Re: role of Third World governments

Gernot Kohler writes:

>Richard,
>I am smiling. Thanks! Are you aware of the theoretical importance of your
>above statements? You say that the G77 (Third World governments') proposals
>are "progressive", all they lack is power of implementation.
>
>Compare that to imperialism theory or 1970s center-periphery theory. I am
>using the formulation by Johan Galtung ("Structural Theory of Imperialism"
>1972 or thereabouts). In that theory the governments of peripheral and
>semi-peripheral countries were seen as nothing but handmaidens of global
>capital and thus reactionary. Now, 30 years later, *you* observe that the
>governments of the developing countries are making *progressive* proposals
>(only lacking power of implementation). I see  an historical change here
>(from "handmaiden" to "progressive"). Regarding power of implementation,
>think also of Third World governments like China's - China is already the
>second largest economy in the world (GDP in PPP terms and has overtaken
>Japan as the second largest during the 1990s). China may be moving in a
>capitalist direction, but she shows no signs of being a handmaiden of
>Euro-American-Japanese capitalism. India has also a strong sense of
>independence from the West. I agree with Mansour's observation/speculation
>that a second wave of (a kind of) national liberation may have begun during
>the 1990s. This wave, if it is one, is propelled by *governments* (of
>developing countries). Some of these governments may be acting in response
>to pressure from their own people, others -like China, may do so without
>popular pressure. Some or all of them, may have received a bit of
>consciousness-raising from First World folks like the protestors of Seattle.
>Throw in a bit of Andre Gunder Frank (Asia ascendent) and you get a
>different view of the Third World's implementation power. Trust me, it's a
>multi-level dialectical global totality (or, a MDGT, as a famous wsn'er
>called it with a bit of mockery)  :)
>
>Gernot
>
>
>


I'm skeptical whether there has been a "historical change" between the
early 1970s and the present.  Galtung's "Structural Theory", written in the
early 1970s, obviously did not foresee the first oil shock of 1973 and the
Third World activism it would inspire.  This activism produced the
proposals for the New International Economic Order and the so-called
North-South Dialogue in the United Nations.  It's not immediately obvious
to me that the governments of developing countries were not making
"progressive" proposals during the 1970s.

Nor is it clear to me that, on the whole, governments of developing
countries are more independent of global capitalism (actually,
"imperialism" in Galtung's words) than they were in the 1970s.  If they
are, why all the huffing and puffing about IMF structural adjustment
programs?  Why all the privatization and deregulation?  

I see the governments of developing states, again, taken as a group,
committed more or less to the same course they have always been committed
to.  What they want is "development" understood as implying national
industrialization.  To bring such development about, they are willing to
engage in mercantilist policies when possible.  When such policies fail, or
when the international system constrains their ability to undertake such
policies, LDC governments attempt to renegotiate the terms of their
relationship with the North.  

The first such attempted renegotiation began during the 1960s, after the
period of disillusionment with import substitution industrialization (the
"mercantilist" period of the post-WWII era). During the 1960s, the new
coalition of developing countries successfully lobbied at the United
Nations for the foundation of UNCTAD.  Through UNCTAD and its first
secretary-general, Raul Prebisch, the developing countries argued for a
number of reforms of the world trade regime--preferences for the exports of
developing countries, compensatory financing, etc.  Many of these proposals
later became part of the more radical NIEO program of the 1970s.  We may
consider that the G77 proposals are another, similar attempt to renegotiate
the terms of North-South relations under present conditions of globalization.

   


--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
______________________________________________________   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter