Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
52 Seiten, Note: 1,7
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2 THEORETICAL APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT POLITICS
2.1 FOCUS ON THE THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
2.2 MODERNIZATION THEORY
2.3 DEPENDENCY THEORY
2.3.1 POST COLONIALISM
2.4 WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
2.5 GLOBALIZATION THEORY
2.6 POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORY
3 WESTERN MOTIVATIONS - IS THE WESTERN DONOR’S BEHAVIOR BASED ON ALTRUISM?
3.1 WHAT DOMINATES THE WESTERN DONOR BEHAVIOR?
3.2 FROM THEORIES TO MOTIVES
3.2.1 A CHRONOLOGY OF AID
3.3 KEY MOTIVES
3.3.1 INTERNAL MOTIVES
3.3.2 EXTERNAL MOTIVES
4 IS CHINA´S DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA IN LINE WITH TO THE TRADITIONAL PERCEPTION OF MOTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION?
4.1 CHINA’S “DIFFERENT APPROACH” TO DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
4.2 CHINA´S POLICY IN AFRICA: NEO-COLONIALISM VS. “WIN-WIN-COOPERATION”
4.2.1 INTERNAL DIMENSION
4.2.2 EXTERNAL DIMENSION
4.3 CHINA´S OPERATIONS IN AFRICA: WHICH TOOLS ARE USED TO PURSUE THE POLITICAL AGENDA?
4.3.1 THE REFORM OF 1995
4.4 AFRICAN PERCEPTIONS ON CHINA IN AFRICA - POST-COLONIAL AND POST- DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS
5 COMPARISON OF THE “WESTERN” AND CHINESE MOTIVES
5.1 FIND AN ANSWER TO THE HYPOTHESIS
FIGURE 1: THE CORE - PERIPHERY MODEL OF STRUCTURAL DEPENDENCY (S ANGMEISTER AND SCHÖNSTEDT , 2009, P . 115)
FIGURE 2: WALLERSTEIN ´ S W ORLD S YSTEMS T HEORY M ODEL
FIGURE 3: POST -D EVELOPMENT S CHOOL IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER MOVEMENTS
FIGURE 4: THE HISTORY OF A ID (M OYO , 2009, P . 10-28)
FIGURE 5: CHINA ’ S SYSTEM OF AID AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION (B RAUTIGAM , 2009, P . 108)
FIGURE 6: W ASHINGTON VS . B EIJING CONSENSUS FOR ACHIEVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ( VAN D IJK , 2009, P . 23)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Since the end of WWII and the movement towards independence of former colonies, devel- opment cooperation has become an important issue for world governments as well as for academicians. Different theories about the causation of development and underdevelopment have emerged since the 1950´s and have been the subject of fervent discussions within the academic community. A multitude of theories and approaches have been the result of these discussions and can be used to understand development and its related implications. This the- sis will provide an overview of the most relevant theories of development and show how they are the product of their respective time. The works of the most influential authors of the re- spective theories will support the theoretical discussion in order to offer the framework for the deduction of motives in the following chapter.
The definition for motive is stipulated by the Oxford dictionary as being the “reason for doing something”. In politics, the act of implementing a certain policy can have several reasons (motives), which, in this thesis, will be divided into internal and external factors. The 2nd chapter of this thesis examines the five major development theories. The main motives for aid have been by the traditional donors is derived from these theories. The motives that have been deduced in the 3rd chapter constitute the basis for the comparison between the traditional donor motives and those of the Chinese.
The 4th chapter examines the Chinese development agenda (with a strong focus on sub- Saharan Africa) and deduces Chinese motives for development cooperation. In the 5th and final chapter a comparison is made between Chinese and classical motives for the provision of aid based on the major development theories. The paper attempts to describe whether Chinese behavior vis-a-vie aid, can be explained by the traditional theories or not. The aim is to find as many similarities or oppositions as possible in order to give a pertinent answer to the research question and to offer both the author and the reader the insight to evaluate the Chinese posi- tion. The works of Deborah Brautigam among others will be the main source of information for this chapter.
In describing the traditional motives, attention will not be paid to specific differences in bilateral arrangements or multilateral support to countries. A comparison between the US approach to aid and the Chinese approach would be an interesting question to answer. However, the aim is to give a broader overview, in order to facilitate a more general comparison and therefore a specific confrontation of the politics of both these countries would unfortunately be beyond the scope of this bachelor-thesis.
This thesis focuses only on the theories that examine state or actors behavior in development cooperation in general, in order to elucidate the motives of these states or actors. A y-centered research approach (Gerring, 2006) has been used in order to answer the following question: “Can China´s motives for development cooperation be explained by the models of the classical theories of development?”
