Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Economic theories as well as global financial governance (international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank) and public policies have been confronted with several global crises (e.g., the global financial crisis/GFC). Yet the question remains debated as to whether these crises have induced 'genuine' changes in economic theories, institutions and policies or as to whether the latter have remained 'broadly' unchanged. Such a question, however, requires a definition of the concept of change itself. Indeed, only large and visible shifts à la Kuhn may be qualified as changes. In contrast, in a Hirschmanian perspective, transformations may occur via small departures and innovations within a consensus, via 'partial, limited, and pragmatic responses' that may be erratic adjustments in institutions and policies: here, mainstream theories have evolved since the GFC towards more openness to non-mainstream concepts (e.g., instability). In addition, the observation of change depends on the time spans considered (long-term historical approaches perceiving types of inertia or change that differ from short-term ones). In this context, the paper argues that a consequentialist approach of the concept of change has a greater explanatory power: observable changes in outcomes and causal mechanisms 'prove' changes in theoretical paradigms, institutions and policies. The example of the mainstream theories that have been used in the analysis of Sub-Saharan African economies and the policy reforms applied to them shows that changes have been limited. Theoretical paradigms, financial governance institutions and the associated policies claim to have changed since the GFC. Behind 'innovations' in theories and policies, however, outcomes remain poor, and their underlying causal mechanisms are stable since the 1980s-90s 'lost decades': i.e. theories relying on irrefutability mechanisms and absorbing other theories that could induce changes, and cumulative constraints generated by ...

The differences between mainstream and 'heterodox' theories and policies have become increasingly blurred, and this dynamic has also affected heterodox analyses of development. Being trapped by the primacy of the statistics-based methodological imperative, much heterodox thinking on development does not distinguish itself from the mainstream and its abandonment of reflection on the theoretical causalities that underlie policies. In this context, a conceptual framework is elaborated that focuses on the relationships between theory and policy, which allows for the argument that differences exist between heterodox and mainstream stances. Indeed, there is no direct translation between theory and policy. The criterion of validity of theory is truth. In contrast, a policymaker's domain is action, and the criterion of validity is the efficiency of the policy given its goals, as well as that of justification. The fact that a policymaker is indifferent to the truth (or falsehood) of a theoretical assumption is shown via the example of the austerity reform programmes of international financial institutions implemented in SubSaharan Africa. The 2020 pandemic is a 'natural experiment' showing that governments and international agencies can discard overnight the theories that have previously demonstrated the truth of the causalities underlying austerity policies and devise huge financial support, hence simultaneously showing that policymakers do not believe that these theories are true. If rich economies are threatened by a massive shock, policies manifest their disconnection from theories that have been previously imposed as 'true', notably upon developing economies, this 'truth' being the justification for conditional lending and an element of policy efficiency. This example delineates the specificity of heterodox reflections on development. Attitudes vis-à-vis truth and the relationships between theory and policy are in fact ethical attitudes: deontological attitudes (as opposed to utilitarianism) characterise heterodox stances, i.e., the consequences of policies are evaluated in terms of norms.

International audience ; Economic theories as well as global financial governance (international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank) and public policies have been confronted with several global crises (e.g., the global financial crisis/GFC). Yet the question remains debated as to whether these crises have induced 'genuine' changes in economic theories, institutions and policies or as to whether the latter have remained 'broadly' unchanged. Such a question, however, requires a definition of the concept of change itself. Indeed, only large and visible shifts à la Kuhn may be qualified as changes. In contrast, in a Hirschmanian perspective, transformations may occur via small departures and innovations within a consensus, via 'partial, limited, and pragmatic responses' that may be erratic adjustments in institutions and policies: here, mainstream theories have evolved since the GFC towards more openness to non-mainstream concepts (e.g., instability). In addition, the observation of change depends on the time spans considered (long-term historical approaches perceiving types of inertia or change that differ from short-term ones). In this context, the paper argues that a consequentialist approach of the concept of change has a greater explanatory power: observable changes in outcomes and causal mechanisms 'prove' changes in theoretical paradigms, institutions and policies. The example of the mainstream theories that have been used in the analysis of Sub-Saharan African economies and the policy reforms applied to them shows that changes have been limited. Theoretical paradigms, financial governance institutions and the associated policies claim to have changed since the GFC. Behind 'innovations' in theories and policies, however, outcomes remain poor, and their underlying causal mechanisms are stable since the 1980s-90s 'lost decades': i.e. theories relying on irrefutability mechanisms and absorbing other theories that could induce changes, and cumulative constraints generated by ...

