6 The global nature of development

In the previous sections, you read of international development and how it frames development in terms of North-South, developed-developing countries. The problem with such a way of thinking about development is that it consistently leads to a view that developing countries need the intervention of developed countries in order to progress and to address the issues that they face. It not only perpetuates existing power imbalances in the way that global institutions have been set up and operate, but it also undermines the capacity of developing countries to determine their own development pathways.

Interventions often do not produce what is claimed to be the desired result. In the 1980s and 1990s, the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF provided loans to developing countries experiencing an economic crisis. The loan conditions required political and economic reforms supposedly aimed at addressing the root cause of the problem and providing for long-term development and growth. However, they had very mixed results and it was the poorest in society who suffered most from the austerity measures imposed (Stewart, 1995).

In going from the twentieth to the twenty-first century, there is increasing acknowledgement that the development agenda needs to recognise the universal nature of some of the important global development issues of our times, such as environmental sustainability, migration, poverty and economic security. By seeing development issues as primarily affecting ‘developing’, rather than all, countries, an international development framework is very limiting. Such a perspective overlooks many of the interdependencies between the social, economic, political, and environmental fortunes of all countries around the world. It is increasingly argued that a global development approach is better suited to the analysis of the universal and interdependent nature of complex development issues.

Activity 4: Why global development?

Timing: Allow 35 minutes

Listen to this audio or read the transcript in which Ben Lampert interviews Dr. Rory Horner from the University of Manchester about his work arguing for the need to think in terms of Global Development.

Download this video clip.Video player: Video 2: Rory Horner and Ben Lampert discuss the notion of global development

Show transcript | Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 2: Rory Horner and Ben Lampert discuss the notion of global development

BEN LAMPERT

Rory, many thanks indeed for taking the time to speak to us about your understanding of global development. If I could start by asking you, what motivated you and your colleague David to advance your conception of global development?

RORY HORNER

I think our initial starting point was really a sense and a question of whether the existing international development paradigm is fit for purpose in terms of understanding the major actors, the major processes, and the major challenges that we face in the world in 2020, or well into the twenty-first century. The field of development studies essentially emerged in a very different time period, in the post-World War II period.

International development, when we take the literal meaning of the term ‘international,’ is the relations between states. Well, Jeremy Bentham was the one who originally coined the term. The term ‘international development’ is often associated with aid from countries in the north to countries in the south, and particularly with interstate relations.

Today, we have a much wider range of actors, with particularly businesses and civil societies playing a major role. We have states in the global south which are influential, not just in their own countries, but elsewhere. And in terms of the challenges facing the world, we have not just the kind of old problem, and which still does exist to a considerable degree, of poverty in what are seen as poorer countries, but we also have huge problems of global inequality which includes inequality within countries, as well as a major problem with climate change. And who needs to change, and who the major actors responsible for those problems, are really ones that, to me, we can only think of in terms of through a global development lens.

BEN LAMPERT

Thanks, Rory. That really gives me a clear sense of why you were motivated to write this piece. But what do you think is really most distinctive about the idea of global development compared to other understandings of development?

RORY HORNER

I think fundamentally we’re talking about a change in the geography of development. So we often think of development issues just in relation to – and we have different terms, we have third world, developing countries, industrialising countries, the global south. The problem of development is one, and underdevelopment is one, faced by that part of the world. And sometimes that’s also suggesting that the actual reasons for underdevelopment are also sometimes and responsibility for underdevelopment is sometimes also located within that part of the world, too.

Instead, when we think about global development, where we’re really recognising that there’s significant ways in which countries within the global north are significantly under development – underdeveloped. There’s no country in the world, when we think in terms of sustainable development, that meets basic societal needs while also existing within biophysical boundaries. There’re huge problems which are caused by inequality within countries, including in the global north. And those are not just problems for the global north.

But we see it, for example, with the United States, and arguably, moves in that country which are shaped by the huge polarisation within the country, which now are leading to the government deciding to withdraw from the World Health Organisation in the midst of a global pandemic, to potentially withdraw from the World Trade Organisation, to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. So prospects for driving a better world can actually be significantly shaped by internal inequalities in the global north, too.

