断裂的时代：国际经济的挑战与机遇

根据米歇尔-奥利斯（Michel Oris）的课程改编

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano

Português

全球化的经济和社会史，16-21 世纪

地结构与乡村社会： 前工业化时期欧洲农民分析 ● 旧政体的人口制度：平衡状态 ● 十八世纪社会经济结构的演变： 从旧制度到现代性 ● 英国工业革命的起源和原因] ● 工业革命的结构机制 ● 工业革命在欧洲大陆的传播 ● 欧洲以外的工业革命：美国和日本 ● 工业革命的社会成本 ● 第一次全球化周期阶段的历史分析 ● 各国市场的动态和产品贸易的全球化 ● 全球移民体系的形成 ● 货币市场全球化的动态和影响：英国和法国的核心作用 ● 工业革命时期社会结构和社会关系的变革 ● 第三世界的起源和殖民化的影响 ● 第三世界的失败与障碍 ● 不断变化的工作方法： 十九世纪末至二十世纪中叶不断演变的生产关系 ● 西方经济的黄金时代： 辉煌三十年（1945-1973 年） ● 变化中的世界经济：1973-2007 年 ● 福利国家的挑战 ● 围绕殖民化：对发展的担忧和希望 ● 断裂的时代：国际经济的挑战与机遇 ● 全球化与 "第三世界 "的发展模式

The analysis of themes related to global development, economic crises, international aid and geopolitical transformations offers a profound insight into contemporary global issues. It begins with an exploration of critical thinking on development, highlighting figures such as Esther Boserup and key concepts such as the reproductive health paradigm. This approach examines the impacts of policies and practices on economic, social and cultural development, and highlights the importance of considering the perspectives of communities affected by development projects.

The discussion continues with an analysis of economic crises, focusing on agriculture, industry and the dynamics of foreign trade. These crises have reshaped the world's economies, revealing structural vulnerabilities and requiring appropriate response strategies. The focus then shifts to development aid, lending issues and debt management, highlighting the role of donors, the challenges faced by recipients and the implications of international debt.

Finally, the analysis concludes with an examination of the major changes in international relations, marked by the end of the Cold War, the emergence of new economic powers such as China and India, and the persistent challenges posed by inequalities in development. These transformations have redefined the dynamics of international relations and highlighted the specific challenges facing Third World countries in the current context.

This exploration offers a nuanced perspective on the complexities of global development, the management of economic crises, the impact of international aid and geopolitical transformations, underlining the need for a multidimensional understanding to effectively address global challenges.

关于发展的批判性思维

对发展的批判性思考是一种深入的分析方法，它对与经济、社会和文化发展相关的理念、政策和实践进行批判性研究。这种方法不仅要评估这些政策对不同利益相关者的影响，还要特别考虑到最弱势人群和边缘化群体。这种方法源于后殖民历史背景，当时前殖民地国家正在寻求独立的发展道路。弗朗茨-法农（Frantz Fanon）和阿马蒂亚-森（Amartya Sen）等具有影响力的思想家强调了经济和社会解放在这一进程中的重要性。冷战期间，现代主义方法主导了发展理论，认为发展是一条线性和普遍的道路，通常以西方模式为蓝本。这一时期的批评家，如费尔南多-恩里克-卡多佐和恩佐-法莱托，强调了这些模式所产生的不平等和依赖性。后来，随着 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代新自由主义和全球化的兴起，约瑟夫-斯蒂格利茨和诺姆-乔姆斯基等批评家强调了日益扩大的差距和全球化对发展中国家的负面影响。

批判性发展思维不仅要评估政策对经济的影响，还要研究其对环境、文化和社会的影响。这种方法旨在了解贫困和不公正的根源，如不平等的权力结构和殖民主义遗留问题。它重视当地社区的知识和经验，认识到发展解决方案需要适应特定的文化和环境背景。这种思想影响了联合国和世界银行等国际组织，促成了更具包容性和可持续的发展战略。它还推动了社会运动和非政府组织捍卫边缘化社区的权利，打击环境不公。

整体视角： 人口、经济和文化影响

人口经济发展观主要侧重于经济方面，往往淡化社会和文化层面，是反映西方国家影响和标准的历史框架的一部分。这种方法在后殖民时期尤为明显，当时新独立国家试图借鉴前殖民国家的模式，快速实现经济现代化。这种倾向往往导致对当地社会和文化结构的忽视，有利于经济的快速增长，而不是更平衡的方法。随着 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代新自由主义的兴起，自由市场和私有化政策的推广（通常由国际货币基金组织和世界银行等机构主导）强化了这种人口经济愿景。这些政策因加剧社会不平等和忽视文化影响而受到广泛批评。经济合作与发展组织等组织的研究表明，经济增长并未系统地转化为社会福祉的改善或不平等的减少。同样，联合国教科文组织也经常警告，全球化和西方发展模式的采用会侵蚀当地的文化和传统。

发展中国家的人口爆炸带来了复杂的挑战，特别是在资源、经济和基础设施方面。应对人口快速增长的措施，特别是节育政策，历来都会引起激烈的争论和不同的反应，这往往是因为这些政策被认为是西方强加的。从历史上看，西方对发展中国家人口政策的干预有时带有家长式作风，对当地情况缺乏敏感性。例如，在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代，在联合国或世界银行等国际组织的支持下，启动了许多节育计划，但这些计划往往没有充分了解目标人群在文化、社会和宗教方面的细微差别。这些举措有时会导致有争议的做法。最臭名昭著的例子是中国 1979 年启动的独生子女政策，其目的是遏制中国人口的快速增长。虽然这一政策成功地降低了出生率，但也造成了深刻的社会和伦理后果，如性别失衡和侵犯个人权利。节育政策的另一个主要问题是其对妇女权利的影响。在某些情况下，这些政策强化了歧视性做法，限制了妇女在生殖健康问题上的自主权。因此，人们越来越重视以权利为基础的方法，优先考虑妇女的选择和同意。为了有效应对人口爆炸并符合道德规范，必须采取一种全面的、对文化敏感的方法。这意味着要投资教育，特别是女童教育，并改善医疗保健服务，包括生殖健康。事实证明，女童教育是降低出生率和促进可持续发展的最有效途径之一。

民族学作为一门学术，随着时间的推移经历了重大变革，特别是在与殖民地国家的 关系方面。在殖民时代，人种学通常由西方研究人员从事，主要用于研究殖民地的人口。这种做法带有明显的家长作风和西方中心主义色彩，反映了殖民主义固有的权力和统治动态。这一时期的人种学家试图通过西方的价值观和规范对当地文化进行分析，从而理解、归类并往往控制当地文化，从而助长了殖民主义对土著居民的统治和管理政策。然而，第二次世界大战后，随着非殖民化运动的兴起，欧洲在非洲、亚洲和其他地区的殖民帝国开始瓦解，导致对传统民族学的方法和方向的深刻质疑。在新的政治和社会背景下，以独立的民族国家的形成和民族身份的重新界定为标志，传统的民族学方法被视为过时，而且越来越失去意义。在这一时期，人们对民族学的兴趣下降，对其方法和殖民主义遗产的批评日益增多。民族学非但没有消失，反而朝着更具批判性、反思性和包容性的方向发展。当代民族学家已转向更具协作性的方法论，寻求从自身的角度并与所研究的社区合作来理解文化。这一新时代的民族学打破了西方中心主义，接纳了多种多样的观点，承认世界各地不同文化和社会的价值和丰富性。因此，民族学的发展反映了学术界对文化和社会认识的广泛变化。它强调了平等、尊重和合作性跨文化研究的重要性。这一转变反映了人们日益认识到民族学研究的政治和社会影响，以及对尊重和重视文化多样性的方法的承诺。简而言之，现代民族学代表了一种不断超越殖民主义残余的努力，有助于对全球文化和社会动态有一个更加平衡和包容的理解。

普林斯顿项目的重点是对欧洲生育率下降情况进行比较研究，并寻找适应南方国家 人口挑战的解决办法，这反映了人口与发展领域的一个重要的新认识。这一学术倡议强调了一个事实，即生育率下降虽然往往与经济因素有关，但实际上深深植根于特定的文化习俗和社会动态之中。从历史上看，欧洲自 20 世纪初以来出现的生育率下降与几项重大社会变革有关。例如，受教育机会的增加，特别是妇女受教育机会的增加，在这一过程中发挥了关键作用。妇女自主权的提高、她们更多地参与劳动力市场以及性别角色规范的改变也促进了这一变化。此外，避孕药具的普及使计划生育工作得以改善，从而直接影响了生育率。

另一方面，如果不透彻了解南方国家的具体文化和社会背景，就直接将这些意见和解决 方案移植到这些国家，可能会被证明是不够的。在这些国家，生育率受到一系列复杂因素的影响，包括文化传统、宗教信仰、家庭和社会经济结构以及教育和医疗水平。例如，在某些社会中，对大家庭的重视可能与经济或社会因素有关，甚至与生存和家庭延续问题有关。因此，普林斯顿项目所采用的方法强调了尊重 "文化过滤器 "并将其纳入发展政策的设计和实施的重要性。这就需要与相关社区进行对话，倾听和了解他们的观点，并制定适合其具体现实的解决方案。这种参与式方法对于确保计划生育和发展计划不仅有效，而且尊重相关人群的权利和文化至关重要。

埃丝特-博瑟鲁普对发展研究的贡献

艾斯特-博瑟鲁普

艾斯特-博瑟鲁普（Ester Boserup）是丹麦著名的经济学家，在经济和农业发展领域做出了重大贡献，特别是通过她在联合国的工作。她独特的视角和创新的方法对我们了解发展动态，尤其是发展中国家的发展动态产生了重大影响。博瑟鲁普最为人熟知的是她在 1965 年出版的颇具影响力的著作《农业增长的条件》中提出的人口增长与农业发展之间的关系理论： 她在 1965 年出版的《农业增长的条件：人口压力下的农业变革经济学》一书中提出了这一理论，该书影响深远。马尔萨斯理论认为人口增长会导致资源匮乏和饥荒，与此相反，博瑟鲁普提出，人口压力实际上可以刺激农业创新，提高生产力。她认为，面对不断增长的人口和资源压力，可以鼓励社会发展更密集、更高效的农业技术。