The dependent variable (y) is China´s motives and the independent variables (x1, 2, 3, 4,n) are the motives derived from the classical theories. This paper investigates whether there is a correlation between these traditional motives and the Chinese motives or whether the Chinese motivations cannot be explained by the classical theories. The last part of this thesis is a dis- cussion of the following hypothesis, which reflects my research questions and the relationship of the variables:
Chinese motives highly correlate with the motives described by traditional development theo- ries. The comparison, that has been deduced, might not be immediately evident to the reader, see- ing that this is a comparison of motives derived from a theoretical discussion (chapter 2 and 3), with motives that were derived from empirical observations (chapter 4).
In this chapter I will give an overview of the theoretical discussion of development after World War II. The theoretical concepts will give a framework that will help to define the typ- ical motives of development policy. In this thesis I will focus on defining the theory of mod- ernization, the theory of dependency and its derivatives post-dependency and post- colonialism theories, the world-systems and globalization theory and finally the post- development theory.
I will present how the main authors of these theories argue and give possible reasons that will explain the shifts in motives within development cooperation through the years. Most of these theorists argue from a western point of view, which means that their focus of research have usually been western countries, respectively western policies. Another important issue I want to address before introducing the theories is the fact that most of the theories look at development from an economic point of view, which obviously makes sense, but sometimes ignores other relevant approaches to development, like climate theories, psychological theories and social-capital theories of development. (Lachmann, 2004, p.96) Observing development and underdevelopment from an economic point of view simplifies the theoretical approach, since the use of a variable like income per capita, allows a gradual com- parison of populations in different countries. Following this logic, a country which has an income of 1000 US$ per capita is less developed than a country with 2000 US$ per capita. More recent theories have acknowledged that the use of the indicator income per capita is a simplification and have applied different variables as object of comparison, the human devel- opment index (HDI) being the most recent object of comparison.
The author, however, will not focus on the object of comparison that theories use to explain the relationship between underdevelopment and development, but, instead, will try to give a broad overview of the theoretical concepts of development and how these offer a framework of explanations for the motives of developed states to pursue development cooperation. I will thus focus on the donor/developed side of development cooperation and less on the recipient side.
This subchapter will discuss the first major theory that originated after WW2 and gave a pos- sible explanation for the increased focus of states on the field of development cooperation.
Modernization theory emerged in the 1950s and was widely discussed in political science, economics and sociology, among others. The major theorists of this movement assumed that the creation of a modern society would inevitably lead to development and the rise of a na- tion. This assumption was based on the success story of the United States of America and the implementation of the Marshall-Plan, which led to a modernization and democratization of the war-torn countries of Europe. The premise was that there were two forms of societies, one modern, which was usually led by a democratically elected government, was highly industri- alized and urbanized, and displayed a high level of secularization and one traditional which was usually lead by an arbitrary and inefficient government, was mostly rural with a small degree of industrialization and based on traditional values. (Calhoun, 2002)
Modernization proponents were persuaded that the way to forge a stable and economically prosperous nation was to embrace a process of modernization. This means, that once a (de- velopment) country would implement policies to allow the modernization process to start, it would automatically lead to growth and to an increase of standard of living for a country´s population.
One major proponent of this theory is Walt Whitman Rostow an American economist, who published The stages of economic development: a non-communist manifesto in 19701. He be- lieved that the transition from a traditional to a modern society or in other words from an un- derdeveloped to a developed nation would always undergo the same five stages. The five stages of a country were 1) „the traditional society, 2) the pre-conditions for take-off into self- sustaining growth 3) the take-off 4) the drive to maturity 5) the age of high mass consump- tion“. (Todaro and Smith, 2011)
His idea´s are based on an analysis of the economic history of the United States and Europe, which managed to achieve the transition from widely traditional nations (medieval Europe) to modern and industrialized nations (Europe after industrialization).
Rostow considers the take-off as the most important step to establish a stable and lasting economy. In order to get to the take-off stage, a country would have to establish three main pre-conditions within its economy:
“First, a build-up of social-overhead capital, notably in transport. […] Second, a technological revolution in agriculture. […] Third, an expansion in imports financed by the more efficient production and marketing of some natural resources plus, where possible, capital imports.”(Rostow, 1959, p. 5)
Following Rostow´s argument that more investment would lead to economic growth, which would accelerate the transformation process, it makes sense to establish aid-programs that increase the investment inflow into the economies of the development countries. Moderniza- tion theorists consider the problem of underdevelopment as an internal one, implying that the change has to come from an internal shift of paradigm. This makes modernization theory an endogenous theory, implying that the cause for underdevelopment lies within the develop- ment country.
Following this argumentation a first motive derived from this very important tool of devel- opment (financial support, through capital exports) can now be stated: The modern societies of Europe and the United States have believed in the success of the modernization approach2 and have therefore tried, to speed up the modernization process in development countries by offering economic aid.
