Stijn Kuipers
Address: Centre of Development Studies, 7 West Rd, Cambridge CB3 9DP, United Kingdom
St. Edmund's College, Mount Pleasant, Cambridge CB3 0BN, United Kingdom.
St. Edmund's College, Mount Pleasant, Cambridge CB3 0BN, United Kingdom.
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Stijn Kuipers
Corruption is commonly seen as a primary impediment to economic development, and its eradication has therefore featured high on development agendas. Most anti-corruption efforts in international development however fail. This paper aims to review recent attempts to unpack the “black box” of corruption to better understand its functioning in developing countries and find ways to combat corruption effectively.
Design/methodology/approach
The study has been undertaken through a comparative literature and case analysis of some of the primary findings within the field of anti-corruption in international development of the past decade.
Findings
The research finds that the black-and-white conceptualisation of corruption as an impediment to economic development, which is dominant in development circles, commonly fails to understand corruption as an alternative form of problem-solving in specific institutional settings. This has both hindered anti-corruption efforts and given unwarranted primacy to anti-corruption efforts in international development, to the loss of other priorities.
Practical implications
Policy-makers need to accept that there are no “magic bullets” against corruption and work in a much more contextual manner, while accepting the fact that corruption might not be the primary impediment to economic growth in their country.
Originality/value
The paper strengthens recent calls for a more contextualized approach to combat corruption, which have been given insufficient attention in policy design and most of the literature on corruption, providing a novel starting point for “functional”, politically-aware anti-corruption and development efforts.
Simin Fadaee therefore recently proposed a first framework to work towards the systematic inclusion of Southern movements in SMT, listing 4 characteristics which cannot be sufficiently explained by canonical SMT.
This essay critically engages with this new framework as to consider to what degree mainstream SMT is able to explain Southern movements based on the characteristics listed by Simin Fadaee, and where possible lacunae lie.
In contrast to much of the Southern critique, the essay finds that Southern movements do not display such unique characteristics that contemporary approaches cannot be adapted to explain them, and warns for a new form of essentialisation and Orientalism.
However, the essay does agree with Fadaee and many other authors that more attention to Southern case studies is desirable, and that a more careful balance between the universalist claims of theoretical models and particularist variations should be maintained.
However, recent literature has criticised this narrative, arguing that many analyses which stress the transformative effect of synthetic biology misunderstand the so-called ‘revolution’ in bio-engineering by oversimplifying its technical and social-political aspects.
This essay evaluates whether synthetic biology indeed has the potential to transform the future of warfare by critically assessing the arguments which stress the transformative effect of synbio-technology on both non-state and interstate warfare through a socio-technical analysis, augmented by relevant (historical) case studies.
This essay concludes that arguments in favour of the transformation of warfare are based on mistaken assumptions about the impact of synthetic biology. They overestimate the supposed easiness of pathogen manipulation, and have an overt focus on the technological drivers of change, ignoring political factors which underpin revolutions in warfare. As such, this essay argues that while synthetic biology is a rapidly developing field with huge potential and consequences for many areas, it is unlikely that the changes in synthetic biology will transform the conduct of war.
This paper aims to showcase the consequences of a postmodern view on war for defence planning by critically engaging with European military policy in the post-Cold War era. It argues that defence planning in Europe has largely taken a postmodern approach in structuring its military capabilities, to the point that most European nations are nowadays seriously limited in their capabilities to conduct an ‘old’, interstate form of warfare. Not only does this present certain risks in a somewhat uncertain world, but it is also considered that a postmodern threat analysis actually hinders postmodernist policy goals such as effective peace-making missions which are supposed to benefit the contemporary, interconnected global order. As such, this paper takes issue with an overt postmodern strategic focus.
1) Inclusion only helps to moderate socio-political agendas if the political system is viewed as a viable alternative to solve salient issues, such as socio-economic deprivation. This has not been the case in Tunisia or Egypt.
2) While the option of inclusion seems not to have hindered the attractiveness of radical Islamic thought, this research suggests that it does importantly influence the behaviour of radical movements. While the Egyptian government crackdown on Islamists has resulted in a violent insurgency, the freedom of expression and religion in Tunisia has led most salafists there to pursue peaceful means to strive for their ideological ends.
