El desarrollo más allá de lo instrumental

Artículo de opinión por: David Ricardo Murcia* (dmurcias@gmail.com) 

Estudiante de Ciencias Políticas, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

Desarrollo en sí es un concepto que denota instrumentalidad, pues representa un vector: en principio se utilizó en la biología para designar el proceso durante el cual un ser vivo nace, se reproduce y muere. Después el concepto fue tomado por las diferentes ciencias, incluso las sociales (allí en especial después en especial con la Ilustración) donde significó el proceso de evolución de la esencia de una persona, si lo miramos desde una perspectiva teológica o psicológica, o refiriéndose al proceso de organización y mejora de la estructura social de una agrupación sin importar su tamaño, para antropólogos, sociólogos o economistas. 

Sin embargo, en esta trasferencia metafórica-analógica de significado (lo primero, en la comparación del desarrollo de una ser viviente con el desarrollo de cualquiera otra cosa y lo segundo, al utilizarlo en muchas ciencia de manera similar a como en su nicho original) el contexto y la especificidad de lo connotado adolece de obscuridad y polémica. Lo primero es explicado por Chaïm Perelman: algunos conceptos (se puede especificar los conceptos sociales o políticos) son útiles en tanto carecen de una textura definitiva, id est: los concepto sociales no poseen un significado eterno desde el momento en que se postulan, sino que continuamente van cambiando según los cambios correlativos de la estructura social a la que son serviles (Cfr. Perelman, 1958). Por otro, lado Galie sostiene que existen ciertos conceptos que en sí mismos no puede llegar a ser definidos inequívocamente, pues en todo momento en que una definición pretensora intenta imponerse se encuentra con muchas otras que se lo impiden, pues todas tiene igual validez ya que cada una defiende una postura social diferente, el caso tal vez más claro del filósofo inglés sea el de la lucha entre las órdenes católicas por la definición de vida cristiana (Galie, 1998).

Se puede entonces decir que desarrollo, en tanto concepto social, cumple con estas dos características, pues como José Medina Echavarría indica (Vid. Medina, 1976) los diferentes pueblos a lo largo del tiempo van definiendo su propio interés o dirección de desarrollo, como ya habíamos mencionado el concepto implica vector, aunque en ocasiones la mayoría de las intenciones de desarrollo local o regional se vean sepultadas por la hegemonía de los proyectos de actores más poderosos. Pero lo anterior no nos puede llevar a descalificar moralmente a las posturas que han conseguido triunfar, se puede pensar que la hegemonía es resultado de diferentes procesos históricos y se debe recordar que la historia nos demuestra que estas son finitas y mutables, en lo cual Medina concordaría (Vid. Medina, 1976).

Lo importante, y a lo que esta columna quiere llegar, es a la importancia de saber que al hablar de desarrollo se tiene que tener la conciencia de sobre qué tipo de desarrollo se versa: en ello se implica el reconocimiento de haber apostado por una concepción que se ve respaldada por un contexto social y humano mucho más complejo que lo que se diga que es el punto de llegada del proceso de desarrollo. Pues de lo contrario podríamos caer en el error de pensar que desarrollo es mera técnica de ingeniería social y no un compromiso con una concepción espiritual del mundo; ya que nos desarrollamos hacia lo que creemos que es deseable.

Bibliografía

Perelman, CH y Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1989). Tratado de la argumentación. La nueva retórica. (J. Sevilla Muños). Madird, España: Gredos. (El trabajo original fue publicado en 1958).

Gallie, W. B. (1998). Conceptos esencialmente impugnados. (G. Ortiz Milán, Trad.). México D. F., México: Universidad Autónoma de México. (El trabajo original fue publicado en 1965-1966).

Medina, E. (1976). Latin America in the possible scenarios of Détente. CEPAL REVIEW, second half of 1976, 9-92.

Latin America’s paradox: Development

Opinion Article by: Estefanía Tirado* (etirado2@eafit.edu.co)
*Economics and International Business Student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia.


For the last couple of decades the world has seen Latin American economies, such as Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Panama and Costa Rica, emerge not only trough a major involvement in global trade, but also in the establishment of a national industry, what under a superficial judgment would be considered as an increase on the entire population’s welfare. 

Despite the rapid economic growth, about 80 million people are still living in extreme poverty - half of them in Brazil and Mexico - while a further 40% are at risk of returning to poverty in the event of an economic crisis or because of the effects of climate change in the region (World Bank, 2013). Taking this into account, there is clear evidence that development has not been inclusive and there is a huge portion of the population that does not perceive the benefits of the modern and global economy. 

One of the main causes of this trend of exclusive development has been the extremely low rate of capital accumulation and productivity that has characterized most of the countries in the region. The low rate of accumulation is explained by the misallocation of the resources gained by the growth countries have had until now. There has been a huge portion of these gains directed to consumption, what has made productivity to suffer, employment to decline, and moreover has not strengthened the industrial capacity of the economies. 

