Development cooperation, the international–domestic nexus and the graduation dilemma: comparing South Africa and Brazil

Abstract

Development cooperation is a foreign policy tool marked by deep-seated conflicts of interest and dilemmas of particular relevance to second-tier and non-nuclear countries that aim to change their international status and role. Building on the concept of ‘graduation dilemma’, this article compares specific dilemmas that Brazil and South Africa face in their foreign policies concerning the development cooperation agenda at three levels: the domestic, the regional and the global level. The research question guiding this analysis is: how does the graduation dilemma manifest in relation to Brazil and South Africa’s role in development cooperation?

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Janis van der Westhuizenis an Associate Professorin the Department of Political Science, University of Stellenbosch. His main research interest is the comparativepolitics of the Global South and the domestic/international interface. Email: [email protected]

Carlos R. S. Milani is Associate Professor at the Institute for Social and Political Studies (Rio de Janeiro State University). His main research agenda includes international development cooperation, southsouthrelations and comparative foreign policy (Brazil and rising powers). Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 Diplomatic activity, rhetoric and membership of diplomatic clubs are examples of status signals whereby states signal their status claims. However, since states signal to multiple audiences (domestic and regional), status signalling is also subject to misperception and miscommunication (Larson et al 2014, 22).

2 Second-tier countries are not global powers in the international hierarchy, and do not participate in the main global governance decision-making processes in the fields of security, economics and finance. However, they have reached a relevant degree of material differentiation in comparison with other developing countries to aspire to change their normative role from norm-takers to norm-makers in international relations. They are not seeking international primacy, but they have a clear ambition to rise in, and redefine, international hierarchies. We follow Milani et al (2017) and assume that nuclear weapons have political effects that give their holders a veto power in international negotiations, whereas non-nuclear states have to rely on pacific means or soft power to fulfil their international ambitions.

3 Brazilian IDC is known as COBRADI and its main source of data is the Applied Economics Research Institute (IPEA), an important governmental think tank under the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs. IPEA and ABC, Brazilian Cooperation for International Development 2005–2009 (Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas Aplicadas and Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, 2010). Two subsequent reports were published in 2013 (covering data from 2010) and 2016 (covering years 2011, 2012 and 2013). IPEA and ABC, Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional 2010 (Brasília: IPEA & ABC, 2013); IPEA and ABC, Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional 2011–2013 (Brasília: IPEA & ABC, 2016).

4 In quantitative terms, Brazil’s 2011 IDC expenditure is less relevant than that of China (US$2.78 billion), Turkey (US$1.3 billion) or India (US$794 million). Data from OECD-DAC reports on development cooperation from 2016 and 2013.

5 Interview with first author, 2014.

6 DIRCO official, interview with first author, 2014.

7 Ibid.

8 Interview with first author, August 2017.

9 A neglected area in the field of foreign policy analysis are the implications for policy of differing conceptual approaches to risk and uncertainty. That is even more true in the field of IDC and policy transfer. If an issue (in health cooperation, transfer of educational practices, international capacity-building of military officials, etc) is not structured appropriately or if it does not consider the different dimensions of the problem, policy (and political) failures are likely to result. One possible avenue for future research may be the dialogue between approaches to risk and IDC as a foreign policy agenda, building upon the work of Kowert and Hermann (1997), Lamborn (1985) and Vertzberger (1995).

Additional information

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnoló (CNPq); National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, South Africa (NIHSS).