Search

Over the last decade India and Brazil implemented waste policy reforms to tackle the constraints of their waste management. This study compares those reforms using the methodological framework proposed by Wilson where waste policy evolves through a series of subsequent stages, depending on two aspects: local circumstances; and stakeholders' groups. The current research is exploratory in its scope, adopting this method to describe, compare and evaluate both Indian and Brazilian cases, and also verifying how the model performs when applied to developing countries. The paper confirms Wilson's conclusions, and adds a perception that in developing economies a special local circumstance is to be considered the point of departure, that is, the particular starting point of Wilson's evolution. In addition, the research concludes that participation of diverse stakeholder groups throughout the political process is fundamental, and could be key to overcoming the risks of policy setbacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While growth in India stayed relatively stable over the last decade, Brazil fell into deep recession and a fundamental political and economic crisis. Why did these two countries, despite their similarities, diverge so massively within only 10 years? Through a paired comparison, this article probes two alternative approaches to capitalist diversity to explain the divergence among two rising economic powers and 'state capitalisms'. It finds that through the lens of a firm-centred supply-side approach, one largely sees institutional stability in both economies, while a focus on the demand side and respective growth models makes visible fundamental destabilization in Brazil. The fragility of domestic demand, the vulnerability of global economic integration and the erosion of key social coalitions, we contend, are key to unpack the divergence between Brazil and India. This study thereby not only sheds a new light on emerging market capitalism but also discusses further possibilities for the analysis of state capitalism within comparative political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article develops an argument about what it defines as the ‘third phase of modernity’ and tackles, in a comparative manner, the cases of Latin America (especially Brazil), South Asia (especially India) and China. It tries to identify specific modernizing moves which imply individualizing comparisons as well as encompassing comparisons in relation to these areas and countries. It builds its argument from a few theoretical assumptions and moves in an inductive manner in order to dislocate the discussion of modernity from its strong referents in the West and the conceptual definitions that stem from this. The article tries also to connect the discussion of modernity to debates about development. It proposes a multidimensional approach and analyzes the main dimensions of contemporary modernity and modernizing moves in those regions and countries. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]