![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 paper engages critically with the increasing importance of South–South cooperation and the shift from African–European to African–Asian interaction. It argues that South–South cooperation is too often framed in a spatial logics of regional integration and transregional cooperation and thus reproduces spatial understandings that are characteristic for African–European relations but misplaced in the context of African–Asian relations. Moreover, it analyses perceptions about the difference of European and Asian cooperation partners amongst political and societal elites in Kenya and Tanzania, arguing that instead of a shift from African–European to Afrasian spaces of interaction, the two mutually coexist and fulfil complementary functions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Acknowledgements
This research was part of the project ‘AFRASO – Africa’s Asian Options’, funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung – BMBF). I would like to kindly acknowledge the BMBF’s support for this project as well as the critical and helpful discussions on previous versions of the paper with colleagues at Goethe-University Frankfurt. Moreover, I am very grateful to my colleagues and all informants in Nairobi and Arusha who made the fieldwork possible.
Notes
Notes
1 Rosenbaum and Tyler, “South–South Relations,” 243.
2 The use of terms such as ‘South’ and ‘North’ are subject to intense debate. In this paper, I will refrain from using inverted commas for indicating the problematics imbued in these terms. For a critical engagement with the consequences of using these terms, please see Sidaway, “Geographies of Development.”
3 Bracking, Financialization of Power.
4 Amin, “Regulating Economic Globalization”; Potter and Conway, “Development.”
5 Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors; Kragelund and Hampwaye, “Seeking Markets and Resources.”
6 Didier, “South–South Trade”; Gray and Gills, “South–South Cooperation.”
7 UNCTAD, “South–South Trade Continues to Increase.”
8 Carmody, Rise of the BRICS in Africa.
9 Ibid., 11.
10 Agnew and Corbridge, Mastering Space, 4–5.
11 Ó Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics, 185.
12 Ó Tuathail and Dalby, Rethinking Geopolitics; Ó Tuathail, “Understanding Critical Geopolitics.”
13 Müller, “Reconsidering the Concept of Discourse.”
14 Dittmer, “Geopolitical Assemblages and Complexity”; Bachmann, European External Action.
15 Empirically, this paper draws on research in Kenya and Tanzania between 2010 and 2018, primarily 80 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions with representatives of different Kenyan, East African and European institutions (governmental, business and civil society). Research was conducted in two phases, the first between 2010 and 2014, the second between 2017 and 2018, each time predominantly in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi as well as in the headquarters of the East African Community (EAC) in Arusha, Tanzania. In total, the number of informants questioned for this research is 143: 75 in interviews and 75 in focus group discussions (of whom seven were also interviewed). Of the 75 interviewees, 41 were working for a European institution, while 34 were working for an African institution (both governmental and non-governmental). For the focus groups, four participants were representatives of European institutions, 71 of African institutions. For reasons of confidentiality, the names and exact functions of the informants are kept anonymous; however, their affiliation will be indicated. Upon completion of fieldwork, I proceeded with qualitative analysis of the primary data using the programme NVivo9. I used a mix of previously identified thematic directions and of inductive analysis during and after data acquisition. Such inductive analysis ‘means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis’ (Patton, Qualitative Evaluation Methods, 306). The first fieldwork phase (2010–2014) thereby inspired the second fieldwork phase (2017–2018). For both phases, the broad orientations I set out to inquire into were modified and refined during the field work and data analysing processes; also, some were added, others removed.
16 Engel et al., New Politics of Regionalism; Didier, “South–South Trade”; Najam and Thrasher, Future of South–South Economic Relations; Bach, “Organisations Régionales et Régionalisation.”
17 The geography, in particular the scale, of regions is far from being clearly defined, though. Whilst in the discipline of geography, ‘region’ predominantly refers to a micro-regional arrangement on a subnational scale, such as city regions or metropolitan regions, for political scientists and scholars of international relations, regions are inter- and supranational macro-arrangements above the nation-state, such as the European Union (EU) or the East African Community (EAC). The scalar context within which the term ‘region’ is commonly used in the development literature, and which will also be used in this paper, is as an inter-, trans- or supranational arrangement on a sub-continental scale. This is also in line with the empirical examples of this paper focusing on the idea of regional integration in Africa through regional economic communities (RECs), in particular the EAC, and on the European Union.
18 Gibb, “Regional Integration and Africa’s Development Trajectory”; Bachmann, “(The Crisis of) Regional Integration.”
19 Engel et al., New Politics of Regionalism; Alden and Vieira, “New Diplomacy of the South.”
20 Najam and Thrasher, Future of South–South Economic Relations, 1.
21 Gray and Gills, “South–South Cooperation”; Chaturvedi, Fues, and Sidiropoulos, Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers; Kahler, “Rising Powers and Global Governance”; Najam and Thrasher, Future of South–South Economic Relations, Modi, South–South Cooperation.
22 Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors, 63; see also UNCTAD, “South–South Trade Continues to Increase.”
23 Horner, “New Economic Geography of Trade and Development.”
24 Carmody, Rise of the BRICS in Africa, 12.
25 Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors, 2.
