New Friends For Development

New Friends For Development
Bring modernity to Africa!
An essay by Moritz Hessler. 13 October 2010
To what extend do China and India complement Africas development needs? Does it create a win-win strategy of mutual benefits or posed new risk factor for industrialization and modernization of African economies? Your argument should consider the long-term implications for Africas position in the global economy and the impact of the current financial crisis.
The South-East Asian engagement on the African continent is a widely and often controversially debated issue on the agendas of 21st century panels on the global political economy. Theres no clear cut between supporters and the opposition. Yet, within the West there seems to emerge an increasingly stronger movement of criticism towards the approaches of the Asian tigers, foremost towards China. Despite their very different approach, the fear of the West in an imminent age of the Rise of the Others is tangible and slowly also affects the public debate in some of the former African colonies. Do We witness a neo-neo-colonization of sub-Sahara Africa and should be alarmed or should we congratulate Them to a more successful and sustainable approach to development aid and global cooperation?
The concepts of industrialization and modernization The core of this debate seems to host the fierce polarization in a world of We and Them. The identities and history of the respective world regions are often believed to determine their general prospect in the gamble of globalization. The basic concepts like industrialization and modernity, which are defined to be required in the process of globalization to be able to participate in the world game, are strongly based on this polarization. Since the success of development aid is evaluated with just these basic concepts it is
China and India on the African Continent | University of Stellenbosch
16599055 | Moritz Hessler |
New Friends for Development
no surprise to have this fierce debate about whether Africa can benefit sustainably from the Asian efforts or whether it should regard them as a threat. Yet, what is needed to speak about mutually beneficial cooperation or win-win strategy? What does it mean for Africa to be brought on a path of modernization and industrialization? And finally, is this path really what Africa needs in order to become an equal player in world politics? Dependency and the Others The discussion about the West and the Others has its origins in the Great Divergence discourse. Based on three schools, the Weberian, the Neo-Marxist and the California School of Andre Gunder Frank, it tries to argue why the West succeeded to climb the letter of development whereas the Rest didnt. In the center of the most recent debate among the Neo-Marxists and Californians one finds the World System Analysis with its core issue of dependencia theory, which addresses a kind of a developmental world order in which the core has to develop underdevelopment in the periphery in order to sustain its capitalist model. As crucial element why the West succeeded, some identify industrialization and a modern society, some others like Frank only deduce pure windfall and predict, following Kondratieffs cycle (Frank 1998:259-266), the return of the Asian region as predominant actor in the global arena. Since Africa is almost neglected in this argument, there has to be a discussion about the applicability of these concepts taken place transcending the pure role of a passive recipient. What makes industrialization? First, of all, it is often argued, Africa needs to industrialize. Yet, what is this industrialization, which is assumed to be the critical moment for the Western success story? Following the Great Divergence schools it the industrial revolution was mainly an energy revolution, escaping the Malthusian constraints1 by coal. With the discovery of the steam engine you could accumulate, store, and transport energy and use it wherever and whenever you want. The new, capital-intensive and labor-extensive mode of production allowed a reorganization of the society, which suddenly faced infinite growth opportunities. Imperialistic conquests further fueled the legendary leap forward. Following the ideas of Marx and Weber (Vries 2010), the Western industrialization was catalyzed by emerging capitalist structures of an ever rising middle class, rational and secular modern science and technology demanded by the European warfare culture2, and the modern state. All these factors interacted. The warfare state and the installation of private property, mobile labor forces, and the nation state required a bureaucratic state apparatus, which had to raise taxes to maintain itself, and so on. The Holy Grail for the industrial, capital-intensive world was and is efficiency, as the ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system (American Heritage Dictionary 2005:195).
