Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
It thus appears that geography and history conspire to render islands differently
suited for development strategies. On the basis of the typology suggested by
Warrington and Milne (
2007
), island
entrepôts
have acted as magnets for signifi-
cant incoming and circulating population movements and diversity; they are well
placed to exploit their 'in betweenity' to accumulate fiscal, human and material
capital for development. They are challenged to come up with solutions to the
pressing problems resulting from an acute lack of space and associated high costs
of land (e.g. The Economist
2006b
). This would include a brand of tourism that is
more appreciative of built environments, socio-cultural townscapes and urban liv-
ing. They are well honed to take upon themselves an economic approach to their
development. Meanwhile, island
fortresses
appear better suited at keeping newcom-
ers away, making access to their shores more difficult, tortuous, time-consuming,
challenging or otherwise risky. These conditions suggest that an ecological
approach to development may be a more natural option (pun intended). Connell and
King (
1999
: 3), echoing Churchill Semple (
1911
), observe that islands which find
themselves at important crossroads - in a “nodal location” - tend to attract immi-
grants and may thus be challenged by overpopulation; whereas those which find
themselves isolated, on the periphery, may be thus better adept at sending people
away and may suffer stagnant or declining populations in the outcome, risking
depopulation.
That there should be at least two contrasting 'development paradigms' in the
first place may belie a basic misunderstanding about the very nature and expression
of development. The leading examples of
economic
development, with their signifi-
cantly negative environmental impacts, may not be successful over the longer term.
Their 'success' may often depend on the ability to lure value added from away,
while exporting negative externalities offshore. The examples of '
ecological
develop-
ment' (if any such term can be used, since the clause comes across as an oxymo-
ron), in contrast, typically maintain much lower environmental footprints. Dahl
(
1996
: 49) reminds us that, in spite of “the 'eco' as a unifying concept … the chasm
between economics and ecology is a symptom of the malfunctioning of modern
society which threatens our very future”. Given the strong sense of place that they
engender, islands are ideal spaces to experience the pernicious and dysfunctional
chasm between these two separate 'ecos' (Depraetere
2008
: 20).
If we are to posit these two sets of island candidates as success stories, then we
need to be better able to critically but cogently identify what led them to assume
such a status. Are there (other) discernible patterns behind either of these two,
apparently diametrically opposed, trajectories of success? Which political episodes
(including crisis?) and dynamics (including non-democratic processes?) have
galvanized these island societies and economies towards competitive economic or
ecological prosperity? What particular set of goods and services have permitted
these jurisdictions to occupy and secure export markets? What human resource
development policies have they pursued? What beneficial links with their respec-
tive diasporas have they fashioned? How have they exploited bilateral and multilat-
eral agreements via shrewd (para)-diplomacy and international relations? Have
higher education, tourism, financial services and niche manufacturing been important
Search WWH ::
Custom Search