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

International audience ; Economic theories as well as global financial governance (international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank) and public policies have been confronted with several global crises (e.g., the global financial crisis/GFC). Yet the question remains debated as to whether these crises have induced 'genuine' changes in economic theories, institutions and policies or as to whether the latter have remained 'broadly' unchanged. Such a question, however, requires a definition of the concept of change itself. Indeed, only large and visible shifts à la Kuhn may be qualified as changes. In contrast, in a Hirschmanian perspective, transformations may occur via small departures and innovations within a consensus, via 'partial, limited, and pragmatic responses' that may be erratic adjustments in institutions and policies: here, mainstream theories have evolved since the GFC towards more openness to non-mainstream concepts (e.g., instability). In addition, the observation of change depends on the time spans considered (long-term historical approaches perceiving types of inertia or change that differ from short-term ones). In this context, the paper argues that a consequentialist approach of the concept of change has a greater explanatory power: observable changes in outcomes and causal mechanisms 'prove' changes in theoretical paradigms, institutions and policies. The example of the mainstream theories that have been used in the analysis of Sub-Saharan African economies and the policy reforms applied to them shows that changes have been limited. Theoretical paradigms, financial governance institutions and the associated policies claim to have changed since the GFC. Behind 'innovations' in theories and policies, however, outcomes remain poor, and their underlying causal mechanisms are stable since the 1980s-90s 'lost decades': i.e. theories relying on irrefutability mechanisms and absorbing other theories that could induce changes, and cumulative constraints generated by ...

International audience ; Economic theories as well as global financial governance (international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank) and public policies have been confronted with several global crises (e.g., the global financial crisis/GFC). Yet the question remains debated as to whether these crises have induced 'genuine' changes in economic theories, institutions and policies or as to whether the latter have remained 'broadly' unchanged. Such a question, however, requires a definition of the concept of change itself. Indeed, only large and visible shifts à la Kuhn may be qualified as changes. In contrast, in a Hirschmanian perspective, transformations may occur via small departures and innovations within a consensus, via 'partial, limited, and pragmatic responses' that may be erratic adjustments in institutions and policies: here, mainstream theories have evolved since the GFC towards more openness to non-mainstream concepts (e.g., instability). In addition, the observation of change depends on the time spans considered (long-term historical approaches perceiving types of inertia or change that differ from short-term ones). In this context, the paper argues that a consequentialist approach of the concept of change has a greater explanatory power: observable changes in outcomes and causal mechanisms 'prove' changes in theoretical paradigms, institutions and policies. The example of the mainstream theories that have been used in the analysis of Sub-Saharan African economies and the policy reforms applied to them shows that changes have been limited. Theoretical paradigms, financial governance institutions and the associated policies claim to have changed since the GFC. Behind 'innovations' in theories and policies, however, outcomes remain poor, and their underlying causal mechanisms are stable since the 1980s-90s 'lost decades': i.e. theories relying on irrefutability mechanisms and absorbing other theories that could induce changes, and cumulative constraints generated by ...

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

International audience ; Une question récurrente dans la littérature sur les relations entre la Chine et l'Afrique Sub-Saharienne est de comprendre si l'engagement chinois constitue un paradigme alternatif aux modèles « mainstream » relatifs aux théories ou politiques économiquespar exemple ceux promus par les institutions financières internationales. La Chine a en effet été analysée comme un modèle de développement original partageant de nombreux éléments avec ceux ayant caractérisés les Etats « développementaux » est-asiatiques, notamment des politiques économiques interventionnistes (politiques industrielles). Dans ce contexte, cet article argue que les principaux domaines des relations économiques Chine-Afriquecommerce, investissement et financement du développement-n'illustrent pas le modèle de la Chine comme Etat « développemental », étant surtout animés par des motivations de marché ou de coopération au développement. Certaines de leurs dimensions, cependant, illustrent le modèle développemental spécifique de la Chine. ; An emerging question in the literature on the relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa is as to whether Chinese engagements provide for developing economies an alternative paradigm to mainstream models of economic theories and policies, an example being the framework promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs). China has indeed been analyzed as an original model of development that has shared many core elements with those having characterized the East Asian "developmental states"notably active state intervention (industrial policies), in contrast with the IFIs framework. Against this background, it is argued that the main domains of China-Sub-Saharan African economic relationshipstrade, investment, development financegenerally do not illustrate the model of China as a developmental state, being mainly driven by market or development cooperation motives. In some dimensions, however, they illustrate China's specific developmental model.

AbstractFocusing on low‐income commodity‐dependent sub‐Saharan African countries, the paper argues that the impact of the 2008–2009 crisis, and more generally, these countries' growth trajectories, can be explained by the concept of the poverty trap. This is not trivial, because commodity‐based traps remain debated: some countries have grounded their growth on the export of commodities, and the impact of commodity price fluctuations may be analysed through other concepts (such as cycles). Against these views, it shows that these countries' growth trajectories exhibit the three key theoretical features of poverty traps: threshold effects, cumulative causation and low equilibria. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.