In order to recover the rate of capital accumulation and therefore generate a future economic growth that would actually benefit a large portion of society, as more jobs and technology would be available, it is necessary to reduce the rate of consumption, and although making this reduction is the most feasible solution, as it involves no debt, carrying it out has huge social and political challenges. In a context of such a great level of inequality it would be very hard to determine which social groups will have to participate more intensely, and as in Latin American democracies private interests have great influence on political decisions, and applying the policy to the most marginalized portion of society would elevate even more the difference in life quality, there is a conflict of interests goverments have to face and overcome by thinking what would generate the most welfare for the entire society. 

To sum up, it is time for Latin American countries to start thinking about the future and tackle long-term challenges to overcome the paradox and make development a positive process for the entire population. 

References

World Bank (2013). Cae la desigualdad en América Latina, aunque persisten desafíos para lograr una prosperidad compartida. Available online at:  http://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/feature/2013/06/14/latin-america-inequality-shared-prosperity

Prebisch, Raul(1981). Raul Prebisch on Latin American Development. Available online at:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972587 .

International Institutions in a structural crisis

Opinion article by: Carolina Herrera Cano* (caroherca@gmail.com)
International Business student at Universidad EAFIT

The development concept is one that has drastically changed through the years, different social movements and regulations have shaped its meaning and the way in which governments act in its favor. Raúl Prebisch, founder Secretary General to the UNCTAD defined a structural crisis the global economy was facing in 1981 as a result from the accelerated growth in production that created inequality, poverty, and pollution (Prebisch, 1981). The political and economic scenario has changed since the Cold War period, as the bipolar balance of power was reconsidered, but even if some of the development dynamics remain: the disadvantaged conditions of developing countries (what he calls periphery), and its contrast with the levels of consumption in developed nations suggests the existence of a structural crisis, the emergence of some international actors that are modifying how the global system functions is undeniable.

The context of the 2008 Great Recession is an evidence of this structural problem, the market imperfections that created the financial and economic crisis were described by Prebisch about twenty years before the depression: “Two centuries of belief in the regulatory virtues of the forces of the market have caused us to lose sight of the ethics of development...” (Prebisch, 1981, 568). But as it was mentioned before, there are some actors that have become more important no matter the system stagnation. This is the case of the international institutions that respond to the need of collective decision construction at the national and international levels, also proposed by Raúl Prebisch (Prebisch, 1981).

The emergence of international organisms has created an institutional framework legitimated by different countries because of its capacity for action. The role of the WTO (founded in 1995) is an evidence of this trend, in its Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade convened by Pascal Lamy, Director-General, it is highlighted “the role of trade in contributing to sustainable development, growth, jobs and poverty alleviation”(WTO, 2013). And it also agrees with Prebisch’s proposal: “the challenge is to construct coherent national and international policy frameworks that deliver inclusive growth” (Prebisch, 1981).

At a national level, Colombian government has lately organized its development agenda in an international basis. Last month the OECD Council accepted the roadmap for the accession of Colombia to the OECD Convention; this organism promotes good practices towards a better society, and has evaluated Colombia in areas of health, education, environment, trade, investment and fight against corruption (Correa C, 2013). This is a great possibility for Colombia to be part of those international actors that seek a better global system. Despite the criticism about the actual effectiveness of these organisms, it is important to highlight the increasing power they are gaining in the global context, the gap between developed and developing countries is truly a structural problem, but a joint development agenda is an effort to increase possibilities for the least developed nations.

References

Correa C, J. (2013). En un mes comienza la adhesión de Colombia a Ocde. Available in: http://www.portafolio.co/economia/adhesion-colombia-la-ocde. [October 10th, 2013].

Presbisch, R. (1981). Raúl Presbisch on Latin American development. On Population and Development Review, 7, 3, 563-568.

World Trade Organization. (2013). The future of trade: The Challenges of Convergence, Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade. Geneva: OMC.

Taking challenges: Absorbing economic benefits derived from trade and raising living standards.

Opinion article by: Catalina Tamayo Posada*(catalinatamayop1@gmail.com)
Economics student at EAFIT University, Medellin-Colombia.

The world, as it is today, is constantly changing in a scarcely imaginable way. New countries are economically emerging and they are changing all the structure of power in the world. An increase in the economical field should suppose an increase in the living standards of the societies. But, as some would argue, it has not been possible because of trade. But, is it?

Trade is a powerful weapon which can be extremely useful for a nation or it can actually destroy it. On the one hand, trade is a main factor in the search of new technologies; this is because companies do not want to be left behind and as a consequence they can increase their productivity. It can also be seen as an opportunity to specialize on what the country is good at, making it competitive in international markets. Adam Smith, the father of the economy, to this concern stated that “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage”(1776).