Constraint for sustained growth of capital, living standards and population by the limiting factors of energy, land, and food, which are competing each other. To produce energy you needed either wood, animals, or human labor which demanded either food or land which again limited the use of these productive factors for surplus production and further growth (economically and in terms of population). 2 Caused by the geographical conditions of fragmentation and the need for conquest to shift the Malthusian constraints
China and India on the African Continent | University of Stellenbosch 16599055 | Moritz Hessler |
What makes modernization or modernity? In world-systems analysis the terms 'capitalist world-economy' and 'modem world-system' are used interchangeably; they both refer to the same social entity, which emerged in the 'long sixteenth century' and developed to encompass the whole world in the twentieth century. (Taylor 1996:260) Asking for the roots of efficiency, the capitalist idea, the middle class or the modern state it is obvious that the industrialization can only explained by a more fundamental, culturally and socially inclusive approach. When did this movement, which set of so many different forces, emerge and what comprises modernity? Is it a tangible or comprehensively exclusive concept at all? Following the Neo-Marxist Wallerstein the cornerstone of modernity is laid in the long sixteenth century (Taylor 1996:261). Others regard the French Revolution as kick-off for modernization. Nevertheless, there is no debate that Western Enlightenment and secularization can be seen as the triggering movements for modernization. Whether as fount or within the process, the French and the American as well as the Industrial Revolutions played a most crucial role therein. Subsequently, modernization was a concept mainly driven and maintained by Western civilizations - deeply stamped by the secular and rational state, Christianity, and industrialized societies based on the pillars of liberal democracy, market economy and capitalism (Maalouf 2000). While Europe and America watched the Ottoman Empire crumbling and Asia falling behind, not to mention Africa, they slowly but surely began to claim to possess the monopoly over the access to future societies. The West represented modernity, the Rest non-modernity by definition(Vries 2010). Hence, the mission for imperial conquest was claimed to be not only bringing Christianity but also civilization and modernity to the Rest of the World. But what exactly makes this modernity? It claims to combine all modern, Western values which had incrementally been achieved in several revolutions and upheavals many times in bottom-up movements: among others the human rights charta, a vivid and active civil society, supranational bodies like the UN, and the constitutional, democratic nation state. Often perceived as Europeanization and Westernization respectively the Rest adopted an ambivalent approach towards modernization (Maalouf 2000). Partly refusing the cultural and hegemonic element, especially in the post-colonial era, the individualized modernization process targeted to adapt customized selected elements of the modernization ideal. For Lerner, already discussing this topic in 1958, these elements should be based on () describing past trends and clarifying the conditions of their occurrence [in order] to shape policies that can redirect the course of history. (Lerner 1958:68) Lerner furthermore highlights the importance of a shift in modes of communication (Lerner 1958:45) from elitist to mass media and pluralism among the civil society components. Most important would be urbanization to achieve literacy via education and, as a result, create a vivid civil society and media. Based on broad involvement and participation the society could develop first empathy and desires and second modern values, the essential ingredients for a modern, democratic state. If modernization is the transition to participant society, then the direction of change in public communication is toward a constantly expanding opinion area. (Lerner 1958:71)
Still, the question about a coherently exclusive definition of the concept of modernity is not answered yet. But that has to be seen as major achievement for some parts of the non-Western world. At colonial times there was no question about one single path. Globalization enabled and required the Rest to challenge Western hegemony in modernization authoring. It had to challenge it to preserve own values and identities in the face of modernization as foremost Americanization (Maalouf 2000:74-90). Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are the most visible and violent evidence for this opposition. The tigers way A century after the British industrialization the South-East Asian region began to re-assemble the concepts of industrialization and modernization, applying an own approach in the combination of Western concepts with Eastern values and in tailoring overarching ideologies to the limited capacities3 of development countries respectively. Even though China and India pursued very different trajectories towards industrialization and modernization, there are several features, which can be identified as similar. Both strived to achieve industrialization by boosting literacy, both, in the beginning, rigidly protected their economies and both sourced their growth in the rationalization and urbanization of the society with the result of a massive, mobile power force. The major difference to the Western, more specifically European industrialization is the availability of vast amounts of land and people. Efficiency had to be artificially established as a goal in a labor-intensive and capital-extensive economy. Cheap labor, so far, hindered the need in a more capital-intensive approach of continuous, technological innovations. After roughly half a century of transformative dynamics both nations are today increasingly acknowledged as industrialized, and in parts, modernized societies. Lasting issues of violations of human rights and democratic values, among others, demonstrate, They are still on their way. Yet, also industrialized and modern countries like the USA and Italy are struggling with some of these basic values of modernity.