博瑟鲁普还是采用微观经济方法研究发展动态的先驱。她没有仅仅关注广泛的经济趋势和统计数据，而是重点关注发展中国家个体农民，特别是妇女的实践和经验。她的研究强调了妇女在农业和经济发展中的关键作用，而这一领域在以往的研究中往往被忽视。博瑟鲁普的研究方法标志着发展研究的转折点，强调了在微观经济层面深入了解当地实践和创新的重要性。她的观点有助于制定发展政策，强调发展战略必须适应当地的现实和能力，特别是在农村和农业社区。

埃斯特-博瑟鲁普在重新定义经济和农业发展方法方面发挥了先驱作用，她强调了农村人口，特别是妇女作为发展关键参与者的重要性。她的观点在当时具有革命性意义，承认并重视妇女对农业和农村经济的贡献，而这一点在发展讨论中往往被忽视。博瑟鲁普还强调了传统习俗在解决经济和社会问题中的关键作用。她对传统习俗阻碍发展的观点提出了质疑，并说明了这些习俗如何能够成为宝贵的财富。这种观点使我们有可能重新肯定当地知识和方法的价值，而西方的发展方法往往否定或低估了这些知识和方法的价值。博瑟鲁普还强调了传承知识和技术创新以促进经济和农业发展的重要性。她倡导一种更加人性化的发展方法，一种考虑到当地居民的需求、愿望和现实的方法。这种参与性和包容性的方法与当时占主导地位的以西方为中心的人口经济观点形成鲜明对比，后者倾向于强加自上而下的发展模式，而不考虑当地的具体情况。博瑟鲁普的方法促使人们更广泛地认识到，有必要采取更符合当地实际情况、更尊重文化多样性的发展战略。他的工作强调当地社区，特别是妇女参与发展进程，对发展政策的设计和实施方式产生了持久的影响。她的思想继续激励着研究人员、发展实践者和政策制定者寻求更加平衡和公平的发展解决方案。

埃斯特-博瑟鲁普对人口增长在农业发展中的作用，特别是在前工业化社会中的作用，提出了独到的创新观点。她的理论载于 1965 年出版的《农业增长的条件》一书： 她的理论与当时流行的马尔萨斯观点形成鲜明对比，后者认为人口增长主要是导致资源稀缺的威胁。博瑟鲁普指出，在许多农业社会中，人口增长并不一定会导致饥荒或资源退化，相反，人口增长会刺激农业方法的变革和改进。她认为，人口压力鼓励社区采用更密集、更高效的耕作技术，进行创新，提高生产率，以养活不断增长的人口。因此，她提出了一种模式，将人口增长视为经济和农业发展的积极推动力。这一模式极大地颠覆了普遍的思维，表明人口挑战可以转化为进步和创新的机遇。不过，博瑟鲁普谨慎地强调，她的模式并非决定论。她认识到，人口增长与农业发展之间的关系错综复杂，受到文化、经济和环境等诸多背景因素的影响。她强调了伴随人口增长而来的挑战，如需要大量投资和文化适应来实现农业现代化。博瑟鲁普的研究方法不仅对马尔萨斯关于人口增长与发展的假设提出了挑战，而且对人口与农业之间的动态关系提出了更加细致入微、更符合实际情况的看法。他的研究对农业经济学和发展领域产生了持久的影响，并继续影响着这些领域的战略和政策。

埃斯特-博瑟鲁普提出的 "创造性困难 "理论为理解社会如何应对人口增长带来的挑战（尤其是在农业领域）提供了一个框架。根据这一理论，适度的人口压力可以成为变革的催化剂，鼓励人们重新考虑并改变传统做法，以实现农业现代化，养活不断增长的人口。在这种情况下，博瑟鲁普指出，在具有饮食文化的社会中，农业和饮食传统在社会和文化生活中发挥着核心作用，在这种社会中进行变革可能特别困难。根深蒂固的农业传统会抵制现代化，饮食习惯也很难改变。然而，由于需要养活不断增长的人口，人们会逐渐意识到并逐渐改变饮食习惯。农村人口外流也是这一过程中的一个重要因素。通过将部分人口从农村转移到城市地区，农村人口外流可减轻农村的人口压力，从而腾出土地用于更加集约和现代化的农业生产。这种迁移还有助于农业生产的重组，实现任务的专业化，并鼓励引进更先进、更经济高效的技术。

然而，农村人口外流也带来了挑战和后果。对农村人口而言，向城市迁移可能意味着获得基本服务和经济机会的减少。农村社区可能会变得不稳定，带来需要特别关注的社会和经济影响。此外，快速城市化会给城市基础设施带来压力，并在住房、就业和服务方面给移民带来新的挑战。博瑟鲁普认为，农业现代化和应对人口挑战需要采取平衡的方法，既要考虑经济和技术要求，也要考虑相关人口的社会和文化现实。创造性的困难不仅是需要应对的挑战，也是创新和发展农业系统的机遇，这些系统更具可持续性，更能适应现代社会的需求。

正如埃斯特-博瑟鲁普（Ester Boserup）所分析的，创新在社会中的传播涉及一个复杂的社会和心理过程。一项变革要想在经济或社会中被采纳并成为广泛的创新，就必须得到切实成功的验证。这种确认会鼓励其他社会成员效仿，反过来采用新的做法或技术。博瑟鲁普认为，创新者在分享知识和经验方面发挥着至关重要的作用，这有利于创新的传播。知识的传播至关重要，尤其是在创新是实践实验而非正式研究的结果的情况下。在传统社会中，创新往往是通过非正式的社会网络传播的。采用新技术或新做法的决定并不完全基于正式的经济分析，也基于社区内的观察和互动。如果人们能在自己认识和信任的人身上看到新方法的成功，他们就会更愿意尝试新方法。在社会关系和信任网络尤为重要的社区，这种现象更加明显。博瑟鲁普强调的另一个重要方面是，当技术不受专利等限制时，它们在传统社会中的传播速度非常快。在使用新技术或新方法时，如果没有法律或商业障碍，创新就能更快、更广泛地传播。

对艾斯特-博瑟鲁普方法的批评者强调了国际发展领域需要考虑的重要方面。尽管博瑟鲁普将人口增长与农业创新联系在一起的方式很有创意，但有些人将她的模式解释为一种 "母性主义 "或 "家长作风"。这种批评主要认为，她的模式强调了养活人口和农业现代化的必要性，这可能意味着某种程度的居高临下，或假定南方国家的人口需要西方国家或国际组织的干预才能满足其人口需求。这种批评是基于这样一种看法，即博塞鲁普的方法可能会最小化或忽视当地人口，尤其是南方人口的观点、能力和愿望。事实上，任何主要从人们认为的需求角度来看待发展的方法，如果没有相关人口的积极参与和贡献，都有可能陷入家长式作风，暗含着解决方案必须来自外部而非社区内部的假设。为了反驳这些批评意见，必须鼓励不仅具有参与性而且具有包容性的发展方法。这意味着让当地人积极参与发展项目的设计、规划和实施。必须承认并重视当地的知识、技能和愿望。这种方法包括倾听和理解当地人的观点，并与他们合作确定适合其具体情况的解决方案。埃斯特-博瑟鲁普的世界观和发展观与当时流行的观点不同。她强调必须考虑南方人民的观点和愿望，鼓励以参与性和包容性的方式制定发展政策。她提出了一种更加人本主义、更少以西方为中心的观点。

埃斯特-博瑟鲁普（Ester Boserup）强调 "自下而上 "的创新，即直接从当地社区产生，而不是从外部强加，这标志着发展政策的构思和实施方式的一个转折点。博瑟鲁普认识到，地方创新往往是出于需要和适应特定条件而产生的，在人口增长和农业发展中发挥着至关重要的作用。这些创新是社区自身创造力和聪明才智的直接结果。这一观点促使国际发展的术语和方法发生了重大变化。从 "发展援助 "到 "发展合作"，反映了重点的转移，即从可能被视为单边和家长式的方法转向强调伙伴关系、相互交流和分享知识与经验的方法。发展合作承认共同努力的重要性，尊重当地社区的技能和经验。这种方法强调，有效和可持续的发展解决方案是与相关人口共同创造的，并考虑到其具体的文化、社会和经济背景。它还意味着知识共享，发展中国家的经验可以丰富和借鉴发达国家的做法，反之亦然。归根结底，博瑟鲁普倡导的方法和向 "发展合作 "术语的过渡强调了平等、相互尊重 和协作在发展工作中的重要性。这意味着承认和重视所有利益攸关方的贡献和专长，并以包容的方式共同努力实现共同的发展目标。

生殖健康概念的演变

生殖健康范例代表了一种全面综合的健康方法，它承认普及优质生殖健康服务的根本重 要性。这一范例涵盖广泛的服务和支持，包括计划生育、生殖保健、性教育和生殖保健。它以不歧视、性别平等、妇女赋权和尊重个人权利等重要原则为基础。这一模式的核心理念是，生殖健康是一项基本权利，也是整体健康和福祉的重要组成部分。通过使个人，特别是妇女，能够对自己的生殖健康做出知情和自主的决定，这种范式 有助于促进整体健康、性别平等和妇女赋权。

重视性教育和获得优质生殖健康服务对于减少与怀孕、分娩和性传播疾病有关的风 险至关重要。这些服务不仅对预防健康问题至关重要，而且对确保个人过上安全和满意的性生 活和生殖生活也至关重要。生殖健康范例采用了一种全面综合的方法，认识到人们的生殖健康需求和关切受 到社会、经济和文化等多种因素的影响。它提倡参与式方法，包括在规划、实施和评估生殖健康计划和服务时与有关社区协商并让其参与。