But, on the other hand, trade is growing and so is inequality. Most of the people are likely to blame trade for this problem, although trade is not the most important fact. “In general, technological change is found to be an important driver of inequality. It is also the case of other aspects of globalization like migration, FDI and other international capital flows contribute to increased inequality” (WTO, 2013:13).

Furthermore, trade must be followed by exceptionally well-design and coherent policies that lead towards sustainable development. Not to mention the need of a proper administration, free of corruption and focused on growing the living standards; the obligation to reinforce the institutions so that they can optimize all kinds of resources, economic and human resources, in order to make a more efficient and adequate distribution of the incomes resulting in the decrease of unemployment rates and therefore reducing the inequality. From a wider perspective, all of these effects, for the country, could be translated in economic growth, competitiveness, increases in FDI and sustainable development.

However, “Poor countries will usually need to create a range of other conditions before they can benefit from trade. Even the best conceivable trade policies aimed at reaping the benefits from trade are likely to be ineffective if unaccompanied by productive capacity and adequate infrastructure”. (The future of Trade, 2013:12). This means that it takes a huge effort to try to move forward and it also shows us that trade and investment go together and rely on each other.

Briefly, several challenges must be taken in order to truly get the benefits from trade and therefore eradicate poverty and raise living standards of the societies. This has been proved by the emerging economies.

References:

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html

World Trade Organization (WTO). (2013). The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence. Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade.

Colombia: Los beneficios del comercio y su influencia en el desarrollo

Artículo de Opinión por Juan Gonzalo Perez* (jperezg@eafit.edu.co)
* Estudiante de Negocios Internacionales, Universidad EAFIT, Medellín, Colombia

En las últimas dos décadas Colombia ha orientado su política comercial en la firma de tratados de libre comercio (TLCs) buscando incrementar los intercambios comerciales para fomentar el crecimiento económico y el desarrollo del país. En la actualidad Colombia tiene acceso a mercados en más de 30 países y ha firmado alrededor de 10 tratados de libre comercio incluyendo con Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Corea del Sur, sin embargo, ¿Cuáles son los beneficios del incremento en el comercio y como este influye en el desarrollo del país?

De acuerdo con el reporte “El futuro del comercio: los retos de la convergencia”, presentado por Pascal Lamy, Ex Director de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), el comercio es parte de un círculo virtuoso de crecimiento y mejoramiento de oportunidades. La apertura de mercados permite que los consumidores tengan más acceso a productos y servicios a mejores precios. Así mismo, la importación de productos promueve la innovación de las empresas nacionales y exige el mejoramiento de las instituciones y las regulaciones del país (OMC, 2013).

Con base en estadísticas del 2008 al 2012 del DANE, los intercambios comerciales en Colombia se han incrementado de forma significativa. Las importaciones han crecido en un 67% mientras las exportaciones corresponden a un 62%. Los beneficios del crecimiento en el comercio se logran percibir desde el punto de vista del consumidor de clase media y alta, ya que puede acceder a una gran variedad de productos y servicios a precios más asequibles. El problema se presenta en que los productores nacionales en su mayoría no son competitivos en mercados internacionales, esto debido a la falta de innovación, regulaciones para proteger sus industrias frente a productos importados, apoyo institucional, y creación de valor agregado. Con base en lo anterior, es preciso decir que los beneficios del crecimiento del comercio no se están viendo reflejados en el mejoramiento de la industria pero parece ser que ha fomentado el desarrollo del país (DANE, 2013).

Según el reporte presentado por la OMC, ninguna nación se ha desarrollado y crecido sin los beneficios del comercio ya que son muchos los factores que determinan cuando y como el comercio puede tener los efectos beneficiosos. Además, los beneficios del comercio dependen del estado de desarrollo de los países. (OMC, 2013) Colombia es considerado un país en desarrollo, su ingreso per cápita, según base en cifras del DANE 2013, es de $6´151,668 pesos anuales, lo que equivale a un ingreso mensual de $512,539 pesos. Igualmente, la economía del país se considera estable con un crecimiento promedio, según Banco de la Republica, del 4,9% en los últimos tres años.

Por consiguiente, se podría considerar que Colombia puede aprovechar el intercambio comercio para acelerar su crecimiento, ya que se extiende el mercado de productos locales como también asegura mejores prácticas de producción y oportunidades de consumo (OMC, 2013).

En resumidas cuentas el reto está en que el país debe alinear los recursos y las actividades con las fortalezas relativas y comenzar a exportar con base en la especialización en sectores. Ahora, según la OMC, para que Colombia pueda beneficiarse verdaderamente del comercio debe buscar apoyo externo para la construcción de capacidad productiva, infraestructura y desarrollo de políticas e instituciones incluyendo sistemas sociales que permitan la inclusión y la redistribución de la riqueza.

