Blockchain Papers

Gili Vidan, Vili Lehdonvirta

Subscribing to a techno-utopian discourse replacing institutions and experts with “trust in code,” digital alternative currency Bitcoin is pitched as a “math-based money” governed by incorruptible code rather than human regulators. In three cases, which occurred between 2013 and 2015, we examine this system at moments of breakdown. In contrast to the discourse, we find that power is concentrated to critical sites and individuals who manage the system through ad hoc negotiations, and who users must therefore implicitly trust—a contrast we call Bitcoin’s “promissory gap.” But even in the face of such contradictions between premise and reality, the discourse is maintained. We identify four authorizing strategies used in this work: conflating people with devices, assuming actors conform to notions of economic rationality, appealing to technical expertise, and explaining contradictions as temporary bugs. We contend that these strategies are mobilized widely to legitimize a variety of applications of algorithmic regulation and peer production projects.

Jannice Käll

Blockchain technology is often discussed and theorized in relation to cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Its quality as a technology that produces advanced encryption keys between objects, however, also makes it interesting to those who seek to connect physical objects to digital elements. The reason for this is that the link between objects needs to be ‘secure’ from undesired external interference. In relation to such interests, blockchain has been identified as a highly attractive technology to support the general digitalization of society towards the Internet of Things, smart cities etc. In extension, the implementation of blockchain technology implies that it may work as a tool that has the capacity to direct which objects may/may not interact with each other. The ‘ledger of everything’ that blockchain may possibly produce as regards the ‘Internet of Everything’ is even suggested to make humans and other intermediary technologies redundant. In this essay, I argue that in order to sustain legal critique when the world moves into the next era of digitalization, we need to understand - and question - how technological control operates through e.g. blockchain technology by locking physical and digital elements to each other.

Olivia Choudhury, Hillol Sarker, Nolan Rudolph, Morgan A. Foreman · 9 authors

Recent changes to the Common Rule, which govern Institutional Review Boards (IRB), require implementing new policies to strengthen research protocols involving human subjects. A major challenge in implementing such policies is an inability to automatically and consistently meet these ethical rules while securing sensitive information collected during the study. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, based on blockchain technology, to enforce IRB regulations on data collection. We demonstrate how to design smart contracts and a ledger to meet the requirements of an IRB protocol, including subject recruitment, informed consent management, secondary data sharing, monitoring risks, and generating automated assessments for continuous review. Furthermore, we show how we can employ the immutable transaction log in the blockchain to embed security in research activities by detecting malicious activities and robustly tracking subject involvement. We evaluate our approach by assessing its ability to enforce IRB guidelines in different types of human subjects studies, including a genomic study, a drug trial, and a wearable sensor monitoring study. Keywords: Blockchain, Data Sharing, Data Exchange, EHR, electronic health record, Ethereum, interplanetary filesystem, IPFS

Chuka Oham, Salil S. Kanhere, Raja Jurdak, Sanjay Jha

The advent of autonomous vehicles is envisaged to disrupt the auto insurance\nliability model.Compared to the the current model where liability is largely\nattributed to the driver,autonomous vehicles necessitate the consideration of\nother entities in the automotive ecosystem including the auto\nmanufacturer,software provider,service technician and the vehicle owner.The\nproliferation of sensors and connecting technologies in autonomous vehicles\nenables an autonomous vehicle to gather sufficient data for liability\nattribution,yet increased connectivity exposes the vehicle to attacks from\ninteracting entities.These possibilities motivate potential liable entities to\nrepudiate their involvement in a collision event to evade liability. While the\ndata collected from vehicular sensors and vehicular communications is an\nintegral part of the evidence for arbitrating liability in the event of an\naccident,there is also a need to record all interactions between the\naforementioned entities to identify potential instances of negligence that may\nhave played a role in the accident.In this paper,we propose a BlockChain(BC)\nbased framework that integrates the concerned entities in the liability model\nand provides untampered evidence for liability attribution and adjudication.We\nfirst describe the liability attribution model, identify key requirements and\ndescribe the adversarial capabilities of entities. Also,we present a detailed\ndescription of data contributing to evidence.Our framework uses permissioned BC\nand partitions the BC to tailor data access to relevant BC\nparticipants.Finally,we conduct a security analysis to verify that the\nidentified requirements are met and resilience of our proposed framework to\nidentified attacks.\n

