...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Development Studies >The Entitlement Approach: A Case for Framework Development Rather than Demolition: A Comment on 'Entitlement Failure and Deprivation: A Critique of Sen's Famine Philosophy'
【24h】

The Entitlement Approach: A Case for Framework Development Rather than Demolition: A Comment on 'Entitlement Failure and Deprivation: A Critique of Sen's Famine Philosophy'

机译:权利方法:框架发展而不是拆除的案例:关于“权利的失败与剥夺:对森的饥荒哲学的批判”的评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The article dismisses most of the objections previously forwarded in this journal by Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi against Amartya Sen's framework for famine analysis: the entitlement approach. Instead, the article argues that even 30 years after the conception of the entitlement approach, it remains a potent framework for famine analysis, as illustrated by the recent 2005 famine in Niger. However, as contemporary famines are increasingly linked to factors that have hitherto received limited attention inentitlement analysis - conflicts, legal collapses and political struggles - the article calls for supplementary famine analysis on the meso and macro levels.
机译:这篇文章驳斥了Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi先前在本杂志上针对Amartya Sen的饥荒分析框架提出的大多数反对意见:应享权利。相反,该文章认为,即使在应享权利方法提出后的30年,它仍然是一个有效的饥荒分析框架,正如2005年尼日尔最近发生的饥荒所说明的那样。但是,由于当代饥荒与迄今很少受到关注的因素之间的联系越来越紧密,因此对权利的分析(冲突,法律崩溃和政治斗争)越来越多,本文呼吁在中观和宏观层面上进行补充饥荒分析。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号