Camille
Dubois
BRICS
and the development architecture
It has recently come to my attention the wide and increasingly common
debate around what academics call the ‘architecture’ of development aid, referring
to the structure and players involved. It seems that the emerging powers from
the South such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa, known as the BRICS
country, are challenging the traditional approach to development aid [1].
These countries spectacular economic expansion in the recent years, has
allowed them to act as leading development actors within the Southern
hemisphere itself. In fact, according to a report published by the IMF,
developing countries accounted for 30% of the world’s GDP in 1990. While last
year, they accounted to 54% of the world’s GDP [2]. However, not all developing countries
have experienced equal economic growth. The main ones – apart from Middle
Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates – are the BRICS.
A report published by the Word Bank shows that the largest number of
people living in poverty are located in developing countries. Here are some
data: 15% of the population in developing countries are still leaving in
extreme poverty conditions – with less than US$1.90 a day; 55% of the
population are living in real poverty conditions with less than US$3.10. In
2016, 62% of the population in these countries were vulnerable to poverty[3]. Thus, the emergence of economic powers
within the region is seen as positive to tackle this issue.
Here is why: developing countries tend to have a common and shared
background, with similar history as they used to be colonized by Western
countries. As a consequence, most of them face similar challenges regarding
their economic situation and developing issues. South-South cooperation is based
on the belief that development can be achieved by the developing countries
themselves through mutual assistance [4]. However, I would like to point out that
developing countries largely contribute to the process of development
themselves. In fact, according to a study conducted by Griffiths, 30% of the
public revenues and 28% of domestic investment are directed to finance
development [5].
What are the features of South-South cooperation then? Most of the
“assistance” provided comes through trade within them. Technical cooperation
also plays a major role in these countries. This kind of cooperation refers to
teaching and training of particular skills. It also includes the provision of
technical services and resources [6]. For example, in 2015, India provided
more than 8000 technical assistants to neighbouring countries. This kind of
cooperation has proven strongly effective as skills are shared, but also
methods in order to achieve good governance, to maximise the profits of
agriculture, and to spread the importance of respecting human rights through
the region. Another positive aspect of this type of cooperation is that civil
society itself participates in the development process, thus, empowering people
and creating strong links with other countries.
Due to the rise of these emerging actors, calls have been made demanding
a new development architecture. This has been the case of Yiping Zhou, Director
of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC). He stresses
that the old development architecture is no longer effective due to the
emerging actors joining the process. The agenda should suit the concerns of
both, the traditional and the new actors in development [7]. The UNOSSC was established in 1974 and
provides the arena in order to achieve together the Sustainable Development
Goals.
 |
BRICS countries have repeatedly defended their position as being an
alternative from Western countries. They strongly reject the terms ‘assistance’,
‘aid’ and ‘recipient country’ when referred to them, they prefer their projects
and financing activities to be referred to as ‘partnership’ or ‘cooperation’.
This is because they strongly defend the “principles of equality, partnership
and mutual interest” [8]. One of the reasons for this could be
because of their strong rejection against the West, they do not want to be
compared or put in the same bag as them. However, are they actually so
different from traditional donors as they claim?
Well, it seems that the answer is no. Just as Western donors who claim
to provide aid based on the principles of assistance and solidarity. It seems
that the real driving force which has led development aid has been harmonized
with the national interests of the donor countries. As a matter of fact, it
seems BRICS ‘cooperation’ for development has been driven by the same force,
even if they strongly deny it.
But if this was the case, how is it possible that China’s development
assistance programs are directed to countries such as Nairobi, Niger, Zambia,
which are all resource-rich countries? It seems that Brazil, India and South
Africa’s assistance program also strongly fulfil their national interests of
becoming a leading actor and strengthening their international image. Surprising
right?
In sum, developing countries demand a new architecture for development
in order to express more evenly their concerns. Will BRICS be the base material
of this new architecture?
[3] Class
Reading 2 - Reality of aid report: http://www.realityofaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Abridged-ROA-Report-2016.pdf
Camille: an interesting reflection on the role of the BRICs in development arquitecture. You come to a conclusion that BRICs are not that different from the rich countries in that they also seek to benefit from cooperation relations. Does this mean that nothing will really change in terms of addressing the high level of poverty in the world? What do you think? Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarFrom Camille: "In my opinion the development architecture will have to change in order to integrate new donor states in its process. I believe the fact that developing countries themselves have become donors implies a new approach to the structure of development itself as this has historically been dominated by developed actors. There is now an urge to change our understanding of the development concept as a Western concept.
EliminarI also believe that the fact that developing countries have become themselves donor actors might increase the outcomes of development aid. Many developing actors prefer to rely on a country with who they share a common past or history, as they tend to strongly associate “aid” from developed countries as another mean to impose their influence. As argued throughout this article, developing actors also seek to obtain some benefits from the aid they provide. However, I do not believe it is a bad thing if in fact they manage to help other countries develop and improve. It might even prove more effective.