This can be considered as being part of the western motivation to give development assis- tance, but following the academic discussion it is important to say that modernization theory has suffered from vast criticism, which especially contradicted the one-sided notion of the classical theory, which states that economic success can only happen within a modern society (especially success stories in South-East-Asia like Taiwan and South Korea have shown that economic development is possible in traditional and autocratic regimes, contradicting the premise of modernization theorists). The stage-model of economic growth argues that more investment naturally leads to more economic growth which can be considered to be a too simple view of development, since it does not take into consideration the different political environments and structures of individual countries.
Dependency theorists follow a different approach of development economics. Dependency theory is basically a counter-movement to modernization theory since it perceives the reason for underdevelopment as an external, making it an exogenous theory. One of the most influen- tial dependency theorists is Andre Gunder Frank, who developed a radical perception of de- pendency theory by analyzing the economic history of Brazil and Chile in his book Capital- ism & Underdevelopment in Latin America in 1967. He claims that the capitalist world3 is divided into metropolises and satellites, starting from the state level all the way down to the regional level, and that this metropolis-satellite relationship creates the development of underdevelopment. Metropolis in the nation sense is what other theorists would call the core and satellite the periphery. As Frank points out “these ties, this growing interconnection, is accompanied by - no, produces - increasing polarization between the two ends of metropolissatellite chain in the world capitalist system.” (Frank, 1967, p. 150)
The problem of this polarization is that it creates a great inequality of income on the national level as well as on the international level. According to Frank foreign aid and investment from developed to development countries enhance the polarization and rigidify the capitalist structure of the world, which dependency theorists are greatly opposed to. The only logical way out of this “curse” of underdevelopment seems to be a firm and definite rupture of economic and financial ties between developed and development countries.
Other dependency theorists, in a similar fashion have stressed the point that the main reason for underdevelopment is caused by the fact that “economic processes are the basic structural force of history and that over the last several centuries it has been northern capitalism […] that has been history´s locomotive.” (Smith, 1981, p. 756) That said, dependency theory clear- ly sees the problem of underdevelopment in the modern developed countries, which exploit the development countries to their advantage. Dependency theorists consider the world´s economy as a system in which the countries are divided into two different classes: the core (modern, industrialized countries) and the periphery (less developed, mostly traditional coun- tries).
FIGURE 1: THE CORE - PERIPHERY MODEL OF STRUCTURAL DEPENDENCY (S ANGMEISTER AND S CHÖNSTEDT , 2009, P . 115)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
These authors point out the cause of underdevelopment, which according to them is due to the fact that the technological and economic development and industrialization of the “core na- tions” (i.e. the US and industrialized Europe) have benefited from the historical exploitation of the peripheral states. These authors consider the historical exploitation as being the eco- nomic relationship of the core and the periphery that was characterized by large-scale invest- ments of the core in the periphery and in return urging the periphery to become „consumers of manufactures and [...] producers of raw materials“. (Singer, 1950, p. 479) Or as Dos Santos puts it “it is the combination of these inequalities […] which explains the inequality, deepens it, and transforms it into a necessary and structural element of the world’s economy”. (Dos Santos, 1970, p. 231) Immanuel Wallerstein, one of the most influential dependency theory proponents argues that capitalism since the 16th century has created a system in which strong economies achieve to enhance their strength by exploiting the weaker economies. (Wallerstein, 1974b, p. 404)
Hans Singer, another important dependency theorist who further examines the relationship between industrialized states and underdeveloped states, shows that the core states lead the periphery into a dependency situation by encouraging it to focus on an economy with little possibilities of technological innovation, thus giving the core a decisive economic advantage. (Singer, 1950, p. 477)
It is important to point out that dependency theorists consider the problem as an external and most importantly as a structural one. According to them the problem of underdevelopment is caused by the world´s economic structure and thus, according to a few radical dependency proponents, can only be overthrown by the peripheral countries through the rupture of eco- nomic ties to the core.
Another critical theory, which follows the spirit of the dependency movement, emerged in the 1970´s and is widely known as post-colonialism. Post-colonialists who usually came from the so-called “third world countries” use a different angle to counter modernist views. Edward Said, a Palestinian literary critic, is probably the most famous post-colonialism proponent. In his book Orientalism (1979) he claims that the terms “West” and “East” were constructed by occidental schools of thought and created relationships of unbalance and dominance. As he puts it Orientalism is “an elaboration, not only of a basic geographical distinction (the world is made up of two unequal halves, Occident and Orient) but also of a whole series of “interests”, which […] it not only creates, but also maintains, it is, rather than expresses, a certain will or intention to understand, in some cases to control, manipulate, even to incorporate what is a manifestly different […] world.” (Said, 1979, p. 12)
Post-colonialism can be considered as a revision and reflection of the western concepts that were widely agreed to be positive without further questioning. (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, p. 212)
Post-colonialism follows dependency theory in a way that both post-colonialists and depend- ency theorists, agree that the observed dependence is a structural phenomenon and thus highly influenced by the core countries that benefit from the interdependent nature of the relationship with the periphery.