在联合国主持下召开的世界人口与发展会议在制定和发展全世界的生殖健康政策方面 发挥了至关重要的作用。每次会议都为理解和解决这些问题做出了自己独特的贡献。1974 年的布加勒斯特会议是一个重要的里程碑，突出了人口增长与发展之间的关系。会议发表的宣言承认有必要制定生殖健康政策，以帮助调节人口增长。然而，会议主要强调将人口控制作为促进经济发展的一种手段，对个人权利和自主权没有给予足够的重视。1984 年，墨西哥会议将这些观点向前推进了一步，强调生殖健康不仅对人口控制， 而且对性别平等和妇女赋权都很重要。这一方法开始承认生殖健康是一个与人权和性别平等相关的问题。1994 年的开罗会议是一个决定性的转折点。会议将重点从人口目标转移到个人权利上，呼吁采取一种考虑到社会、经济和文化方面的全球生殖健康方法。这次会议认识到，生殖健康不仅仅是简单的计划生育，还包括与性健康和生殖健康有关的一系列问题，其中包括接受性教育和高质量医疗保健的权利。这些会议促使许多国家制定了生殖健康计划，重点是获得避孕药具、性教育和提供生殖保健。然而，尽管取得了这些进展，但在确保普及生殖健康和充分尊重个人权利方面仍存在重大挑战。这些挑战包括文化、经济和政治方面的障碍，以及需要对所有人进行全面的教育，使他们不受歧视地公平获得生殖健康服务。

生殖健康范式在发展和保健政策的概念化和实施方式方面发挥了变革作用，强调了妇女的生殖选择和自主权。这一范式的转变认识到，妇女的生育决定与她们的个人自主及其子女的生存和福祉有着内在的联系。通过关注妇女的生育选择，这一范式强调了赋予妇女决定是否生育、何时生育以及生育几个孩子的权力的重要性。这种方法强调了妇女控制生育的能力与她们的整体自主权之间的直接联系，包括她们的健康、教育以及经济和社会参与。将计划生育中心纳入卫生系统是这一模式的另一个关键方面。这种整合旨在确保普及全面、优质的生殖健康服务，包括避孕、产前和产后护理以及性健康服务。通过使这些服务在一般保健系统内可以获得并负担得起，减少了获得生殖保健服务的障碍，特别是对最弱势人群而言。此外，性教育被认为是降低与怀孕、分娩和性传播疾病相关的风险的关键因素。全面、高质量的性教育有助于个人对其性健康和生殖健康做出知情决定，并促进负责任的安全行为。生殖健康范式促进了发展和卫生政策的根本转变。通过将人，特别是妇女作为关注的中心，这一模式加强了对生殖健康领域人权的承认，并鼓励采取更加综合的、以人为本的护理方法。这有助于在世界范围内改善生殖健康成果，促进性别平等和妇女赋权。

绿色革命主要发生在 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代，是现代农业发展史上的关键时刻。许多国家启动了这些强化耕作计划，目的是提高农业产量，满足快速增长的人口对粮食的需求。为实现这一目标，这些计划采用了现代农业技术，如大量使用化肥和杀虫剂、引进高产杂交种子和改进灌溉系统。绿色革命的主要影响之一是有助于减少人口增长。通过提高农业产量，这些计划改善了粮食安全，从而稳定了出生率。从历史上看，在许多农业社会中，家庭倾向于生育更多子女，以提供农活所需的劳动力并保障经济安全。随着农业生产率的提高，这种需求逐渐减少，导致每个家庭的子女数量减少。

然而，绿色革命也招致了相当多的批评，特别是在其对环境的影响方面。化肥和杀虫剂等化学品的大量使用往往对环境造成有害影响，包括水道污染、土壤退化和生物多样性减少。此外，对杂交种子的依赖会威胁到作物的遗传多样性，这是长期粮食安全的一个主要问题。虽然绿色革命在一些地区改善粮食安全和减少人口增长方面发挥了关键作用，但它们也凸显了与集约型农业相关的挑战。这些挑战包括环境问题，以及需要找到可持续的解决方案，以保持生产率的提高，同时保护生态系统的健康和生物多样性。

世界一些地区的人口爆炸大幅减少是各种因素协同作用的结果，包括生殖健康政 策、教育和妇女解放、经济演变以及绿色革命的影响。在这一转变的核心中，生殖健康政策发挥了至关重要的作用。改善生殖健康服务，包括避孕、母婴保健和性教育，使妇女和夫妇能够在知情的情况下做出生育决定。例如，20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代在东南亚实施的计划生育计划导致出生率大幅下降。教育和妇女解放是这一发展的另一个核心支柱。增加女童和年轻妇女受教育的机会对降低出生率有直接影响。教育拓宽了妇女的经济前景，增强了她们的权能，并鼓励她们推迟结婚和生育。20 世纪下半叶，随着妇女教育水平的提高，韩国等国的出生率迅速下降。经济发展带来的就业和收入水平的提高也影响了人口趋势。更高的经济保障往往会降低出于经济或劳动保障原因而生育许多子女的需求。日本等国家在第二次世界大战后经济快速增长的同时，出生率也有所下降。最后，绿色革命也促进了这些人口变化。通过使用化肥、杀虫剂和高产种子实现的农业集约化提高了作物产量，减少了对大量家庭劳动力的依赖。例如，印度在 20 世纪 60 年代采用绿色革命技术后，农业产量大幅提高，从而帮助稳定了人口增长。

经济危机及其影响

现代农业的变革与挑战

从 20 世纪 70 年代开始，热带产品的扩张速度放缓，这一现象与当时的全球经济形势密切相关。在此期间，西方经济体遭遇了以滞胀为特征的经济危机，滞胀是指以高通胀和经济增长放缓为特征的异常经济形势。20 世纪 70 年代的石油危机在这一经济背景下发挥了重要作用，石油价格上涨导致生产和运输成本普遍上升。价格上涨加上经济增长放缓，迫使西方消费者重新审视自己的消费习惯。为了应对这种困难的经济形势，许多发达国家的消费者开始转向本地产品，因为他们往往认为本地产品比进口产品（包括来自热带地区的产品）更实惠、更容易获得。这种向本地产品的转变导致对咖啡、可可、香蕉和其他外来水果和香料等热带产品的需求减少。主要依赖西方出口市场的发展中国家的这些产品的生产者受到的打击尤为严重。需求的减少给这些国家带来了重大的经济后果，往往导致收入减少，经济更加脆弱。

20 世纪 90 年代，全球谷物赤字大幅增加，发展中国家尤为严重。谷物赤字是谷物生产和消费之间的差距，反映了这些地区面临的经济不平等和农业挑战，揭示了惊人的地域差异。发展中国家在很大程度上依赖农产品出口，但往往能力有限，无法生产足够的谷物来满足日益增长的人口需求，因此受到的打击最大。人口的快速增长、对主食需求的增加以及农业投资的不足加剧了这种状况。此外，化肥和种子等农业投入成本上升，也限制了小农的增产能力。例如，1993 年至 1997 年间，一些地区的谷物短缺达到了惊人的程度。在黑非洲，赤字达到了谷物产量的 13%，而在马格里布地区，赤字更是达到了 77%。拉丁美洲的赤字为 30%，亚洲为 10%。中东的赤字也高达 39%。这些数字不仅反映了农业方面的挑战，也反映了依赖国际市场和向富裕国家出口谷物的后果，这往往剥夺了当地居民的基本粮食资源。为了应对这一危机，粮食援助政策和农业发展计划已经到位，但其成果往往有限。所遇到的障碍包括效率、物流，有时还有腐败问题，这凸显了在全球化背景下应对粮食安全挑战的复杂性。20 世纪 90 年代谷物赤字的恶化凸显了发展中国家面临的重大粮食安全挑战、经济失衡和农业困难。这一时期突出表明，面对资源有限的世界日益增长的需求，迫切需要制定能够维持粮食生产的可持续和有效的农业战略。

出口农产品的发展中国家的经济动态揭示了近几十年来所采取的出口战略中的一个重大悖论。为了寻求硬通货，这些国家经常将其农业生产导向外国市场，特别是富裕国家的市场。虽然这为其经济注入了外汇，但往往导致本国货币贬值和谷物赤字增加。历史上，在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代，一些农业资源丰富的非洲和拉丁美洲国家采用了这种出口模式。例如，肯尼亚和科特迪瓦等国主要出口咖啡和可可，国内市场谷物供应减少。因此，尽管农产品出口丰富，但谷物赤字却增加了。这一时期的数据显示，许多发展中国家尽管出口高价值农产品，但其谷物需求的很大一部分靠进口。

这种情况加剧了粮食不安全的脆弱性，使这些国家依赖谷物进口，并对世界价格的波动十分敏感。农业发展政策和粮食援助方案旨在解决这一危机。这些举措旨在促进当地农业生产和改善粮食安全。然而，它们往往遇到资源限制、技术和结构挑战以及治理问题等障碍。这些挑战凸显了平衡短期经济发展目标与维护长期可持续粮食安全的复杂性。发展中国家出口农产品的情况清楚地表明，农业和经济战略不仅要考虑国际市场，还要考虑当地人口的需求和粮食安全。它还强调了有效治理和结构合理的政策对于驾驭复杂的经济全球化和粮食安全背景的重要性。

发展中国家对粮食的依赖是一个重大问题，凸显了这些国家在全球市场动态面前的脆弱性。为了满足本国人口的粮食需求，许多发展中国家被迫进口大部分粮食产品。这种依赖性使它们面临一系列风险和挑战。首先，对粮食进口的依赖使这些国家特别容易受到世界市场价格波动的影响。2007-2008 年等全球粮食危机导致主食价格大幅上涨，对依赖进口的国家造成了破坏性影响。这些价格波动可能导致粮食更无保障、社会动荡和贫困加剧。此外，粮食依赖还损害了这些国家的粮食主权。粮食主权这一概念主要是由国际农民之路运动在 20 世纪 90 年代提出的，指的是各国人民有权制定自己的农业和粮食政策。当一个国家的粮食严重依赖进口时，它就在一定程度上失去了对本国粮食生产的控制，变得容易受到出口国政策和经济条件的影响。这种依赖的后果不仅是经济方面的，还有社会和环境方面的。大量进口会破坏当地的耕作制度，挫伤小农的积极性，助长不可持续的做法。为了应对这些挑战，已经制定了农业发展政策和计划，以加强粮食安全和自给自足。这些举措旨在改善当地农业生产、支持小农、促进可持续农业做法和粮食来源多样化。其目的是减少对进口的依赖，使各国能够在满足粮食需求方面更加自给自足。然而，这些政策的实施面临诸多障碍，如缺乏财政资源、技术挑战、气候变化，有时还存在结构和治理问题。然而，关注自给自足和粮食主权对于确保发展中国家人民拥有可持续和安全的粮食未来至关重要。

