Search

This paper examines the consequences of the hugely successful expansion of South-South Cooperation since the new millennium. For all the achievements, variations and change over the 1950s-late 1990s, 'SSC 1.0' was characterised by relative neglect within the 'international' development community, and by many orthodox and critical scholars. In the chronological schema of the paper, 'SSC 2.0' refers to the period of remarkable expansion from the early 2000s to the present. The emergence of 'SSC 3.0', I suggest, is currently revealed by a discernible set of shifts driven in large part by the expansionary successes of SSC 2.0, as well as other turns in the global political economy. Three contemporary trends are identified: cooperation narratives that are increasingly 'muscular', nationalistic and pragmatic; difficulties sustaining claims to 'non-interference' in partner countries; and the further erosion of ideational and operational distinctiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we discuss relationship between export diversity and economic performance, focusing on Brazil, China, India and South Africa (BCIS). Using time data on exports over the period 1962-2000 and Applied General Equilibrium (AGE) models for each country, we note the similarities as well as differences in the patterns of diversification in these countries. We find evidence of a U-shape relationship between per capita income and export specialization in at least China and South Africa, and given that the results from Granger causality testing are inconclusive and not robust with regards to export diversification measures, some preliminary evidence from the results suggest that export diversification Granger causes GDP per capita in Brazil, China and South Africa, but not in India, where it is rather GDP per capita changes that are driving export diversification. From AGE modeling we find that South Africa differs from the other economies in that it is the only case where export diversification has an unambiguously positive impact on economic development while in contrast in Brazil, China and India, it is rather export specialization that is preferred. We show that the manner in which export diversification is obtained may be important: if it is obtained with less of a reduction in traditional exports, the impacts are better (less negative). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Scientiarum: Human & Social Sciences is the property of Universidade Estadual de Maringa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA) established in 2003 brings together three like-minded, democratic, market economies of multi-cultural and multi-ethnic character, sharing a broadly similar economic, political and development situation. At the time of its formation IBSA was widely regarded as representing a novel form of South-South cooperation, transcending older models rooted in the logic of North-South confrontation in the post-colonial, Cold War world. However, now, as the respective countries prepare for their tenth anniversary summit in India, the forum seems to face a growing sense of irrelevance, perhaps even an existential crisis. There has been a proliferation of other forums—notably BRICS and the G20—which means that IBSA needs to differentiate itself if it is to endure. This paper suggests a common vision for IBSA, based on the concept of international liberalism, implying an open international market, well-regulated capital markets and tailored domestic policies such as social policy, health policy and education policy, may well increase the weight IBSA can gain in different international forums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the tremendous economic potential of the Brazilian, Russian, Indian, and Chinese (BRIC) economies, few studies have compared technological innovation in these countries. This study investigates three main issues related to technological innovation in BRICs: 1) indicators of technological innovation were evaluated and used to compare capability of technological innovation between the four countries; 2) differences in innovative configurations were mapped based on constructs of "fundamental vs. applied innovation "and "incremental vs. radical innovation "; 3) the absolute and relative innovative strengths of these four countries were examined in 31 different technological fields. The empirical findings are based on analysis of a patent and citation data set comprising all utility patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to BRIC inventors from 1976 to 2006. These findings elucidate the comparative development of technological innovation in BRIC countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the long-term sustainability of the trilateral partnership established in 2003 between India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA) rests on a more conscious engagement with their regional partners. The construction of a strong regional leadership role for IBSA based on its members' strategic positions in South Asia, South America, and southern Africa is the proper common ground to legitimize a diplomatic partnership between the IBSA states. This is even more pressing as China is actively competing for markets and influence with the IBSA trio within their respective regions, particularly in Africa. The paradox, though, is that while Northern powers have welcomed the regional leadership role of IBSA's members, most of their neighbors are not convinced of the actual intentions of New Delhi, Brasilia, and Pretoria. As a result, leadership within IBSA is defined in global terms as a claim to lead the developing world. At the regional level, however, IBSAclaim for leadership is less clear, less acceptable, and therefore remains constrained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compare economic efficiencies in Brazil, India, and China, where economic efficiency measures the gap between potential and actual output for a given input combination and technological factor. We use stochastic production frontier models to measure the contributions of factors of production and technology to growth and estimate non-positive error terms that capture production inefficiencies in each country. The results suggest that China and India had relatively inefficient production in the early 1980s but have since improved production efficiency substantially. In the same period, production efficiency in Brazil has lagged those of China and India. The gap between Brazil's production efficiency and those of its Asian peers has narrowed in recent years. However, production remains more efficient in China and India, supporting more rapid growth in these countries relative to Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT. Technological breakthroughs, macroeconomic pressures, and advances in economic thought have led to a redefinition of the role of the state from producer to arbiter among private interests. Still, the details of such a redefinition vary among countries. We aim to understand the reasons for such differences and draw their policy implications through a case study of the electricity industry in Brazil, China, and India. Over the past decade, these countries have sought to restructure their state-owned electric utilities. The restructuring effort has led to different outcomes in the three countries. We argue that ideology, institutional arrangements, and the behavior of interest groups lie at the heart of such differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]