Referencias:

World Trade Organization (2013). The future of trade: The Challenges of Convergence, Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade. Ginebra: OMC.

DANE (2013). Anexos estadísticos Colombia. Bogotá: DANE.

Bando de la República (2013). Informe de la Junta Directiva al Congreso de la República. Bogotá.

The impact of trade on development

Opinion article by: Manuela Ramírez Cárdenas (mramir67@eafit.edu.co) *
International Business and Political Science Student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

After the Director-General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, suggested at the organization’s 8th Ministerial Conference in 2011 the importance of the discussion of the world economy and trade related issues by the WTO and members of the multilateral trade system, the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade was created in 2012.

The panel met officially three times and held several meeting with different stakeholders to discuss issues such as the transformations of the world economy, the challenges of global trade opening during the 21st century, trade patterns, the current and future drivers of trade, and how trade can contribute to economic growth, sustainable development, poverty relief and job creation. The report of the panel titled The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence was published earlier in 2013..

There are several aspects that are important to highlight about this report. The first one is that trade is without a doubt a positive practice that if implemented well can lead to growth, sustainable development, cooperation among states, and can have a direct positive impact on civil society. However, there is also the indisputable fact that some developing countries, since the opening of trade, have been negatively impacted and the gap of inequality between the rich and the poor grows wider every day.

The root of that problem is not trade itself; it is the fact that some developing countries lack certain conditions that are fundamental if a country wants to take advantage of the benefits of trade, among them: infrastructure, an educated population that can adapt to the changes and needs of the labor market, access to electricity, etc. Also, these countries face several local challenges, the first being that in most cases the local economy and industry is often precarious, and when faced with competitors that have a strong economic and productive system, then the outcome will unsurprisingly be negative. Additionally, some of these countries are plagued by corruption and governments that apply short-term policies that won´t be efficient in the long-term.

In the global scenario of open trade, the actions of governments become fundamental for a country that seeks to take advantage of the benefits offered by the multilateral trade system. Governments must create long term policies (perhaps adapt strategies that have been successful for other countries) that will allow them to create capacity building, educational opportunities, job creation, infrastructure, but most importantly they must implement policies that will allow them to develop locally first, so they can eventually become competitive in the global market and hopefully alleviate poverty and improve the living standards of the civil society.

Reference:

World Trade Organization. (2013). The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence. Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade.

Preferential Trade Agreements: Benefits and Risks

Opinion article by: Manuela Ramírez Cardenas* (mramir67@eafit.edu.co)
International Business and Political Sciences student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

The World Trade Organization’s report on the Future ofTrade (2013)  states that one of the dominant policy trends regarding that issue is the rising number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). A PTA is an agreement between two or more countries, where they pact to reduce tariffs on specific goods during trade with one another. As stated in the report, there are currently an estimated 300 PTAs in operation, while several others are in negotiation; almost half of them are cross regional, two thirds are between developing and developed countries, and half of them are bilateral.

According to the WTO, preferential trade agreements offer several advantages that benefit not only their signatories but also other countries by the promotion of growth. PTA’s also facilitate a deeper integration at a multilateral level, are often more time efficient, and can reach consensus more easily between countries, a process that is otherwise difficult and time consuming at the WTO.

Not only that, but PTAs can have a positive impact in a country not purely in an economic sense. Other aspects of civil life can also benefit from them, ranging from issues such as the regulation of the environment to the protection of the labor force, for example: Professor Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, PhD, found that the commitment to PTA’s with hard human rights standards could effectively help reduce government repression and lead to better practices, as a state that participates in this type of agreement must comply with some basic international human rights principles.

Although the increasing number of PTAs is a trend that probably won’t slow down in the upcoming years, and that the benefits of this type of agreements cannot be denied, it is important to understand that there are risks inherent to them. According to the report, PTAs can have a negative impact as they might increase trade costs, lead to the segmentation of the economy due to regulatory divergence, they can be exclusionary as they might ignore smaller countries in a discriminatory way, they could fracture trade relations and ultimately they could corrupt the non-discriminating principle that is a core principle of the WTO.

To actually take advantage of the possible benefits of PTAs, the WTO recommends their members to engage in the exploration and ways of consolidation of PTAs within a multilateral trading system. By consolidating PTAS within the multilateral trading system, it is possible to regulate these types of agreements, mitigate the risks inherent to them and prevent the use of discriminatory practices regarding the exercise of trade.

References

World Trade Organization. (2013). The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence. Report of the Panelon Defining the Future of Trade.

Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. (2005). Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation, 59 (3), 593-629.