The major idea that can be derived from both theories is that it is acknowledged that the developing countries are in a weaker position, which is supposedly caused by the developed countries policies. It offers a framework of explanation of the causes of underdevelopment in the Southern part of the world.
Dependency theory offers a rather pessimistic view of western motives to give development assistance. Following the theory´s logic, industrialized countries would invest into developed countries in order to strengthen their already dominant position and support the domestic economic development, without caring for the situation in the developed country. The accuracy of this perception will be discussed in chapter three.
Post-Colonialism will also attest ego-centrist motives, since it shows that western behavior towards former colonies and the socio-economic and cultural consequences of it, as described by Edward Said, benefit the developed states’ interests and disadvantage the former colonies. The major critics of dependency theory usually refer to the newly industrialized countries such as Brazil or Argentina who “developed sizable industrial bases” (Rapley, 2007, p. 27) to counter the argument that the capitalist world structure would prevent underdeveloped countries from reaching an industrialized level.
Immanuel Wallerstein is the main author of the World-Systems theory, which he widely de- veloped in his book The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century in 1974. Wallerstein, a dependency theory proponent, analyzes the history of Europe of the 16th century, which according to him is the period when the capitalist world, as we know it today came into existence. He perceives the world´s system as a “geographical division of labor”. (Wallerstein, 1974a, p. 349) In line with the dependency theory he acknowledges the inequality of the division of labor, which is high- ly beneficial to a few states and unfavorable for the vast majority of the other states. According to him, any area can be classified into four categories; the core, the semi- periphery, the periphery and an external arena. If we transfer his analysis of the world in the 16th century into a more recent context, one could say that the core is composed of modern industrialized countries (the US, Japan, Germany, etc.), the semi-peripheral countries (Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, etc.), and the peripheral countries (the least developed countries, most of sub-Saharan Africa, and some countries in Latin America). These countries interact within a capitalistic world system, in which the periphery is exploited by the semi-periphery and the core exploits both. The logic is that underdevelopment in the periphery and semi-periphery is causally related to the development in the core. One phenomenon causes the other and vice- versa. (Andersen, 2004, S. 87)
FIGURE 2: W ALLERSTEIN ´ S W ORLD S YSTEMS T HEORY M ODEL 4
illustration not visible in this excerpt
If we refer back to chapter 2.2. the World-Systems-Theory might seem identical to dependen- cy theory, which is standing to reason, since Wallerstein’s theory is based on the dependency theory framework. However he adds two more dimensions to his theory, which makes it sig- nificantly different from dependency theory: the semi-periphery and the external area. Espe- cially the semi-periphery takes a crucial importance in his concept. As he puts it “these mid- dle areas […] partially deflect the political pressures which groups primarily located in pe- ripheral areas might otherwise direct against core states and the groups which operate within and through their state machineries” (Wallerstein, 1974a, p. 350)
Countries that do not take part in the world-systems economy define the external arena. This external arena is basically non-existant nowadays, since globalization has increased the inter- relationships of states to a level that makes it nearly impossible not to participate in the sys- tem.5
The World Systems theory offers another explanation of development cooperation. In order to assert their economic dominance the core countries give aid to the peripheral countries, be- cause they assume that it will strengthen the relationship with these countries leading to eco- nomic links that are needed in order to keep the core countries’ economies running. All these theories mentioned before were valuable models at the time, but cannot on their own reflect the shift of nowadays political reality in the field of development cooperation. New powers have emerged (the BRICS-states) and have changed the competiveness of donor and recipient relations. The run for resources can especially be observed with the new powers India and China, who need resources to promote their economic growth.
The theory of globalization emerged in the 1990s as an answer to explain the new relationship between states and non-state actors in the Post-Cold-War era. Its main hypothesis is that cul- tural values that have their origins in the modern and developed states of Europe and the United States spread to development countries through new technologies and highly influence the relationship between states, not only on the governmental level, but also and especially on the level of the civil societies.
1 Although modernization theory emerged in the 1950´s, one of the most influential works was the one of Rostow published in 1970, thus showing the relevance of modernization theory for several decades.
2 The Marshall-Plan and the development of states in Latin America with the financial support of the United States were examples that influenced the modernization approach.
3 Frank explicitly excludes the socialist world from his theoretical model.
4 Personal representation, inspired by http://wahyusetyaningrum.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/united-nations-world-systems-theory.gif
5 North Korea and Cuba might be seen as examples, but these countries are also dependent on imports from dominant partners such as China and are not self-sufficient, which is a necessary requirement to be part of the external arena.
Bachelorarbeit, 63 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 89 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 44 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 90 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 63 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 89 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 44 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 90 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!