As such, this essay posits that the outflow of Tunisian Jihadi has to be understood as a consequence of the circumscription of violence as a viable vehicle for political change. Salafists attracted to the idea of violent Jihad tend therefore to leave the country, presenting an explanation for the relatively large amount of Jihadi hailing from Tunisia.
http://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/5637
The Netherlands have traditionally been considered a tolerant country and a shining example of a state with a multicultural policy by many scholars. The rise of Pim Fortuyn and the ‘New Realism’ discourse, as characterised by the philosopher Baukje Prins, have thus surprised many around the world, which lead the two important Dutch demographic historians Lucassen and Lucassen to characterise this change as ‘The Pessimistic Turn’ in the Dutch migration debate. These perceived changes in Dutch society and the political landscape have generated a large discussion, both in- and outside the academia. A large part of the polemic focuses on the question whether the old ‘pillarized’ structure of the Netherlands has had its effect on Dutch governmental policy and whether this policy could be characterised as a ‘multicultural’ one. Two lines of opposing thought are discerned in this ‘multicultural policy debate’, in which the first one considers pillarization and multicultural ideals to have had its effects on Dutch governmental policy and the second one denies this influence. In this paper it will be argued that a nuanced middle position between both academic currents is the most tenable. Furthermore, the author points to the danger of anachronism in the dominant ‘New Realist’ discourse.
The Dutch (neo-)corporatist, socioeconomic and tripartistic consensus model known as the ‘poldermodel’ quickly gained international renown in the 1990’s as it seemed to effectively revitalise the Dutch economy as well as to cure the so called ‘Dutch disease’. Therefore, quite large amounts of historical research have been put into the subject. However, most of the literature focuses on the ‘roots’ of the ‘poldermodel’, who according to some go back to the Late Medieval Ages (and according to a few even further back). Consequently, little light has been shed on the question when the consensus model that we would recognise as strikingly modern first manifested itself. The modern form of the ‘poldermodel’ is considered to be the legally institutionalised deliberation between labour unions, the employer organisations and the government, in which they collectively steer the socioeconomic policy in the Netherlands (by advising the government and defusing labour issues). The current polder model is said to have begun with the famous Wassenaar Accords of 1982. Although the term ‘poldermodel’ is relatively young and therefore seems to acknowledge this general consensus, this essay doubts this dating of the first manifestation of the modern Dutch ‘poldermodel’. According to the research presented in this paper, the High Council of Labour of 1920 can be seen as the first manifestation of the modern Dutch ‘poldermodel’, and with that builds onward on earlier research that has stressed the continuity of the Dutch consensus model since the 1950’s (in the form of the SER, or Social Economic Council [Sociaal-Economische Raad in Dutch]). Out of this follows that the ‘poldermodel’ is much older and therefore has had a larger influence on Dutch society and economy than has generally been thought up to now.
Corruption is commonly seen as a primary impediment to economic development, and its eradication has therefore featured high on development agendas. Most anti-corruption efforts in international development however fail. This paper aims to review recent attempts to unpack the “black box” of corruption to better understand its functioning in developing countries and find ways to combat corruption effectively.
Design/methodology/approach
The study has been undertaken through a comparative literature and case analysis of some of the primary findings within the field of anti-corruption in international development of the past decade.
Findings
The research finds that the black-and-white conceptualisation of corruption as an impediment to economic development, which is dominant in development circles, commonly fails to understand corruption as an alternative form of problem-solving in specific institutional settings. This has both hindered anti-corruption efforts and given unwarranted primacy to anti-corruption efforts in international development, to the loss of other priorities.
Practical implications
Policy-makers need to accept that there are no “magic bullets” against corruption and work in a much more contextual manner, while accepting the fact that corruption might not be the primary impediment to economic growth in their country.
Originality/value
The paper strengthens recent calls for a more contextualized approach to combat corruption, which have been given insufficient attention in policy design and most of the literature on corruption, providing a novel starting point for “functional”, politically-aware anti-corruption and development efforts.
Simin Fadaee therefore recently proposed a first framework to work towards the systematic inclusion of Southern movements in SMT, listing 4 characteristics which cannot be sufficiently explained by canonical SMT.
This essay critically engages with this new framework as to consider to what degree mainstream SMT is able to explain Southern movements based on the characteristics listed by Simin Fadaee, and where possible lacunae lie.
In contrast to much of the Southern critique, the essay finds that Southern movements do not display such unique characteristics that contemporary approaches cannot be adapted to explain them, and warns for a new form of essentialisation and Orientalism.
However, the essay does agree with Fadaee and many other authors that more attention to Southern case studies is desirable, and that a more careful balance between the universalist claims of theoretical models and particularist variations should be maintained.
However, recent literature has criticised this narrative, arguing that many analyses which stress the transformative effect of synthetic biology misunderstand the so-called ‘revolution’ in bio-engineering by oversimplifying its technical and social-political aspects.