发展中国家人口增长与粮食生产之间的关系说明了大卫-李嘉图比较优势理论的局限性。这一理论认为，各国应专门生产其具有比较优势的产品，并与其他国家开展贸易，但在这些地区却遇到了具体的挑战。从历史上看，在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代，许多发展中国家遵循李嘉图的理论，将农业重点放在出口咖啡、可可和糖等热带产品上。这种专业化的目的是在国际市场上创造硬通货。然而，这种战略往往导致经济单一化，农业成为主导部门，但缺乏多样化。例如，在科特迪瓦等国，可可出口占国民收入的很大比例，但这种依赖性也使该国面临国际价格波动的风险。这种模式产生了一些不良后果。首先，它造成了粮食依赖，因为这些国家不得不进口越来越多的基本粮食需求，农业用地被用于种植出口作物而不是粮食作物。例如，肯尼亚和埃塞俄比亚等国尽管有大量的农产品出口，却不得不进口大量谷物来满足本国人口的需求。这种依赖性削弱了这些国家的粮食主权，使其容易受到世界市场粮食价格波动的影响。在 2007-2008 年的全球粮食危机中，玉米和小麦等主要谷物的价格达到创纪录的水平，对这些国家的影响尤为严重，加剧了粮食不安全状况。为应对这些挑战，制定了农业发展政策和粮食援助方案，以促进经济多样化，加强粮食安全和自给自足，改善农民的经济和社会条件。这些政策旨在平衡参与国际贸易的需要和保障当地粮食安全的需要。然而，这些战略的实施往往遇到各种障碍，如缺乏资源、技术限制，有时还有结构和治理问题。

不断变化的背景下的行业发展

In the 1970s and 1980s, and particularly between 1973 and 1985, the manufacturing industry in developing countries faced major challenges, marked by specialisation in traditional branches of industry such as textiles and food. This often resulted in a form of industrialisation based on substitution for Western imports. Although this strategy was initially adopted to reduce dependence on imports and stimulate local production, it has ultimately limited economic diversification.

The industries of many developing countries remained concentrated on traditional sectors, exploiting their existing comparative advantages such as abundant natural resources or low-cost labour. In the textile sector, for example, countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan have undergone significant specialisation. However, this specialisation has not necessarily led to significant economic diversification. In Bangladesh, for example, the textile and clothing sector accounted for around 80% of the country's total exports at the end of the 1980s, reflecting a high level of economic dependence on this sector. This dependence on traditional sectors has also made industry in developing countries vulnerable to international price fluctuations and foreign competition. Sectors characterised by low value added and high labour intensity were particularly exposed to variations in raw material prices and changes in consumer preferences on international markets. In addition, this period was marked by structural changes in the global economy, such as the rise of neo-liberalism and the liberalisation of international trade. These developments have increased the competitive pressure on industries in developing countries. For example, market liberalisation has led to increased competition for countries such as India and Brazil, forcing them to reconsider their industrial strategies to meet the challenges of the globalised economy. Thus, these decades have highlighted the need for developing countries to adapt their industrial strategies in order to better respond to global economic challenges and pursue more diversified and sustainable economic development, balancing sectoral specialisation with the need for economic diversification.

The 1970s and 1980s were a period of significant change in the global economy, characterised by increasing multinationalisation. This phase marked a turning point for developing countries, which experienced an increased influx of foreign capital, mainly from industrialised countries. Although this influx brought essential investment and new technologies, it also created a form of economic dependence for these countries. Foreign investment in developing countries, while beneficial in terms of capital and technology, often had a major impact on their economic autonomy. National economic decisions were increasingly influenced by the interests of foreign multinationals. This situation led to a growing influence of these companies in key sectors of the economy of developing countries, often over and above short-term profit objectives. For example, in the 1980s, countries such as Nigeria and Indonesia saw a massive expansion of foreign investment in their oil and mining sectors, but this was often accompanied by little investment in vital sectors such as agriculture or education. In addition, the increased presence of multinationals in developing countries has sometimes led to the over-exploitation of local resources and industries. Investments were often directed towards sectors with high short-term profitability, such as the extraction of natural resources, without sufficient consideration for the sustainable development of the local economy. This approach has had negative consequences for the environment and working conditions. For example, in countries such as Brazil, mining and deforestation have been exacerbated by foreign investment, leading to serious environmental problems. This period also saw the emergence of debates and criticisms concerning the role and impact of multinationals in developing countries. Criticism focused on issues such as the unfair transfer of profits, negative environmental impacts and the exploitation of workers. These concerns have highlighted the need for tighter regulation and improved governance to manage the impact of foreign investment. It became clear that, to make a positive contribution to sustainable economic development, foreign investment needed to be better regulated and aligned with the long-term development objectives of host countries.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the manufacturing industry in developing countries faced significant challenges, particularly in terms of under-utilisation of production capacity. This situation was mainly the result of economic planning errors, where investments were not always in line with the real needs or capacities of these economies. Against this backdrop, governments in many developing countries launched ambitious industrial projects, often without a rigorous assessment of market needs or underlying economic dynamics. For example, in the 1980s, countries such as Brazil and India invested heavily in heavy industries such as steel and car manufacturing. However, domestic demand for these products was limited, and export markets were not sufficiently developed to absorb surplus production. As a result, many countries found themselves with under-utilised factories and production levels well below capacity. This under-utilisation of capacity led to a considerable waste of resources, both human and financial. Investment in these industrial projects was often financed by international loans, adding to these countries' external debt. For example, the external debt of sub-Saharan Africa increased from 11 billion dollars in 1970 to more than 230 billion dollars in 1990, a significant part of this debt being linked to unprofitable industrial investments. The situation was exacerbated by a lack of effective coordination between different sectors of the economy, as well as a lack of long-term vision for economic development. Industrial development plans were often conceived in isolation, without taking into account interdependencies with other sectors such as agriculture or services, or the real needs of the population. This period highlighted the challenges of planning and managing industrial development in developing countries. It has underlined the importance of a balanced and integrated approach to economic development, which takes account of market realities, productive capacities and sectoral interdependencies, while aiming for sustainable and inclusive growth.

The excessive geographical concentration of manufacturing industry in developing countries during the 1970s and 1980s posed major challenges in terms of economic and social imbalances. Many of these industries were concentrated in large cities, leading to significant gaps between urban and rural areas in terms of economic development and opportunities. This urban concentration of manufacturing has had several consequences. On the one hand, rural areas have been largely neglected, with little industrial investment or economic opportunity. This has exacerbated regional inequalities and hampered economic development in rural areas. On the other hand, large cities have become centres of industrial attraction, attracting large numbers of rural workers in search of jobs. Cities such as Mumbai in India, Lagos in Nigeria and Mexico City in Mexico have experienced rapid population growth, often outstripping their capacity to provide adequate services and infrastructure. This massive flow of people into urban areas has led to problems of overcrowding, inadequate housing and inadequate infrastructure. The challenges associated with rapid urbanisation, such as congestion, pollution and slums, have become commonplace in many large cities in developing countries. To address these problems, it was essential to diversify industrial locations and promote economic development in rural areas. This geographical diversification could have contributed to more balanced development, reducing the pressure on large cities and providing economic opportunities in previously neglected regions. The high geographical concentration of manufacturing industry in large cities in developing countries has highlighted the need for a more balanced and distributed approach to industrial development. Such an approach would not only have helped to reduce regional imbalances, but would also have contributed to more harmonious and sustainable development on a national scale.

The 1970s and 1980s were marked by a crisis in agriculture and industry in developing countries, which was exacerbated by a series of structural factors. Specialisation in traditional branches of industry, dependence on foreign capital, under-utilisation of production capacity and excessive geographical concentration of industry created a difficult economic environment for these countries. During this period, some countries, dubbed the "Asian dragons" (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), as well as certain Latin American powers, such as Brazil and Mexico, succeeded in reindustrialising. These countries have adopted effective economic strategies, including investment in high value-added industrial sectors, greater integration into the global economy and economic policies that encourage diversification. South Korea, for example, has seen rapid development of its manufacturing and technology industries, becoming a major player in sectors such as electronics and automobiles. However, despite these successes, most developing countries have continued to be under-industrialised. The challenges of the 1970s and 1980s, such as dependence on traditional sectors, vulnerability to external influences, and inadequate economic planning, have persisted. This has limited their ability to achieve sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty. Today, these challenges remain relevant for many developing countries. Despite some progress and the adoption of policies to encourage economic diversification and industrial development, many countries are still struggling to overcome the structural obstacles to sustainable economic development. The need to diversify economies, reduce dependence on foreign capital, make full use of production capacity, and promote a balanced geographical distribution of industry remains crucial for these nations. The period of the 1970s and 1980s laid the foundations that continue to influence the economic development of developing countries. The experience of this period underlines the importance of a balanced and strategic approach to economic development, which takes account of structural challenges while aiming for sustainability and inclusiveness.

International trade: Trends and disruptions

The 1973 oil crisis marked a turning point in the world economy, with far-reaching repercussions, particularly for developing countries. The sudden and significant rise in oil prices, triggered by the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil embargo, created major economic distortions between oil-producing and oil-importing countries. This crisis led to a prolonged period of economic difficulties, marked by two distinct phases. The first phase, from 1974 to 1985, was characterised by economic depression, with many countries experiencing high inflation, slower economic growth and rising unemployment. Oil-importing countries, particularly those in the Third World, were hit hard because of their dependence on oil imports and rising energy costs. The second phase, from 1985 to 1995, saw some economic recovery, thanks in part to lower oil prices and the adaptation of economies to these new conditions. However, the long-term effects of the oil crisis continued to influence economic policies and development strategies in many countries.

