BRICS states new development bank: challenges and controversies for the global political economy system

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Evaghoras L. Evaghorou
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Development Bank ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
New Development ◽  
Economy System

Sozial-räumliche Dynamiken der Agrartreibstoffe.

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (184) ◽  
pp. 423-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Dietz ◽  
Bettina Engels ◽  
Oliver Pye
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Capital Flows ◽  
Spatial Dynamics ◽  
Financial Sector ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Spatial Theory ◽  
Global Political Economy

This article explores the spatial dynamics of agrofuels. Building on categories from the field of critical spatial theory, it shows how these categories enable a comprehensive analysis of the spatial dynamics of agrofuels that links the macro-structures of the global political economy to concrete, place-based struggles. Four core socio-spatial dynamics of agrofuel politics are highlighted and applied to empirical findings: territorialization, the financial sector as a new scale of regulation, place-based struggles and transnational spaces of resources and capital flows.

Role of New Development Bank and Food Security in the BRICS Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-57
Author(s):  
Pintu Kumar ◽  
Prahlad Kumar Bairwa
Keyword(s):  
Food Security ◽  
Development Bank ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
New Development

From the Colonial to Feminist IR: Feminist IR Studies, the Wider FSS/GPE Research Agenda, and the Questions of Value, Valuation, Security, and Violence

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Agathangelou
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Global Political Economy ◽  
Personal Lives ◽  
Ir Studies ◽  
The World ◽  
Forms Of Violence

International relations (IR) feminists have significantly impacted the way we analyze the world and power. However, as Cynthia Enloe points out, “there are now signs—worrisome signs—that feminist analysts of international politics might be forgetting what they have shared” and are “making bricks to construct new intellectual barriers. That is not progress” (2015, 436). I agree. The project/process that has led to the separation/specialization of feminist security studies (FSS) and feminist global political economy (FGPE) does not constitute progress but instead ends up embodying forms of violence that erase the materialist bases of our intellectual labor's divisions (Agathangelou 1997), the historical and social constitution of our formations as intellectuals and subjects. This amnesiac approach evades our personal lives and colludes with those forces that allow for the violence that comes with abstraction. These “worrisome signs” should be explained if we are to move FSS and FGPE beyond a “merger” (Allison 2015) that speaks only to some issues and some humans in the global theater.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document