So a lot of classic theories of development are largely focused on what the problems are in the global south, rather than taking enough account of the problems in the global north, and also issues of global interconnectedness which are really fundamental today.

BEN LAMPERT

And you mentioned the issue of global connectedness. For me, when I was reading your paper, that’s something that came through really strongly. Could you just give some examples of where we see that global connectedness requiring us to think differently about development?

RORY HORNER

In a more relational sense, when we think of global interconnectedness, most places are shaped by the global social, economic, political relationships of which they’re a part. And there’s a number of those different types of relationships. Economic globalisation, of course, is a massive factor which drives and shapes interdependencies in terms of the world.

Just in the last few weeks we’ve seen, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, how garment companies in Europe and North America cancelling their orders has led to massive unemployment in Bangladesh, for example, in the garment industry there. So you have transmitted through a global value chain. You have a decline in demand in a major consuming country leads to huge unemployment in a producing country.

But there’s other ways of global interconnectedness. Climate change is clearly an issue where one country just restricting its carbon emissions isn’t going to fundamentally change the global climate, unless you also have actions in many other countries. To public health, nobody needs any extra reinforcement at the moment that just one country, it’s very hard to take care of global public health individually. Migration is a massive process where we have the movement of people.

So we have a number of ways. We have the movement of goods, of people, across countries which really are fundamental to shaping both prosperity, but also inequality and poverty today.

BEN LAMPERT

OK, thanks, Rory. And the other thing I really picked up from the paper, that your ideas of global development really try to respond to some of the kind of shifting global power dynamics, if you like. Can you talk about the rising powers? I mean, can you just say a little bit more about what that development means for development? And why we need to think differently about development to account for that, or to understand that?

RORY HORNER

Sure. So I think, I mean, fundamentally we’re thinking of the whole landscape of development, we might call it, is really originating in a time period where, in a sense, the world was at its most polarised between what we usually call the global north and the global south in aggregate. We know when we go back in history for a few centuries that Asia was the most prosperous part of the world. And many people are suggesting now we’re moving again back towards a ‘ReORIENT,’ Andre Gunder Frank has talked about, towards Asia being again more the centre of the world in the twenty-first century.

But actually, the later 20th century was a time where, in aggregate, the divide between countries in the north and the south was the greatest. The United States had huge influence in shaping any kind of global agreements. The major global international institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and also what is now the WTO, but which was originally set up as the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, they were all fundamentally shaped by a post-World War II world, where the United States was the clear hegemonic leader in the world. And for a number of decades, they were able to essentially shape the rules in terms of international collaboration.

What we’ve seen, instead, in the last two decades in particular is, by far and away, the rise of China. China wasn’t even original member of the World Trade Organisation when it was set up. It only joined in 2001. Ultimately, the WTO has struggled to secure any further agreement. China has set up its own development banks. And the China-led, essentially, development cooperation is a huge player in many parts of the world today.

So Emma Mawdsley has talked about how the sort of old north-south axis which was underlying, fundamentally, international development has now been ruptured by the rising powers. Where it’s not just China, India is a major actor in south’s cooperation. And also the trading engagement and the other types of influence these countries have, both directly, but also through global institutions, is incredibly important today in shaping our lives, and probably not just in the global south, but also actually in the global north, too.

End transcript: Video 2: Rory Horner and Ben Lampert discuss the notion of global development

Download

Video 2: Rory Horner and Ben Lampert discuss the notion of global development

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

What arguments does Rory make for thinking in terms of global development?

Comment

In the twenty-first century, there is a much wider range and diversity of actors involved in development than in the previous century. The divide between the global North and global South is losing relevance. Underdevelopment and inequality exist in all countries. Important current issues such as migration, climate change and poverty are not contained, and cannot be addressed, within the borders of any particular country or continent. Economies are closely interconnected and addressing the challenge of sustainable development is one that all countries face. Global power dynamics are changing with the (re)emergence of rising powers such as China and India. These countries now play increasingly important roles in leading, influencing, and funding development.