A key indicator of the impact of this crisis is the extraversion rate, which measures a country's dependence on exports. In 1913, before the First World War, this rate was already high, reflecting the interconnected nature of the world economy at the time. It reached high levels again in 1972 and 1973, just before the oil crisis. This dependence was particularly marked in Third World countries, which were heavily dependent on exports, particularly of raw materials, to Western countries. The oil crisis exacerbated this dependence, highlighting the vulnerability of these economies to external shocks. The 1973 oil crisis highlighted the structural imbalances in the world economy and played a key role in redefining economic policies and development strategies, particularly for developing countries. It demonstrated the need to diversify economies, reduce dependence on exports of raw materials and adopt more sustainable energy policies that are less dependent on oil.

The oil crisis of the 1970s and 1980s exacerbated the economic dependence of Third World countries on Western countries, highlighting the imbalances in global trade relations. The economies of developing countries were often closely linked to those of developed countries, particularly the West, and were heavily dependent on them for their economic growth. This dependence manifested itself mainly in trade in raw materials, particularly agricultural products and natural resources, of which oil is a key example. Third World countries exported these raw materials to developed countries in exchange for manufactured goods and technology. This trade dynamic often led to a relationship of dependence, where the economies of developing countries were sensitive to fluctuations in world markets and the economic policies of developed countries.

The oil crisis has exacerbated this situation. Rising oil prices have had a significant impact on world economies, particularly those of oil-importing countries. For non-oil producing Third World countries, the rise in energy costs has led to an increase in import spending and put additional pressure on their already fragile trade balances. In addition, the economic recession in developed countries, a consequence of the oil crisis, has reduced demand for exports from developing countries, impacting on their economic growth. In contrast, developed countries, although affected by the crisis, had more diversified economies and were less dependent on a single type of trade or market. Their more diversified trading relationships enabled them to better absorb economic shocks such as those caused by the oil crisis. The oil crisis deepened Third World countries' legacy of economic dependence on Western countries, highlighting the need for these countries to diversify their economies and reduce their dependence on commodity exports. She also stressed the importance of developing more balanced and sustainable trade relations to ensure stable and sustainable economic growth in the global context.

Dynamics of development aid and debt management

Understanding development aid: Origins and orientations

Since the end of the Second World War, development aid has become a central element of international relations, aimed at improving living conditions in developing countries. This aid takes a variety of forms, including financing, technical cooperation, technology transfer and vocational training. The main actors in this aid are the governments of developed countries, international organisations such as the United Nations, NGOs and, to a certain extent, private companies. The history of development aid reflects changing global priorities. After the Second World War, the initial focus was on the reconstruction of Europe, notably through the Marshall Plan. With decolonisation in the 1960s and 1970s, the emphasis shifted to helping the newly independent countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Later, in the 1980s and 1990s, aid focused on structural reforms and poverty reduction. With the advent of the Millennium Development Goals in the early 2000s, development aid was redefined around specific goals such as eradicating poverty, improving education and health, and promoting sustainable development. Quantitatively, development aid has grown significantly over time. In 2020, for example, official development assistance provided by OECD member countries was estimated at around 147 billion dollars. However, this sum is often considered insufficient in relation to the target set by the United Nations, which is to devote 0.7% of the gross national income of donor countries to development aid. The effectiveness of development aid has been widely debated. Critics have focused on issues such as the actual effectiveness of aid, the dependency it can create, and the political influence it can wield. Some projects have also been criticised for failing to meet the real needs of recipient countries or for favouring the interests of donors. Despite these challenges, development aid remains an essential tool for promoting sustainable and inclusive development in developing countries. Recent efforts have focused on improving the effectiveness of aid, ensuring that it is more transparent, better targeted and aligned with the priorities of recipient countries, to ensure that it truly benefits those who need it most.

Development aid, a crucial aspect of international policy since the post-war period, takes a variety of forms, each with a distinct impact on the recipient countries. Donations, which make up a large proportion of this aid, are financial or in-kind contributions provided without any obligation to repay. These donations are often directed towards humanitarian, educational or sustainable development projects. For example, according to the OECD, in 2019, donations accounted for around 27% of total official development assistance. These contributions are vital because they do not increase the debt of recipient countries and are generally flexible as to how they are used. Preferential loans, another form of aid, are loans granted on favourable terms, often at reduced interest rates, to support projects that stimulate economic and social development. Although they require repayment, the conditions are more flexible than those for standard commercial loans. These loans are crucial for financing infrastructure and large-scale projects, playing a significant role in long-term development.

At the same time, private sector loans, provided by commercial financial institutions, are geared towards industrial or commercial projects. These loans can catalyse economic development, but often carry higher interest rates and stricter conditions. They are essential for investments in sectors such as industrial production or business start-ups. Finally, export credits are a form of financing designed to encourage exports to developing countries. Historically, this form of aid has been criticised for favouring the interests of exporting countries. For example, in the 1980s, many African countries were encouraged to import expensive equipment and technology, which sometimes increased their external debt without bringing the expected benefits for economic development. Each of these types of aid has different economic, social and environmental consequences. While grants and concessional loans are often seen as beneficial for sustainable development, private sector loans and export credits can lead to increased debt or economic dependence. It is therefore crucial for recipient countries to carefully assess the benefits and risks associated with each form of aid to ensure balanced and sustainable development.

Conditional aid, a common method in development assistance, requires recipient countries to meet certain conditions in order to receive aid. Although this approach aims to ensure the effective use of aid and encourage positive reforms, it can sometimes have negative consequences for recipient countries.

Historically, conditional aid has been widely used since the late 20th century, particularly by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These conditions have often been geared towards economic reforms, such as privatisation, market liberalisation and reductions in public spending. However, this approach has sometimes led to development projects being over-valued. Beneficiary countries, in their quest to meet the conditions imposed, have sometimes invested in projects that do not correspond to their real needs. For example, studies show that in the 1980s and 1990s, many African countries had to follow prescribed economic policies in order to obtain loans, which often diverted resources away from essential sectors such as health and education. In addition, increased project costs are a common consequence of conditional aid. The need to meet specific requirements can lead to additional costs, limiting the resources available for other essential initiatives. In addition, the loss of economic sovereignty is a major problem associated with conditional aid. Recipient countries can find themselves in a position where they have to follow economic guidelines that are not necessarily aligned with their own development strategies or the preferences of their population. The very effectiveness of aid can be called into question when the conditions do not correspond to the real needs and priorities of the recipient country. This can lead to inefficient use of funds and a lack of progress towards development goals. For example, a World Bank study found that while conditional aid has had some success, in many cases it has not led to the desired development results due to ill-adapted or unrealistic conditions. So, while recognising the intention behind conditional aid to promote positive change and effective use of resources, it is crucial for donors to consider the potential impacts on recipient countries. A more nuanced and context-sensitive approach, which takes into account the specific realities of each country and is flexible in the face of changes and challenges, is necessary if development aid is to achieve its objectives in a sustainable and equitable manner.

Economic and financial crises have a significant impact on development aid. When the economies of donor countries are in difficulty, development aid is often one of the first sectors to be affected by budget cuts. These periods of economic crisis tend to lead to a reassessment of government priorities, with a greater emphasis on stabilising and stimulating the domestic economy. As a result, budgets allocated to development aid often suffer cuts. Historically, this phenomenon has been observed on several occasions. For example, during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, many developed countries reduced their official development assistance (ODA) to focus their resources on stimulating their domestic economies. According to the OECD, after a period of steady growth, global ODA fell in 2011 and 2012, reflecting budget constraints in several donor countries following the financial crisis. This trend has important implications for recipient countries. A reduction in ODA can delay or compromise essential development projects, impacting sectors such as health, education and infrastructure. It can also undermine efforts to achieve the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, as these goals depend in part on continued financial support from developed countries. In response to these challenges, some donor countries and international organisations have sought ways to maintain or increase the effectiveness of development aid, even with reduced budgets. This includes approaches such as mixed financing, which combines public and private funds, and a focus on aid effectiveness to ensure that available resources are used optimally.

The 1990s saw a decline in development aid, impacted by a number of key factors, including reduced aid budgets in donor countries and the growing influence of neo-liberal ideologies. This period has been marked by a reassessment of government and economic priorities in many developed countries, where public spending, including development aid, has been subject to significant budget cuts. The political and economic context of the time, marked by the end of the Cold War and the rise of neo-liberalism, also played a role in the decline in aid. The end of the Cold War reduced the political and strategic motivation for development aid, which had been used as a foreign policy tool during that period. In addition, the rise of neo-liberal ideologies favoured an approach of public spending cuts and privatisation, which often led to a reduction in governments' commitment to development aid. However, this trend began to change in the 2000s. The increase in development aid in absolute terms during this decade was influenced by a number of factors, including a growing awareness of global challenges such as poverty, infectious diseases and climate change. International initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals, launched in 2000, have also played a key role in revitalising development aid.

In 2010, there was even a slight increase in official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of donor countries' GDP. According to OECD data, ODA reached a record high in 2010, representing around 0.32% of donor countries' combined gross national income, up from around 0.22% in the mid-1990s. This increase reflects a renewed commitment to global development issues, although the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income for ODA was not met by most donor countries. These developments show how global political, economic and social dynamics can significantly influence the levels and priorities of development aid. They also underline the importance of the continued commitment of developed countries to support sustainable development and poverty reduction worldwide.

Aid from the private sector, particularly in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI) and private sector loans, has been sensitive to global economic fluctuations. During periods of economic crisis, a downward trend in these forms of aid is frequently observed, mainly due to an increase in the perception of risk by companies and investors. FDI, which is investment by companies or private entities in a foreign country, plays a crucial role in the economic development of developing countries. They can help to create jobs, improve infrastructure and transfer technology. However, in times of economic crisis, companies often become more cautious about investing, particularly in developing countries considered to be higher-risk markets. This caution is due to global economic uncertainty, fears about political or economic stability in the recipient countries, and a potential reduction in the profitability of investments.

Similarly, private sector lending by commercial banks and other financial institutions is likely to decline during periods of economic crisis. Banks become more reluctant to lend to developing countries because of fears of default, concerns about the stability of the economies of these countries and the increased risks associated with these loans. This situation is often exacerbated by a global credit crunch, as financial institutions are more inclined to minimise risk and conserve liquidity in times of crisis. For example, during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, FDI in developing countries fell considerably. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), global FDI flows fell by almost 40% in 2009, reflecting investors' increased caution in the face of global economic instability. Private sector lending was also affected, as international banks became more cautious in their approach to credit. These dynamics demonstrate the vulnerability of developing countries not only to fluctuations in official aid, but also to variations in private investment and financing. They underline the importance of diversifying sources of financing for development and strengthening economic resilience to better withstand external economic shocks.