Chindias approach a second Scramble for Africa? As with the Western powers, an increasing need for resources to fuel their development and opening up of new markets let China and India first liberalize their economies and then expand their focus of interest to foreign countries, especially in Africa. In a time of an increasingly pragmatic and sustainably oriented approach from the West the emergence of Chindia implicates not only the opportunity for African countries to diversify its economical and strategic partnerships but foremost poses a risk of uncertainty and unpredictability in international politics; it can be even argued whether we face a newly bipolar or even multipolar world, in which Africa will be utilized as proxy and exploited as resource supplier once more. Hence, it is absolutely essential to evaluate the goals and approaches of the tigers in order to be able to draw a development path for Africa.
in terms of economic, political and social as well as empathic capacities

China in Africa: goals and approach The official Chinese approach to Africa is very pragmatic. [F]oreign policy is regarded as an extension of and backing for domestic policy. Its priorities are to secure a peaceful environment in which the national economy can grow, to support the countrys political stability, to develop external resources and potentials, and to safeguard Chinas interests in international affairs. Chinas internal perspective is the countrys need to secure inflows of the foreign direct investment needed to sustain the countrys growth and to counter the risks of social/political destabilization.(Giessmann 2006:5) Chinese politicians therefore claim when investing in Africa they are only driven by economic and domestic interest respectively. Still, Chinas leaders never fully discarded Maos idea of a Chinese leadership of the South, of a union of developing countries. These visions materialize with the politics of non-interference in countries Chinas investing in. Combining these economic interests with the aspirations of strategic partnerships, African leaders could suddenly find themselves in a strategically diversified and economically prosperous environment, which strongly fosters the emancipation of the public sphere. In short, the business-oriented, non-interference policies (Malone 2008) of China towards African countries could dramatically kick-off or accelerate a process of industrialization and modernization. Apart from the official guidelines and considering the massive Chinese investments into sometimes highly unstable countries (Nola Nouck 2009) one has to admit there are not many opportunities not to interfere in foreign affairs. Following the official foreign policies China is delivering unconditioned loans to many countries the international community was reluctant to support. The so-called infrastructure for resources deals are mainly met on a bilateral agreement, strongly based on a close state-state cooperation. The Chinese government is the major player in its strongly centralized, often state-directed economy and, hence, acts as an agent for the elitist corporations, which are often linked to state representatives. In its cooperation with African leaders it conveys these structures to African states. Like the Europeans a century ago the Chinese mainly approach Africa by more or less inducing and transferring own instruments of governance and economics in an un-adjusted manner. An outstanding example for this un-adjusted transfer can be seen in the Chinese special economic zones SEZ, which are the dominant economic areas in the Middle Kingdom (Meredith 2007:3). Why should something, which worked quite successful for another developing country, China, should not also be the solution for Africa? The answer is to be found in the implementation. Sino-African SEZ are dominated by Chinese businesses and labor forces. They are mainly determined to extract resources and to process them before theyre mostly exported to be further processed in the major manufacturing sites in China. Theres no absorption taking place by the surroundings in terms of technology, knowledge and innovative spirit. The SEZ are mostly to be seen as industrialized islands in a pre-industrial environment. The famous infrastructure deals, which perpetuate traditional resource exploitation simply by rebranding it as joint ventures (Whewell 2008), mainly aim in supporting Chinese interest in the region by establishing or connecting SEZ. The USD9bn deal in the DRC verifies this assumption. While mining spots like Kolwezi
