Abstract
Brazil's development cooperation and solidarity discourse have been portrayed as soft power resources. However, few studies have analysed how Brazil implements development cooperation, and soft power theory itself suffers from a lack of empirical evidence. This article looks at the perceptions of participants in three Brazilian projects, particularly how soft empowerment is manifested through the demand-driven and horizontality approaches to development cooperation. I contend that these approaches have produced a positive image among the “recipients”, and I show that their perceptions of development cooperation emphasise the style, rather than the completion, of project activities.
Résumé
La coopération au développement et le discours de solidarité du Brésil ont été caractérisés comme des ressources de la puissance douce ou soft power. Toutefois, peu d’études ont analysé comment le Brésil met en pratique la coopération au développement et la théorie du soft power souffre quant à elle d'un manque de preuves empiriques. Cet article se penche sur les perceptions des participants dans trois projets brésiliens, particulièrement sur la manière dont l'autonomisation douce ou soft empowerment se manifeste à travers les approches de la coopération au développement centrées sur la demande et l'horizontalité. Je soutiens que ces approches sont vues positivement par les « récipiendaires » et je montre que leurs perceptions de la coopération au développement mettent en exergue le modèle du projet plutôt que ses résultats.
Notes
1. See SEGIB (Citation2009–Citation2012), South Centre (Citation2009), SU-SSC (Citation2009), UNDP (Citation2009), Cabral and Weinstock (Citation2010), Davies (Citation2010), UNCTAD (Citation2010), Chandy and Kharas (Citation2011), Park (Citation2011), Walz and Ramachandran (Citation2011), Zimmermann and Smith (Citation2011), Burges (Citation2012), Chaturvedi, Fues, and Sidiropoulos (Citation2012), Chin and Quadir (Citation2012), Dauvergne and Farias (Citation2012), Inoue and Costa Vaz (Citation2012), Iselius and Olsson (Citation2012), Mawdsley (Citation2012), de Mello de Souza (Citation2012), Christensen (Citation2013), Mawdsley, Savage, and Kim (Citation201
Citation4), Burges (Citation2014a).
2. On its website, the ABC refers to its cooperation with developing countries (Cooperação entre Países em Desenvolvimento) as South–South cooperation or horizontal cooperation interchangeably.
3. While it is not the author's wish to make further use of Northern donors’ jargon, the term “recipient” or “recipient country” will be used in this paper with the sole justification that the term “partner” might be unclear, as this term refers to both the donor and the recipient in the SSC vocabulary.
4. Northern aid has been criticised for being donor-driven and for reflecting underlying geopolitical and commercial interests (Rowlands Citation2008; Chandy and Kharas Citation2011; SEGIB Citation2011). The conditionalities that were particularly visible during the structural adjustment decade have been regarded as reflective of the asymmetries in relations between Northern donors and Southern “recipients”, while the donor-driven approach has been criticised for disregarding the needs of Southern countries (Woods Citation2008; Sato et al. Citation2011).
5. In power theory analysis, soft power has been related to Luke's third face of power (see Digeser Citation1992).
6. Gallarotti (Citation2010) refers to soft empowerment as the result of the attraction produced.
8. The information available on these two sources is very general, sometimes not stipulating an end date or a budget.
9. In Brazilian law, each project has to be approved by the Foreign Ministry or at the Presidential level of each country in a document called the Ajuste complementar, namely a complementary agreement that is added to the technical cooperation agreement which regulates projects between the two countries. Later, a project document is drawn up.
10. The other seven projects were disregarded because there was no response from the “recipient” countries’ institutions involved in the project (four), because the projects involved triangular cooperation (one) or because they were not consistent with capacity-building projects (two).
11. Here the author refers to the shipment of the selected biofuel crops to the recipient countries.
12. The case of Peru is slightly different. The managing organisation is DEVIDA, but the institution that carries out the experimentation on site is INIA.
13. In this article, quotations from the transcripts have been translated from Spanish into English by the author.
14. While some respondents explicitly stipulated their wish to remain anonymous, others informed the interviewer that they would talk more freely if they knew their names were not going to be cited. Therefore, they will remain anonymous.
15. Joint committee in English.
17. This conclusion about the sustainability of Brazilian projects in terms of lack of time and availability have to be tempered with what Dilma Rousseff's strategy in SSC might suggest: if trade and investment were to be integrated into the activities, the time and availability of the experts might no longer be an issue because of the commercial incentives behind the projects.