Profile of the main international donors

Industrialised countries, particularly those that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), play a central role as donors of development aid. Among these countries, the United States, Japan, Germany and Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark traditionally stand out as the main contributors in terms of Official Development Assistance (ODA). The United States, for example, has for many years been the largest donor of ODA in absolute terms, although its contribution as a percentage of its gross national income (GNI) often falls short of the 0.7% target set by the United Nations. Japan, for its part, has been a major contributor in Asia, focusing its aid on economic development and infrastructure. Germany, for its part, has focused on sustainable development projects and technical cooperation. The Scandinavian countries, while representing a smaller share of the world economy, are known for their strong commitment to development aid. These countries often exceed the ODA target of 0.7% of GNI, focusing on issues such as human rights, gender equality and sustainable development.

In addition to multilateral aid, which is channelled through international organisations such as the United Nations or the World Bank, many OECD member countries have also set up bilateral aid programmes. These programmes enable donor countries to directly support specific development projects in developing countries. Bilateral aid allows donor countries to target specific areas of interest, such as health, education or infrastructure, and to develop closer relations with recipient countries. The commitment of these countries to development aid is crucial to global progress towards goals such as reducing poverty and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the distribution of aid, the selection of projects and the effectiveness of aid continue to be subjects of debate and continuous improvement.

During the Cold War, the provision of development aid was also influenced by geopolitical dynamics and political alliances. In addition to Western countries, socialist and oil-producing countries played a significant role in providing aid to developing countries, particularly those aligned with their political and ideological interests. The socialist countries, led by the Soviet Union, used development aid as a tool to extend their influence and promote socialism, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This aid often took the form of technical support, training, military assistance and infrastructure projects. For example, the Soviet Union provided substantial aid to countries such as Cuba, Egypt and Ethiopia. However, the nature and extent of this aid was often closely linked to the strategic objectives of the Cold War, rather than to the specific development needs of the recipient countries. Similarly, oil-producing countries, particularly those in the Middle East, also contributed to development aid. After the oil shock of the 1970s, which led to a massive increase in oil revenues, these countries used some of their wealth to provide aid, often as part of Islamic solidarity or to strengthen political and economic ties. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have been active in this area, focusing in particular on projects in Muslim countries. However, in overall terms, the contribution of these countries to development aid was generally lower than that of Western countries. Aid from socialist and oil-producing countries was often conditioned by political and strategic considerations, and its scale was limited compared with contributions from OECD countries.

Since the 2000s, the development aid landscape has undergone significant changes with the emergence of new players, in particular the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and other emerging developing countries. These countries have begun to play an increasingly important role, both as donors of development aid and as influential members of multilateral bodies. China, in particular, has established itself as a major player in development aid. Through its "Belt and Road" (or New Silk Road) initiative, China has invested massively in infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa and Europe. These investments are often presented as development aid, although they are also motivated by strategic and economic objectives. In Africa, for example, China has become one of the largest trading partners and investors, financing projects in a variety of areas including infrastructure, energy and telecommunications. India, another BRICS member, has also increased its role as a donor of development aid, focusing particularly on its neighbours in South Asia and Africa. Indian aid is often linked to technical development projects and capacity-building initiatives. The BRICS countries have also worked together to create new financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank (NBD), which aims to finance development and infrastructure projects in emerging and developing countries. This initiative marks a significant shift in the global aid landscape, offering an alternative to traditional financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. These new players bring an additional dimension to development aid, offering alternative financing and partnership options for developing countries. However, the approach of these new donors also raises questions in terms of sustainability, lending conditions and the impact on the debt of recipient countries. It is therefore crucial for recipient countries to carefully assess the benefits and risks associated with accepting this emerging aid, ensuring that these initiatives are aligned with their own long-term development strategies.

Beneficiary countries: challenges and opportunities

The history of development aid is closely linked to the historical and cultural relationships between countries, particularly those formed during the colonial period. Developing countries that were once colonies or protectorates of industrialised nations have often become major recipients of development aid, particularly bilateral aid. This trend can be explained by the close links that have been maintained between former colonies and their colonial metropolises, particularly through linguistic, cultural and political affinities. These historical links have often guided the distribution of development aid. For example, French-speaking African countries receive a significant proportion of their development aid from France. Similarly, former British colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean have received significant aid from the UK. These relationships often extend historical interactions, with donors justifying their support with a sense of historical responsibility or a desire to maintain political and economic ties.

However, the criteria for selecting recipients of development aid are not based solely on these historical links. In general, aid is directed towards the poorest and most vulnerable countries, with the aim of reducing poverty, improving living conditions and promoting sustainable development. The selection criteria vary from donor to donor, but generally take into account the needs of the recipient countries and their capacity to use aid effectively. In quantitative terms, the scale of aid varies considerably. According to the OECD, OECD countries provided around $147 billion in official development assistance in 2020. This aid is distributed unevenly among recipients, with some countries receiving a disproportionate share because of their historical links with donors.

Countries considered to be politically "fragile" or "at risk" often receive substantial amounts of development aid because of their particular situations. The purpose of this aid is manifold: it aims to stabilise the political situation, prevent conflict and radicalism, and encourage the transition to more stable and democratic political systems. This aid can take the form of support for governance, institution-building, security sector reform, as well as programmes to improve economic and social conditions. However, it is crucial that development aid is not perceived or used as a tool to exert control over recipient countries or to keep them in a state of dependency. The relevance and effectiveness of development aid depend on its ability to strengthen the autonomy and sovereignty of recipient countries. Aid must focus on building local capacities, promoting sustainable economic and social development, and supporting the self-determination of peoples. In practice, this implies development aid approaches that are aligned with the priorities of recipient countries and implemented in close collaboration with them. It also means ensuring that aid is not conditioned in such a way as to impose specific political or economic choices that do not correspond to the needs or desires of local populations. Historically, the challenges of providing aid in countries at risk or in fragile situations have been numerous. For example, countries such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti have received large amounts of aid, but have continued to face major challenges in terms of stability and development. These situations underline the complexity of delivering effective aid in politically unstable contexts.

Development aid, while an essential tool for supporting progress in developing countries, can also be influenced by the political and strategic objectives of donor countries. Historically, aid has sometimes been used to strengthen diplomatic relations, increase geopolitical influence, or further the economic interests of donor countries in recipient countries. From the Cold War era, when aid was often linked to the struggle for influence between East and West, to the current era of globalisation, the political dimension of development aid has been a constant reality. The United States, for example, has historically used development aid as a means of strengthening its strategic alliances and supporting countries aligned with its political and economic interests. During the Cold War, US assistance was often conditional on political or military commitments. Similarly, other powers, such as the Soviet Union, China and European countries, also used development aid to extend their influence. China's massive investments in infrastructure and natural resources in Africa and Asia, often presented as development aid, are a contemporary example of the use of aid for strategic purposes. In terms of figures, the scale of aid linked to political objectives is difficult to quantify precisely, as it is often integrated into broader aid programmes. However, it is clear that political and strategic considerations play an important role in the decision to provide aid, to select recipients, and to determine the amounts allocated. It is important to recognise that the use of development aid for political or strategic purposes raises questions of ethics and effectiveness. Critics argue that when aid is motivated primarily by political interests, it may not meet the real needs of recipient countries and can sometimes support controversial political regimes or undemocratic policies. Although development aid is an essential tool for improving living conditions in developing countries, it is crucial that its use is guided by ethical principles and focused on the real needs of recipients. Donor countries must ensure that aid makes a genuine contribution to sustainable development and improved living conditions, rather than serving only their political and economic interests.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of the countries of Central Asia in the 1990s, countries such as Switzerland and Belgium quickly became involved in providing development aid to this newly independent region. This period marked an important turning point in world geopolitics, creating new opportunities and challenges in the field of international aid. The involvement of Switzerland and Belgium in Central Asia can be seen from different angles. On the one hand, it is possible that political and strategic motivations influenced their decision to offer aid. By supporting Central Asia, these countries could have sought to strengthen their influence in a resource-rich and strategically located region. This influence could, in turn, have supported their ambitions in international organisations such as the World Bank. However, it is difficult to quantify precisely the extent of aid provided specifically for these political and strategic reasons. On the other hand, Switzerland and Belgium, like many donor countries, have also been motivated by humanitarian and ethical considerations. These countries have a long tradition of commitment to humanitarian aid and international development, guided by principles of solidarity and global responsibility. Development efforts in the fields of health, education, infrastructure and institution building in Central Asian countries reflect this commitment. Historically, Switzerland and Belgium have been consistent but modest contributors to global development aid. According to OECD data, Switzerland, for example, devoted around 0.44% of its GNI to official development assistance in 2019, falling short of the 0.7% target set by the United Nations, but remaining an active player in the field of international development.

International debt: Causes and consequences

During the 1970s and 1980s, a widespread strategy among many developing countries was to borrow from rich countries. These loans were mainly aimed at financing the construction of infrastructure and stimulating economic growth. This period was characterised by relatively easy access to international credit, due in particular to excess liquidity in Western banks following the oil shocks of the 1970s. However, this debt strategy led to unexpected and often serious consequences. High interest rates, combined with exchange rate fluctuations, have increased the cost of servicing debt for these countries. Many of the projects financed by these loans did not generate the expected economic returns, making debt repayment difficult, if not impossible for some. As a result, several countries found themselves in an unsustainable debt cycle, where they had to take out new loans to repay the previous ones.

The economic policies of the time, often inspired by Keynesianism, advocated heavy public spending to stimulate growth. Although these policies were intended to promote development, they frequently led to budget deficits and increased debt without significantly stimulating economic growth. In the 1980s, for example, Latin America saw its external debt quadruple, with the region's debt crisis becoming a major problem for the global economy. The debt crisis of the 1980s led to major intervention by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions made their aid conditional on the launch of structural adjustment programmes, which involved austerity measures, cuts in public spending and major economic reforms. Although these measures were aimed at stabilising economies and restoring solvency, they often had a negative social impact, with cuts in investment in health, education and infrastructure. This period therefore revealed the dangers of excessive dependence on external debt and highlighted the need for more sustainable development policies. It also highlighted the importance of prudent debt management and economic policies tailored to the specific realities of developing countries to avoid similar crises in the future.

