Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the process by which a consensus was reached and approval was garnered for the Dharavi Development Project, a billion dollar initiative to redevelop Mumbai’s most infamous residential and industrial squatter settlement. Initiated in the context of neoliberal politics and devolved municipal governance, technocratic planning schemes – with their roots in both the British Civil Service and Nehruvian Soviet-style planning – are no longer political viable and a certain degree of local support, if not direct community participation, is required to secure both state backing and private investment. Employing a cadre of Community Development Officers (CDOs), the state government recognized neighborhood-level political support to be a prerequisite for the project’s successful implementation. Utilizing the neighborhood’s institutional infrastructure – including ward-level politicians, social service providers, and professional and worker collectives – CDOs spent more than three years convincing constituents and making side payments to build consensual support for the project. Although a certain amount of resistance remains, the opposition has been marginalized as institutional support expanded. This paper examines both the rationale and the process by which this consensus was secured for Dharavi’s current redevelopment. It uses this case to examine the prevailing practices and theories of authoritarian development, on one hand, and participatory planning, on the other, and identifies the rise of “negotiational politics” as a political third way. Drawing upon Selznick’s classic study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, this paper argues that “negotational politics” (similar to what Selznick called cooptation) remain an important, though currently under-theorized, aspect of development.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper aims to examine a broad range of fiercely debated contemporary issues that seemed to have shaped the practice of ‘development’ in recent years. In particular, it seeks to elucidate the general meanings and epistemological implications of the wi

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The central research question in this paper is to investigate the sequence of economic development and democracy in the process of democratization of developing countries. Basically, at least, there are five theoretical models arguing the issue of the priority of development and democracy: First, modernizationists, such as Seymour Lipset, argue that economic growth would lead to democracy, so that “development first, democracy later.” Second, however, Samuel Huntington proposes an alternative explanation of democratization from the perspective of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to political decay; then the political system under instability would move toward democracy after institutionalization. Third, in contrast to modernization theory, scholars, who support “democracy first, development later,” such as Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin, argue that democracies consistently outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic development in developing nations. Forth, some scholars, such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, argue that although politics indeed influences economic performance, the impact of regime type might not be significant on states’ economic growth; and people do not know whether democracy improves or limits economic development. Fifth, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs find that in the case of China, the result of economic development would not lead to democracy because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid political liberalization on the other. Their finding runs counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the necessary result of economic development.
After reviewing these five models above, this paper would not have any inclination of supporting any specific theoretical position but attempts to point out that the controversy over the priority of development and democracy should depend on particular cases. In other words, in some cases development leads to democracy: South Korea and Taiwan; in others, democracy is prior to development: India, Dominican Republic, and Mozambique. In addition, this study would attempt to pre-hypothesize that the shift of the international system—from the Cold War to the post-Cold War—is the key to influence the debate of development and democracy: “development first, democracy later” in the era of the Cold War; then “democracy first, development later” under the period of the third wave of global democratization, the post-Cold War, and Anti-terrorism War. Finally, according to these debates above, what would be the implication of American foreign policy of promoting democracy in the world? To the underdevelopment world, should the U.S. assist to develop economy first or to improve democracy first? Or should the U.S. do these two simultaneously?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore elementary school administrators’ needs for professional development and factors affecting their professional development. Survey research methodology was used for data collection. A stratified random sample of 606 school administrators in Taipei county responded to the survey, and received 526 responses. A total of 506 questionnaires could be used, which represented a response rate of 83.50%.
The major research findings were concluded from the study, including:
1.Most of the elementary school administrators reported a high degree of needs for the contents of professional development activities in the “current educational policy” dimension.
2.Most of the elementary school administrators reported a high degree of needs for the implementation of professional development activities in the “self-taught” dimension.
3.Factors affecting school administrators’ motivation for professional development were mostly related to the “organizational barrier” dimension.
4.There were significant differences in elementary school administrators’ needs for contents of professional development based on level of degree and position.
5.There were significant differences in elementary school administrators’ needs for implementation of professional development based on years of administrative experience and position.
6.There were significant differences in elementary school administrators’ barriers of attending professional development activities based on position, scale of school, and history of school.
Finally, suggestions based on the above research findings were presented for education authorities, school, school administrators and future researchers.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Government agencies alone often lack the necessary characteristics – flexibility, understanding of business needs, etc. – to be effective at promotion of foreign direct investment (FDI) unless they find some way to collaborate with a private agency, or some other way to develop effective strategic linkages with the business community. The Irish Development Agency (IDA) is a case of a government agency that does not have this sort of relationship with a private agency, but has succeeded remarkably well. In comparing the IDA with investment promotion agencies in Chile (wholly government-run), Costa Rica, and Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (examples of public-private collaboration), this paper argues that IDA's success results largely from its unique, quasi-governmental structure. For example, this gives the IDA the flexibility to pay higher salaries than a standard government agency, allowing it to recruit personnel with the business backgrounds and/or skills that are necessary for effective investment promotion. At the same time, IDA's links to the government enable it to influence legislation in order to advance its mission, for example, getting laws on tax incentives pushed through the legislature, in ways that would not be possible for private agencies.