Partner 1: Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

Tracking Development 

The development records of Thailand and Ethiopia seem to have nothing in common. Whereas Thailand comes close to being one of the Asian Tigers and seems to be progressing rapidly on a track of industrialization and incorporation in the modern world, Ethiopia is the typical example of an impoverished African nation, albeit not one with a hampering colonial legacy. In this paper the recent economic history of the two states is nonetheless compared and valuable insights about whether these preconceptions hold and how the two nations have gotten onto their separate trajectories to growth were gained.

This paper is part of the Tracking Development project commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as such it aims at policy relevant conclusions. The core of Tracking Development is a large scale side-by-side comparative investigation of South-East Asian and Sub-Saharan African countries. A close examination is given to different development policies in both countries to identify which succeeded in their goals and why, and vice versa which failed and why. The framework that is used in this paper to investigate the growth (or stand-still) of both countries is that of the Tracking Development project at large. Three sets of policy initiatives are hypothesized to be crucial in the rapid and ongoing development of Asian countries, and the lack of these policies to be decisive in the relative standstill of African countries. These policies are: first, macro-economic stabilization; second, a set of policies aimed at improving life in the rural sector, increasing agricultural productivity and an ample supply of food; and third, liberalization of the economy granting economic freedom, especially to small actors.

In order to identify successful policies, narratives of two countries (in this case Ethiopia and Thailand) were set up, with a focus on discovering positive and negative turning points. These turning points are associated with two development indicators: economic growth and poverty reduction. When these were found, policies were identified which are responsible for these turning points. 

By comparing turning points and policies between the two countries, we gained general insights in development.

You can download the full research below. N.B. It is strictly forbidden to use and/or copy (parts of) this research without written approval of the both the IRSP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Researchers

• Judith Geerling
• Dorothée Houck
• Gerard Ritsema van Eck
• Michèle Schreij
• Nienke Sleurink
• Klaas de Vries
  

Supervising professor

• Dr. N. de Deugd
  

Part

ner 2: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

China and India as responsible stakeholders in the world economy and policy issues for the Netherlands and the European Union

The term ‘responsible stakeholder’ was introduced for the first time by Robert Zoellick during the Carnegie  Debates in 2005. The purpose was to initiate a new understanding of US-China relations in the current world  order. Given the fact that China’s economic strength has grown tremendously in a short time period, the relative dominance of the US within the trade relations with China had to be altered, as to prevent a possible shift of power towards Asia. With the term‘responsible  stakeholder,’ Zoellick  envisioned  a  world  order  in  which  politics  would  be conducted on basis of multilateralism, diplomacy and peaceful prosperity. The argument was that any state would likely support this system, because it offers durability of agreements and general prosperity.

Considering the position of the EU – with its own challenges such as speaking with one voice, and  the changing representative faces – this responsible stakeholder point of view is interesting because it could accommodate the rising powers of ‘the East’ and assign them a solid place in the current international order, without shifting the relative dominance in political and economic relations to Asia.

Using a comparative case approach, we have analyzed the conditions of contemporary Chinese and  Indian trade politics, as well as their bilateral and multilateral trade relations. By using the Hofstede-model as  a socialization model, we argue that we can make use of trade policies in order to influence the ‘Dragon’  and the ‘Elephant’ in the East. We found that by separating the occurring trade problems in structural and  functional problems it is possible to identify which problems can be  most easily tackled. On  these ‘outer  circle,’ or low profile challenges should the EU and the Netherlands focus first, whilst integrating the emerging powers in the system of responsible stakeholders. Eventually, this should result in a multilateral system of and equal dominance for any major trading partner in the international order.

By applying this reasoning, we also identified the challenges which are more in the center of  China’s  and  India’s  interests  (core  values).  The  costs  for  trying  to  influence  these  are considerably higher than with the functional problems, and positive outcomes are less probable. We  consider  them  ‘structural  problems’  and  are  mostly  associated  with  concepts  such  as ‘identity’ and ‘society’. These problems are called structural, due to the length of time needed to adapt them.  Hence, we argue that combating the functional challenges first, these steps could stimulate the development of an ultimate desirable world order.