The second oil shock in 1979 had profound economic repercussions, particularly for developing countries. The sudden rise in energy prices not only directly affected energy costs but also had a significant impact on the world economy, notably by reducing the supply of dollars on international markets. One of the most notable effects of this shock has been the rise in interest rates. Central banks, particularly the US Federal Reserve, reacted to rising inflation by raising interest rates. This led to a reduction in the availability of credit, making it more difficult and more expensive for developing countries to borrow on international markets.

This has exacerbated existing debt problems for many developing countries. Faced with reduced access to credit and high interest rates, these countries found themselves in a position where they had to borrow more to repay the interest on their existing debts. This created a debt spiral, where borrowing countries found themselves caught in a cycle of successive borrowing to cover repayments of previous debts, leading to an unsustainable debt situation. The economic consequences of this debt spiral have been severe. Many developing countries faced major economic difficulties, including slower economic growth, high inflation rates, and reduced public spending due to debt burdens. This period paved the way for the debt crisis of the 1980s, during which many developing countries were unable to repay or service their external debt, requiring bailouts and structural adjustment programmes led by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

In the years following the 1980s, there was a notable shift in global economic policies. Whereas Keynesian thinking had predominated for much of the mid-20th century, encouraging active state intervention in the economy to stimulate growth and employment, it began to be supplanted by a neoclassical liberal economic approach. This new orientation emphasised fiscal discipline, debt reduction and free markets. This transition had a considerable impact on developing countries, particularly those struggling with high levels of external debt. Faced with economic crises and growing deficits, these countries often found themselves forced to adopt structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) as a condition for obtaining loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, or for restructuring their existing debt. These adjustment programmes had common features, such as cuts in public spending, privatisation of state-owned enterprises, liberalisation of trade and investment, and deregulation of markets. Although the underlying intention of these measures was to stabilise economies and promote long-term growth, they often had immediate negative consequences. For example, budget cuts frequently led to a reduction in essential public services such as health and education, exacerbating social and economic inequalities.

The impact of these policies has been felt throughout the developing world. In Latin America, for example, external debt exploded in the 1980s, rising from $75 billion in 1970 to over $315 billion in 1983, prompting many countries in the region to adopt SAPs. The social effects of these austerity policies were severe, with an increase in poverty and a reduction in access to basic services. Similarly, in Africa, the debt crisis of the 1980s forced many countries to implement SAPs, with similar consequences. These policies have been criticised for favouring the interests of international creditors over the needs of local populations, and for contributing to a loss of economic and political autonomy.

In the 1980s, structural adjustment plans (SAPs) were widely adopted as a solution to debt crises in developing countries. Imposed by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, these plans aimed to restore economic stability. However, they were strongly criticised for their negative impact on the most disadvantaged populations. These SAPs typically included austerity measures such as drastic cuts in public spending, particularly in essential social sectors such as health and education. These policies were in line with the dominant neo-liberal economic thinking of the time, which advocated reducing the size of the state, liberalising markets and reducing budget deficits. In practice, these measures often led to a reduction in public services, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. For example, in Latin America, a region particularly hard hit by the debt crisis of the 1980s, SAPs have led to rising unemployment and reduced public spending on health and education. In Africa, where the external debt of sub-Saharan countries almost tripled between 1980 and 1986, rising from $61 billion to $178 billion, SAPs also had profound repercussions, with devastating social consequences. These programmes were negotiated between states in financial difficulty and the international financial institutions, which demanded economic reforms and budget cuts in exchange for financial aid. This approach has been widely criticised for exacerbating the economic problems of borrowing countries and for imposing measures that have had a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable populations.

In the 1980s, the adoption of structural adjustment plans (SAPs) in many developing countries, as part of efforts to manage their debt crises, had considerable social and economic repercussions. These plans, often conditioned by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, have imposed drastic budget cuts, particularly in areas crucial to development such as education and health. These sectors, which are essential to economic and social progress, have suffered significant cuts in funding. In many African countries, for example, the budgets allocated to health and education have been drastically reduced, leading to a decline in the quality and accessibility of services. As a result, inequalities have increased and progress in key areas of development has been hampered. Statistics from this period show an increase in illiteracy rates and a deterioration in health indicators in several countries subject to these adjustments. The implementation of SAPs was also criticised for its Western-centric approach. Many perceived these policies as an imposition of economic and social development models designed by and for Western countries, without taking into account the specific contexts of the borrowing countries. This criticism has focused on the fact that these plans were drawn up without adequate participation by the governments and populations of the countries concerned, reflecting the priorities of the creditors rather than those of the beneficiaries. Moreover, the imposition of these plans by international organisations has often been seen as interference in national sovereignty. The effects of the austerity policies imposed have been particularly devastating for local populations, exacerbating poverty and social inequality. For example, countries such as Bolivia and Nigeria saw their external debts increase significantly during this period, while their economies were subjected to rigorous structural reforms. Since then, awareness has grown of the limitations of this approach. It is recognised that development solutions cannot be effectively imposed from outside, but must be devised in close collaboration with local actors. This evolution has led to a change in development aid practices, favouring a more participatory approach that is adapted to the specific realities of each country. This new orientation recognises the importance of the involvement of governments and local populations in the development process, seeking to promote more inclusive and sustainable policies.

Global geopolitical and economic reorganisation

Since the 1980s, the global political and economic landscape has undergone profound changes. This period has been marked by the rise of new economic powers, notably China, India and other emerging countries, which have begun to exert increasing influence on the international scene. This emergence has challenged old power dynamics and led to a rebalancing of forces in global economic and political relations. The rise of the emerging economies has been accompanied by an intensification of cooperation and competition between developing and developed countries. For example, China's share of the global economy, which was around 2% in the 1980s, has risen to over 16% in 2019, reflecting its rapid rise as a major economic player. Similarly, India, with its sustained economic growth, has also strengthened its presence on the world stage.

The debt crisis of the 1980s played a crucial role in this transformation. Faced with the consequences of Western economic policies and imposed structural adjustment programmes, many developing countries began to look for alternatives for their economic and social development. This period highlighted the limitations of Western models and prompted these countries to explore development paths based on their own realities and potential. In response, developing countries began to establish more diversified and equitable economic and political relations with developed nations, while capitalising on their own growth potential. They invested in education and innovation, and diversified their trading partners to reduce their dependence on traditional markets. These changes have given rise to a new international framework, characterised by growing multipolarity and offering opportunities for fairer, more sustainable development. The rise of new economic powers and the reconfiguration of international relations have paved the way for a world in which developing countries play a more assertive role, contributing to a more balanced and diversified global landscape.

Major changes and geopolitical pivots

In 1978, China began an era of economic reform and modernisation under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, who took over after the death of Mao Zedong. The Four Modernisations movement, launched by Deng, aimed to transform and modernise the main sectors of the Chinese economy - agriculture, industry, national defence, and science and technology. The aim of this initiative was to increase China's economic competitiveness on the international stage. The reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping marked a radical departure from previous Maoist policies. The introduction of elements of a market economy, the partial privatisation of state-owned enterprises, and the opening up of the economy to foreign investment were key aspects of this transformation. These changes have stimulated meteoric economic growth in China, laying the foundations for its future rise as a global economic power. In terms of growth, the Chinese economy has undergone a remarkable expansion. China's GDP, which was around 150 billion dollars in 1978, has increased spectacularly over the following decades, reaching almost 14 trillion dollars in 2019. This growth has been particularly visible in the export sector, where China has established itself as a major player in world trade.

At the same time, the opening up to foreign investment has transformed the Chinese economic landscape, with a significant influx of capital and technology. However, the reforms have also brought considerable social challenges. The transition to a market economy has created growing inequalities, with a widening gap between prosperous urban areas and poorer rural areas. Income disparities and social changes have led to tensions and challenges in terms of social policy and governance. China's economic reforms, initiated as part of the Four Modernisations, have transformed the country in a profound and lasting way. They have propelled China towards rapid economic growth and greater integration into the global economy, while presenting new challenges in terms of social equity and the management of economic transformations. These reforms marked the beginning of China's rise as a world economic power, redefining its role and position in the global context.

In 1986, Vietnam undertook a series of radical economic reforms known as Doi Moi, or Renewal, marking a significant turning point in its economic history. These reforms aimed to modernise the Vietnamese economy by incorporating market elements within a socialist system. The aim was to revitalise an economy that, at the time, was facing serious difficulties, including low productivity, food shortages and high inflation. Key measures under Doi Moi included the decentralisation of economic decision-making, allowing greater autonomy for local businesses and farmers, the partial privatisation of state-owned enterprises, and the opening up of the economy to foreign investment. These reforms marked a significant departure from the strict centralised planning that had previously prevailed, inspired in part by models of economic reform seen in other socialist countries such as China.

Doi Moi had a remarkable impact on Vietnam's economic growth. The country's GDP, which had stagnated in the years preceding the reforms, grew rapidly in the decades that followed. For example, Vietnam's GDP rose from around $6 billion in 1986 to more than $260 billion in 2019, testifying to the economic success of the reforms. Vietnam has become a major player in certain export sectors, and increased foreign investment has helped to modernise the economy. However, these economic changes have also brought new social challenges. Income inequalities have widened, creating a growing gap between rapidly developing urban areas and poorer rural regions. In addition, although the economy liberalised, Vietnam remained a one-party state, with the Vietnamese Communist Party retaining firm control over the political and social aspects of the country. The Doi Moi was a crucial step in Vietnam's economic development, allowing it to integrate more effectively into the global economy and achieve sustained economic growth. However, the reforms also highlighted the need to balance economic growth with social development and to tackle the growing inequalities that often accompany such a transformation.

