Elena Terán González
The paths to development
When something works for us, we try to teach others
how to achieve it the same way we did. This human behavior does not imply
malevolency, just the sharing of experience. When it comes to countries in the
international arena, this demeanor may have connotations of paternalism, and might
entail the risk of extrapolating without taking the environment into account.
The traditional perspective of development follows the notion of assistance
from Northern developed countries to Southern developing ones, an usage
difficult to overpass.
The emancipation of the South in economic terms has
changed the rules, because of its power in trade affairs, it seems unfair to
assume that development is still controlled only by Northern,
traditionally-rich countries[1].
Also, it is difficult to replicate the conditions and environment of the North
in the South.
The rise of the BRICS[2]
and the new Beijing Consensus[3] altered
the status quo, and now there are
countries like China which do not accept anymore the ideological bias that
sometimes the Northern countries impose on development. The traditional
leadership of Western economic agencies, such as the International Monetary
Fund or the World Bank, recently has found its counterpart in the New
Development Bank (2014)[4],
driven by the BRICS countries.
The New Development Bank has arisen as an alternative
of the Western paradigm, and tries to motivate a South-South axis of
cooperation instead of the traditional North-South one. This cooperation
patterns avoid the charity – power dependency and defend that the objectives
should be set by the South[5].
Above all, they defend the sovereignty and non-intervention in domestic
affairs, something the North has been traditionally accused of. Even though, the
idea of a new development pattern aseptic, without political or strategic
ulterior motives, is an utopian thought. BRICS want to row in a different direction,
which seems new and fairer, but at the end their ambition is to lead.
Apart from this power game to achieve the leadership
of the South’s evolution, there are still other issues related to the models of
development.
Once the false myth of the effectiveness of
replicating Northern patterns in Southern subjects has been overcome, it is
interesting to analyze the emerging paradigm. This idea has been summarized by
George Ingram and Jonathan Papoulidis[6],
and consists on: resilience, adaptive development, addressing political
problems and collective action. The adaptive development is very interesting as
much as it denies the bond to follow others path, because of its inflexibility
and linearity. This new approach tries to implement change given the context,
without using pre-fixed solutions. The resilience approach prepares for
opportunities and gives a lot of relevance to the experimentation process,
cross-learning and evolution[7].
The globalization has democratized a lot of issues
which traditionally were local and without global relevance, such as climate
change, political changes, social revolts and vindications… Nowadays, due to
the spread of the internet and communications, the world is more connected than
ever, so the isolation of Southern countries it is neither possible nor
recommendable. It is very difficult to shape an independent model of
development without being inspired by the rich countries. It is an
irresponsibility to cut the ties between countries and to look for a total
emancipation. Ours is a connected world, so there is little sense on pretending
to live in isolated realities.
Countries which want to take a stand for development
are confronted with either the Northern rich-countries approach or the newer
BRICS proposal; but they do not have to mandatorily choose only one of them.
Southern countries should try make the most out of the experience achieved by Northerners
in development, in order to build upon it. Northern countries, for their part,
should respect Southern sovereignty to decide which path to follow, but also
accept the responsibility of teaching and helping them to achieve their goals.
Development is a global issue in which all the
countries should be involved[8].
The tireless search of “what works”[9]
for developing countries in order to achieve the development goals has pass
through many theories. Even though, it is necessary to help this countries to
develop, and it is also important to base this on a principle of
sovereignty.
Hence, the empowerment of the traditionally forgotten
regions of the world does not have to pass through a reversal experience,
refusing everything related to the North or following blindly the BRICS’s trail.
The smart choice is to create an original path, but always learning from what
others have done.
[1] Classreading1: Bilal, S (2012): https://www.vvob.be/files/publicaties/20120530_ontwikkelingsdebat_bilal_05-12_south-south_partnership.pdf
[2] Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa, the five most important emerging economies in the world.
[7] Classreading2: Graid (2016): https://graid.earth/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GRAID-Talking-Point-Development-in-the-Anthropocene.pdf
[8] Classreading3: Hearn, S; Strew J (2015): https://cic.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/publication_hearn_strew_dev_goals_april2015.pdf
Elena: I like this idea of finding an intermediate solution between the old North-South model and the idea that South-South cooperation should somehow be the dominant model. What do you think the chances are that developing countries will take your advice? Explain briefly your answer. Prof. C. Freres
ResponderEliminarThank you for your comment, professor. I believe there is still some hope to achieve the independence from the two models I talked about. There is no need for alienation in any of the development offers but, to be honest, obviously, taking sides means that a counterpart should also exist. The chances of being neutral are few, but the wish for empowerment of developing countries and their exhaustion of being manipulated by the developed ones could encourage them to follow this path. Also, the promotion of cooperation without a national interest would reinforce the intermediate solution.
ResponderEliminarElena Terán