Robert Pilatzke

Dr. Logan Masilamani

POL 131

April 3, 2024

Development without the democracy

The world has evolved to be more interconnected than ever before. This is because

of globalization efforts from many strong economies to boost lesser countries from

underdevelopment. Since post WWII, there have been sentiments of anti-colonialism

which have driven ideas that the previously colonized countries need a boost to be on the

same level as the colonizers. To create this, many nations utilize foreign aid to help assist

other countries. Usually, it is countries with hegemonic economies, like the United States

or China. Foreign aid can help resolve underdevelopment in less developed countries, but

it needs to be reworked from the ideas that previously only worked in a select few cases.

Right alongside the ideas of solving under-development, there is a “Western”

perspective that development should be tied to democratization. That idea is stronger

when a democratized country is providing foreign aid to a non-democratic country. The

democracy expects a shift of conformity aligned with them. A sentiment the United

States took quite seriously during the Cold War. The Marshall Plan would be a prime
example of the US giving aid to Europe. As communism was prominent in Eastern Bloc

countries under the blanket of the USSR, so the United States provided aid for countries

susceptible to the growing communism around them and allowed for the fostering of a

stronger democratic government and liberal economy. In turn, this era is defined by the

idea that “US foreign policy is divided between economic reconstruction in Western

Europe and containment of Soviet expansion” (Weissman, 2013). However, the Western

perspective is one of a narrow viewpoint, as it does not account for the immense

difficulty it takes for a regime to change in “heel turn” fashion. The main goal of the

Western style to construct democratic stability with aid has only truly been effective in

the West.

After mass destruction from World War II, Europe needed help to rebuild on

previous battlegrounds, both the winners and losers of the war. The United States saw

from World War I how Germany was economically and socially condemned, which

eventually led to a Second World War. So, for this post-war scenario, “they devised a plan

to help all European countries – including Germany, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Bloc.

Unfortunately, the soviets rejected the plan, thereby deepening the divide between East

and West, and igniting the sparks for the Cold War” (Weissman, 2013). This action by the

United States to create this program “now referred to as the ‘Marshall Plan’ marked a

turning point in American foreign policy, it was a reversal from post-World War I

isolationism and generated long-lasting relations with other nation” (Weissman, 111,

2013). But in Western countries, they started to thrive under new aid and would continue
to receive it if they strived to keep democracy. Many people saw the hysteria of the “red

scare” in America and “argued that the plan was primarily adopted as an anti-communist

propaganda scheme” (Weissman, 112, 2013). Although many believe that the key

purpose was to persuade countries away from communism, it also has the secondary

purpose of “serving as a financial incentive for recipient governments to engage in

politically costly, but growth enhancing form” (Bearce & Tirone, 838, 2010).

Western aid has often tried to work in other parts of the world, but it has failed.

Specifically, the global south has seen issues with conforming to a Western ideology of

development ideals. A country where foreign aid has not aided the country politically or

economically would be Venezuela. For example, they were once one of the richest

economies in South America but are now diminished to need help from a hegemonic

entity. How did they fall? A “huge drop in global oil prices from around $US100 to

$US26 a barrel over just two short years from 2014-2016, robbed Venezuela of its main

source of income. Oil is estimated to account for around 98% of Venezuela’s export

earnings, meaning that the fall in oil prices has precipitated a huge rise in inflation”

(Storey, n.d). Originally in Europe and evolved in South America, the only reason the

United States wants to “allow” for aid in these places to have governments that would

ally towards them. Starting to offset growing communist regimes that didn’t like the US

capitalist tendency, then growing into aiding governments that need help developing, but

only the ones that will be siding with the US. This is very apparent in Venezuela because

“Washington has insisted upon delivering aid through Juan Guaido, Venezuela’s
self-declared interim President”. For the US to give aid to this country, Guaido shows that

“the end goal of this process is to remove Maduro from power.” (Storey, n.d), which

completely fits the mould of Western aid.

Foreign aid doesn’t need to be from a democratic country or to foster democracy.

The Western perspective is narrow and sometimes fails to account for a country's needs

and wants. A key example of shifting from the Western ideology about aid would be the

Belt and Road Forum, an initiative fostered by China. This new transnational

development aid is about bringing economic prosperity to underdeveloped countries.

Although it is about economic prosperity in the south it isn’t without political goals of

China. Specifically, between Africa and China, because China has the financial ability to

help Africa and Africa has the political influence. It has been stated that “China talks

about 'win-win,' which means win for Africa, but also win for China" (Yuan, 2024). Due

to the relationship of reciprocity, there is a sense of ‘give and take’ as "African countries

receive support from China in the form of investment, trade and development aid. And in

return, China receives political support in correlations between financial flows and the

voting behaviour of African states in the United Nations when it comes to issues that are

relevant to China" (Yuan, 2024). However, by comparison, this is different than the

Western perspective as a political switch to democracy is not necessary because the ones

providing aid are not democratic. Also, the political backing is not a condition of the aid,

just more of an expectation of the government in charge, they do not implement regime

change through force. Through the Belt & Road initiative, China has fostered a narrative
that they can aid the ‘global South’ in the category of underdevelopment. They have built

highways, ports, and an ability for Africa to be a part of the Global stage.

