DP1 Students: IA Engagements!

Debates Surrounding Development

Most important thing

When topics related to globalization, inequality, and sustainability come up, it may be helpful to keep in mind different perspectives; cost-benefit or pro-con analysis; or the challenges of globalization, inequality, and sustainability.

Globalization: Wins and Losses

Global North & Global South

This is roughly analogous to the terms of core (global north) and periphery (global south). Note that in that model, the semi-periphery would mostly be considered a part of the global south.

The global north (blue) tends to be made up of the "more developed countries" and countries that are net importers or consumers, while the global south is considered to be "less developed" and has countries that are more likely to be involved in resource extraction or production/manufacturing as their primary industries.

It could be said that the core / global north are the net "winners" of globalization, and the periphery / global south the net "losers" due to widening inequality between countries, environmental degradation as a result of development activities in the global south, and the core countries holding the reins of power in most IGOs and international financial institutions.

However, in the global north, globalization has destabalized some political systems as immigration and a loss of manufacturing jobs (among other things) has led to a resurgence in nationalist and populist political movements (Poland, Hungary, MAGA in the United States, Brexit, etc.)

Is "standard of living" universal?

A discussion of "wins and losses" could explore whether or not a universal idea of what constitutes a good standard of living is viable. Should countries aim for a Western, commercial/consumer lifestyle (a la W.W.Rostow and his Modernization theory) or is "standard of living" and quality of life best understood in a culturally relative way?

Problems with a consumer-driven meaning for "standard of living" is that it will naturally disadvantage countries that are less-developed and who still have strong roots in a traditional culture or belief system. This could perhaps be balanced by looking at things via something like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which may help us understand the gains that development has led to throughout the world. Looking at poverty rates, hunger, women in education and the workforce, etc. highlights how progress has been made worldwide, even if there is still a lot of room to grow.

Specific countries' perspectives?

Should a country like China be considered a winner or loser in globalization? Most would say "winner," for sure. Yet, China is considered a part of the global south and still has a high level of poverty (despite the government changing the definition.) Nonetheless, tremendous progress has been made in the last 30-40 years.

Sometimes, looking at things regionally (i.e. global north, global south, etc.) may obscure some of the positive aspects of development. An examination of specific countries is worth carrying out. Play around with www.gapminder.org/tools and look at things like GDP growth, literacy rates, life expectancy for states like Nigeria, China, Vietnam, India, Colombia, and Mexico.

At the same time, some countries' success stories may be more limited: Bangladesh, for instance, is currently a hot spot for textile manufacturing, due to an abundance of skilled labor and low labor costs. While this has certainly helped citizens to a certain extent, it also means that a lot of Bangladesh's economy is tied up in foreign investment -- if these companies find a cheaper source of labor they may move. Furthermore, a lot of this investment is focused on ONE industry (there are others, to be clear, but textiles are the biggest by far.)

Below: Good article on six different "narratives" regarding Globalization, and the "winners and losers"

There are six main narratives of globalisation, all flawed | Aeon EssaysNo wonder we cannot agree on how globalisation works and whether it’s a good thing. All the stories we have are flawed

Inequality and Development

The role of politics

This is an area where power must be considered. It's worth being aware of what IGOS can do, what they can't do, and what their member states simply can't be bothered to do.

For instance, the SDGs are a dramatic improvement over the 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals, but they still have glaring flaws (particularly when it comes to environmental protection.) International agreements like the Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Climate Agreement are important steps, but... what can really be done to enforce those agreements? What can convince reticent countries and leaders to take things more seriously?

States

Considered by most accounts to be the most important political actors. States have power and sovereignty, but they also have their own interests. There is basically nothing in Global Politics theory that can account for a state acting against its own interests. These interests are often a barrier to greater action on development and international cooperation. Typically, the most reticent states are the largest and most powerful, or those who haven't gone through the same tough times as others (like how the U.S. was not left in ruins after WWI or WWII.)

IGOS

You might expect IGOs to have more influence than they actually have. Keep in mind that they have very little power, and nothing along the lines of sovereignty. They do offer legitimacy, though; working together, being seen as "part of the team" are important for many states. Rising powers often seek a leading role in IGO efforts or committees, though this often serves a mix of interests: both those of the IGO/committee as well as that of the state seeking a greater role.

Informal groups like the G7 or G20 (economic forums) and various security and development conferences and summits also play a role. In these settings, states are still the most important actors, but the informal forums provide an opportunity for these states to meet and hash out ideas.

NGOs

On an international level, it could be argued that NGOs (particularly individual NGOs) are essentially unimportant when it comes to development.

However, when you look at things on a local or national level things may change. NGOs represent "civil society," and they often have a much better connection to events "on the ground" than a state's government, and certainly better than an IGO.

Think about our video class last year with Melanie from Futuro Lleno de Esperanza; that organization worked with Haitian children and migrants in the countryside, groups that the local and national government either ignored or looked down on. A collection of these IGOs in a country, and working in countries across the world, often directly combat inequality in ways that other political actors simply can't or won't.

Reading

Jeffrey Sachs on Inequality and Covid Deaths

Sustainable Development

The role of politics

Here, like with inequality, we need to consider actors and power.

With sustainable development, politics become even more of a significant factor. There is not universal agreement over the upsides of sustainability. Hell, we can't even get states to agree that climate change is man-made. This means that a lot of powerful actors either sit out efforts at sustainable development or they throw their weight around and end up watering down agreements that are made.

States

Yet again, states are probably the most important actors. Think about things like the SDGs: while these are global goals, they are measured and implemented at the state level. One benefit of having 17 goals is that many SDGs are going to naturally overlap with what most states want to achieve. This won't always be the case though and some states will ignore certain goals for their own reasons (like, I can't see Saudi Arabia going hard at getting equality for women.)

In the last several years, we've seen states join sustainability agreements, leave sustainability agreements, etc. indicating this is still an issue that is very much in flux.

IGOs

A particular challenge facing IGOs is the choice over whether to set ambitious goals for sustainable development, or to opt instead for lighter goals that are more likely to get states' approval and agreement.

IGOs are not in a position to force anyone to do anything, so they have to use diplomacy and other tactics to try and coax reticent actors into actually doing something.

IGOS serve the goal of sustainability mainly by serving as a platform for cooperation. While all 17 SDGs are arguably important, #17 wouldn't be achievable without IGOs as the lynchpin for the whole effort.

Civil Society

Here, it's worth expanding beyond NGOs. Social movements also play a big role in sustainability, when it comes to promoting the idea at least.

Greta Thunberg's Don't Go To School Movement School Strike for Climate gained international attention. Other organizations like Extinction Rebellion (international, but mainly in the U.K.) draw attention to sustainability and climate issues through attention-grabbing stunts and displays of civil disobedience. NGOs can continue their on the ground effort, but also pressure state governments and IGOs to do more. Involving the rest of civil society increases that pressure and could lead to the formation of new political parties ("Green" parties everywhere typically have some environmental issue pretty near and dear to their hearts.)

Additional Stuff

Some of what Mearsheimer discusses in this video can be applied to the international system of development.

Page updated

Report abuse