An example of a functional problem for India is its perceived weakness as a tool to raise legitimacy for specific policy choices. Put differently, it explains to the international community that it is not capable of concluding an agreement due to domestic interests, and vice versa. We recognized such a situation during the negotiations on the TRIPS-agreement: India did not want to comply at first, but as soon as the needed domestic legitimacy was raised, they were willing to agree. Arguably, the same holds true for the DDA-negotiations, which ran into a deadlock over technical details of the Special Safeguard Mechanism.

One  of  the  most  practical  among  the  Chinese  functional  problems  concerns  the implementation and enforcement difficulties. At the level of the central government it appears there are true intentions to implement the WTO-commitments, but since China is unique in its size and number of stakeholders involved – including quite autonomous provinces and cities – China’s behavior can be  categorized as hesitant to make too many promises. In the past, one could  have  noticed  that  generous  offers  by  Zhu  Rongji  with  regard  to  the  WTO-accession conditions were not always received with thankful feelings in his homeland. This partly explain their reluctant attitude in multilateral talks with complex package  deals, such as the DDA. In connection with EU trade policy, the IPR2-project represents a successful joint  regulation and implementation program. Similarly, the China-EU trade could benefit from Chinese ‘copycat behavior’. Of course, this does not refer to expensive European intellectual property, but to European legislation models.

To conclude, responsible stakeholdership paves the way for a new international order, with at its core the possibility for developed powers to maintain a firm position in world politics and trade.

Researchers

• Dave Hoogakker
• Erika van Leeuwen
• Mara van der Meer
• Sigit Rahman
• Marloes Roijackers
• Annie Yuliyanti
  

Supervising professor

• Dr. R. Gigengack

You can download the full research below. N.B. It is strictly forbidden to use and/or copy (parts of) this research without written approval of the both the IRSP and the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands.

Partner 3: Unicef

Solar energy in rural Uganda

Energy shortage is assumed to be of a major concern for the development of the Third World. This may come not as surprise since in general each country that is regarded to be a developing country shows acute energy shortages. Energy is directly or indirectly linked to all of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

In this regard, solar technology takes in a prominent place. This is supported by the fact that NGO’s are increasingly applying solar technology in their aid projects. Due to the difficulties with national grid access in the Third World, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and companies are considering other energy solutions. These can bring the benefits of electricity to the underprivileged peoples of the world, thereby providing a decisive stimulus to overall growth of a country. Certainly, there is good reason to assume that access to energy sources plays an essential role in the development of a country

The objectives of this research paper are to provide guidelines for how projects involving solar energy can be implemented successfully and sustainably. By examining the advantages and disadvantages of solar technology in rural Africa, Uganda has been chosen in order to develop a framework that could suit many other countries of this continent. Despite a considerable reduction in the poverty headcount in the past decade, Uganda remains one of the poorest countries in the world.  This study will not include other renewable energy sources such as wind or bio fuel in its analysis since this would go beyond the scope of this work.

The first deliverable in this research paper will examine to what extent local populations in remote areas could profit from solar technology. The second will focus on a cost-benefit analysis of solar energy in comparison with traditional energy sources. By taking financial, environmental and socio-economic aspects into consideration. The third will provide a policy recommendation for future projects concerning the implementation of solar technology in Sub-Saharan Africa.

You can download the full research below. N.B. It is strictly forbidden to use and/or copy (parts of) this research without written approval of the both the IRSP and Unicef.

Researchers

• Sabine de Bruin
• Lidewij van der Ploeg 
• Nienke Dekens
• Nienke Raap
• Katja Joumanova
• Benjamin Lüber
  

Supervising professor

• Dr. A. Zwitter