Global Trade as a lever for growth and employment

Opinion article by: Nathalia Rios Ballesteros* (nriosba@eafit.edu.co)
Economics student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

According to the European Commission (2010) in the past few years, global trade has expanded rapidly. From the late 1990s until now, the value of world merchandise trade grew by 73%. This growth has been mainly driven by growth in incomes and demand, falling in transport and communication costs, significant increases in foreign direct investment (FDI) in emerging market economies, improvements in efficient economic policies along with the implementation of trade policies and reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers without ignoring the increasing competitive pressures that drive the search and pace of innovation and the implementation of costcutting, outsourcing and economies of scale in many industries.

In this context, although it is difficult to make general statements about the impact of trade opening and its growth per se; trade should not be considered in isolation from national, international and global realities. In this sense, one can establish that “trade growth is not pursued for its own sake”[1]; it brings along a triple major benefit for the ongoing country: more economic growth; greater consumer welfare translated into higher incomes and lower prices of goods and increased in employment conditions – greater and better-paid jobs-.

As a matter of fact, U.S is the world's largest economy and the largest exporter and importer of goods and services nowadays, which implies an active and relevant role of trade as an important engine for its economic growth and employment market -considering that more than 30 percent of U.S. GDP is tied to international trade and investment, and more than one in five U.S. jobs are supported by trade according to the Trade Benefits America Coalition (2013)-. This is the reason why U.S. engagement in the international marketplace today, is more important to this nation’s economy than ever before, exhibiting and showing the key role that trade plays in the economic current situation of countries worldwide.

Moreover, trade openness stands as an important lever that lift developing countries out of poverty allowing them to reap and reproduce the benefits of globalization into their own economies, taking into account the strong increase in the share of this economies in the international trade flow . This rapid economic rise and increasing involvement in global trade of these emerging market economies -especially major performers such as the BRIC members- has made enormous contributions to growth, development and prosperity within these economies. As part of a comprehensive set of policies and internal circumstances, it has helped to lift millions out of poverty and spread the benefits of higher living standards through lower living costs. It has brought nations closer together, fostering mutual understanding and promoting world peace while equipping the involved countries with the necessary tools to meet the challenges carried along with the hazard of this economic activity; challenges towards jobless growth management, high unemployment, poverty, unequal distribution and allocation of resources, environment and sustainable development, and the role of trade routes as well as investment decisions in this context.

For all the above, and considering today’s climate of “weak economic recovery, high unemployment and pressure on public finances”[2], one of the effective solutions that governments might adopt to boost growth and employment could be to foster global trade thus keeping global markets open; which provides two important implications; a result and a challenge for the involved country. The result: better economic performance -trade and market openness becomes a more prevailing tool for generating better quality jobs and boosting the much-needed growth-; the challenge: to construct coherent national and international policy frameworks that seek and drive towards inclusive growth of trade among countries because “it is their design, not their absence, that makes the difference”[3].

References

European Commission. (2010). Trade as a driver of prosperity. Recuperado el 20 de 09 de 2013, de http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/november/tradoc_146940.pdf

OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate (TAD). (Mayo de 2012). Better policies for better lives. Recuperado el 17 de Septiembre de 2013, de http://www.oecd.org/tad/tradedev/50447052.pdf

Trade benefits America Coalition. (2013). Trade benefits America|. Recuperado el 20 de 09 de 2013, de http://tradebenefitsamerica.org/contact

World Trade Organization (WTO). (2013). The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence. Report of the Panel on Defining the Future of Trade.

---

[1] European Commission (2010)

[2] (OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate (TAD), 2012)

[3] (World Trade Organization (WTO), 2013)

Políticas de desarrollo ante las demandas de la opinión pública

Artículo de opinión por: Carolina Herrera Cano (caroherca@gmail.com) y David Ricardo Murcia Sanchez (dmurcias@gmail.com)
Undergraduate students at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

