Whose knowledge, whose voices? Power, agency and resistance in disability studies for the global south

Meekosha (2011) maintains that research and theories about disability derive mainly from the global North. Disability Studies rarely include non-metropolitan thinkers. Even when they do, these studies tend to be seen as context specific, and the social theories which emanate from these studies are rarely refered to in research theorizing disability in the North. This chapter sets out to investigate how this one way transfer of knowledge affects the way Disability Studies is conceptualised - whose experiences are incorporated within these studies; and whose are left out. Multilateral debate and dialogue between Disability Studies academics and activists in different locations around the world would help add on to the knowledge already available in the field, while keeping others informed about what is taking place in 'similar' situations elsewhere.peer-reviewe

Gender, Feminism and Social Work: Approximations and Conflicts in the History of the Profession

This article looks at the growing needs found in situations that involve the issue of gender in the common intervention of social workers. It discusses the gap between social work and feminist studies, by sketching a historic parallel between the trajectories of the two fields. It criticizes the submission of the profession to andro-centric theories that exercise power and control in the production of knowledge. It suggests that feminist theories and gender studies provide significant theoretical and methodological support for social work. The paper questions “how to guarantee equality while respecting differences,” and points to the principal critical areas that impede the development of women and mark gender inequality. It concludes that the adoption of a gender perspective in theoretical mediations allows a new look at reality, based on women and with women, revolutionizing the order of power and submission

Offshoring Bias in U.S. Manufacturing

In this paper, we show that the substitution of imported for domestically produced goods and services—often known as offshoring—can lead to overestimates of U.S. productivity growth and value added. We explore how the measurement of productivity and value added in manufacturing has been affected by the dramatic rise in imports of manufactured goods, which more than doubled from 1997 to 2007. We argue that, analogous to the widely discussed problem of outlet substitution bias in the literature on the Consumer Price Index, the price declines associated with the shift to low-cost foreign suppliers are generally not captured in existing price indexes. Just as the CPI fails to capture fully the lower prices for consumers due to the entry and expansion of big-box retailers like Wal-Mart, import price indexes and the intermediate input price indexes based on them do not capture the price drops associated with a shift to new low-cost suppliers in China and other developing countries. As a result, the real growth of imported inputs has been understated. And if input growth is understated, it follows that the growth in multifactor productivity and real value added in the manufacturing sector have been overstated. We estimate that average annual multifactor productivity growth in manufacturing was overstated by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage point and real value added growth by 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point from 1997 to 2007. Moreover, this bias may have accounted for a fifth to a half of the growth in real value added in manufacturing output excluding the computer and electronics industry.