3 ms·
Conversely, if the companies are held, run, or funded by Western countries, then the so-called "economic development" can also be seen as an imposition of value
by rexpop 8y ago
Conversely, if the companies are held, run, or funded by Western countries, then the so-called "economic development" can also be seen as an imposition of values, and an application of economic incentives to limit what developing countries do.
Are people living in these countries free to make choices if Western investment interferes with their incentives?
- afandian 8y agoWhy the focus on Western companies? Yes, they have traditionally inhabited this role (although far from exclusively) but China is making big waves in Africa.
- logfromblammo 8y agoFrom what I have read, China cares not for the sort of development associated with the former colonial powers. They're in it to strip mine whatever they can, ship as much value back to mainland China as possible, and then leave the locals to their own devices after they've gone. Everything they do is set up to be self-contained, with zero reliance on the local economy. And this is wildly popular among Africans. They love how China doesn't attach all kinds of strings to their business. Western companies might think twice about selling guns to a regime that might use them to suppress dissent; Chinese companies will only count twice, once for the product and again for the payment. The only value they wish to instill is to buy more Chinese product. If an African country paid China to clear-cut every last native tree and replace it with orderly rows of oil palm, China would do it, take their profit, and leave that country alone to deal with the fallout from its own decisions. I can't say that the Chinese development model is better or worse than the Western development model in terms of the global impact, but it certainly leaves Africa free to be more African, for good or ill. Any environmentalist concerns would have to be home-grown.
- rexpop 8y agoOk, also China.