I recently published a contribution to this interesting paper Bringing Heterodoxy Back into a World of Pessimism (Extractivism Occassional Papers Series 1/2024), edited by Hannes Warnecke-Berger and Luíza Cerioli.
I worte about structuralism and dependency theory, with a focus on how to move forward. You can read my piece here: Re-Considering the Structural in Contemporary Analysis of the Global Political Economy.
.
I wrote a new article with Florence Dafe, Annina Kaltenbrunner and Iván Weigandi in Development and Change‘s Forum issue on “Negotiating the Current Debt Crisis in Developing Countries”. Our article was on local currency bond markets in Africa and we drew on both quantitative data and interviews conducted. Here is the abstract:
This article examines the development and implications of local currency bond markets (LCBMs) in African countries in the context of international financial subordination (IFS). Despite the promotion of LCBMs as a solution to debt vulnerability, there is a dearth of research that offers a systematic empirical examination of their actual benefits along with conceptual explanations as to when and why such benefits may or may not materialize. This is especially true for countries at the bottom of the global economic hierarchy. To explore how the subordination in global production and financial systems shapes LCBM development, the article offers an empirical analysis of selected African countries that combines interviews with policy makers, officials and experts with statistical data. The findings suggest that while LCBMs offer some benefits, such as mitigating risks associated with foreign currency debt, their potential is limited by the structural processes created by IFS, such as their dependence on the global financial cycle, the relatively higher costs of this debt and the sustained constraint on macroeconomic policy making. However, there are also domestic factors which shape how these structural constraints are mediated in the context of LCBM development — in particular, historically developed financial structures of developing countries, the political economy of the state and the structure of production. This study thus contributes to the debate about the developmental benefits of domestic debt market development and the emerging research agenda on IFS.
Read the full article here.
I recently published a new open access article – The Hierarchies of Global Finance: An Anti-Disciplinary Research Agenda – with my friend and collaborator Maria Dyveke Styve, in Review of Political Economy.
Here is the abstract:
This article critically assesses the economics discipline’s capacity to capture the structural features and political economy implications of contemporary financial processes in the global South, with a particular focus on South Africa. Delving into the complexities of financial processes in South Africa, the article proposes an alternative, anti-disciplinary framework for understanding drivers and impacts of financial processes. We show how such an approach cannot simply be about adding social or political perspectives to mainstream economics, but rather about interrogating how we think about economic systems themselves, drawing on a variety of theoretical and disciplinary insights. This is about taking an open and holistic approach that centers history, power, structures, and social relations. With an issue such as finance, critical political economy approaches from a variety of disciplines allow us to see that finance cannot be separated from the wider economy or from the social relations it forms part of today and historically. This becomes particularly clear when considering how racial, gender and class relations both impact and are impacted by financial processes in South Africa. We conclude with recommendations for studies of changing financial processes globally and in the global South.
I recently contributed to a very interesting symposium curated by Stefan Ouma and Christine Vogt-William: Reconfiguring African Studies, reconfiguring economics: centring intersectionality and social stratification in the journal Critical African Studies. It centered on a discussion of Franklin Obeng-Odoom’s book Property, Institutions and Social Stratification in Africa and includes contributions by Obeng-Odoom himself, the curators, Abena D. Oduro, Tanita J. Lewis, Lebohang Liepollo Pheko, Sara Stevano, and myself.
I had the pleasure of contributing a chapter to this exciting book edited by Cristina Fróes de Borja Reis and Tatiana Berringer on South-North Dialogues on Democracy, Development and Sustainability. Each chapter consists of a dialogue between one scholar based in the global South and one in the global North. My conversation was with Cristina Reis on dependency, GVCs and TNCs.
Check out the book here.
I published a new article in the Review of International Political Economy with my co-author Felipe Antunes de Oliveira. The abstract:
Whereas the field of International Political Economy (IPE) included a diversity of voices at its outset, histories of the field tend to marginalize certain contributions – particularly those from the Global South. The endeavor to decolonize IPE offers an opportunity to look back at IPE’s history, re-discover the marginalized voices, and imagine new possible futures. This article engages with contemporary calls to decolonize IPE and proposes an alternative route to do so by recovering dependency theory. We argue that dependency theory can be conceptualized as a peripheral IPE perspective that was committed to thinking from the Global South and to producing politically engaged scholarship just as the field was being formed. The article elaborates on the key tenets of dependency theory, contrasting it with mainstream IPE, and putting it in dialogue with decolonial approaches. To demonstrate the simultaneous non-Eurocentric, anti-colonial, and policy-oriented potential of dependency theory, we recover a foundational moment that disciplinary histories of IPE have forgotten: the 1972 Dakar conference, organized by Samir Amin, with the participation of leading Latin American and African dependency scholars.
I was recently on a plenary sponsored by the Development Studies Association (DSA) in Manchester with Kamna Patel, Sara Stevano and Indrajit Roy, where we were each asked to answer the above question. Along with the organizers, Pritish Behuria and Tom Goodfellow, we have now published the plenary discussion on the DSA blog:
In the need book Talking About Global Inequality: Personal Experiences and Historical Perspectives, Christian Olaf Christiansen, Mélanie Lindbjerg Machado-Guichon, Sofía Mercader, Oliver Bugge Hunt, and Priyanka Jha interview a series of scholars from History, Sociology, Economics, Anthropology and Postcolonial Studies about global inequality. Here is the interview they did with me: The Need to Centre Imperialism.
I really enjoyed reading & reviewing Margarita Fajardo’s The world that Latin America created with Felipe Antunes de Oliveira. We argue the book makes a major contribution by taking Latin American development debates seriously, but leaves key political questions unresolved. Read the full review here.
Along with Erik Reinert, I’ve published A Modern Guide to Uneven Economic Development. In contrast to mainstream approaches to economics, this Guide addresses the complex reality of economic development as an inherently uneven process, exploring the ways of theorizing and empirically exploring the mechanisms with which the unevenness manifests itself. It covers a wide array of issues influencing wealth and poverty, technological innovation, ecology and sustainability, financialization, population, gender, and geography, considering the dynamics of cumulative causations created by the interplay between these factors.
ingridhk.com 