The year 1989 has gone down in history as a pivotal moment, characterised by radical change and upheaval on a global scale. The most emblematic event of the year was the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, which marked not only the symbolic end of the Cold War, but also initiated a series of profound transformations in global politics, economics and society. The disappearance of the Berlin Wall was more than just a physical event; it symbolised the collapse of the bipolar system that had dominated the world stage for decades. It marked the end of the ideological and geopolitical division between the capitalist West, led by the United States, and the communist East, led by the Soviet Union. In the months and years that followed, this led to a series of political revolutions in Eastern Europe, marking the collapse of communist regimes in the region. The collapse of the Communist bloc ushered in an era of political and economic transformation. Many Eastern European countries began the process of transition to democracy and a market economy. This period saw the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the subsequent enlargement of the European Union to include several former communist states. In economic terms, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of almost unchallenged dominance of the capitalist market economy. Neo-liberal policies gained ground, influencing economic reforms in countries in transition and redefining economic and social policies on a global scale. In terms of international relations, the end of the Cold War led to a reassessment of foreign policies and a reconfiguration of alliances and strategic priorities. The years that followed saw an increase in globalisation, with greater economic integration and cross-border trade and financial flows. 1989 was a pivotal year in world history, marking the end of one era and the beginning of another. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist bloc not only reshaped the political map of Europe, but also had a profound and lasting impact on global politics, economics and society, ushering in an era of unprecedented change, challenge and opportunity.

In 1989, another landmark event took place in China: the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. These demonstrations, mainly led by students, called for democratic reforms, human rights and freedom of the press. The movement, which began peacefully, took a tragic turn when the Chinese government chose to violently repress it in June 1989. The image of the man standing alone in front of a column of tanks remains a powerful symbol of this event and of the democratic aspirations repressed in China. The Tiananmen crackdown led to widespread international condemnation, with economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by many countries. The event also highlighted the internal tensions in China between pursuing economic reform and maintaining authoritarian political control. Despite these events, China continued to follow a path that combined a communist political regime with an increasingly liberalised market economy. The economic reforms initiated under Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s continued to bear fruit, leading to rapid economic growth and China's increased integration into the world economy. This growth has been characterised by a massive expansion of the manufacturing sector and a significant increase in exports. Globally, with the exception of a few countries such as Cuba, most former communist countries gradually adopted market economic systems and liberal economic policies after the end of the Cold War. This transition to capitalism was a key factor in the economic globalisation that marked the following decades. Increased cross-border trade and investment transformed the world economy, fostering economic interdependence between nations.

Analysis of development inequalities : Progress and challenges

The Trente Glorieuses period, which stretched from the end of the Second World War to the economic crisis of 1973, was characterised by sustained economic growth in industrialised countries. During this era, nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany enjoyed a remarkable economic boom, marked by a significant increase in GDP, technological advances and improved living standards. However, this period of prosperity was not evenly distributed across the globe. Developing countries, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, experienced lower rates of economic growth, resulting in a widening development gap between rich and poor nations.

The 1970s and 1980s marked a turning point, with the emergence of economic crises and debt problems, which had a severe impact on developing countries. The 1973 oil crisis, interest rate fluctuations and global economic policies led to increased economic difficulties in these regions, exacerbating inequalities in development. Structural adjustment programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank, although initially designed to stabilise economies, often had negative social effects, increasing poverty and inequality. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 also had significant consequences for international relations. With the end of the Cold War, Africa and other developing regions lost their status as ideological battlegrounds between the powers of East and West. This led to a decline in the attention and development aid allocated to these regions by the former superpowers, leaving many countries facing development challenges without the international support they had previously received. These factors have combined to widen the development gap between rich and poor countries. Global economic inequalities increased, making it more difficult to combat poverty and eradicate hunger in developing countries. The post-1991 period has therefore been marked by the need to rethink development and international aid strategies in order to respond more effectively to the needs of the most disadvantaged nations.

Despite international efforts to reduce inequalities and development gaps between rich and developing countries, these gaps persist and remain a major challenge in the current global context. According to the latest data, economic disparities between developed and developing countries are still striking. On average, a person living in a developed country has a significantly higher income than a person living in a developing country. This difference can be illustrated by the fact that an individual in a developed country is often around 10 times richer than his or her counterpart in a developing country. These inequalities are not limited to differences between countries, but also exist within developing countries themselves. In many developing countries, there are considerable economic and social disparities between different regions and different social groups. These internal inequalities are often exacerbated by factors such as unequal access to resources, education, healthcare and economic opportunities. Prosperous urban regions can coexist with rural areas where poverty and lack of infrastructure are still pervasive problems. The persistence of these gaps and inequalities underlines the complexity of the development challenges and the need for comprehensive and integrated approaches to address them. It is essential to focus efforts not only on economic growth but also on the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities to ensure sustainable and inclusive development. This means tackling the root causes of inequality and implementing policies that promote equal opportunities for all, regardless of their place of birth, economic status or social background.

Africa, as a continent, has faced many challenges in its development journey over recent decades. Despite abundant natural resources and considerable human potential, many African countries continue to struggle with high levels of poverty, undernourishment and stagnant or insufficient economic growth. Poverty in Africa manifests itself in high rates of material deprivation, limited access to basic services such as education and healthcare, and precarious living conditions. According to the World Bank, a large number of African countries are among the poorest in the world in terms of per capita income. In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that undernourishment and malnutrition remain major problems in several regions of the continent. Development efforts and international aid programmes in Africa have produced mixed results. Although there has been progress in some areas, such as increasing school enrolment rates and improving certain health indicators, the overall pace of development has been uneven and insufficient to overcome deep-rooted structural challenges. Aid programmes have often been criticised for their lack of effectiveness, their inability to respond to the specific needs of local communities, and their over-reliance on donor rather than recipient priorities. Reducing development gaps and improving living conditions in Africa requires a multidimensional and integrated approach. This implies investment in education, infrastructure, health and sustainable economic development, as well as effective and transparent governance. In addition, it is crucial to foster the autonomy and capacity of African communities and nations to lead their own development, by focusing on solutions adapted to local contexts and strengthening the participation of citizens in decision-making processes.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s marked a decisive turning point in world history. This event brought about a profound change in the global economic and political order, with the transition from a bipolar world to a system dominated by the capitalist market economy. This transition accelerated the process of economic globalisation, characterised by an increase in world trade and capital flows, as well as closer economic and financial integration between nations. However, this move towards a unified global economic system has not led to uniform economic and social conditions across the world. Indeed, economic inequalities, both between nations and within countries, have persisted and, in many cases, even increased. For example, while global GDP has grown considerably since the 1990s, reflecting global economic growth, the benefits of this growth have not been distributed equitably. Developed countries have often benefited more from globalisation, while many developing countries have faced persistent challenges in terms of poverty, limited access to global markets and technology, and vulnerability to economic and financial crises.

Within countries themselves, income inequalities have widened in many parts of the world. For example, in countries such as the United States and China, the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic ladder has increased, with a growing share of income and wealth held by a small elite. This concentration of wealth has been accompanied by stagnating or falling incomes for the middle and lower classes in many countries, exacerbating social and economic disparities. Although the post-Cold War period has seen unprecedented economic expansion and globalisation, it has also been marked by the persistence and deepening of economic inequalities. These inequalities, both between countries and within nations, underline the need for more inclusive and equitable economic and development policies to ensure a fairer distribution of the benefits of global economic growth.

The dynamics of international relations have changed considerably since the end of the Cold War, marking a shift from a bipolar world to a more multipolar world order. The United States, despite maintaining its status as a superpower, is facing the emergence of new influential players who are redefining the global balance of power. The United States, with a GDP of over 20 trillion dollars and military spending in excess of 700 billion dollars annually, remains the world's leading economic and military power. Its influence also extends to culture and technology, where it continues to dominate. However, the rise of China is one of the most significant developments of recent decades. With a GDP approaching 14 trillion dollars, China has become the world's second largest economy and a central player in international trade and investment. Its "Belt and Road" initiative represents an investment of several billion dollars aimed at strengthening its economic links with various regions of the world. India, with a population of over 1.3 billion and a steadily growing GDP, is also establishing itself as a major economic and political player. Latin American and Asian countries such as Brazil and South Korea are also growing in influence, thanks to their expanding economies and active participation in international forums.

Global issues such as climate change and international security require multilateral cooperation. Climate change, for example, is at the centre of global concerns, as demonstrated by the Paris Agreement signed by 196 parties in 2015. Migration and regional conflicts continue to influence foreign policy and international relations, requiring coordinated responses across national borders. The current international landscape is characterised by a more distributed balance of power and increased complexity. The dominance of the United States is now being challenged by the emergence of other economic and political powers, and global challenges require collaborative and multilateral solutions. This new era of international relations calls for agile diplomacy and an inclusive approach to navigating a rapidly changing, interconnected world.

The challenges facing Third World countries in the new world order

Over the last few decades, developing countries have made significant progress in terms of health and education indicators, such as life expectancy and illiteracy rates. These improvements reflect the positive impact of development initiatives and targeted public policies. In terms of life expectancy, there has been a marked increase in many developing countries. According to World Bank data, life expectancy in low-income countries has risen from around 40 years in the 1960s to over 60 years today. This increase is attributable to advances in health care, notably increased access to medical services, vaccination campaigns and improved nutrition. As far as education is concerned, UNESCO has reported a significant reduction in the illiteracy rate worldwide. For example, the adult illiteracy rate has fallen significantly, from 22% in 2000 to around 14% in 2016. This improvement is largely due to increased investment in primary and secondary education, as well as initiatives such as Education for All.

However, despite this progress, economic and social inequalities remain a cause for concern. Income disparities remain high both globally and within countries. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reports that the richest 20% of the world's population hold over 70% of the world's income. This inequality is also evident within developing countries, where the gaps between urban and rural areas, as well as regional disparities, remain significant. In addition, economic and financial crises often have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations in developing countries. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, led to an increase in poverty and a slowdown in economic growth in several regions. These crises highlight the need to strengthen economic resilience and put in place effective social safety nets.

To continue to improve living conditions in developing countries, it is crucial to maintain the focus on inclusive and sustainable policies. This means continued investment in key areas such as health, education and infrastructure, as well as efforts to reduce inequalities and promote equitable economic development. International collaboration and commitment to development aid remain essential to support these efforts and ensure a better future for people in developing countries.