26 Sidiropoulos, Fues, and Chaturvedi, “Introduction,” 4.
27 Ibid., 4–5.
28 Ibid.
29 Six, “Rise of Postcolonial States as Donors.”
30 Bachmann, “(The Crisis of) Regional Integration.”
31 Sidiropoulos, Fues, and Chaturvedi, “Introduction,” 5.
32 Ibid.
33 Halper, Beijing Consensus.
34 Bachmann and Sidaway, “Zivilmacht Europa”; Manners, “Global Europa.”
35 Bachmann and Sidaway, “African Regional Integration.”
36 Holden, In Search of Structural Power.
37 Bachmann, “EU’s Civilian/Power Dilemma”; Bachmann, “EU as a Geopolitical and Development Actor.”
38 Bachmann, “(The Crisis of) Regional Integration”; Keukeleire and Hooijmaaijers, “BRICS and Other Emerging Power Alliances.”
39 Juncker, “State of the Union 2018.”
40 Halper, Beijing Consensus.
41 Bachmann, “(The Crisis of) Regional Integration.”
42 UNCTAD, “World Investment Report.” Due to unavailability, data for 2012 and 2013 are estimations.
43 Bond, “BRICS Banking and the Debate over Sub-Imperialism”; Bond, “Sub-Imperialism as Lubricant of Neoliberalism.”
44 Dutt, “South–South Patterns of Exploitation.”
45 Quoted in Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors, 3.
46 Dittmer and Dodds, “Popular Geopolitics Past and Future.”
47 Chaturvedi, “Development Cooperation: Contours, Evolution and Scope.”
48 Middell, “Are Transregional Studies the Future,” 289.
49 Graf and Hashim, African–Asian Encounters; Engel et al., New Politics of Regionalism; Mielke and Hornidge, Area Studies at the Crossroads; Karugia, “Connective Afrasian Sea Memories.”
50 African Union, “Regional Economic Communities (RECs).”
51 UNECA, “Regional Economic Communities.” Abbreviations stand for AMU - Arab Maghreb Union; CEN-SAD - The Community of Sahel-Saharan States; COMESA - Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa; EAC – East African Community; ECCAS - Economic Community of Central African States; ECOWAS - Economic Community of West African States; IGAD - Intergovernmental Authority on Development; SADC - Southern African Development Community.
52 Griggs, “Geopolitical Discourse, Global Actors”; Ramutsindela, “Gaddafi, Continentalism and Sovereignty in Africa.”
53 Gibb, “Regional Integration and Africa’s Development Trajectory,” 710–1.
54 UNOSAA, “Regional Economic Communities (RECs) of the African Union.”
55 SADC, “SADC Overview.”
56 Gibb, “Regional Integration and Africa’s Development Trajectory,” 701.
57 Bachmann and Sidaway, “African Regional Integration,” 702.
58 Holden, In Search of Structural Power.
59 Sidaway, “(Geo)Politics of Regional Integration,” 571.
60 Bachmann and Sidaway, “African Regional Integration.”
61 Engel et al., New Politics of Regionalism, 4.
62 Ibid., 191.
63 Bachmann, “(The Crisis of) Regional Integration.”
64 Kim, China and Africa; Cáceres and Ear, “Geopolitics of China’s Global Resources Quest”; Power, Mohan, and Tan-Mullis, China’s Resource Diplomacy in Africa; Fourie, New Maps for Africa?; Carmody and Taylor, “Flexigemony and Force in China’s Resource Diplomacy”; Power and Mohan, “Towards a Critical Geopolitics of China’s Engagement”; Mohan and Power, “Africa, China and the ‘New’ Economic Geography.”
65 Didier, “South–South Trade”; Görg et al., “South–South FDI.”
66 Sidiropoulos et al., “Introduction,” 4
67 Bachmann, European External Action.
68 Ibid.
69 ibid.
70 Kim, China and Africa.
71 Bachmann, European External Action.
72 Karugia, “Connective Afrasian Sea Memories”; Verne, “Re-Enlivening the Indian Ocean”; Verne, Living Translocality; Eckl, Mageza-Barthel, and Thubauville, “Ethiopia’s Asian Options”; Hartig, Chinese Public Diplomacy; Schulze-Engler, “Africa’s Asian Options”; Desai, Commerce with the Universe; Adem and Mazrui, Afrasia: A Tale of Two Continents.
73 Bachmann, “Spaces of Interaction,” 85.
74 Emirbayer, “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology,” 294.
75 Adebajo and Whiteman, EU and Africa.
76 Whiteman, “Introduction,” 2.
77 Ibid., 1.
78 Ibid., 19.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Veit Bachmann
Veit Bachmann is a political geographer in the Department of Human Geography at Goethe-University Frankfurt. His research interests include geopolitical transformation processes and their underlying spatialities. Based on these interests, his work engages with European studies and global South–North and South–South relations, focussing on the international identity and role of the EU as a global and development actor. After his undergraduate education in geography, international relations and economics at the Universität Trier, Germany, he obtained the degrees of MSc in geography at Texas A&M University, USA (2006) and PhD in geography from the University of Plymouth, UK (2009).