There is a large deficit in the theorisation of psychological elements of agency and empowerment in the development literature. Instead, empowerment is generally defined as a favourable opportunity structure, as choice, or as the distribution of power. Further still, an examination of the psychological literature reveals a lack of empirical research related to non-Western contexts and development policy. In view of this, I present the results of an empirical study using inductive mixed methods to examine the central factors contributing to initiatives people undertake to improve personal and collective well-being.Informants articulated that the psychological concepts of dusu (internal motivation) and ka da I yèrè la (self-efficacy) were most important to their purposeful agency.

In April 2020 a Group of Eight Taskforce was convened, consisting of over 100 researchers, to provide independent, research‐based recommendations to the Commonwealth Government on a “Roadmap to Recovery” from COVID‐19. The report covered issues ranging from pandemic control and relaxation of social distancing measures, to well‐being and special considerations for vulnerable populations. Our work focused on the critical needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; this paper presents an overview of our recommendations to the Roadmap report. In addressing the global challenges posed by pandemics for citizens around the world, Indigenous people are recognised as highly vulnerable. At the time of writing Australia's First Nations Peoples have been largely spared from COVID‐19 in comparison to other Indigenous populations globally. Our recommendations emphasise self‐determination and equitable needs‐based funding to support Indigenous communities to recover from COVID‐19, addressing persistent overcrowded housing, and a focus on workforce, especially for regional and remote communities. These latter two issues have been highlighted as major issues of risk for Indigenous communities in Australia It remains to be seen how governments across Australia take up these recommendations to support Indigenous peoples' health and healing journey through yet another, potentially catastrophic, health crisis.

This paper specifically addresses the behavioural focus of the income management regime, arguing that through its use of market logic and the reduction of social and political complexity, the regime is a technology of neoliberal governmentality. This paper finds that income management, whether compulsory or voluntary, blanket or Community based, regards the individual as the site of dysfunction, depoliticising and dehumanising broader socio-economic-historical factors in the process. Further, the focus on behavioural change creates the illusion that the market logic of income management will produce responsible citizens, which in turn obscures the possibility of redressing poverty and inequality.

Expertise stemming from the psy disciplines is increasingly and explicitly shaping international development policy and practice. Whilst some policy makers see the use of psy expertise as a new way to reduce poverty, increase economic efficiency and promote wellbeing, others raise concerns that psychocentric development promotes individual over structural change, pathologises poverty, and depoliticises development. This paper specifically analyses four aspects of psy knowledge used in contemporary development policy: child development/developmental psychology, behavioural economics, positive psychology, and global mental health. This analysis illuminates the co-constitutive intellectual and colonial histories of development and psy-expertise Ð a connection that complicates claims that development has been psychologized; the uses and coloniality of both within a neoliberal project; and the potential for psychopolitics to inform development.

No abstract

No abstract

This article critically analyses the use of psychological and behavioural knowledge in development policy and practice with reference to the World Development Report 2015. It examines the main proposition of the WDR 2015, highlighting the behavioural change framework and policy techniques promoted in the report. The shifts that have taken place in development policy are reviewed from a governmentality perspective which offers a critical view on the psychological and behavioural focus in contemporary development policy. The article focuses specifically on the behavioural techniques the WDR 2015 promotes to show how a certain kind of subjectivity is advanced which not only homogenizes and problematizes non-Western knowledge systems, subjectivities and agency, but also justifies the economization of social life through development.

Universal basic income -the idea of guaranteeing a minimum level of income for all -has a long history of been framed as a radical proposal, a way to address issues ranging from wealth distribution and economic justice through to degrowth and gender equality. Yet an increasing number of proponents, especially in international development and public policy circles, see basic income as an efficient technological solution to poverty and economic insecurity. Critical development studies scholars have overwhelmingly problematized such 'rendering technical' of complex social, economic and political issues. In this paper, we use a critical development lens to point to two areas of particular danger to the transformative potential of basic income: coloniality and class relations. We do so through two case studies: a proposed basic income for Indigenous Australians and the support of UBI by high-networth individuals in California's Silicon Valley. Using these two cases, we argue that despite best intentions, without critical engagement and nuance around questions of power, the radical potential of basic income may be jeopardized, with basic income becoming another technological quick-fix of development and policy interventions.