(Mthembu-Salter 2009), founded by a Belgium conglomerate during colonial times, are able to further industrialize4, the vast majority of the country5 does not really experience any gain from this deal. The remaining question, crucial for Chinas role in the global political economy, is, how to really help Africa to develop. Beyond the middle-term interest of energy security and regional stability, including trade routes and economical access in the Indian Ocean region, in order to fuel its economic development China has to adapt its growing role as a superpower. In this role global security and stability will be the essential goals of foreign policy. What can China give Africa to develop? Which specific features differentiated the Chinese from the Western industrialization? As developing countries, both regions face many challenges and constraints, particularly with regard to modernization and traditional values; in handling reform and social stability; in balancing economic growth and distributing wealth adequately; in resources exploitation and protecting the environment; in integrating into a globalised world and upholding national integrity. (Lihua 2006:23) The Chinese industrialization was mainly fueled by the manufacturing industry (Meredith 2007:4). A cheap and rapidly increasing amount of skilled labor enabled China to sustainably occupy a major position in the global supply chain and, more importantly, in connecting periphery and core. The SEZ are the capitalist, almost Western-like economic centers intersecting an elsewhere centrally directed, communist country. This rigid centrality allowed the government to decide about and implement top-down economic and social reforms. In absence of labor unions Chinese conglomerates were able to create a competitive edge of cheapest mass production. In 2006, the industrial, value adding and export oriented economy contributed 43.1% to the GDP (Anon. 2007), which demonstrates the relatively new economical alignment created by state directives. Different to the West, where the Malthusian constraints and continuous state competition caused bottom-up movement, the revolution in China was induced by the state. As result, the modernization process was in parts also triggered by the government or, when we talk about bottom-up movements, even followed industrialization. The economic prosperity, but also the increasing amount of civic activity encompassed by the progress in terms of national development6, could be interpreted as indicators for a successful transformation of a former pre-industrial, subsistence farming society to a industrial nation, in which the middle class should be increasingly in charge to strengthen its efforts for a more modern society in terms of e.g. human rights. India in Africa: goals and approach While China can for Africa rather be used as an example for its industrialization, India should be the patron for the African modernization process at least from a Western perspective. Following democratic trajectories and, since the 1990s, contracting close alliances with e.g. the USA, India is often seen as an increasingly fledging junior partner of the West. Its goals in and approach to Africa are far not that
4 5
by extending the infrastructure (roads, power, internet, education, healthcare) the parts without resources which can be exported 6 HDI, access to media,
China and India on the African Continent | University of Stellenbosch 16599055 | Moritz Hessler |
pragmatic and compelling like the Chinese. The main approach to Africa can be summarized with Nehruvian politics of solidarity among former colonized and exploited societies. Yet, there is no specific foreign policy particularizing Indias goal in and relations with Africa. Still, Indias relations comprise a broad variety of I) cooperation especially targeting its striven leadership as well as security and stability in the Indian Ocean area on a governmental basis, II) the need for resources mainly operationalized by Indian corporational conglomerates, and III) a close linkage of the civil societies based on Nehruvian policies as well as on the Afro-Indian diasporas. In an Asia-centred century, we would naturally wish to ensure a role for India that is commensurate with its size, its growing economic strength, its democratic stability and proven capacity to manage its enormous diversity, its contributions to global peace and security, and its justified quest for a greater voice in a multilateral system that is balanced, equitable, and representative of new global realities. (Rao 2010) Differently to China the economic sector in India developed quite independent from the political sphere. Many corporational dynasties, often stemming from colonial times, form todays structure of major global conglomerates. Even though they merge myriad economic sectors and activities into one corporation, the main economic sector of growth is to be seen in (back office) services (Meredith 2007:4). Based on broad education programs over decades, like in China but with a rather technological than engineering bias, the Indian economy appears to have skipped the dirty step of industrialization and just jumped into the white sector servicing the global economy with outsourcing capacities. Nevertheless, the picture of a high technology economy and biggest democracy of the world neglects vast areas of India which continue to be ruled in an almost feudalistic manner preserving ultra-traditional values and which are almost entirely excluded from economic growth. Similar to the Chinese West, these regions symbolize are the reminder were still dealing with states in transformation. Yet, governance and policies for these regions could be exemplary for African development: how to unite a nation, how to integrate minorities of religion, language and history, and how to penetrate democratic rule to the remote areas, among others. What would be a win-win strategy for Chindia? Summarizing goals in and approach to Africa, China and India are in many aspects quite different. Common is their urge for energy security in reliance on African natural resources. Like in the West, industrialization increases the need for energy exponentially. The dependency on e.g. oil imports in an environment of volatile world market prices induced both countries to eagerly planning at more independence by Sino- or Indo-African joint ventures. Furthermore they both strive for a predominant position in the Indian Ocean area, which is by both seen as the access to the resources of Africa and the Middle East as well as one of the most important sea trade passages to Europe. Hence, a win-win strategy for Chindia would definitely comprise the inflow of resources into Asia and the outflow of