Stan Sater

Healthcare data exists in silos. These siloed systems lack open standards surrounding how data is stored, labeled, and tagged. In turn, these data silos decrease data liquidity, or the ability of data to flow throughout the healthcare system. Undeniably, the healthcare industry sees the value in responsibly sharing health data to extract more value and new insights using predictive analytics, open science, and collaborative solutions. Effective collaboration requires collaborative data. Particularly with health-related data, “sending that data from one peer to another in a secure manner, in a compliant manner, and in a transparent manner” is vital. While organizations share this sentiment, a complex regulatory framework combined with data usage agreements and non-interoperable, proprietary databases add friction to this data exchange. Particularly in healthcare, blockchain enables greater transparency between healthcare professionals sharing data, and it empowers patients to have control over their data. First, this paper briefly discusses blockchain. Next, this paper outlines issues that plague the healthcare industry including the laws that serve as the framework. Finally, this paper discusses architecture considerations for a blockchain based healthcare data exchange that also respects the current regulatory environment.

Corinne Zellweger-Gutknecht

Abstract This chapter considers the regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and other value data (defined as assets which are both excludable and rivalrous, recorded by a trusted technology rather than booked by a qualified intermediary). It begins with a discussion of changes in selected monetary assets and manifestations — namely banknotes and central bank reserve balances — that have occurred over time. It then describes three modes of money creation and their effect on the substance of an asset: money created on a temporary basis; outright money created with no connected reversal event; and by issue of helicopter money. It also analyses the different forms in which cryptocurrencies manifest themselves and their consequences for the rules governing title, transfer and protection of commercial dealings. Finally, it explores the excludable and rivalrous nature of value data and the manifestation of such data by entry in a register kept by a trusted technology.

Wessel Reijers, I.S. Wuisman, Morshed Mannan, Primavera De Filippi · 8 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Yi Zhou, Deepak Kumar, Surya Bakshi, Joshua Mason · 6 authors

Interacting with Ethereum smart contracts can have potentially devastating financial consequences. In light of this, several regulatory bodies have called for a need to audit smart contracts for security and correctness guarantees. Unfortunately, auditing smart contracts that do not have readily available source code can be challenging, and there are currently few tools available that aid in this process. Such contracts remain opaque to auditors. To address this, we present Erays, a reverse engineering tool for smart contracts without the need for source code. Erays takes in smart contract from the Ethereum blockchain and produces high-level pseudocode suitable for manual analysis. We show how Erays can be used to provide insight into several contract properties, such as code complexity and code reuse in the ecosystem. We then leverage Erays to link contracts with no previously available source code to public source code, thus reducing the overall opacity in the ecosystem. Finally, we demonstrate how Erays can be used for reverse-engineering in four case studies: high-value multi-signature wallets, arbitrage bots, exchange accounts, and finally, a popular smart-contract game, Cryptokitties. We conclude with a discussion regarding the value of reverse engineering in the smart contract ecosystem, and how Erays can be leveraged to address the challenges that lie ahead.

David Rozas, Antonio Tenorio-Fornés, Silvia Díaz-Molina, Samer Hassan

Blockchain technologies have generated enthusiasm, yet their potential to enable new forms of governance remains largely unexplored. Two confronting standpoints dominate the emergent debate around blockchain-based governance: discourses characterized by the presence of techno-determinist and market-driven values, which tend to ignore the complexity of social organization; and critical accounts of such discourses which, while contributing to identifying limitations, consider the role of traditional centralized institutions as inherently necessary to enable democratic forms of governance. In this article, we draw on Ostrom’s principles for self-governance of communities to explore the transformative potential of blockchain beyond such standpoints. We approach blockchain through the identification and conceptualization of six affordances that this technology may provide to communities: tokenization, self-enforcement and formalization of rules, autonomous automatization, decentralization of power over the infrastructure, increasing transparency, and codification of trust. For each affordance, we carry out a detailed analysis situating each in the context of Ostrom’s principles, considering both the potentials of algorithmic governance and the importance of incorporating communities’ social practices into blockchain-based tools to foster forms of self-governance. The relationships found between these affordances and Ostrom’s principles allow us to provide a perspective focused on blockchain-based commons governance.

