The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030


Essay, 2018
7 Pages, Grade: 5

Excerpt

Contents

The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030

The neo-structural policy landscape paradigm and its features

The retro-liberal policy landscape paradigm and its features

The neo-structural and retro-liberal paradigms and its effect on the Sustainable Development Goals

Conclusion

References

The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030

From 1776 to date, different forms of economic and social development have been promoted (Peet & Hartwick, 2015). For example, from 1776 to 1920s emphasis was placed on the classical economics; after the 1930s to 1970s the Keynes's economic model was widely used. Further, in 1950 the theory of modernisation became popular and since then other models and theories that promote development have emerged. Example of these are Marxism, neo-Marxism, liberalism, neoliberalism, post-neoliberalism among other economic and development models (Peet & Hartwick, 2015). Normally these economic models are made up of a set of economic and development policies that are known as aid paradigms or aid regimes (Corbett & Dinnen, 2016; Garrett & Wanner, 2017). Two of these aid paradigms are the neo-structural policy landscape and the retro-liberal policy landscape which aim to seek economic development. Thus, this essay will briefly describe the main features of these two different policy landscapes and also will respond the following question: How the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms may affect the successful achievement of the sustainable development goals by 2030? Finally, this essay will conclude with a short summary of the main described points.

The neo-structural policy landscape paradigm and its features

According to Odio-Ayala (2010), there are different criteria to define the concept of neo-structuralism, but the most common definition is employed by Ffrench-Davis (1988) who explains it as "the set of productive and management structures that facilitate economic dynamism and greater equality, along with strategies and policies that allow for greater national autonomy" (p. 37). Markedly, the neo-structuralism is a continuation of the basic stance of structuralism, with some adjustments derived from new realities both internal and international (Sunkel, 1987). In other words, the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm is based on public policies and public services that seeks the empowerment of vulnerable people, providing a global solution to reduce poverty and promoting sustainability (Sachs, 2015), so that in this way international development can be achieved. It could be said then that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2015, by the General Assembly of the United Nations are a remarkable example of a neo-structural aid paradigm that aims the public benefit for all person worldwide instead of the benefit of the private sector only (UN General Assembly, 2015).

Another notable example of a neo-structural aid paradigm that aims the public benefit is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (Roeskau, 2006). This organization works in the follow-up of the development policies of the 30-member countries. It also analyses the aid program of each member country, directs recommendations on aid efforts, their conditions and financial modalities (Roeskau, 2006). Further, the OECD-DAC promotes the international economic development through the Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is the net disbursement of credits and donations made according to the criteria of the OECD-DAC to help developing countries (Hook & Rumsey, 2016). For instance, the ODA's criteria to provide assistance is divided in four policies which are, firstly using the 0.15% of the gross national income (GNI) of the 30 donor countries to aid for developing. Secondly, the 0.15% of ODA's resources are used to support Least Development Countries (LDCs). Thirdly, more than the 90% of the aid to support Least Development Countries is provided as grants instead of loans. Fourthly, the aid to LDCs is free of any political or commercial commitment as condition (Hook & Rumsey, 2016).

It can be noticed then that the SDGs and the OECD-DAC display very important features of the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm. However, Gutiérrez (2013) includes other general characteristics that are also part of neo-structuralism paradigm, some of them are: 1) Active government and selective economic policies. 2) Selective intervention in the productive system to satisfy the basic needs of all. 3) Pluralism in the forms of ownership and management. 4) Development of intermediate bodies: unions, cooperatives, boards of neighbours, associations of professionals. 5) The progressive tax system, a redistributor of expenses and reallocator of productive resources. 6) Regulated financial system, at the service of productive development, with regulated real interest rates. 7) Selective insertion (p. 107-108). We can conclude therefore that the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm and its features focused on global goals, multilateral action, poverty and sustainability (Sachs, 2015).

The retro-liberal policy landscape paradigm and its features

Contrary to the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm, the retro-liberal policy landscape paradigm is focused on national action and national interests that are promoted through the private sector and corporate partnerships (Brown, den Heyer, & Black, 2016). In their research Brown, den Heyer and Black (2016) show that the case of Canadian aid policies could be used as an example to illustrate the approach of the retro-liberal paradigm. Before 2011, the aid provided by the Canadian government was mainly directed to the public sector and not to the private industry and commercial sector. But later, this approach changed and this aid was used to help private companies to increase their investments abroad. Although the research conducted by Brown, den Heyer and Black (2016), describes very well Canada’s role in international development and its foreign aid policies, it does not describe, compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of aid that Canada has provided before and after 2011 and how these may affect the successful fulfillment of sustainable development goals.

It is evident then that commercialisation and financialization are two main features of the retro-liberal policy landscape paradigm that seeks to benefit mainly private companies and large corporations (Mawdsley, 2016; BothEnds, 2013). In addition, the association of development promoting organisations with the private sector has resulted in new consortiums for making development projects, large contestable funds and development impact bonds (Mawdsley, 2016). For this reason, Mawdsley (2016), suggests that due to the partnerships of private companies with development organizations, development aid will be converted into development financing, which could suggest that development aid would be transformed into a business that would mainly benefit the financial sector. In this case, it could be said that development aid would become a kind of social and ethical adultery.

The neo-structural and retro-liberal paradigms and its effect on the Sustainable Development Goals

Once described and analysed briefly the similarities and differences of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism policy landscape paradigms and its features, the following question arises: How the neo-structuralist and retro-liberalism paradigms may affect the successful achievement of the sustainable development goals by 2030? As previously described the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm and its features are focused on public policies and public services that seeks the empowerment of vulnerable people, providing a global solution to reduce poverty and promoting sustainability (Sachs, 2015). Therefore, the neo-structural policy landscape paradigm and its features are in complete harmony with the Sustainable Development Goals that consists of 17 goals, 169 targets and 230 indicators. Thus, it could be said that the effect that this political paradigm has on the SDG is to promote and contribute to the successful fulfilment of these goals by 2030.

[...]

Excerpt out of 7 pages

Details

Title
The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030
College
Massey University, New Zealand
Grade
5
Author
Year
2018
Pages
7
Catalog Number
V470314
ISBN (eBook)
9783346073846
Language
English
Quote paper
Alfredo Lopez (Author), 2018, The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/470314

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: The effect of the neo-structuralism and retro-liberalism paradigms on the success of the sustainable development goals by 2030


Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free