PLEASE READ!! : For educated Libyans only who claim to understand global politics and wish to understand what #Hafter, #Jabril, #Zidan and #Mileqtah are trying to turn Libya into.This is what the GLOBAL western capitalist Nations want Libya to be like. (( The Western agenda in Libya - Neoliberal Libyan state )) //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The Article: ////Globalization, neoliberalism, and post-apartheid South Africa//// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Abstract: This essay addresses the impact of globalization and neoliberalism on post-colonial countries such as South Africa. We analyze the historical background and contemporary nature of the current stage of global economic expansion, considered by many critical observers to be the latest stage of capitalist imperialism. This analysis connects many of the challenges faced by post-apartheid South Africa to the international economic and political relations that have shaped the development of the peripheral economies in the contemporary global economic system. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Full Text: As many of the essays in this volume on post-apartheid South Africa suggest, one of the most important challenges facing South Africa today is globalization. The United Nations Development Programs Human Development Report (HDR) in 1997 acknowledges that this concept has been used to both describe as well as prescribe the existing system of economic relations in the world today. A dominant economic theme of the 1990s, globalization encapsulates both a description and a prescription. The description is the widening and deepening of international flows of trade, finance, and information in a single, integrated global market. The prescription is to liberalize national and global markets in the belief that free flows of trade, finance, and information will produce the best outcome for growth and human welfare. All is prescribed with an air of inevitability and overwhelming conviction. (UNDP 1997:82) However, when we examine the realities of the existing system of economic relations in the world today, especially in Africa, it is clear that this system has contributed to a growth in material wealth and human welfare of only a privileged minority, while impoverishing the great majority of humanity (Korten 1999a:79). What is generally referred to as globalization is often an ideological camouflage for the latest stage of global expansion and imperialism (see Amin 200 la; Patnaik 2000; and Petras 2000). Globalization and Imperialism Imperialism has been an inherent aspect of the global expansion of capitalism since its origins with the expansion of European mercantilism to the Americas, and it continues to be an essential aspect today (Amin 2001a; Patnaik 2000; Petras 2000). Imperialism has taken on new forms with each stage of expansion. Since the mid-twentieth century it usually has been camouflaged and has taken a more covert form, due to the relative success of the many anti-imperialist and national liberation movements that arose during the post-Second World War period in the European colonial territories of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. The subsequent decolonization and formation of new states led to the use of new forms of imperialism to facilitate the global expansion and control of the major centers of capital in the Northern Hemisphere-specifically the United States, Europe, and Japan. The preceding stages of global expansion were accomplished largely through imperial conquest and colonization. As is now widely acknowledged, the conquest and colonization of the conquered societies had a devastating effect on them. This first stage of expansion through imperialism destroyed many of the indigenous societies in the Americas bringing them under the control of the economic centers of Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In addition to the near total genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, this first stage of economic expansion also brought about the enslavement of millions of Africans who were forced to work as a slave labor force in the plantations and mines of the colonial territories in the Americas. The system of slavery that was created during this first stage of expansion was an inherently racist, exploitive, and dehumanizing system of economic and social relations that had devastating effects not only on the slave populations in the Americas, but also on the African societies involved in the slave trade. The second stage of imperialist expansion was propelled by the industrialization of the economic centers in Europe and later those that emerged in the United States and Japan. This stage of expansion also relied heavily on imperialism, and led to the colonial or neo-colonial subjection of most of the peoples living in Africa, Asia, the Middle East; and the Pacific Islands. Near the end of this stage of expansion (during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), the United States and Japan became rival centers of economic expansion throughout Asia and the Pacific Islands, with both resorting to imperialism to extend their spheres of economic and political domination. The expansion of U.S. capital throughout the Western Hemisphere in this stage of imperialism included the colonization of Puerto Rico as well as the establishment of U.S. dominated neo-colonial regimes in the Caribbean islands (e.g., Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti) and Central America (e.g., Panama and Nicaragua). It was during this second stage of imperialist expansion that most of Africa was subjugated, colonized, and integrated into the periphery of the world economic system by the Western imperialist powers. This second stage of expansion and imperialism had even more devastating effects on Africa than the first stage. The colonial partitioning of Africa by the Western economic centers and the implementation of both a racist colonial state and a highly exploitive colonial economy in the subjugated African societies brought about the destruction and/or transformation of most of the existing economic, political, and social relations. The political subordination of the indigenous inhabitants of the colonial territories by the colonial authorities created a highly authoritarian political system based on the creation of racial hierarchy, extreme social inequality, and institutionalized social injustice. Only a privileged minority of the African population was given access to Westernized formal education and to subordinate positions in the colonial administrative and commercial enterprises. The institutionalization of private ownership of land as alienable private property undermined or replaced traditional communal ownership and land tenure systems. This process facilitated the expropriation and use of land for European-owned co mmercial agriculture and greatly contributed to the stratification of colonial African society on the basis of social classes and ostensible races. Thus, the people who were indigenous to the region and who had created particular economic, political, and cultural practices prior to colonization suddenly found themselves confronted with a superior power from outside the region that claimed entitlement to their land and resources. The indigenous inhabitants of Africa, who were both self-sufficient and culturally diverse, were in many cases forced from the most productive land and often enclosed within narrowly defined and resource-poor spaces. Economic dependency was compounded by the demarcation and enforcement of international borders that inhibited the free movement of the indigenous people (Lauderdale and Toggia 1999). Immanuel Wallerstein (1986) aptly remarks: the political boundaries were drawn primarily to include as much territory as could be conquered or negotiated diplomatically. Since the boundaries established by each European power were essentially out of fear of a claim of sovereignty by another European power, they were frequently arbitrary in terms of the previous lines drawn by the African states now enclosed or divided. (P.16) These boundaries were not the product merely of national development, they also were a property of the evolving world system The more fertile agricultural and grazing land, as well as other valuable natural resources, were largely expropriated by and exploited for the benefit of the colonial authorities, the colonial commercial enterprises, and the colonial settlers arriving from the imperialist centers. Through the imposition of colonial economic structures for the export of agricultural goods and minerals, and the import of manufactured goods from these imperialist centers, a commodification process was created that forced the previously self-sufficient pastoral and agricultural inhabitants of the African colonies into commercialized and dependent relationships within the colonial economy and with the economic centers of the imperialist system. The commodification of economic relations and the creation of relations of economic dependency were facilitated by the establishment and enforcement of colonial borders and colonial states that restricted and controlled the movement of people, goods, and capital (Lauderdale and Toggia 1999 ). This second stage of economic expansion through imperialism created the foundations for the extreme inequality that characterizes humanity today, both within most societies as well as between the centers and the peripheries of the world economic system. In general, this second stage of imperialism created highly stratified societies in Africa, as well as in the other areas of the colonized periphery of the world economic system. It also used the natural and human resources of these societies to create unparalleled economic growth and material affluence in the centers of the world economy while creating widespread impoverishment and misery in the peripheries of the system. Popular resistance to this system of imperialist domination and exploitation, and the effects of two disastrous world wars between the competing imperialist centers, led to almost a half-century of national liberation, decolonization, and popular social revolutions (Amin 2001a). During this period (the last half of the twentieth century), most of the current states of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands gained their political independence from Western colonial rule and the more overt, colonial forms of imperialism became outmoded and illegitimate. The current and third stage of economic expansion is characterized by imperialism without overt colonies. It has been taking place since the early 1 980s under the guise of neoliberal ideology and the label of globalization. This stage of expansion has been assisted by the collapse of the countervailing Soviet system of state socialism, and the demise of most of the populist and revolutionary nationalist regimes created by the national liberation movements that emerged during the last half of the twentieth century; According to critical observers of this new stage of expansion: The objectives of dominant capital are still the same-the control of the expansion of markets, the looting of the earths natural resources, and the super-exploitation of the labor reserves in the periphery-although they are being pursued in conditions that are new and in some respects very different from those that characterized the preceding phase of imperialism. (Amin 2001a:7) The nature and effects of this new phase of global expansion, carried out under the banner of neoliberal ideology with new labels and terms, have been described in some detail in several of the preceding essays in this volume on post-apartheid South Africa. The Current Phase of Globalization The current phase of global economic expansion has imposed upon the peripheral societies (such as South Africa) the privatization, deregulation, and denationalization of their economies. This project is being carried out to more effectively integrate these economies into the global economic system, for instance, to facilitate the more effective accumulation of capital and the transfer of wealth from these societies to the centers of the global economic system. Despite neoliberal terms such as free market and free trade that attempt to provide an ideological camouflage or facade for this new form of economic imperialism, the evidence indicates that the neoliberal restructuring and integration or globalization of the peripheral economies involves the transfer of much of the income created and earned by the popular classes in these societies to the transnational corporations and financial institutions of the major centers of the global economy (Harris and Seid 2000:2-16). This process also involves the t ransfer of a portion of their income to the small upper and middle classes in these peripheral societies who are the willing or unwilling local collaborators in the current stage of global expansion (Harris 2000). The consequences for the popular classes in the peripheral societies via this new stage of expansion include declining real incomes, precarious employment and unemployment, inadequate social services, and increased poverty. There are many studies that provide evidence of these effects. For example, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, D.C., has used United Nations and World Bank data to produce a scorecard on globalization (Weisbrot et al. 2001). Researchers at CEPR have analyzed the major economic and social indicators for 5 groups of countries (ranged from lowest to highest income countries), and compared their performance during the 20 years of economic and social development under globalization between 1980 and 2000 with their performance during the previous 20 years (1960 to 1980). Their findings include the following (CEPR 2001:2-3): Economic Growth: There was a pronounced fall in economic growth rates during the period 1980-2000 across the board for all groups of countries. The poorest group went from a per capita GDP growth rate of 1.9 percent annually in 196080 to a decline of 0.5 percent per year in 1980-2000. For the middle group (which includes mostly poor countries), there was a sharp decline from an annual per capita growth rate of 3.6 percent per annum to just less than 1 percent. The other groups also showed substantial declines in growth rates. Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest income group of countries where life expectancy is 69-76 years. The sharpest slowdown was in the second to worst group of countries (where life expectancy is between 44-53 years). The study emphasizes that reduced progress in life expectancy and other health outcomes cannot be explained by the AIDS pandemic. Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades (1960-1980s). The biggest declines in reducing infant mortality were for the middle to worst performing groups of countries. Progress in reducing child mortality (under 5 year of age), as opposed to infant mortality, was also slower in the middle and worst performing groups of countries. Education and Literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the 20-year period of globalization. The rate of growth of primary, secondary, and tertiary (post-secondary) school enrollment was slower for most groups of countries. There were some exceptions, but these tended to be concentrated among the better performing groups of countries. By almost every measure of education, including literacy rates, the middle and poorer groups saw less progress in the period of globalization than in the prior two decades. The rate of growth of public spending on education, as a share of GDP, also declined across all groups of countries. Of course, such studies based on aggregate statistics do not reveal the specific details of the impact on the general population of the neoliberal economic policies associated with globalization that are aimed at directing the peripheral economies of countries, such as that of South Africa, to the global economy. As Ishmael Lesufi notes in the conclusion of his essay in this volume, the results of this (the South African states) neo-liberal program have been nothing short of disastrous, since not only does the strategy fail to eradicate poverty, but it also actually creates poverty and redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich Therefore, Lesufi contends, like many other critics of the contemporary globalization project (i.e., contemporary economic imperialism), that instead of wealth trickling-down to the poor as promised by the neoliberal advocates of globalization, millions of people trickle-down into poverty. In a sweeping analysis of the contemporary configuration of the global economic system presented at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in late August 2001, Samir Amin placed South Africa in the second level of peripheral economies of the system. lie contends that the economies in this level of the system, even though they may have some competitive sectors, are not capable, in terms of their present level of development and their current linkages with the economic centers, of absorbing the large passive reserve of the unemployed within their populations. According to Amin (200 1b): The world system outside the central Triad is made up of three levels of peripheries: First level: the former socialist countries, China, Korea, Taiwan, India, Brazil and Mexico, which have succeeded in building national productive systems (and which are therefore potentially, if not actually, competitive). Second level: the countries that have embarked on industrialization but have not succeeded in creating national productive systems: the Arab countries, South Africa, Iran, Turkey, Latin America. In these countries there are occasionally found competitive industrial establishments (thanks in particular to their cheap labor), but not competitive national productive systems. Third level: the countries that have not entered into the industrial revolution (roughly speaking, the ACPs). These are potentially competitive only in domains where natural advantages are the controlling factor: mines, oil, and tropical agricultural products. In none of the countries of the first two levels has it been possible to absorb the passive reserves, which vary from 40 % (in Russia) to 80 % (in India and China). In Africa the proportion is plainly close to or greater than 90 %. Under these conditions, to talk about a strategic objective of becoming competitive is to delight in meaningless words. (P.14) If Amins analysis is correct, then the position of the South African economy in the global system, which he refers to as globalized apartheid, does not give it much hope of becoming competitive in the global economy in the near future, particularly if its follows the neoliberal prescription to open up its economy to foreign competition. He also argues that it is not a question of applying the correct rational economic policies and deregulating the economy so that it obeys the objective laws of the market as advocated by the neoliberal experts in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the states of the Group of 7. According to Amin (2001b): The position of a country in the world pyramid is defined by the level of competitiveness of its products on the world market. Recognizing this truism in no way implies that one shares the commonplace view of popular economics that this position is achieved by the application of rational economic policies whose rationality is measured by the yardstick of its obedience to the alleged objective laws of the market. I suggest that, absolutely to the contrary of this nonsense that is taken for granted, the competitiveness in question is the complex product of a cluster of conditions operating in the whole field of reality-economic, political and social. (P.15) Nor does he believe that countries such as South Africa can pursue their own development strategy without regard to the power relations that prevail in the larger geopolitical context of the world system. World geopolitics constitutes the framework within which all development strategies necessarily unfold. This is the way it has always been, at least so far as the modem world is concerned-that is, the world capitalist system since 1492. The power relations that give the geopolitics of the successive phases of capitalist expansion their configuration facilitate the development (in the ordinary sense of the term) of the dominant countries and constitute a handicap for the others. (Amin 2001b:20) The development of the economies in the less competitive tiers of the periphery of the global system is constrained by the present power relations in the world system that favors the development of the economic centers and handicaps the development of peripheral economies. The pressures and demands placed on the governments of the previously colonized countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands, both by the economic centers and by the social forces within these societies, have created a host of contradictions and dilemmas for these governments. On the one hand, they are subjected to the imposition of the conditions set for loans, credits, grants, debt repayment, investments, and developmental assistance by the international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, the transnational corporations (including the major private international banks), and the governments of the major developed countries (the so called Group of 7, led by the United States). These conditions are used to coerce the governments of developing countries such as South Africa into pursuing economic policies that open-up their economies and create a favorable business climate for the investments, goods, and services of the transnati onal corporations and banks that are the main agents of the present stage of global expansion (Harris and Seid 2000:7-11). Globalization and the State The state, therefore, has a dialectic nature. On the one hand, states with democratic governments respond to internal popular demands and tend to possess a system of checks and balances. On the other hand, in the spheres where these states are heavily influenced by the main agents of the world economic system (for example, via severe austerity programs and various forms of economic dependency) they tend to operate as authoritarian institutions. In the 1 950s the state in many societies became an important instrument of the military-industrial complex, and this change added critical features to the authoritarian nature of the state. The state in many countries today is closely tied to the military-corporate complex, for example, consisting in these societies of multinational corporations and large-scale military organizations. Contemporary government policy and action appears to be increasingly influenced by what Roland Robertson refers to as a globe-wide system of rules and regulations concerning economic trade and a consciousness of the global economy as a whole (Robertson 1992:26). In fact, the decisions and actions of the main political actors in countries around the world clearly are influenced to a considerable degree by their awareness of the important influence global economic relations and the agents of these relations have upon their societies. As a result, many critical observers argue that the sovereignty of the state relative to capital has been greatly reduced. For example, Thomas Klak (1998) has observed that in the case of the Caribbean states the following conditions prevail: The political must be understood as subservient to the economic, especially in the Caribbean during the present era of globalization and neoliberalism. This subservience owes to investors veto power to withdraw capital from activities and locations on which the state relies for revenues and the working class relies for income. (P. 15) For most of the states in the peripheral societies of the world economic system, the norms, actions, and interests of the key international financial institutions and transnational corporations often shape not only their foreign policies but also many of their domestic policies as well. They fear the veto power of these powerful agents of the global economic system. They know they are expected to accommodate the interests of the transnational corporations by keeping the wages of their work forces low and their economies open and favorable to direct foreign investments, as well as permit the outflow of profits from these investments to the economic centers (Bendana 1996). They also are keenly aware that they are expected to provide a continuing supply of cheap natural resources as well as maintain weak labor laws and ineffective environmental regulations. On the other hand, the governments of these countries are confronted with the demands of the various social forces that have gained political power and i nfluence during the struggle for national liberation as well as afterwards. Some of these forces may have reactionary interests and/or special privileges and narrow class interests that they seek to protect and advance. Others may have legitimate demands for social justice, the fulfillment of social rights, and for the democratization of not only the state but also the economic and social structures of post-colonial society. The inability of the states involved to satisfy these often conflicting demands and interests, generally leads to policy decisions, public pronouncements and actions that are frequently fragmentary contradictory, insincere, and/or inadequate. The resulting frustration, criticism and protests on the part of the social movements and social forces that are dissatisfied with the policies, pronouncements, and actions of these states, can lead these states to take actions that deride, punish, or even crush dissenting views and any serious opposition. Political opposition and dissenting views often are crushed under the facade of the rule of law. Criminal law is used, in some cases, as a device to repress civil protests and the political actions of opposing social movements. Authoritarian measures can become the order of the day (notwithstanding cosmetic overtures toward electoral democracy and civil rights). Meanwhile, poverty, unemployment, crime, and disease continue to spread, and various groups (e.g., immigrants, underemployed, unemployed, specific ethnic groups) are blamed for both these conditions as well as the policy failures of the government. The only viable solution often appears to be more development (i.e., economic growth), more fore ign investments and international aid, more exploitation of the natural resources, and in general more of the economy controlled by outside interests (see the article in this issue by Julia Maxted as well as Maxted and Zegeye 1997; and Lauderdale and Amster 2000). Generally speaking, the pursuit of neoliberal policies that encourage foreign investments and the opening up through deregulation of the national economy constrains the governments of the peripheral countries from implementing policies aimed at combating the more obvious inequalities and disparities suffered by the impoverished majority of the population in these countries (Harris and Seid 2000:13). The articles in this special issue by Ishmael Lesufi and Julia Maxted provide evidence of this neoliberal constraint on government policies in postapartheid South Africa. Over time, the failure to adequately address these inequalities and disparities undermines the governments popular support, political stability, and democratization in these societies. This problem has been acknowledged publicly by no less than the former head of the U.S. Governments foreign aid programs, Brian Atwood, who upon resigning his post warned that the increasing gap between the rich and the poor in many countries threatened democratization throughout the world and would likely to lead to more failed states and wars in these countries (Atwood 1999). Transcending the Contemporary Global Order The urgency of addressing the growing inequality and social injustices in most parts of the contemporary global economic system has given rise to increasing calls for replacing this system at the global level as well as the structures at the national and sub-national levels that provide the foundations for, reinforce, and/or are dependent upon the system. Even some of the erstwhile advocates of the existing system have become its critics and taken up the call for replacing it. For example, David Korten (1999b) has asked the question that many people in the economic centers as well as in the periphery of the contemporary global political economy have been asking for at least the last decade: Instead of using our power to impose the dark vision of turbo-capitalism on the world, why not bring our wisdom and compassion to bear in creating economic institutions for a world of rich cultural and biological diversity in which everyone is assured access to an adequate and satisfying means of livelihood, individual freedoms are guaranteed, family and community are strengthened, productive work, cooperation, and responsibility are rewarded, and a sustainable relationship is maintained between humanity and the life-support systems of our planet? (P.76) Of course it is not sufficient to only pose such questions. Viable alternatives to the present system are required as well as effective strategies for realizing these alternatives. To facilitate this course of development, popular parties, movements, and organizations throughout Africa and the rest of the world, are increasingly concentrating their efforts on working together to formulate and propagate viable alternative projects that are clearly preferable to the neoliberal project that involves the integration of the less developed countries into the global economy as subordinate parts of this system. Feasible strategies are being developed for moving from the prevailing export-oriented neoliberal model of economic