The Development Security Nexus: Threat or Opportunity for the Developing South?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since inception, the development industry has evolved within adverse geopolitical conditions, most acutely, the Cold War. Various accounts, particularly post-development literature, assert that the discourse of war was displaced onto the social domain and to a new geographical terrain via ‘the war on poverty’ (Escobar, 1995). While there is increasing interest in the security discourse within the humanitarian/emergency fad, particularly since the 911 attacks, most accounts suggest that this shift skews development practice. However, when analysed within the East – West development axis, I argue that the glove of benevolence is rolling back to reveal an ‘iron fist’. Exacerbated by the economic crisis, appearance of the BRICS and dominance of Chinese ‘soft power’, it serves to undress other forms of Western ‘insecurity’. In Europe, Merkel employs the spectre of war to achieve support for the rescue fund announcing perhaps the arrival of force as ‘politics of last resort’. In the cooperation arena, the Western agenda is becoming blatant, revealed in the launch of Africa Command (AFRICOM) by the US, followed by the UK, including traditionally benign states like Canada and Denmark. While this shift is seen as a threat for development outcomes in the South, few accounts have contemplated the opportunities contained in the slippery slope presented by the development-security nexus. If development is exposed as Western insecurity rather than Southern assistance; what opportunity does this present for Southern States? Can the so called radicalised states like Zimbabwe and Venezuela perhaps point a justified re-direction of development focus in the bid for self determined improvement? [ Keywords: terrorism, geopolitics, radicalised states; post-development]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".