Inclusive Human Development Research Articles

Use of ICT in Education

The present research paper discusses the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education which is gaining currency in the new era of globalism as the telecom revolution has hastened the pace of globalization and vice-versa; along with the catalyst role ICT-enabled education plays in promoting inclusive growth and human development for all. These smart tools of the emerging smart economy would help to promote mass literacy and also narrow inter, as well as intra-generational gaps. Most importantly, it will provide ‘second opportunities’ to the generation that missed them in the first place, thus helping adult learners, particularly the employed and women; thus attempting to reduce gender inequities. The paper attempts to map the trajectory of ICT and its increased usage across the world in an era of globalism, spanning Asia with a focus on India. Technology helps update, modernize, and revolutionize knowledge, information teaching-learning processes et al that help to bridge the digital divide on multi levels-between the rich and poor nations, between the rich and poor classes within a nation, between the rural and urban areas, between the young and old population, between the first and second generation learners and teachers that have become the essence of the new knowledge economy comprising smart students, teachers, policy makers, and communities all woven together through the yarn of the world wide. Like any other innovation, this one too is a double-edged coin with its intrinsic advantages and disadvantages. It is for us to harness modern technologies and utilize the ICT revolution in education for modern global growth, interconnectedness, and inclusiveness that create ‘win-win’ situations for all stakeholders.

Capabilities for a cosmopolitan citizenship in higher education The experience of the Technical University of Valencia

The capability approach (CA) has focused on how universities can enhance cosmopolitan students’ capabilities in order to contribute to a fairer and more inclusive human development model (Nussbaum, 1997). The aim of this paper is to analyze two different initiatives developed at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV) in Spain, which have contributed to the creation and expansion of those capabilities amongst the student community. The first one is a formal space in which, since 1997, a cosmopolitan citizenship curriculum has been implemented (Boni, 2007). The second experience refers to an informal space called Mueve created by UPV students. Based on the analysis of 12 in-depth interviews we will provide some insights into the differences, similarities and synergies amongst those two spaces.

Growth and Governance: A Defense

It is clear we have disagreements from our esteemed colleagues on this important issue. The Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi [hereafter KKM] response raises a number of insightful points that advance this debate. We thank them for that and for taking the time to engage our article. As we have reflected on our original essay and KKM’s critique of it, we were struck by the fact that we may actually be talking past each other and that differences in approach between political science and economics may foster this miscommunication. We are not arguing that political science offers a superior approach. To the contrary, our intellectual debt to economics is enormous. Our bibliography offers testimony to that very fact. We nevertheless believe that political scientists have as much to offer economists as vice versa, including not only a venerable literature on state formation and governance but a no less important tradition of self-conscious concept formation that has been less central to most economists. While political scientists have traditionally been producers of political data, and have therefore treated the process of concept formation as a necessary prelude to both measurement and modeling (Collier and Mahon 1993; Gerring 1999; Sartori 1970), economists have until recently been consumers of political data and have, therefore, subordinated the need for self-conscious concept formation to the understandable urge to measure and model. We ultimately hope to demonstrate that conceptual issues—and corresponding measurement problems—are at the core of the debate over growth and governance and that progress will be less than ideal until they are addressed. A meeting of minds may be too much to ask for at the present time, but a meeting of method would almost certainly constitute a step in the right direction. We, therefore, offer this rebuttal as not just a response to the thoughtful critique of KKM, but as an effort to bridge these gaps and develop even better ways to make real advances in understanding the relationship between growth and governance.

Institutional Quality and Income Distribution

Institutional Quality and Income Distribution