In its draft, the report concludes that global value chains can continue to support growth, create better job opportunities and reduce poverty rates, provided that developing countries implement deeper reforms, and that industrialized countries pursue open, inclusive, and pre-defined policies. Most importantly, if countries fail to invest in human capital, they may end up in the middle income trap and then fall behind from the next stage of development. Evidence also suggests that technological changes will likely be a blessing more than a curse on trade and global value chains. The benefits of sharing global value chains can be widely and sustainable shared if all countries support social and environmental protection.
Global values are concepts created by developed states. No actor produces value that is not in his or her interest. Nowadays, I think that the developing countries are actually a deception. There are two types of countries in the world; developed countries and others. Regardless of the global order, it is based on the fact that developed countries gain more benefits. When we look at environmental factors, the USA's exit from the global climate treaty can be a good example. Other factors are often overlooked when it comes to economic development. The concept of greening countries is completely deceptive. Developed countries receive the useful values of others. It also implements activities in its own interest on them. Therefore, a continuous hegemony of developed countries is formed in the system. It does not seem that this system will change much in the near future.
Hello Rais,
Your question doesn't specify which Report you are signalling.
You indic ate that the report affirms that "... global value chains can continue to support growth, create better job opportunities and reduce poverty rates, provided that developing countries implement deeper reforms, and that industrialized countries pursue open, inclusive, and pre-defined policies...". This is a quite perfect example of an "a priori" ideological affirmation that the so-called benefits from "free-trade" accrue to the economic actors of both sides. We can countererpoint such affirmations with a different one, for example an ecological Marxist perspective, that would affirm that, plausibly, societies with viable structures of subsistence economy find themselves deeper and deeper inducted into the sphere of international "exchange value" and, at the same time as remaining poor and vulnerable as actors in the "exchange value" domain, they are neglected and degraded as autonomous domains of "use value".
Who is right, how should be choose between the two contrasting assertions? There needs to be a capacity to explore the ability (or not) of both "hypotheses" to explain empirically observed trends in different places. Personally, I find the ecological Marxist angle of attack more robust for an investigation of the system dynamics and of the effects over time of "opening up" more and more facets of local economies to the international exchange value sphere. But in a short comment on your question, I can't really demonstrate this preference on my side.
Best regards, Martin O'CONNOR.
In the cases when one can not survive without the other, the possibility to bridge the income gap is much higher. But present capitalism has a feature that not changeable initially can be sometimes easily changed with time, for example, in the other geographical region. This means that to bridge the income gap You have to be more diversified in Your abilities, resources, time constraints, etc. Flexibility is the aspect which is not revealed enough in science and practically, as it strongly diminishes the risk of income gaps.
Following link refers to an article with a broad scope pl chk,
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/124681548175938170/World-Development-Report-2020-Draft-Report.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science
- International History and Politics
- Globalization