Cristina
Sánchez Guarido
Protectionism takes over development cooperation
Migration is one of the main global topics nowadays.
In a context of constant transformation and instantaneous information, public
opinion seems to be each day more polarized regarding certain issues.
While some actors consider that migration is an “important
factor in propelling development”[1]
some governments fuels the opposite idea arguing that development would reduce
migration. In the actual framework this idea seems contrary to the basis of
globalization.
However, migration is a reality and a necessity these
days. It contributes to the growth of each economy in the receiving and the
issuing country. But, does it really help through a development perspective?
Does it promote convergence among countries’ standards of living or actively
contributes in the provision of international public goods?[2]
To understand the short and long term consequences of
migration through a cooperative point of view is important to analyze the real
benefits and damages this phenomenon involves.
The rise of far-right parties in the traditional donor
countries has contributed to the consecration of this trend. Issues such as
terrorism, climate change or the previous one mentioned has displaced the
concern about Development Cooperation or aid at the expense of International
Cooperation.
The lack of solidarity that the International
Community has demonstrated over the last years and the loss of faith in
development programes is depicted in the loss of interest that public opinion
shows.
There are many theories that question the
effectiveness of aid or Development Cooperation in many regions such as Africa.
In this case, traditional donors such as Europe is a victim of a bad press. The
rise of South-South cooperation has displaced the North as the main example to
follow.
BRICS and traditional donors often differ in the way
they conceive development. The South does not share the same aid principles as
the North, and sometimes this emerging countries fails to translate into
practice their “nice rhetoric”[3].
Many fields of the public opinion in Western countries
tend to think that globalization has contributed to a major inequality. The
economic crisis of the last decade produced major changes in the socioeconomic
framework the world was used to. While the wealthiest segment has increased in
number and fortune, the middle classes have seen their living standard quite
damaged.
Globalization has increased inequality inside the
western countries. According to Branko Milanovic[4],
the global 1% (the richest) and the Asian middle class are the ones most
benefited. This factors actually balance the global framework.
Despite the common belief, the growth of certain
powers such as China has actually led to a more equal world. The increasing
dissatisfaction in traditional donors countries could explain the lack of
interest in developing countries regarding development cooperation that the
agenda setting shows these days. That is why certain issues such as migration
are not so welcomed as a decade before.
Some political actors use this discontent to promote
certain ideas based in protectionism that are alienated from global principles
such as aid or solidarity.
In this context, the idea of a multilateral aid and
development cooperation through developing countries gets each time stronger.
They share a common background and structures. Emerging countries plays a
determinant role in this phenomenon. Instead of using financial transfer, they
disguise their cooperation in a win-win more equal relation between actors.
In addition, the economic crisis also carried decisive
consequences in the relation between developed and developing countries. The
loss of credibility and security also produced a gap that these emerging
countries have exploited.
Cristina, in this short blog entry you deal with various issues related to development cooperation. After reading it, I am not sure why you put the title "protectionism takes over development cooperation" because, for me protectionism refers to a restrictive trade policy but you do not talk about trade. Could you clarify why you talk about protectionism? Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarCristina response: I was just trying to explain the loss of interest in the public opinion of Western countries through the actual political and economic framework. The recent economic crisis set a new world order; globalization has contributed to a more equal world despite the growing differences in the traditional donor countries.
EliminarAlthough protectionism refers to a restrictive trade policy, everything is connected in the current socioeconomic scenario. This polarization could explain the loss of interest and solidarity of the North in certain issues such as aid or development cooperation: they are too busy trying to get back a status that is no longer “avaliable” due to the economic crisis. This is why immigration is now seen as a threat in certain protectionist countries and not as an lmportant factor in propelling development.