Abstract

Disagreements over development arise in part from different ways of thinking about human well-being, an issue explored here with reference to two pieces of empirical research in Peru. The first is an analysis of ontological assumptions underpinning secondary literature on development policy at the national level. The second is the pilot testing of a combined ethnographic and psychometric approach to measuring individuals’ perceptions of well-being. Congruence and disjuncture between the different views of well-being that emerge from this analysis are systematically explored, along with the potential for reducing such gaps as a means to improving development practise. The paper also examines the link between such analysis and the role of what Mignolo refers to as ‘border thinking’ within the geopolitics of knowledge. Les desaccords concernant le developpement resultent en partie des manieres diverses d’envisager le bien-etre humain. Nous examinons cette question en nous appuyant sur deux travaux de recherche empirique menes au Perou. Le premier est une analyse des hypotheses ontologiques sous-tendant la litterature secondaire sur la politique de developpement national. Le second est l’essai pilote d’une approche a la fois ethnographique et psychometrique de la mesure des perceptions qu’ont les individus du bien-etre. Nous examinons systematiquement les contrastes et similarites entre les differentes perceptions du bien-etre reveles par cette analyse ainsi que la possibilite de reduire ces ecarts dans le but d’ameliorer les pratiques de developpement. Cet article examine egalement le lien entre une telle analyse et le role de ce que Mignolo appelle ‘la pensee frontaliere’ dans le cadre de la notion de geopolitique de la connaissance.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call