This article is divided into three parts. The first section analyzes some narratives of international financialization and shows how the most relevant element of this process from the developing world's perspective (i.e. international financial liberalization) has generated significant costs for all of these economies. The second section analyzes why the element that would theoretically provide the most important advantage in terms of international financialization for the developing world (i.e. the establishment of a substantial, stable and predictable system of financing for development) has not been put into practice. Finally, the article analyzes the connection between the two issues (international financialization and international financing for development) in the context of a center–periphery financialization model, and establishes the need for its wholesale reform. This article goes on to propose the modification of some of the central elements of the international financialization process in the dimension most closely linked to development, and the adoption of a systemic approach to international financing for development (SAIFfD).
Monterrey Consensus (MC) inspired hope that some progress would be made in international financing for development (IFfD). However, at the beginning of a new decade, private capital flows continue to exhibit their defining characteristics (scarcity, spatial concentration, volatility and reversibility), the debt problem continues to limit the development prospects of many less developed countries and Official Development Assistance has remained as the insufficient final element of the whole system. Moreover, the consequences of global financial and economic crisis highlight the need for reforming the current financing system and the need to redesign key aspects of the international financialisation process. Hence, a systemic (holistic) approach to IFfD is required. This article analyses the recent evolution and current status of IFfD, examines the relationship between the current model and international financialisation, and proposes a set of measures intended to remove the bottlenecks that currently are found in both processes; most of these converge on the need for a World Tax and Financial Organisation.Le Consensus de Monterrey a suscite´l'espoir que des progre`s seraient re´alise´s dans le financement international du de´veloppement. Pourtant, en ce de´but de de´cennie, les flux de capitaux prive´s continuent de pre´senter les meˆmes caracte´ristiques (rarete´, concentration spatiale, volatiliteé t re´versibilite´), le proble`me de la dette limite toujours les perspectives de de´veloppement d'un grand nombre de PMA, et l'APD reste le dernier e´le´ment faible de l'ensemble du syste`me. En outre, les conse´quences de la crise financie`re et e´conomique mondiale mettent en exergue la ne´cessited e re´former le syste`me financier actuel et de remanier certaines dimensions-cle´s du processus global de financiarisation. Ainsi, une approche syste´mique (et holistique) du financement international du de´veloppement est requise. Cet article analyse l'e´volution re´cente et l'e´tat actuel du financement international du de´veloppement, examine le lien entre le mode`le actuel de ce financement et la financiarisation internationale, et propose un ensemble de mesures destine´es a`e´liminer les goulets d'e´tranglement qui aujourd'hui entravent les deux processus ; la plupart de ces mesures appellent a`la cre´ation d'une Organisation Fiscale et Financie`re Internationale.
This article analyzes the origin and causes of the recent economic and financial crises, mainly for the countries located in the periphery of the European Union (EU), as well as their evolution and transformation into social, political, and institutional crises.
After explaining the differential impact of the crises on EU economies, we analyze how the economic policies developed thus far not only are unable to resolve the current crisis pattern but also actually entail a risk to the present democratic models by transferring the legitimate control over governments from citizens and democratic parliaments to unelected, nonrepresentative international financial markets.
The article offers a critical analysis of the United Nations 2030 Global Development Agenda, whose stated aim is to "transform the world" in such a way that no one is left behind. Drawing on post-Marxist theory, we argue that the 2030 Global Development Agenda is a fantasmatic narrative seeking to conceal the conflictual causes and the antagonistic origins of global development and sustainability issues. Within this fantasmatic narrative, ‘sustainable development’ is the empty signifier that articulates and sustains the agenda’s discourse. Our analysis of the ontological assumptions underpinning the documents that frame the agenda shows that, rather than transforming, the agenda naturalizes and consolidates the existing status quo: a status quo that has created (and continues to perpetuate) the global problems that the agenda aims to solve.
Since nationalizing its hydrocarbon industry, Bolivia has articulated an ambitious strategy to promote structural change in its economy. Despite positive trends in macroeconomic indicators, the increase in fiscal revenues derived from the export of raw materials has not translated into structural transformation. Although the Bolivian government has broken with classical extractivism, nationalization and state intervention have not been sufficient to produce changes. The institutional control imposed on hydrocarbon revenue by financialization inhibits structural change and threatens the long-term sustainability of recent improvements in social indicators. Después de nacionalizar su industria de hidrocarburos, Bolivia ha articulado una estrategia ambiciosa para promover el cambio estructural en su economía. A pesar de las tendencias positivas en los indicadores macroeconómicos, el aumento en los ingresos fiscales derivados de la exportación de materias primas no se ha traducido en una transformación estructural. Aunque el gobierno boliviano ha roto con el extractivismo clásico, la nacionalización y la intervención estatal no han sido suficientes para producir cambios. El control institucional impuesto a los ingresos de hidrocarburos por la financiarización inhibe el cambio estructural y amenaza la sostenibilidad a largo plazo de las mejoras recientes en los indicadores sociales.
Financialization is one of the most relevant processes embedded in the functioning and evolution of the contemporary capitalist model and presents differential characteristics in the peripheral economies of the world-system. In turn, land grabbing is also one of the most relevant phenomena taking place in the field of farmland and land use, with particular significance also within the Global South. After presenting an in-depth analysis of both phenomena for Latin America, we specifically study the case of the two Latin American countries (Argentina and Brazil) where land grabbing has a greater qualitative and quantitative importance. In our article, we analyze the main interrelationships between both processes and show how financialization has played a fundamental role (together with the policies designed and the de-regulations implemented by respective states, and the participation of other domestic actors) in the land grabbing process in both countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.