An apparent issue with the Belt & Road initiative is the amount of money recipient

countries receive and whether they can pay back debts. Overall, in the past ten years,

“Beijing has made more than $1.3 trillion (€1.2 trillion) in loans over the past decade or

so to fund the construction of bridges, ports, and highways in low- and middle-income

countries (Martin, 2023). As these loans become due, China is also expecting the

countries to pay the increased interest rates. A report published by AidData has calculated

that “more than half of the BRI loans have now entered their principal repayment period,

at a time when global base interest rates have risen sharply, loading debtor nations with

an even bigger repayment burden. The report's authors found that China has, in some

cases, almost tripled the interest rate as a penalty for late payments from 3% to 8.7%”

(Martin, 2023). In addition, for a rescue loan it has been found that China isn’t cheap

there, as the “rate attached to a Chinese rescue loan was 5%, compared with 2% for a

typical rescue loan from the IMF” (Hawkins, 2023). The growth of interest rates, only

makes it more difficult to pay off the loans in the long run. So, in turn, “China has already

had to dole out billions in bailout loans to BRI nations” (Martin, 2023). Many times,

when BRI countries cannot pay the bills, they have their projects put at risk and it has

been noted in the AidData report “that 1,693 BRI projects are at risk and that 94 projects

have either been cancelled or suspended” (Martin, 2023). Overall, the Belt & Road

initiative may have good upsides like improving the ability for inter-trading between
nations and stability in the economy. But can easily bring about problems in the longer

run, over-whelming loans which must be repaid but maybe can’t be is the biggest issue

overall.

The chance for under-development to be solved by foreign aid is slim. Not many

countries succeed when they are offered foreign aid. As well, not many countries who

give aid are in it for selfless reasons, it is usually in tandem tied to political objectives and

relationships. Apparent in the Marshall Plan in post-World War II to be rid of

communism in the Western World. They did this after the “spread of communism across

the Atlantic, leading to the first ‘red scare’” (Weissman, 2013). This idea of hidden

political connections shifted to the Belt & Road initiative. As China has seen the potential

that aid has in the current space “China has emerged as a critical player in (re)shaping

domestic political institutions in Africa. China is also interested in building up political

capital” (Yuan, 2024). Due to all the second agendas of the providers and what their true

aspirations may be, it seems reform for types of implementations of aid is what will help

under-development. There have been instances of allowing NGOs to take charge of

humanitarian needs. As in Venezuela, the sanctions from the US are of course not helping

their economy. However, the leader is allowing the Red Cross to “expand its role in the

country” (Storey, n.d). If the United States chooses to boost this aid from the NGOs, then

they “would be able to meaningfully alleviate some of the suffering of the Venezuelan

people” and as well “The US has little to lose from pursuing this strategy” (Storey, n.d)

because they would effectively be the ‘good guys’ in the eyes of the government they are
supporting. If China were to copy that idea if the US did it or even, did it first then NGOs

would have a new ability to operate and provide aid to places. If they were given better

resources to work with then they could foster the environment for development in

low-income countries. They could build more numerous and better schools for learning

or create institutions for industries and politics.

Foreign aid can solve under-development in the global South. There have been

some very major movements and plans to help countries grow economically in the past,

like the Marshall Plan and the Belt and Road Initiative. Naturally, these have helped grow

countries in developed nations, but not without political aspirations glooming in the side.

Because the countries were giving aid, they expected the recipient to side with them on

all political issues when it came to the UN or the world stage. The United States made it

very clear that they would only allow democratic governments to receive aid from them.

They expected a regime switch from the people, or they would implement their

government but if that doesn't work then the USA will not interact anymore. If foreign

aid wants to deal with the problem of under-development, it needs to change to a way that

does not care about the issues of political standings but needs to care about the needs of

the people.
References

Weissman, Alexander D. “Pivotal Politics—The Marshall Plan: A Turning Point in

Foreign Aid and the Struggle for Democracy.” JSTOR, 1st ed., vol. 47, Society for

History Education, 2013, pp. 111–129. The History Teacher,

www.jstor.org/stable/43264189.

Bearce, David H, and Daniel C Tirone. “Foreign Aid Effectiveness and the Strategic

Goals of Donor Governments.” JSTOR, 3rd ed., vol. 73, The University of Chicago Press

on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 2010, pp.

837–851. The Journal of Politics, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381610000204.

Storey, Henry. “GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY: US ‘HUMANITARIAN’ AID

IN VENEZUELA.” Humanitarian Advisory Group,

humanitarianadvisorygroup.org/going-about-it-the-wrong-way-us-humanitarian-aid-in-ve

nezuela/.

Yuan, Dang. “China in Africa: Building Roads and Political Capital – DW – 01/20/2024.”

Dw.Com, Deutsche Welle, 22 Jan. 2024,

www.dw.com/en/china-in-africa-building-roads-and-political-capital/a-68030063.

Accessed 25 Mar. 2024.

12/18/2023.” Dw.Com, Deutsche Welle, 18 Dec. 2023,

www.dw.com/en/how-china-became-the-worlds-largest-debt-collector/a-67527784.

Accessed 25 Mar. 2024.

Hawkins, Amy. “China Spent $240BN on Belt and Road Bailouts from 2008 to 2021,

Study Finds.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 Mar. 2023,

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/28/china-spent-240bn-belt-and-road-debts-betwe

en-2008-and-2021. Accessed 25 Mar. 2024.