Quinn DuPont

This chapter describes a short-lived experiment in organizational governance that attempted to utilize algorithmic authority through cryptocurrency and block-chain technologies to create a social and political world quite unlike anything we have seen before. It details the governance structures that were promised by the developers and community members involved in the making of The decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO), and in contrast, those that were observed in its discourses before, during, and after the “exploit.” The DAO was a decentralized, crowdfunded, direct-management organization and investment platform. In the original vision of decentralized autonomous organizations, as proposed by Vitalik Buterin, founder and member of the Ethereum Foundation, a DAO is a pseudo-legal organization run by an assemblage of human and “robot” participants. From the earliest days of The DAO, many community members acknowledged that the enormous complexity of decentralized and algorithmic governance required a new kind of experimental “science” to map the “uncharted territory” The DAO was entering.

Georgy Ishmaev

Abstract This paper argues that the practical implementation of blockchain technology can be considered an institution of property similar to legal institutions. Invoking Penner's theory of property and Hegel's system of property rights, and using the example of bitcoin, it is possible to demonstrate that blockchain effectively implements all necessary and sufficient criteria for property without reliance on legal means. Blockchains eliminate the need for a third‐party authority to enforce exclusion rights, and provide a system of universal access to knowledge and discoverability about the property rights of all participants and how the system functions. The implications of these findings are that traditional property relations in society could be replaced by or supplemented with blockchain models, and implemented in new domains.

Damien Trentesaux, Raphaël Rault

Autonomous non-military cyber-physical systems are widely studied in research but there are still few applications in industry. One of the reasons relies in the fact that there is still no proof of guarantee for these systems regarding their safety and their ability to behave in a nonhazardous way, mainly because of the induced complexity caused by their learning abilities coupled with the high ability to interact and cooperate of their composing mechatronics elements. More, cyber-physical systems are intended to be merged into socio-technical systems and interact with humans. As a consequence, the study of their ethical behavior translates currently a major stake. Meanwhile, it is clear that this stake is still not address by the scientific community while 1) sci-fi literature and movies have addressed this since a long time 2) some autonomous road vehicles have already injured people, and 3) EU parliament has launched a procedure dealing with the establishment of civil laws for autonomous learning robots. This paper intends then to open the debate on this topic and suggests to extend dependability studies to integrate ethicality as a new dimension. New emerging research fields are identified and an illustration in the autonomous train transportation is presented.

Philippe Genestier, Sajida Zouarhi, Pascal Limeux, David Excoffier · 7 authors

In our digital world, access to personal data has become an item of concern, with challenging security and privacy aspects. Occurrences of hacking intentions and privacy violations make digital trust a major challenge. This is true in the eHealth area where management of patient health data must comply with many regulations, while remaining accessible to duly authorised health practitioners. Most will have heard about Blockchain because of its most known application - Bitcoin - in the payment area. However, Blockchain’s characteristics make it possible to fulfill the requirements of consent management, as illustrated in an implementation within a health domain use case.

Tom Redshaw

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Bitcoin emerged as an alternative monetary system that could circumvent political and financial authorities. A practice in libertarian prefigurative politics, Bitcoin demonstrates the capacity for online subgroups to creatively appropriate internet-based technologies to enact alternative futures. Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology clarifies this capacity and outlines the significance of agency in technical action. As technology mediates many social relations, it has a significant role in the reproduction of social power. Technological agency is therefore a crucial site of resistance in which users can form alternative, democratic rationalizations of technology. Yet are such instances of agency intrinsically democratic? In analysing this aspect of Feenberg’s theory, this article argues that Bitcoin represents a ‘popular rationalization’ of technology – a creative appropriation of technology that empowers some groups while lacking the ethical justification necessary to be considered democratic.