El conflicto armado que vive Colombia ha ganado especial protagonismo en la prensa durante los últimos meses, en gran parte debido a las discusiones que suscitan las alternativas pacíficas de la nueva política de gobierno. Las mesas de negociación de La Habana pretenden tener en cuenta los intereses de cada uno de los actores del conflicto, sin embargo no es posible pretender una plena convergencia entre las demandas de cada una de las partes.
Los principios democráticos de las sociedades de hoy han modificado fuertemente la manera en la que funcionan los Estados, es este el caso de la importancia que han ganado los medios de comunicación por la capacidad que éstos tienen de promover movilizaciones sociales. Es por esto que la opinión pública en Colombia se debate entre la crítica y el incentivo de las promesas de reparación y amnistías en el marco de los diálogos de paz. Sin embargo, ante esta indudable divergencia de propuestas por parte de los diferentes actores de la sociedad civil, hay un deseo en común al parecer innegable: el fin del conflicto armado.
El peligro que nace ante este panorama no es la confrontación de ideas como tal, sino la manera como ésta puede influir las decisiones del gobierno: en un territorio marcado por prácticas populistas, una verdadera política de Estado dirigida hacia el objetivo común se ve amenazada por sus intentos de atender las demandas meramente coyunturales de la nación. Un contraejemplo válido en este punto es la gestión realizada por el presidente Juan Manuel Santos en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, donde buscó legitimar internacionalmente su política de gobierno a pesar de las fuertes críticas que ha recibido por parte de la opinión pública nacional.
El anterior argumento es el respaldo necesario para la hipótesis de esta columna: antes de prestar atención a la opinión pública y tratar de complacerla, en su pluralidad de presentaciones, un Estado debe tomar una perspectiva tecnocrática para la construcción de una política de desarrollo verdaderamente efectiva -para este caso el logro del fin del conflicto-. Lo anterior puede ser entendido como una de las interpretaciones pesimistas de Schumpeter, donde el pueblo en general se ve dominado por la dictadura de los que saben gobernar, debido a la incapacidad del pueblo, como multitud, de decidir (Bovero, 2002) cuál es la mejor opción para el desarrollo de su sociedad. Sin importar si esta es una interpretación correcta de Schumpeter, el panorama sombrío que presenta, hace preciso matizar: ignorar la opinión pública no significa relegar el bienestar del pueblo, sino no dejarse llevar por la volubilidad y efervescencia de los deseos de sus habitantes a la hora de tomar decisiones para la consecución de lo que todos quieren, pero que no se ponen de acuerdo en cómo. De ahí, que se plantee la conveniencia de manejar el desarrollo de los países desde un la técnica, pero no sólo con base en análisis econométricos, como podría pensarse, este grupo de técnicos requiere nutrirse, además, de la sabiduría de las ciencias sociales para lograr un acercamiento, lo más preciso posible, a las necesidades de la nación.
Otra consideración pertinente para refrendar esta hipótesis es que, sumado a la separación y tecnificación de los gestores de política, no puede dejarse de lado la conciencia del orden social. Ninguna política pública, si quiere ser exitosa, puede alterar de manera súbita el orden social que le precede. Es por esto que se planteó con anterioridad que la separación entre el gobierno y el pueblo debe ser prudente, pues si el pueblo perdiese identificación con la parte propiamente política de un Estado, éste perdería legitimidad y no podría gobernar (Vid. Schmitt, 2004), ni implementar sus políticas por muy técnicamente formuladas que estén. En este sentido, es vital no sólo la conciencia de la estructura social de un pueblo desde un institucionalismo economicista, sino también sus relaciones políticas en un sentido antropológico y sociológico .
El difícil contexto social que el Estado colombiano tiene que sortear le dificulta la implementación de políticas para estimular el desarrollo, pues en su formulación no sólo tiene que asegurarse de cumplir con su objetivo principal: facilitar el desarrollo, sino que debe, además, afrontar problemas como la fragmentación de la población, la presencia de cárteles de droga y la pronunciada debilidad de las instituciones gubernamentales, al tiempo que se ocupa de satisfacer a la opinión pública. En este sentido, los esfuerzos del Estado deberían estar centrados en brindar un contexto económico y político estable, que promueva actividades económicas, alternativas a la extracción de materia prima, que generen desarrollo sostenible e incluyente (UNCTAD, 2013), en lugar de tratar de complacer a la mayoría de los segmentos de la población (posiblemente con fines electorales) en sus demandas inmediatistas. La combinación de técnica y espíritu político puede brindar el mayor rédito a la hora de pensar en el desarrollo de un pueblo.

Referencias

UNCTAD. (2013). World Invesment Report 2013.
Michelangelo Bovero (2002) Una gramática de la democracia. Contra el gobierno de los peores. Madrid, Trotta.
Schmitt, C. (2004). El concepto de lo político (E. Molina y Vedia y R. Crisafio, Trads.). En H. Orestes Aguilar (Comp.) Carl Schmitt, Teólogo de la política (pp.167-223). (El trabajo original fue publicado en 1939)

Value Chain and Entrepreneurs: causality or correlation?

Opinion article by Nathalia Rios Ballesteros* (nriosba@eafit.edu.co)

Economics student at Universidad EAFIT

In colloquial sense, entrepreneurship is usually associated with starting a business, but strictly, this definition and application goes much further and hides behind its words, a wide history and conceptual interpretation of it. The term “entrepreneur” derives its origin from French economists who first introduced the term in the 18th century. According to the Oxford Dictionary, it comes from the French word “entreprendre” which means someone who “undertakes” or “carry out” a significant project or activity. More specifically, it appeals to describe the daring individuals who stimulate economic progress by finding new and better ways of doing things. The French economist most commonly linked and credited for giving the term this particular meaning is Jean Baptiste Say. By the 19th century, Say stated; “The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield”[1]. In brief, entrepreneurs create value.