development to new inward-oriented models of sustainable development, tailored to the diverse conditions, economic capacity, political history, and cultural values of the societies involved. A growing number of international and regional organizations have emerged in recent years to create such alternatives, including: the World Social Forum, Third World Forum, World Forum on Alternatives, Focus on the Global South, Asia Pacific Research Network, International Forum on Globalization, Jubilee 2000, the Southern Africa Peoples Solidarity Network, the World Council of Churches, and the Third World Network. What the programs, meetings, and activities of these organizations reveal is that new, more equitable forms of international cooperation and regulation can be created that will support inward-oriented and sustainable development as well as democracy. At the same time, these organizations argue that the present global trading regime being erected under the World Trade Organization should and can be replaced by a new global trading system-one that replaces the present system of free trade (i.e., unfair trade) with fair trade. Most of the proposed alternatives to the neoliberal economic policies and development strategies promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the IMF and the World Bank, give priority to bringing about dramatic internal economic and social changes in the peripheral societies and adjusting their external relations (what to export, what to import) to their internal needs. Yet, the IFIs and the governments of the Group of 7 insist that the peripheral societies must adjust their internal development to the external constraints/forces of the global economy (Amin 1997). These proposed alternatives focus on adjusting external economic relations to internal economic needs and goals. These strategies involve what some refer to as deglobalizing or delinking the economic development strategies of the peripheral societies from the demands/conditions set by the IFIs, the World Trade Organization, and the other agents of the global economic system (Bello 2001). The new African Renaissance, to which many South African intellectuals and political figures are committed, offers a similar vision for achieving an alternative path of people-centered development suited to the needs of the majority of the African people. It offers a vision of continental renewal/reconstruction and reawakening that is based on the economic recovery of the African continent as a whole, the establishment of political democracy throughout the continent, the demolition of neo-colonial relations between Africa and the world economic powers, and the acceleration of people-centered or people driven eco nomic growth and development (Mavivi 2001). The present global economic system needs to be replaced by what Amin refers to as a pluricentric regulated globalization that involves the development of organized regions in Europe, Africa and elsewhere, that become real partners in regulating the globalization or global integration of the world economy for the benefit of all peoples (Amin 2001b). This type of world order is needed in order to provide the global framework for re-launching economic development and social progress around the world. However, the popular forces in the world are still quite far from being in a position to move the present global order in this direction. A key element required for the effective implementation of a successful alternative project with the necessary characteristics is the establishment of an alternative state at the societal level-a state that provides for participatory democratic control over the economy at the national level and the effective regulation of the linkages between the national economy and the larger global economy at the international level. Leon Panitch (1996) notes that it is absolutely necessary to create this kind of alternative state in order to shift the orientation of the economy away from external trade and towards inward-oriented development. A possible alternative state to those sponsoring globalization amid competitive austerity today would have to be based on a shift toward a more inwardly oriented economy rather than one driven by external trade considerations. This in turn would mean placing greater emphasis on a radical redistribution of productive resources, income and working time . . This could only be democratically grounded. . insofar as production and services were more centered on local and national needs where the most legitimate democratic collectivities reside. (Panitch 1996:82) It is clear that this kind of state cannot be created until and unless there emerges an effective political leadership that is committed to this project and a sufficient base of political power in society to support it. Until and unless this happens, it is at least safe to predict that there will be continuing popular resistance to neoliberalism and to the globalization of the economies of the peripheral societies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands-primarily because of the widespread suffering the current stage of economic control and expansion continue to impose upon the majority of humanity. As the essays in this special issue indicate, the role of the state and the relationship of the domestic economy to the global economy constitute the essential elements that determine the development of the land, resources, and general welfare of the population of peripheral societies such as South Africa. We hope that the contributions to this special issue on post-apartheid South Africa will extend the body of knowledge that elucidates the complex nature of the relationship between local decision-making, people-centered development, and democracy and the external constraints and pressures placed on countries such as South Africa by the global economy and its agents.
Posted on: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:20:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015