consumer goods to new markets on the African continent. For both goals the Asian tigers are required to share not only their experience, but also profits gained during the developing period. Crucial in this respect will be, how both countries succeed in fostering domestic growth based on capitalist development without exploiting underdevelopment elsewhere. The example of Somalia shows what missing prospects and a weak state apparatus can cause and how such a conflict can affect stability on- and offshore. Furthermore, for their geopolitical interest in e.g. the UN Security Council, both need the support of the African countries to truly challenge the Western hegemony.
Which path to development? The Western engagement to Africa is well known. Early missions in pre-colonial times, mainly operating from the economically annexed coastal areas of slave trade, were determined to civilize and foremost christianize the black barbarians. Colonialism after the Berlin Conference should finally bring the framework and tools, in terms of the nation state and the bureaucratic state, to Africa to eventually modernize the backward continent. In fact exploitation dominated until the end of WWII, when the whole global political economy changed. In the mist of broad human rights and democratization movements Africa got a modernization and industrialization process prescribed. In Africa the period of nationalism at this time was soon replaced by authoritarian rule of the age of developmentialism during the Cold War. Without really reviewing development aid in a global challenge of the ideological systems neither the capitalist nor the communist bloc seemed to really be interested in modernizing, which was carefully held in underdevelopment7. With the fall of the iron curtain eventually pragmatism set in and the international community began to monitor closer, what was happening on the African continent. Still, till today Africa is often regarded as hopeless continent, citing an Economist article of 2000. The main theories of the World System Analysis or Jared Diamonds geographical determination support this image. You can rightly ask, where in Kondratieffs cycle would Africa be positioned? There seems to be a long time balance between the East, speak Asia, and the West. But where is Africa? Why is African development mostly discussed outside the continent in panels of the Bretton Woods institutions, the G20, the BRIC, [W]hy is it supposed that Africans can contribute so little in their own cause? (Lonsdale 2005:380) And why do even the Africans adopt this assessment and accept their marginalization? What essential African development needs are should be discussed by Africans, shouldnt it? One example, which should be mentioned, is the expectations of the Western world in their approach to Africa. Nobody even doubted in the early years of post-colonialism that Africa could industrialize and modernize quickly when it just followed the Western checklist. The revolutions already fought by Europeans and Americans wouldnt be necessary another time, since the ideal structure already existed. The rapid progress the Asian tigers made later even enforced and, at the same time, disillusioned these
to meet own demands in resources and to be able to use African countries as proxy actors
expectations. Singer, who analyzed the problems in 1970, identified not only an increasing external dualism as gap between core and periphery, but foremost an internal dualism in developing countries in Africa, which based on mistaken an un-adjustedly imposed concepts of modernization and development (Singer 1970). How effective can you implement a Western tax system in an underdeveloped environment of a vast and fragmented African state like the DRC? The fundamental and violent bottom-up struggle for the Western, modern and industrial societies lasted several centuries and yet, they expect from the Africans to copy this process in a very compressed period of time and an entirely different environment. So, if the Western approaches didnt succeed, is there more hope for the Asian approach? Considering the basic principles of modernization and industrialization like urbanization in Europe and Asia, it has again to be questioned whether already existing concepts are applicable. Nigeria, for example, has one of the biggest, urban populations worldwide. Lerners argument that urbanization would kick-off literacy which would be followed by mass media, participation, civil society engagement as well as economic prosperity doesnt work there. Nor