Along with this “economic conception” of entrepreneurs, Joseph Schumpeter based his definition affirming that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform, change or modify the production pattern through various ways: “by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on.”[2] In a nutshell, Schumpeter’s entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy.

Following this theoretical conceptions, arise the notion of value chain, which along with entrepreneurs are responsible for creating value. Regarding this, entrepreneurship and innovation cannot be fully understood without a proper understanding of the position and behavior of entrepreneurs in the value chain. Although entrepreneurship involves changes, transformations and improvements in products or services, entrepreneurial opportunities can, in fact, occur as a result of changes in a variety of parts of the value chain, thus raising the value generated by entrepreneurs. In this sense, the entrepreneur’s idea, then, may span several parts of an industry’s through the value chain; entrepreneurs are key for spreading success throughout the value chains which indicates that the presence of entrepreneurship may involve a better outcome obtained through the implementation of value chains.

"Entrepreneur" in this sense may result as an strategic element for; identifying, evaluating and exploiting undiscovered or new business opportunities; for revitalizing, energizing or renewing existing organizations in response to the perceived opportunity and for boosting the economy-innovation, competition, creation of employment through the creation of additional and new value and thus, in sum improving the general welfare of society.

---

[1] (Say, (1803, tr. from the 4th ed. 1821))

[2] (Schumpeter, 1911)

Global value chains: Emerging opportunity for developing countries

Opinion Article by: Estefanía Tirado * (etirado2@eafit.edu.co)
*Economics and International Business Student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia.

During the last couple of decades the world has experienced a trade phenomenon that consist in the expansion of the production networks between affiliates and partners all over the globe. This process has been led especially by multinational companies that seek for better production costs, better access to the necessary production inputs, diversification of risks, access to certain specialized services and between other interest, looking for tax benefits.

Though sometimes this phenomenon is considered as an opportunity for multinational enterprises to overexploit at a low cost developing countries’ human and physical resources, there is an undeniable great contribution of this process, and it has been the redistribution of value added that had been generated by developed economies for a large number of decades. Despite the fact that an amount of value is allocated within the local economy just by the establishment of an international company in the national territory, it is not enough, and the challenge comes at maximizing the percentage of value kept, taking advantage of the real technological transference and becoming conscious of the exhaustibility of natural resources so new non-extractive economic activities can emerge. By doing this, a tangible opportunity comes for developing countries to join the global production chain and generate value added, that with fair redistributive mechanisms, would have a positive impact on peoples’ welfare.
Taking into account that 60% of global trade consists in the exchange of intermediate goods and services (UNCTAD, 2013), and they are being incorporated everyday, in several parts of the world, into the final service or product, this is a massive opportunity for developing countries to integrate trade benefits into the local economies. There would be not only an increase in the number of people employed, but also, as technological transference occurs, both capital and human resources will have a higher marginal productivity, what would elevate the entire economy’s productivity and will end up in more product per capita.

Although it sounds like an extremely palpable opportunity, there are certain factors that must be taking into consideration before a country can boost development by embracing global value chains. Policies of social contribution by foreign companies, concise redistributive mechanisms and building productive capacity through educational programs that train the labor force for the technological absorption, are key factors for maximizing benefits of this kind of trade. If policymakers have this in their minds, the country's integration in global trade will be more than successful, and most importantly it will have a positive impact on the population’s welfare.

Reference:

UNCTAD. (2013). World Investment Report 2013. UNCTAD. United Nations.

Institutions and entrepreneurs: A team effort towards development

Opinion article by: Estefanía Tirado *. (etirado2@eafit.edu.co)
*Economics and International Business Student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia.

Considering institutions as a mechanism of social character that pursues order and regulation of conduct within a group of individuals and therefore has an influencing power on people’s acts and notions, it is undeniable that it has an impact on diverse areas of the social atmosphere, including people’s capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business, what could be commonly define as entrepreneurship.

The order and regulation institutions pursue are based on the principle of reducing transaction costs, what are commonly defined as the costs incurred in the process of carrying out any transaction and in this case, economic transactions. When a country has inefficient institutions, as has been the case of most Latin-America and the Caribbean, where opening a business takes 52 days, 4.4 times the time it take in the OECD economies (World Bank, 2013), and the time for both importing and exporting takes the double than in OECD economies, there will be an evident disincentive for both local and foreign entrepreneurs to invest and star new projects. 

Taking into account that the corruption index of Transparency International for Latin-American has fluctuated between 3.6 and 3.4,10 being least corrupt (ECLAC, 2013), it is evident that in this region there are not only inefficient institutions, in terms of extremely high bureaucracy, but they are also immersed in a significant level of corruption. When there is such a low level of transparency, it makes it very hard for projects to reach their ultimate goals, so no matter the amount of resources expended in improving infrastructure, education, health or promoting entrepreneurship, as resources are not managed transparently, institutions lose their character and contribute to the underdevelopment of most of these countries.

