China’s and Brazil’s economic development over the last 60 years has been remarkable and earned them the status of ‘rising powers’. Especially China’s transformation stands out as it increased its share of global GDP more than six fold from 1970 – 2009, to around 6%. Brazil’s share actually decreased slightly but still remains stable since 1995 at around 2.5% (Farooki and Mohan, 2013, p. 106, fig. 5.1). Notably, both countries increased their service sectors’ share of domestic GDP – China by 21%, Brazil by 23% - from 1980 to 2009, hinting at increasing sophistication (ibid, p. 108, table 5.1). This essay shows that these increases are results of structural changes in the global economic system and intentional action in both countries, which were initiated by international, national and non-governmental actors. Comparisons and contrasts are made to show how China and Brazil moved towards broader goals, such as governance, macroeconomics, and industrialization; as well as narrower ones, like decisions on aid and rural/urban development. Frameworks provided by development theories inform this attempt. The concluding section will summarize the main points and close with the argument that, although both countries’ trajectories diverged nationally, major international crises linked their ascendance.
Table of Contents
1. Economic Development of Rising Powers
2. Development Theories and Structuralism
3. China's Rise: Policy and Special Economic Zones
4. Brazil's Development: Resources and Neoliberal Shifts
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This essay examines and contrasts the economic development trajectories of China and Brazil over the past 60 years, focusing on how internal policy decisions and international crises have shaped their current status as rising global powers within the framework of various development theories.
- Analysis of structuralist and interventionist economic policies.
- The impact of global economic crises, specifically the 1973 oil crisis.
- Role of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Chinese industrialization.
- Brazil's shift from Keynesian models to the Washington Consensus.
- Environmental and social impacts of international trade dependencies.
Excerpt from the Book
China’s and Brazil’s economic development over the last 60 years has been remarkable and earned them the status of ‘rising powers’. Especially China’s transformation stands out as it increased its share of global GDP more than six fold from 1970 – 2009, to around 6%. Brazil’s share actually decreased slightly but still remains stable since 1995 at around 2.5% (Farooki and Mohan, 2013, p. 106, fig. 5.1). Notably, both countries increased their service sectors’ share of domestic GDP – China by 21%, Brazil by 23% - from 1980 to 2009, hinting at increasing sophistication (ibid, p. 108, table 5.1). This essay shows that these increases are results of structural changes in the global economic system and intentional action in both countries, which were initiated by international, national and non-governmental actors. Comparisons and contrasts are made to show how China and Brazil moved towards broader goals, such as governance, macroeconomics, and industrialization; as well as narrower ones, like decisions on aid and rural/urban development. Frameworks provided by development theories inform this attempt. The concluding section will summarize the main points and close with the argument that, although both countries’ trajectories diverged nationally, major international crises linked their ascendance.
In order to make sense of China’s and Brazil’s rise, Development theories provide a great deal of support. Structuralist theory, for example, is often associated with Marxist theory. It acknowledges that capital accumulation creates inequalities, which a responsible state should have the moral obligation and legal resources to mitigate through wealth re-distribution, after the societal structures have been thoroughly examined. Interventionism, on the other hand, claims that structuralism alone does not actually create enough wealth, and thus should be complemented with neoliberal approaches, which on the other hand, favours liberalized free market regimes, e.g. lax labour and environmental regulations and therefore rather less intended actions (Hanlin and Brown, 2013, p. 34).
Summary of Chapters
1. Economic Development of Rising Powers: Introduces the economic trajectories of China and Brazil and establishes the theoretical framework regarding their roles as emerging global powers.
2. Development Theories and Structuralism: Discusses the application of structuralist, interventionist, and people-centred theories in the context of state-led economic planning.
3. China's Rise: Policy and Special Economic Zones: Examines the transition from Mao-era policies to the pragmatic adoption of market principles through Special Economic Zones.
4. Brazil's Development: Resources and Neoliberal Shifts: Details Brazil's path from Keynesianism and import substitution to the neoliberal reforms of the Washington Consensus and the 'Real Plan'.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that despite differing national paths, both countries have converged toward an interventionist model influenced by international crises.
Keywords
Rising Powers, China, Brazil, Structuralism, Interventionism, Neoliberalism, GDP, Special Economic Zones, Washington Consensus, Industrialization, Macroeconomics, Capital Accumulation, Keynesianism, Global Crisis, Economic Development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The essay explores how China and Brazil utilized different economic strategies, such as structuralism and interventionism, to navigate global economic systems and achieve the status of rising powers.
What are the central themes of the research?
Key themes include industrialization, macroeconomic restructuring, the management of natural resources, and the impact of international financial institutions like the IMF.
What is the overarching research goal?
The goal is to compare and contrast the intentional policy actions taken by both nations over the last 60 years and to explain how these actions, alongside external crises, influenced their economic growth.
Which theoretical frameworks are applied?
The author uses structuralist theory, Keynesianism, neoliberalism (Washington Consensus), and people-centred development approaches to analyze the data.
What is the scope of the main analysis?
The main body investigates the political-economic history of China (including the Cultural Revolution and SEZs) and Brazil (including the impact of the oil crisis and agricultural policies).
Which keywords best characterize the study?
The study is characterized by terms such as Rising Powers, Structuralism, Neoliberalism, Industrialization, and Macroeconomic restructuring.
How did the 1973 oil crisis impact these two nations?
The crisis served as a turning point, providing surplus capital for China's SEZs while draining Brazil's financial resources and forcing a shift toward neoliberal policy adjustments.
Why does the author classify the development path as convergent?
The author concludes that both nations eventually adopted a model where the state remains highly interventionist and maintains a strong influence over capital accumulation despite initial differences in ideology.
- Quote paper
- Christian Scheinpflug (Author), 2012, Policy-making and the International System, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/207421