would be a Chinese or Indian growth model based on labor-extensive SEZ applicable, wouldnt it? Apart from the question whether industrialization would be able to fulfill the demands of a modern society and economy, which has to be embedded in global networks, at all, we have to discuss whether Africans should define an own approach borrowing from the Asian industrialization more targeted on high-tech manufacturing and services as well as from a global modernization movement. This movement is indeed existent and not only rests on Western pillars anymore. Often neglected or forgotten are African or Asian forerunners and philosophers, like Gandhi or the most recent winner of the Nobel Price for Peace Xiaobo, are shaping and diversifying the modernization process alike. But Africa definitely needs to stand up and emancipation from its role as recipient. The attempts by the former South African president Mbeki can be seen as such stand up, when he advocated for an African renaissance(Dedering 2002). The African Union would be an appropriate framework to design comprehensive reforms and monitor their implementation. There are many ideological questions still open apart from the main industrialization and modernization issues: among others the question whether development or democracy should be prioritized8 and the issue of how to gain an own powerful voice not dependent anymore of either-or decisions in a bipolar world. What would be a win-win situation for Africa? Eventually, what is needed to speak about mutually beneficial cooperation or win-win strategy? There are plenty examples of Chinese and also Indian investment on the African continent. Most of them can be criticized in the short term for being too little or too much politically biased as well as for not being sustainably oriented. The issue of the maintenance of infrastructure, let it be roads or technology, is an often un-debated problem. Will the Tazara Railway, for example, contribute to sustainable development?
8 Quite successful examples of a non-party democracy in Uganda and similar systems elsewhere in order to first stabilize a country in its transformative process are similar to the Chinese approach while there are also countries relying on democracy first and hence can be ideologically be closer positioned to India.
What does it mean when the Indians claim to design their foreign policies towards Africa on the basis of cooperation and knowledge transfer? What do Africans do with this knowledge? Will they be able to accumulate it to, for example, further improve technology, foster innovative capacities or simply spread this knowledge? Again, the examples of Somalia and the DRC seem to be predestined to circumscribe what Africa needs from a partnership with Asia. The absence of a strong state caused piracy, which in turn was used by the society to build communities of proto-states. Funded by piracy these communities erected patron-client networks as well as health and education infrastructures. Wouldnt an appropriate approach be able to turn these bottom-up structures into a vivid society? Still, what would be the appropriate approach? The African Union adopted Western patterns of rather engaging militarily than pursuing a strategy of prevention. The Chinese with their authoritarian approach would also disqualify. Furthermore, it can be questioned, whether the Indian system would help. The DRC is an example for the rather economical perspective. It is mainly exporting primary commodities. The value is often added in the West and increasingly in China and India. The main approach to change that would be a genuine cooperation in terms of corporational training for locals and the installation of manufacturing sites. SEZ have to be used to spread knowledge, modern values and prosperity, not to isolate and export it. As Moeletsi Mbeki demands Africa needs a bourgeoise revolution like it happened in Europe up till the 19th and in Asia during the 20th century (Mbeki 2009:175). This revolution has to emerge out of a bottom-up movement, which should borrow its methods from the West as well as the East. Call in the past, benefitting from the crisis The Financial Crisis of 2008 hit most of Africa even worse than the rest of the globe. But, like the Asian countries reformed themselves after their financial crisis at the end of the 1990s, Africa should use the opportunity to emancipate now. Especially now, since many reforms and the emergence of new powers seem to open up a long time closed global political economy, Africa shouldnt hesitate to strengthen the AU to be the voice for Africa in the global arena. For this issue of regional cooperation of development countries theres no better partner than the Chinese. Economically, the crisis could be a big chance as well. The failure of modern investment products induced an increasing number on investors to rethink their investments. Natural resources like gold are in such times the secure haven for investments. The all-time high gold price at the moment supports this assumption. Furthermore an increasing amount of investors are looking for private equity investment opportunity into African businesses. Especially Indian businessmen seem to be interested in business-tobusiness joint ventures and venture capital deals.
