Author: pbehuria

The Uncomfortable Opportunism of Global Development Discourses

pbehuriaLeave a comment

Since the 2008 financial crisis and the end of the Millennium Development Goals, academics and practitioners working in 鈥榙evelopment鈥� have been groping for a new development paradigm. Yearning for the end of neoliberalism and stumped by the rise of China, hopped on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) bandwagon to call social scientists to think 鈥榞lobally鈥� beyond national-centric analyses. This was, of course, a noble goal 鈥� no different from the . New 鈥楪lobal Development鈥� proponents argued that we must think globally and relationally, surprising some within development studies that this had not been happening already (think ).

As Development Studies departments found themselves new names and new networks were established, some academics took the opportunity to stake claim over the meaning of Global Development. argued that a new Global Development paradigm would rescue us from development studies鈥� oppressive past, which obsessed over distinguishing between a backward developing world and a utopian 鈥榙eveloped鈥� heaven. They reasoned that this was necessary because the 鈥楽outh鈥� was actually rising in comparison to the 鈥楴orth鈥� on the basis of growth and human development indicators. But in presenting this trend as a these scholars misdiagnosed the problem. They presented the entire 鈥楽outh鈥� as rising, failing to isolate China鈥檚 rise and obscuring the fact that countries may have experienced very different trajectories.

In a section that appeared in Development and Change, the case for Global Development was subjected to open debate. The case for Global Development is based on 鈥榗onverging divergence鈥�, which suggest that there is increasing convergence between the North and South while there is increased evidence of sustained within-country inequalities (divergence). of 鈥楪lobal Development鈥� selected 1990-2015 as the time series within which convergence was identified in terms of growth, health and education. The paper was roundly for its sloppy use of indicators. For example, generalisations of wellbeing were based on (in every intro to development studies course) Human Development Indicators. In selecting the time period 1990-2015, the paper implies that convergence resulted from the implementation of market-led policies, implicitly condoning neoliberalism, as Andrew Fischer argued. Of course, such claims stand directly opposed to the experiences of most countries in 鈥榯he South鈥� where structural adjustment and the legacy of market-led reforms has limited prospects for structural transformation.

The paper was also criticised within the Forum on several other counts (see 鈥檚 contribution for example). For their part, Global Development proponents most criticisms. However, they refuse to nuance their claims of converging divergence. They replied that the study was a purely empirical exercise and converging divergence was . It is as if selecting which data you use, as well as the time period, is not a choice.

Read More »

Covid-19 and The Myth of Convergence: The West, the Rest and the urgent need for fiscal space in the Remainder

pbehuria5 Comments

Imagining recovery, while a pandemic rumbles on, is an ominous task. But governments around the world have been forced to contend with this challenge. Several African, Asian and Latin American economies were in precarious financial positions before the pandemic hit. Fluctuations in global commodity prices in recent years and mounting trade deficits had already forced several African countries to request the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a range of support mechanisms including credit facilities. Debt was already reaching alarming levels. The pandemic made economic dependencies more salient, with Zambia plunging towards becoming Africa鈥檚 . 

The recent thrust of research championing possible convergence (often based on questionable and selective use of data) between 鈥榙eveloped鈥� and 鈥榙eveloping鈥� countries ignores the vast range of economic trajectories of former colonies. In slapdash cross-country economic studies, a strategic use of averages and unreliable categorisation is often used to draw generalisations about large-scale change. Sweeping claims made about a rising 鈥榙eveloping鈥� world often fail to isolate China鈥檚 rise. There is rarely any acknowledgment that most countries鈥� economies remain undiversified and deeply dependent on foreign actors. The data used to make the case for convergence often relies on GDP and human development indicators, rarely mentioning let alone measuring the of economies. Structural transformation remains one of the essential facets of economies that have . Whether countries can retain fiscal space after this crisis will inevitably depend on the nature of structural transformation and how that has shaped national growth and dependency within the global economy.

Read More »