Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by United Nations member states in 2015 is cast as a historic decision that enfolds long-held social, environmental and economic concerns into a single agenda, and enrols all countries as subjects to (sustainable) development. This is said to be unprecedented in the history of goal-setting in global governance, reflection a contemporary shift in the ways in which sustainable development is imagined and pursued. The universal application of these global goals, some suggest, might do more to unsettle the 'North-South' binary in development thinking and practice than decades of scholarly critique and advocacy. Yet, although the SDGs have ushered new ways of doing development, the promise of sustainable development for all seems all the more distant. This thesis is an inquiry into what ‘doing’ development in the post-2015 era entails and what it does, even if it fails in its own terms. Through case studies spanning the ‘South’ and the ‘North’, it explores manifestations of the SDGs in contemporary development practice. Situating these cases in the unfolding financialisation of development and changing ‘North-South’ dynamics, it traces how the SDGs are used and articulated; the matters of concern SDG interventions form, occlude and sustain; the logics and techniques on which they are built and what they, in turn, recast. It advances an approach to understanding contemporary development that privileges neither change nor continuity. It attends, instead, to recursive shifts in how development is now imagined and pursued; contending that change is not diametrically opposed to continuity, but is in fact necessary for the reproduction of development as a project always waiting to be accomplished. Weaving together underexplored empirical materials with an eclectic range of scholarly debates, the thesis charts ‘new’ ways of doing designed to ‘unlock’ finance capital and build coherence for the SDGs, from planning, prototyping and pipeline-building in Indonesia; mapping, prospecting and brokering in Ghana; disclosure and audit in Australia; to coherence-building in the Netherlands. In all cases, these interventions fall short of doing what they are supposed to do, not least because they occlude contextual complexities and frictions that nevertheless affect what these interventions are able to do. Yet, they perform in other ways, including in circulating and reproducing their own premises and promises. Their shortcomings justify their (re)iteration. Here, the ‘newness’ of the SDGs provide the grounds for this project of iterability (and scalability), engaging forms of expertise and collaboration that are different and particular to what came before them, but replicate the underlying logics and knowledges that make development ceaselessly anti-political. The findings of this thesis are relevant not only for theorising beyond the ‘failure’ of development in the current moment. They also trouble the distinctions that still influence many public and academic discussions – public/private, local/global, before/after and continuity/change. This thesis, then, follows a long-existing call to acknowledge the porosity of these conceptual containers, to attend to what otherwise might be lost in understanding the effects of the SDGs, and contemporary development more generally, within these binaries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,091 | 0,021 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».