To Build a Review of Dead Aid
Dambisa Moyo confounded developmental economists and academia in 2009 with her pointed critique of the assistance regime surrounding development in sub-Saharan Africa when she published Dead Aid. Since that time, the ideas professed by Moyo have been considered rather profound yet divisive. Niall Ferguson sums up the initial basic question Moyo asks in his foreword to Dead Aid. Ferguson states, “why, ask Moyo, do the majority of sub-Saharan countries ‘flounder in a seemingly never-ending cycle of corruption, disease, poverty, and aid-dependency, despite the fact that their countries have received more than US$300 billion in development assistance since 1970” (Ferguson, 2009). Moyo claims within the writings of Dead Aid that the support or aid given to sub-Saharan Africa has failed in its scope by making the region poorer and that there are alternatives to the regime of assistance. This essay will summarize and critique Dead Aid but also apply the findings to the broader debate on global integration. Moyo gives readers within Dead Aid a particular insight into the duality between ‘no-strings’ attached foreign direct investment (FDI) typified by the Eastern style of support to the Western ideology of democracy building as a contingency to aid.
Before diving into the summary and critique of Dead Aid, a few words on the uniqueness and background of Dambisa Moyo are in order. Moyo has a few significant benefits to the majority of theorist’s writing about sub-Saharan Africa. In borrowing from and summarizing Ferguson’s foreword to Dead Aid, Moyo is a black female born and raised in Zambia, a sub-Saharan African nation (Ferguson, 2009). On those merits alone she represents a perspective that should not be ignored. However, her education and career have taken her from places like Havard University all the way to Oxford University, and then to the professional world of economics with Goldman-Sachs for eight years in New York City (Ferguson, 2009). With her education and personal demographics, readers can see how she developed quite visceral views to aid in sub-Saharan Africa.
International Political Harmony:
A Chinese Creation
This essay attempts to argue that China’s international political economy (IPE) reflects a new understanding of international relations theory (IRT) that can be partly defined by Western ideologies but constitutes an independent approach. China’s approach to global trade in the 21st century does possess numerous threads of thinking that resemble the Western IRT of Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism. None of those ideas can stand alone and adequately define how China assesses or acts about the phenomenon of globalization. Viewing China as a constructivist would, through identity and perspective, you can begin to see how Chinese thinkers are developing IRT through a uniquely Chinese narrative. Using resources about a perceived trade war with the United States will highlight the possible development of a new IRT built upon harmony and not solely based on the spectrum between self-interest and cooperation.
An original answer based on my Quora.com response.
Since the 1970’s, China, with the largest population worldwide, has been opening up its economy. Any industry it grows in is going to reverberate globally more so than other comparable nations because of the population alone. For example, look into the global scare that happened when textile regulation ended. Numerous countries were justifiably worried because of China’s population and expertise in textile.
In the 1990’s America further liberalized its economy with a sharp easing of regulation; this spurred American FDI (foreign direct investment) in other countries to soar. FDI can be thought of physically as actually building the factory and hiring the workers (all that takes an investment, right?). Because of deregulation, it was more profitable to move production to a place where it’s cheaper to produce and less expensive on labor. Why do they do this? American consumers demand quick, cheap and highly variable products. American companies are maximizing their profits and also trying to satisfy American consumers.
It’s as simple as that, and if you are told otherwise, please, critically question it.
60% of all Chinese exports are from foreign-owned companies. So, 60% of what China sells is because of foreign corporations desiring it. (A Trade War with China?, Neil Hughes, 2005).