![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
The relevance acquired in recent years by South–South cooperation seems to be connected with deeper structural transformations occurring in the international system. However, the variety of cooperation models promoted by new providers in the South requires the identification of complementary factors to help explain current patterns. A set of socio-cognitive elements, related to each country’s perceptions, identities and interests, can yield greater understanding of the variety of South–South cooperation models. Such an approach is here applied to the cases of Chile, Venezuela and Brazil – three important providers from the South – in order to explore their different cooperation models.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the comments and suggestions from the two anonymous referees.
Notes
1. Gore, “New Development Cooperation Landscape”; Alonso, Glennie, and Sumner, “Recipients and Contributors”; Abdenur, “Emerging Powers as Normative Agents”; Bracho, In Search of a Narrative; Browne and Weiss, “Emerging Powers and the UN Development System”; Glennie, Role of Aid to Middle-Income Countries.
2. Alonso, Cooperation with Middle Income Countries; Alonso, Cooperation with Middle-Income Countries: an Incentive-Based; Tejasvi, South–South Capacity Development; Rowlands, Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance; Santander, “La cooperación Sur–Sur”; Chaturvedi, Fues, and Sidiropoulos, Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers; Agarwal, South–South Economic Cooperation.
3. Walz and Ramachandran, Brave New World; Zimmermann and Smith, “More Actors, More Money”; Chaturvedi, Fues, and Sidiropoulos, Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers; Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors; Santander, Identidades e intereses.
4. SEGIB is an international organisation that supports the Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government and that implements its mandate.
5. Strange, States and Markets; Strange, Retreat of the State; Sanahuja, “Un mundo unipolar”; Tooze, “Susan Strange”; Tooze, “Ideology, Knowledge and Power.”
6. Spence, The Next Convergence; UNDP, The Rise of the South.
7. World Bank, Global Development Horizons 2011.
8. Alonso, From Aid to Global Development Policy.
9. Keohane, Neoralism and its Critics; Waltz, Theory of International Politics.
10. Giddens, The Constitution of Society; Wendt, “Agent-Structure Problem”; Wendt, “Anarchy Is what States Make of It”; Onuf, World of our Making; Chekel, “Constructivist Turn in International Relations”; Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity.
11. Zehfuss, “Constructivism and Identity”; Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics.
12. Muhr, “Beyond ‘BRICS’: Ten Theses”; Mawdsley, “Changing Geographies of Foreign Aid.”
13. Ayllón and Ojeda, La cooperación Sur–Sur; Lengyel and Malcalza, “What Do We Talk.”
14. Lengyel and Malcalza, “What Do We Talk”; Mawdsley, “Changing Geographies of Foreign Aid.”
15. Habermas. Theory of Communicative Action.
16. Alesina and Dollar, “Who Gives Foreign Aid”; Neumayer, Pattern of Aid Giving.
17. Van der Veen, Ideas, Interests and Foreign Aid.
18. In particular, the fieldwork was carried out in Chile and Venezuela in 2014–2015, interviewing a total of 20 people. In the first case, interviews were conducted mainly with key informants of Chilean Agency for International Cooperation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the second case, the interviews were conducted with key informants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Petrocaribe, and Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA). Conversely, the case of Brazil was observed via desk research, by way of existing literature and information.
19. DAC-OECD, Special Review of Chile.
20. AGCI, Balance de Gestión Integral 2006–2010; Santander, “La cooperación chilena”; SEGIB, Report on South–South Cooperation.
21. Sanahuja, “La integración regional”; Serbin, Chávez, Venezuela.
22. Petrocaribe, Management Report June 2015.
23. Briceño, “El ALBA como propuesta.”
24. Bryan, “PetroCaribe and CARICOM.”
25. Bryan, “PetroCaribe and CARICOM”; Serbin, Chávez, Venezuela; Williams, “New Balancing Act”; Corrales, “Conflicting Goals in Venezuela’s Foreign Policy.”
26. Sanahuja, “La integración regional”; Serbin, Chávez, Venezuela; Santander, “Venezuela: el donante bolivariano.”
27. Aponte, El Nuevo Regionalismo Estratégico; Aponte and Amézquita, El ALBA-TCP; Muhr, Counter-Globalization and Socialism.
28. Rodríguez, “La cooperación venezolana”; Serbin, Chávez, Venezuela; Ojeda, “La cooperación Sur–Sur.”
29. Lechini, “Is South–South Co-operation Still Possible”; World Bank and IPEA, Bridging the Atlantic; SEGIB, Report on South–South Cooperation; Abdenur and Rampini, “A Cooperação Brasileira.”
30. IPEA, “Cooperação Brasileira”; Cabral and Weinstock, Brazil: An Emerging Aid Player; Cabral and Weinstock, Brazilian Technical Cooperation for Development; Ayllón, “Nuevos horizontes.”
31. IPEA, Cooperação Brasileira.
32. Burgues, “Consensual Hegemony”; Burgues, Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War; Vigevani and Cepaluni, Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times; Amorim, “Brazilian Foreign Policy.”
33. Soares de Lima and Hirst, “Brazil as an Intermediate State.”
34. Schirm, “Leaders in Need of Followers.”
35. Schablitzki, BRICS Development Bank.
36. The initiative formed by India, Brazil, and South Africa.
37. WWICS, “Emerging Powers”; White, IBSA Six Years on.
38. As noted above, in the case of Chile there is also an underlying ideological vision; therefore, this is not exclusive to the case of Venezuela. However, what is relevant here is that Chile considers that, in terms of its foreign policy objectives, it is more functional to have a less ideologically biased model of cooperation, instead building on a country image of reliability. This is not the case for Venezuela, whose SSC is more ideologically oriented in the selection of partners.