For the past three days I have been attending the Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region hosted by Chiang Mai University. Last July I made an early post about this conference, expressing slight scepticism about the ongoing preoccupation with the Mekong region. In some respects I think my concerns were misplaced. The conference has provided a forum for the presentation of an enormous range of research on economy, society, culture and identity in the so-called Mekong region. (I hope to feature some of this research in coming posts.) There can be no doubt that “Mekong” remains an attractive way to package diverse research interests and to encourage research linkages. And there is a pressing need to focus critical attention on the “Mekong region” development initiatives promoted by agencies such as the ADB and the World Bank.
But I still think that, as a framework, “the Mekong” has its limitations. There is sometimes a tendency to revert to a rather simplified narrative in which “Mekong region development” (steered by multinational agencies) stands against the aspirations of “local communities”, threatening their livelihoods through processes of “regional enclosure.” Local communities are seen as responding to this through various strategies of resistance, avoidance, “counter-discourse” and political activism. Revitalisation of trans-border ethnic linkages is often seen as a key part of this response, with Mekong ethnicity set against the marginalising tendances of regional development.
I accept that this framework has a lot to offer and it has certainly generated a great deal of fascinating research. But I suspect the critical transitions in the Mekong region may require some more critical reflection on the tropes and metaphors that we use to understand regional development. In particular I think we need to give much more attention to the ways in which regional development is a process that emerges out of household and community enterprise as much as it is a product of decision making in what one presenter referred to as “corporate bedrooms.” I am sure he meant to say “boardrooms” but the slip is much more fun and does point towards the socially embedded nature of regional development.
1 response so far ↓
1 Diego // Feb 1, 2007 at 12:44 am
good post and nice shirt (do bloggers get a piece?).
anyway, talking about regional development, i was thinking how far regional can it be when the coverage of the mekong among the key players is quite uneven spatially. if my estimate is right, around 10-15% in Thailand, whole (or nearly) of Cambodia and Laos and about 30% in Vietnam. and these are only the lower basin countries. also, the ‘region’ is essentially being defined by the interests of multilateral institutions, notably, ADB, WB, and MRC, as for example in the case of the LMC and GMS. perhaps the ‘mekong’ has more salience as a reference point to a region.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.