In this context the beginning of an efficiency program inside institutions, that has the support and commitment of both citizens and government, is necessary to reduce bureaucracy and barriers to entrepreneurship. This process must be accompanied by strict anti-corruption policies that allow the maximum use of resources by the entire population. Upon reaching a level of transparency favorable for the economic activity, the path of entrepreneurs for driving economic development, by the new ventures that add value to the entire economy, would be extremely facilitated. 

The key role of entrepreneurs lies especially in their ability to create new value, and therefore strengthening a country’s economic growth as well as speeding up modernization, what would have an impact in both the amount of people employed and the life quality of individuals. Taking this into account, if institutions give entrepreneurs security and a propitious atmosphere to celebrate their business, both private and public sector will find their way to work together towards the country’s development, but it is extremely important to keep in mind that this can only happen in a society that is structured under principles such as transparency and respect for other individuals’ property.

References:

World Bank (2013). Doing Business 2013. Available online at:
http://espanol.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/colombia/#trading-across-borders

CEPALSTATS (2013). Statistics. Available online at: http://interwp.cepal.org/sisgen/ConsultaIntegradaFlashProc.asp

Transparency International (2013) Corruption Perception Index. Available online at: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

Global Value Chains: Governance and Interventions

Opinion article by: Manuela Ramírez Cardenas (mramir67@eafit.edu.co)*
International Business and Political Sciences student at Universidad EAFIT, Colombia.

UNCTAD’s World Investment Report for 2013 highlights the importance of Global Value Chains as contributors for development, stating that they “have a direct economic impact on value added, jobs and income” (UNCTAD, 2013) as well as providing opportunities to build the productive capability of a country that would give it the chance for long term industrial upgrading. The WIR 2013 also highlights the risk in participating in GVC because countries, specially poorer developing countries, capture only a small share of the value created in the chain as they only participate on the low value added activities, like the supply of natural resources, and they risk remaining locked on those low value added activities without actually upgrading in the long term.

To avoid the risk of remaining on the lower part of the value chain it is important to implement policies that would enable GVC to actually work for development and the improvement of a country’s productive capability, however this is difficult due to the governance of the chain. According to John Humphrey & Hubert Schmitz governance “refers to the inter-firm relationships and institutional mechanisms through which nonmarket coordination of activities in the chain is achieved” (Humphrey & Schmitz, 2001), usually done by firms in developed countries, who are the ones that have the intangible competences– i.e. marketing, R&D, etc.- that are characterized by high barriers of entry and high economic returns that allow them to be located on a higher part of the value chain. Access to those intangible competences is tough due to those high barriers of entry that require investment, so developing countries usually remained locked in tangible activities which must follow the requirements set by the governors of the chain, that is, the developed countries’ firms.

The governors of the chain impose requirements that those on the lower part of the chain must meet in order to participate in it, and often developing countries are expected to comply with requirements that do not apply yet to their own domestic market, and this highlights the competitive challenges these countries face, with the possibility of an eventual exclusion in the participation of those markets, and makes it nearly impossible for those countries to implement actual policies that would eventually give them access to a higher value gain in the chain.

In my opinion, if GVC are to be successful tools for development, the governors of the GVC must implement value chain interventions focused on the support for development, not from an economic perspective but instead from a holistic viewpoint, by taking decisions that target the improvement of the quality of the lives of the different actors involved in the value chain and the reduction of poverty.

One of those value chain interventions that could have a positive impact in the reduction of poverty is related to the agricultural sector. There are studies that show that the growth generated by agriculture is more effective in reducing poverty that the growth generated in other sectors (Seville, Buxton, & Vorley, 2011), so it is paramount that developing countries that have a precarious agricultural sector, characterized by the poverty of the small-scale farmers, implement strategies to allow those small-scale farmers and producers to connect to value chains in formal markets to give them opportunities to actually overcome poverty, as it has been theorized that “linking smallholders with well-functioning local or global markets – ranging from local ‘street markets’ to formal global value chains – plays a critical part in long-term strategies to reduce rural poverty and hunger” (Seville, Buxton, & Vorley, 2011). However for countries like Colombia, the process of linking the small-scale farmers to global value chains is complicated, as the agricultural sector in the country has several structural challenges, ranging from lack of adequate infrastructure to lack of skills and training.

References: 

Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2001). Governance in Global Value Chains . Retrieved August 27, 2013, from Institute of development Studies: http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/humphreyschmitz32.3.pdf 

Seville, D., Buxton, A., & Vorley, B. (2011). Under what conditions are value chains effective tools for pro-poor development?. Sustainable Food Lab & The International Institute for Environment and Development . International Institute for Environment and Development/Sustainable Food Lab . 

UNCTAD. (2013). World Investment Report 2013. UNCTAD. United Nations.