10
Conclusion Apart from the discussion whether China and India are New Friends for Africa, it can be questioned whether they are New Friends for Development at the moment. Even claiming the patronage of a Southern union of developing countries doesnt change the fact that their energy requirements as their own basis of development demand to put development aid aside. Yet, there are also industrialization and modernization attempts, which go beyond the main interest of transformation of the resource rich into industrial areas and therewith pure resource extraction. Especially corporational and civic cooperations apart from state agreements as well as a governmental corporation on a regional basis could bring the aspired leap forward for both sides. Africa has to pull the trigger itself this time and kick-off fundamental reforms on a regional-multilateral scope. Otherwise the Asian tigers, but also other developing countries, it could even be African states like South Africa, will increase the discussion about a second scramble for Africa in their efforts to develop following the capitalist way. What is needed arent further adjustment programs but rather the enforcement of a united, African voice, speaking up for the continent in the global arena. Sustainable development in Africa should be based on this political framework. It is difficult to predict which concept of modernity and industrialization would work in which respective African country. Consulting the history in terms of e.g. analyzing domestic trends and identify appropriate solution from any world region as well as borrowing procedures from the Chinese, the Indians, and the Brazilians, to deduce own concepts from the main doctrines, is, in my opinion, the only way in a transformation process, which is essentially needed to survive as a state in the 21st century. In the channel of the Asian boom African economies should try to follow as junior partner of China and India. Who knows, where the next manufacturing hub and back-office centre will be, when wages in those countries rise.
11
Sources American Heritage Dictionary. 2005. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. AMISOM. 2010. Mandate. African Union Mission In Somalia. Retrieved August 20, 2010 (http://amisom-au.org/default.php?id=1&shva=e15045371cbdf8962d6353d0c92eb2b1). Anon. 2007. China in midway of industrialization. CHINAdaily. Retrieved October 11, 2010 (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-10/06/content_6154588.htm). Anon. 2008. World trade talks end in collapse. BBC News. Retrieved September 02, 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7531099.stm). Bava, Ummu S. 2007. Indias Role in the Emerging World Order. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin. Chiraerae, Taurai. 2010. Africa's Financial Crisis Aftermath. vidc.org. Retrieved September 15, 2010 (http://www.vidc.org/index.php?id=1299&no_cache=1&id=1299&print=1). Chorev, Nitsan and Sarah Babb. 2009. The crisis of neoliberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO. Theory and Society 38(5):459-484. Retrieved September 2, 2010 (DOI 10.1007/s11186-009-9093-5). Collier, Paul. 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collier, Paul and Jan W. Gunning. 1999. Why Has Africa Grown So Slowly? Journal of Economic Perspectives 13(3):3-22. Cramer, Christopher, Deborah Johnston, and Carlos Oya. 2009. Africa and the Credit Crunch: From Crisis to Opportunity? African Affairs 108(433):643654. Dedering, Tilmann. 2002. Globalization, Global History, and Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies 37:271-285. Devarajan, Shantayanan. 2008. Africa and the Global Financial Crisis. Council for Foreign Relations. Council for Foreign Relations. Retrieved September 25, 2010 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/17551/africa_and_the_global_financial_crisis.html). Frank, Andre G. 1998. ReORIENT: Global economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giessmann, Hans J. 2006. Chinas Role in the Emerging World Order. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Berlin. Holmqvist, Gran. 2008. How is Africa affected by the financial crisis and by global recession? The Nordic Africa Institute. Retrieved September 15, 2010 (http://www.nai.uu.se/press/articles/financial_crisis/). Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. One world? Many worlds? The place of regions in the study of international society. International Aff airs 83(1):127146. Larner, Wendy and William Walters. 2002. The Political Rationality of "New Regionalism": Toward a Genealogy of the Region. 31(3):391-432. Lee, Peter. 2010. China has a Congo copper headache. Asia Times online. Retrieved September 26, 2010 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/LC11Cb02.html). Lerner, Daniel 1958. Modernizing Styles of Life: A Theory. Pp. 43-75 in The Passing of Traditional Society: Moderizing the Middle East. New York: The Free Press. Lihua, Yang. 2006. Africa: A View from China. South African Journal of International Affairs 13(1):23-32. Lonsdale, John. 2005. African Studies, Europe & Africa. Africa Spectrum 40(3):377-402. Maalouf, Amin. 2000. In the Name of Identity. Violence and the Need to Belong. New York: Penguin Books.