Paul Catchlove

Given the rise of interest, opportunities and use of smart contracts, it is important to understand what they are, what technology they rely upon and how they function so that it can be ascertained whether this new technology requires additional regulation, or whether the law as it stands is adequate to administer their usage. This paper will outline two key contentions. First, that smart contracts are well managed by existing contract law principles, however, there are some novel issues associated with this new technology. Second, this paper will suggest a resolution on how to take these novel issues into consideration and ensure they are overcome.

Ardit Dika

Ethereum represents the second generation of blockchain technology by providing\nan open and global computing platform which allows the exchange of cryptocurrency\n(Ether) and the development of self-verifying smart contract applications.\nSmart contracts present a foundation for possessing digital assets and a variety of\ndecentralized applications within the blockchain area. Ethereum and smart contracts\nare public, distributed and immutable, as such, they are prone to vulnerabilities\nsourcing from simple coding mistakes of developers.\n\nMotivated by the security breaches and recurring financial losses in smart contracts,\nwe aim to advance the field of security in smart contract programming.\nThe main objective is to aid smart contract developers by providing a taxonomy of\nall known security issues and by inspecting the security code analysis tools used\nto identify those vulnerabilities. Based on previous research as well as attacks on\nEthereum smart contracts, we propose an updated taxonomy which categorizes\nall known vulnerabilities within their architectural and severity level. Our second\nproposed taxonomy is a novel categorization of security tools on Ethereum.\n\nFurthermore, we conduct the investigation of security code analysis tools on\nEthereum by assessing their effectiveness and accuracy. In particular, we analyze\nfour security tools, namely, Oyente, Securify, Remix, and SmartCheck. The results\nindicate that there are overall inconsistencies between the tools on different security\nproperties. SmartCheck outperformed the other tools in terms of effectiveness,\nwhereas Oyente performed the best in terms of accuracy. Furthermore, based on\nthe limitations we identified, we propose future improvements within the user interfaces,\ninterpretation of results, and additional vulnerability checks.

Vintech Solutions, Siddhartha Vadlamudi

Artificial intelligence (AI) delivers numerous chances to add to the prosperity of people and the stability of economies and society, yet besides, it adds up a variety of novel moral, legal, social, and innovative difficulties. Trustworthy AI (TAI) bases on the possibility that trust builds the establishment of various societies, economies, and sustainable turn of events, and that people, organizations, and societies can along these lines just at any point understand the maximum capacity of AI, if trust can be set up in its development, deployment, and use. The risks of unintended and negative outcomes related to AI are proportionately high, particularly at scale. Most AI is really artificial narrow intelligence, intended to achieve a specific task on previously curated information from a certain source. Since most AI models expand on correlations, predictions could fail to sum up to various populations or settings and might fuel existing disparities and biases. As the AI industry is amazingly imbalanced, and experts are as of now overpowered by other digital devices, there could be a little capacity to catch blunders. With this article, we aim to present the idea of TAI and its five essential standards (1) usefulness, (2) non-maleficence, (3) autonomy, (4) justice, and (5) logic. We further draw on these five standards to build up a data-driven analysis for TAI and present its application by portraying productive paths for future research, especially as to the distributed ledger technology-based acknowledgment of TAI.

Caitlin Lustig, Bonnie Nardi

In this paper, I propose a new concept for understanding the role of algorithms in daily life: algorithmic authority. Algorithmic authority is the legitimate power of algorithms to direct human action and to impact which information is considered true. I use this concept to examine the culture of users of Bitcoin, a crypto-currency and payment platform. Through Bitcoin, I explore what it means to trust in algorithmic authority. My study of the Bitcoin community utilizes interview and survey data. I found that Bitcoin users prefer algorithmic authority to the authority of conventional institutions which they see as untrustworthy. However, I argue that Bitcoin users do not have blind faith in algorithms; rather, they acknowledge the need for mediating algorithmic authority with human judgment. I examine the tension between members of the Bitcoin community who would prefer to integrate Bitcoin with existing institutions and those who would prefer to resist integration.

B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors

The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a