From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

FROM POVERTY TO POWER121 UNDP (2007) Human Development Report 2007/2008.122 P. Collier (2006).123 E. Galeano (1973).124 www.eitransparency.org125 DFID (2007) ‘Governance, Development and Democratic Politics’.126 S. Pradhan (2006).127 C. Tilly (1990).128 G. Mulgan (2006) op. cit., p.168.129 OECD (2007) ‘OECD in Figures 2007’.130 G. Mulgan (2006) op. cit.131 IDS (2006).132 T. Mkandawire (2001).133 G. Mulgan (2006) op. cit.134 A strong positive correlation is evident between the scores on the two indicesof the ten developing countries that are comparable on both the CIVICUSCivil Society Index (a proxy for active citizenship) and the World Bank’sResource Allocation Index (a proxy for effective states).135 M.H. Khan (2002).136 P. Evans (1995).137 J.-J. Rousseau (1762).138 DFID (2005) ‘Reducing Poverty by Tackling Social Exclusion’.139 Author interview with Wendy Isaack, POWA (People Opposing Women’sAbuse), South Africa, 2007.140 P. O’Brien (2001).141 G. Hesselbein et al. (2006).142 J. Di John (2006).143 IDS (2005).144 J. Beall and S. Fox (forthcoming, 2008) op. cit.145 Oxfam GB (2005).146 H. Wainwright (2003).147 B.S. Baviskar (2003); Centre for Women’s Development Studies (1999).148 H.-J. Chang (2007) op. cit.149 G. Hesselbein et al. (2006) op. cit.150 G. Mulgan (2006) op. cit.PART 3: POVERTY AND WEALTH1 A. Sen (1999).2 J. Stiglitz (2000).3 There are, however, sub-schools of neoclassical economics that seek to explaininstitutions such as marriage and behaviour using the tools of economics.See, for example, G. Becker (1992).4 Many influential neoclassical thinkers are, however, classical liberals with afirm belief that markets are the best way to deliver democracy andindividual rights. See, for example, M. Friedman (1980) or F. Hayek (1944).450