassical economic theory and regards interventions in the market mechanism as the source of inefficient resource allocation resulting in higher prices and lower quality in goods and services. In the neoliberal perspective, whose theoretical basis was to be found in neoclassical and monetarist economics, the perceived failures of development policy were attributed to flawed Keynesian strategies: the idea of the necessity and beneficial effects of state intervention was blamed for over-inflated public sectors, inefficient state enterprises, and an overemphasis on the means of production.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“By engaging in these practices, participants become co-producers of knowledge, actively challenging hierarchical notions of expertise and the depoliticising tendencies of mainstream development discourse (Ziai 2015).”
From Teaching a Geography of Hope (2026) · cites this paper as Ziai 2015
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pepa, M. (2026) · Area · doi:10.1111/area.70089
Metadata
- Authors
- Ziai, A.
- Venue
- Development Discourse and Global History
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2015-08-27
- Pages
- 70-85
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review