12
Malone, Andrew. 2008. How China's taking over Africa, and why the West should be VERY worried. Mail Online. Retrieved September 15, 2010 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article1036105/How-Chinas-taking-Africa-West-VERY-worried.html?printingPage=true). Manson, Katrina. 2010. Congo and Areva in uranium exploration talks. Reuters. Retrieved September 25, 2010 (http://af.reuters.com/article/drcNews/idAFLDE68M20J20100923). Mbeki, Moeletsi. 2009. Architects of Poverty. Johannesburg: Picador Africa. Meredith, Robyn. 2007. The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us. New York: W. W. Norton. Mthembu-Salter, Gregory. 2009. Natural Resource Governance, Boom and Bust: The Case of Kolwezi in the DRC. South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg. Mugyenyi, Meddi 1987. Development First, Democracy Second. Pp. 147-162 in Democratic Theory and Practice in Africa. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers. Nola Nouck, Lucien. 2009. Is The Financial Crisis Playing Against China In Africa? Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies 36(1). O'Brien, Robert. 2010. China's Africa Play. CBS News. Retrieved September 15, 2010 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/18/opinion/main6114041.shtml). Payne, Anthony. 2008. The G8 in a changing global economic order. International Affairs 84(3):519 533. Rao, Nirupama. 2010. Rao on India's Global Role at Harvard. Harish C. Mahindra Memorial Lecture. Boston: Harvard University. Retrieved October 11, 2010 (http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails210910c.php). Sachs, Jeffrey. 2008. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: Penguin Press. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books. Shin, Ji H. and Peter Brookes. 2006. Chinas Influence in Africa: Implications for the United States. Backgrounder 1916:1-9. www.heritage.org/research/asiaandthepacific/bg1916.cfm. Singer, H. W. 1970. Dualism Revisited: A New Approach to the Problems of the Dual Society in Developing Countries. Journal of Development Studies 7(1):60-75. Stiglitz, Joseph. 2007. Making Globalization Work. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Taylor, Peter J. 1996. What's Modern about the Modern World-System? Introducing Ordinary Modernity throughWorld Hegemony. Review of International Political Economy 3(2):260-286. Verdier, Daniel. 2008. Multilateralism, Bilateralism, and Exclusion in the Nuclear Proliferation Regime. International Organization (62):439476. Vidal, John. 2010. China, India, Brazil and South Africa prepare for post-Copenhagen meeting. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved August 23, 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/13/developing-countries-basic-climate-change). Vries, Per. 2010. The California School and beyond: how to study the Great Divergence? History Compass 8(7):730751. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00698.x. Whewell, Tim. 2008. China to seal $9bn DR Congo deal. BBC News. Retrieved September 26, 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7343060.stm). Woods, Ngaire. 2010. Global Governance after the Financial Crisis: A New Multilateralism or the Last Gasp of the Great Powers? Global Policy 1(1):51-63. World Bank. 2010. Statistics in Africa. The World Bank. Retrieved August 20, 2010 (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/EXTPUBREP/EXTSTATINAFR/ 0,menuPK:824057~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:824043,00.html). Zakaria, Fareed. 2009. The Post-American World. New York: Norton & Company.
13

New Friends For Development

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New Friends For Development

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New Friends For Development

Bring modernity to Africa!

An essay by Moritz Hessler. 13 October 2010

China and India on the African Continent | University of Stellenbosch

16599055 | Moritz Hessler |