SEGIB (Secretaría General Iberoamericana). 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. “ Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica.” Secretaría General Iberoamericana, Estudios no. 4, 5, 6 and 7. SEGIB (Secretaría General Iberoamericana). 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. “ Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica.” Secretaría General Iberoamericana, Estudios no. 4, 5, 6 and 7. South Centre. 2009. “South-South Cooperation Principles: An Essential Element in South-South Cooperation.” Policy Notes, November 2009. Geneva: South Centre. SU–SSC (Special Unit for South–South Cooperation). 2009. “South Report 2009. Perspectives on South-South Cooperation for Development.” New York: UNDP. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2009. “Enhancing South-South and Triangular Cooperation: Study of the Current Situation and Existing Good Practice in Policy, Institutions and Operation of South-South and Triangular Cooperation.” Study commissioned by the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Cabral, L., and Weinstock, J. 2010. “Brazilian Technical Cooperation for Development: Drivers, Mechanics and Future Prospects.” Report for ABC and DFID. London: Overseas Development Institute. Davies, P. 2010. “South-South Cooperation: Moving Towards a New Aid Dynamic.” Poverty in Focus 20: 11–13. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2010. “South-South Co-operation: Africa and the New Forms of Development Partnership.” Economic Development in Africa Report 2010. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Chandy, L., and H. Kharas. 2011. “Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Practical Limits to International Development Cooperation.” Journal of International Development 23 (5): 739–751. doi: 10.1002/jid.1797 Park, K. 2011. “New Development Partners and a Global Development Partnership.” In Catalyzing Development, edited by H. Kharas, W. Jung, and K. Makino, 38–60. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Walz, J., and V. Ramachandran. 2011. “A Literature Review of Emerging Donors and the Changing Nature of Foreign Assistance.” Center for Global Development, Working Paper 273. Zimmermann, Felix, and Kimberly Smith. 2011. “More Actors, More Money, More Ideas for International Development Co-Operation.” Journal of International Development 23 (5): 722–738. doi: 10.1002/jid.1796 Burges, W. S. 2012. “Developing from the South: South-South Cooperation in the Global Development Game.” Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations 1 (2): 225–249. Chaturvedi, S., T. Fues, and E. Sidiropoulos. 2012. Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers: New Partners or Old Patterns? London: Zed Books. Chin, Gregory, and Fahimul Quadir. 2012. “Introduction: Rising States, Rising Donors and the Global Aid Regime.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (4): 493–506. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2012.744642 Dauvergne, P., and D. B. L Farias. 2012. “The Rise of Brazil as a Global Development Power.” Third World Quarterly 33 (5): 903–917. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2012.674704 Inoue, C. Y. A., and A. Costa Vaz. 2012. “Brazil as ‘Southern Donor’: Beyond Hierarchy and National Interests in Development Cooperation?” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (4): 507–534. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2012.734779 Iselius, G., and M. Olsson. 2012. “South-South Development Cooperation and the Changing Dynamics of Development Assistance: A Study of Braziĺs Positioning and Identity as a Partner for Development.” Master's Thesis. Gothenburg, Sweden, University of Gothenburg. Mawdsley, E. 2012. “The Changing Geographies of Foreign Aid and Development Cooperation: Contributions from Gift Theory.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37 (2): 256–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00467.x de Mello de Souza, A. 2012. “A Cooperação para o Desenvolvimento Sul-Sul: Os Casos do Brasil, da Índia e da China.” Boletim de Economia e Política Internacional 9 ( January–March): 89–99. Christensen, Steen Fryba. 2013. “Brazil's Foreign Policy Priorities.” Third World Quarterly 34 (2): 271–286. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2013.775785 Mawdsley, E., L. Savage, and S.-M. Kim. 2014. “A ‘Post-Aid World’? Paradigm Shift in Foreign Aid and Development Cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum.” The Geographical Journal 180 (1): 27–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00490.x Mawdsley, E., L. Savage, and S.-M. Kim. 2014. “A ‘Post-Aid World’? Paradigm Shift in Foreign Aid and Development Cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum.” The Geographical Journal 180 (1): 27–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00490.x Burges, W. S. 2014a. “Brazil's International Development Cooperation: Old and New Motivations.” Development Policy Review 32 (3): 355–374. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12059 Rowlands, D. 2008. “Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance: A Synthesis Report.” Ottawa: Partnership and Business Development Division, International Development Research Centre. Chandy, L., and H. Kharas. 2011. “Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Practical Limits to International Development Cooperation.” Journal of International Development 23 (5): 739–751. doi: 10.1002/jid.1797 SEGIB (Secretaría General Iberoamericana). 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. “ Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica.” Secretaría General Iberoamericana, Estudios no. 4, 5, 6 and 7. Woods, N. 2008. “Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance.” International Affairs 84 (6): 1205–1221. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00765.x Sato, J., H. Shiga, T. Kobayashi, and H. Kondoh. 2011. “Emerging Donors from a Recipient Perspective: Institutional Analysis of Foreign Aid in Cambodia.” World Development 39 (12): 2091–2104. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.014 Digeser, P. 1992. “The Fourth Face of Power.” The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 977–1007. doi: 10.2307/2132105 Gallarotti, G. M. 2010. Cosmopolitan Power in International Relations: A Synthesis of Realism, Neoliberalism, and Constructivism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sandra Bry
Biographical noteSandra H. Bry is a PhD candidate at UNEP DTU Partnership (United National Environment Programme – Technical University of Denmark), housed in the Department of Management Engineering, DTU. Her PhD thesis, “South–South Development Cooperation and Soft Power: The Case of Brazil's Foreign Policy and Technical Cooperation”, was successfully defended in November 2014.