This essay evaluates whether synthetic biology indeed has the potential to transform the future of warfare by critically assessing the arguments which stress the transformative effect of synbio-technology on both non-state and interstate warfare through a socio-technical analysis, augmented by relevant (historical) case studies.
This essay concludes that arguments in favour of the transformation of warfare are based on mistaken assumptions about the impact of synthetic biology. They overestimate the supposed easiness of pathogen manipulation, and have an overt focus on the technological drivers of change, ignoring political factors which underpin revolutions in warfare. As such, this essay argues that while synthetic biology is a rapidly developing field with huge potential and consequences for many areas, it is unlikely that the changes in synthetic biology will transform the conduct of war.
This paper aims to showcase the consequences of a postmodern view on war for defence planning by critically engaging with European military policy in the post-Cold War era. It argues that defence planning in Europe has largely taken a postmodern approach in structuring its military capabilities, to the point that most European nations are nowadays seriously limited in their capabilities to conduct an ‘old’, interstate form of warfare. Not only does this present certain risks in a somewhat uncertain world, but it is also considered that a postmodern threat analysis actually hinders postmodernist policy goals such as effective peace-making missions which are supposed to benefit the contemporary, interconnected global order. As such, this paper takes issue with an overt postmodern strategic focus.
1) Inclusion only helps to moderate socio-political agendas if the political system is viewed as a viable alternative to solve salient issues, such as socio-economic deprivation. This has not been the case in Tunisia or Egypt.
2) While the option of inclusion seems not to have hindered the attractiveness of radical Islamic thought, this research suggests that it does importantly influence the behaviour of radical movements. While the Egyptian government crackdown on Islamists has resulted in a violent insurgency, the freedom of expression and religion in Tunisia has led most salafists there to pursue peaceful means to strive for their ideological ends.
As such, this essay posits that the outflow of Tunisian Jihadi has to be understood as a consequence of the circumscription of violence as a viable vehicle for political change. Salafists attracted to the idea of violent Jihad tend therefore to leave the country, presenting an explanation for the relatively large amount of Jihadi hailing from Tunisia.
http://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/5637
The Netherlands have traditionally been considered a tolerant country and a shining example of a state with a multicultural policy by many scholars. The rise of Pim Fortuyn and the ‘New Realism’ discourse, as characterised by the philosopher Baukje Prins, have thus surprised many around the world, which lead the two important Dutch demographic historians Lucassen and Lucassen to characterise this change as ‘The Pessimistic Turn’ in the Dutch migration debate. These perceived changes in Dutch society and the political landscape have generated a large discussion, both in- and outside the academia. A large part of the polemic focuses on the question whether the old ‘pillarized’ structure of the Netherlands has had its effect on Dutch governmental policy and whether this policy could be characterised as a ‘multicultural’ one. Two lines of opposing thought are discerned in this ‘multicultural policy debate’, in which the first one considers pillarization and multicultural ideals to have had its effects on Dutch governmental policy and the second one denies this influence. In this paper it will be argued that a nuanced middle position between both academic currents is the most tenable. Furthermore, the author points to the danger of anachronism in the dominant ‘New Realist’ discourse.
The Dutch (neo-)corporatist, socioeconomic and tripartistic consensus model known as the ‘poldermodel’ quickly gained international renown in the 1990’s as it seemed to effectively revitalise the Dutch economy as well as to cure the so called ‘Dutch disease’. Therefore, quite large amounts of historical research have been put into the subject. However, most of the literature focuses on the ‘roots’ of the ‘poldermodel’, who according to some go back to the Late Medieval Ages (and according to a few even further back). Consequently, little light has been shed on the question when the consensus model that we would recognise as strikingly modern first manifested itself. The modern form of the ‘poldermodel’ is considered to be the legally institutionalised deliberation between labour unions, the employer organisations and the government, in which they collectively steer the socioeconomic policy in the Netherlands (by advising the government and defusing labour issues). The current polder model is said to have begun with the famous Wassenaar Accords of 1982. Although the term ‘poldermodel’ is relatively young and therefore seems to acknowledge this general consensus, this essay doubts this dating of the first manifestation of the modern Dutch ‘poldermodel’. According to the research presented in this paper, the High Council of Labour of 1920 can be seen as the first manifestation of the modern Dutch ‘poldermodel’, and with that builds onward on earlier research that has stressed the continuity of the Dutch consensus model since the 1950’s (in the form of the SER, or Social Economic Council [Sociaal-Economische Raad in Dutch]). Out of this follows that the ‘poldermodel’ is much older and therefore has had a larger influence on Dutch society and economy than has generally been thought up to now.