Fernando Alcoforado*
“Think outside the box” is an expression from the English. When this expression is used, it is usually referring to the ability to think of non-standard creative solutions for whatever the question is. Engaging in the search for new things, looking at them from another angle, looking for new alternatives that meet the needs is the starting point for thinking outside the box. It was by thinking outside the box that Immanuel Wallerstein broke the paradigm of analysis of the development process by formulating the theory of the world system. Wallerstein defend the thesis that the unit of analysis must be the “world system” and not the nation-state in which the economic, political and socio-cultural spheres are seen as closely connected and not separated, according to the traditional approach. In other words, Wallerstein considers a methodological error to analyze a nation state in isolation from the context of the “world system” to promote its economic and social development. This article aims to demonstrate the need for economic planning in Brazil and in the peripheral and semi-peripheral capitalist countries in general to be carried out based on world system theory.
According to Immanuel Wallerstein, the world economy is governed by a system, the capitalist world-system that is composed of a division between center, periphery and semiperiphery and that emerged in the 16th century at the beginning of the globalization process with the great navigations inaugurated with the discovery of America. The most developed countries in the world belong to the center of the world-system which comprise the organic core of the world capitalist economy, that is, the countries of Western Europe (Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, United United Kingdom and Italy), North America (United States and Canada), Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), Japan and, more recently, China. For Wallerstein, the center is the area of great technological development that produces complex products; the periphery is the area that supplies raw materials, agricultural products and cheap labor for the center. The economic exchange between the periphery and the center is uneven: the periphery has to sell its products cheaply while it buys the center’s products at an expensive price. As for the semiperiphery, it is a region of intermediate development that functions as a center for the periphery and a periphery for the center (WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. The modern world system – Vol. 1, 2, 3. Berkeley and Los Angelis: University of California Press, 2011).
The semiperiphery is characterized by Wallerstein as a structural element necessary for playing a stabilizing role between countries in the international system similar to that of the middle class within the configuration of classes in a country. The semiperiphery would also assume a function, in Arrighi’s words, of “systemic legitimation”, showing Periphery that there is a possibility of mobility within the international division of labor for those who are sufficiently “capable” and / or “well-behaved”. According to Arrighi, the semi-peripheral condition is described as one in which a significant number of national states remain permanently stationed between the central and peripheral conditions, and which, despite having undergone far-reaching social and economic transformations, remains relatively lagging behind in important aspects [ARRIGHI, Giovanni. A ilusão do desenvolvimento (The illusion of development). Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997]. Brazil, for example, is a semi-peripheral country in the capitalist world system as well as Russia.
It can be said that one of the reasons for the failure to promote economic and social development in almost all the peripheral and semi-peripheral countries of the world can be attributed to the fact that the governments of these countries do not think “outside the box” formulating their development process with basically an emphasis on the analysis of the internal factors of each country in the promotion of national development without considering all factors external to the country such as the geopolitical aspects and the dynamics of evolution of the world economy, among others, related to the capitalist world-system. The factors external to the country normally considered in traditional national economic planning are those related to foreign trade and the economies of the countries with which the country relates. The new theoretical framework of analysis of the economic system of a nation in its planning should take into account, therefore, the capitalist world-system proposed by Wallerstein, which is opposed to the method usually adopted that formulates the development of the national economic system in a practically isolated way in relation to the evolution of the capitalist world system (WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. Unthinking Social Science. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
The world-system theory was formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and as its main thinkers André Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi and Theotonio dos Santos, intellectuals linked to the “dependency theory”, who affirm that “dependency” expresses subordination of peripheral and semi-peripheral countries in relation to the central capitalist countries whose economic backwardness was not only the result of their agrarian-exporting condition or their pre-capitalist heritage, but also of their pattern of capitalist development dependent and their subordinate insertion in capitalism worldwide. This is the case in Brazil. Therefore, overcoming the underdevelopment of peripheral and semi-peripheral countries should result from the elimination of their internal factors that hinder their development and an end to external dependence and not just the modernization and industrialization of the economy as recommended, for example, by ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America) in the 1950s. The facts of reality confirm, for example, Brazil’s failure to promote its development in not having eliminated the latifundium and having relied on foreign capital and foreign technology in the country’s industrialization adopted since 1955 with the Juscelino Kubitscheck government and to have deepened this external dependence with the adoption of the neoliberal economic model since 1990.
One fact is evident: the transformation of a peripheral or semi-peripheral capitalist country to the condition of developed is quite difficult to accomplish as demonstrated by Arrighi in his work A ilusão do desenvolvimento (The illusion of development). After the Second World War, Japan and Italy were the only countries that left the condition of semiperipherals to that of members of the core of developed countries and South Korea was the only country on the periphery of the capitalist world-system that evolved into the semi-peripheral condition [ARRIGHI, Giovanni. A ilusão do desenvolvimento (The illusion of development). Petrópolis: Vozes, 1997]. The thesis that prevailed after the Second World War that it would be possible for all peripheral and semi-peripheral nations to reach the high level of development enjoyed by the central capitalist countries, especially by the United States, was not realized with the exception of Japan, South Korea and China, which was a semi-peripheral country in the capitalist world system, and which, since the 1990s, has risen to the status of an integral country in the center of the capitalist world system. From the second half of the twentieth century onwards, there were several attempts to promote economic and social development in several countries in the world that failed, whether in the framework of capitalism with the national developmentalism initiated, for example, in Brazil and those with the implantation of the socialism, such as the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. The situation worsened as from the 1990s when in the vast majority of countries in the world the neoliberal economic model was adopted, with governments abdicating from intervening in the economy, failing to elaborate economic and social development plans as occurred from 1945 to 1990.
It can be said that peripheral and semi-peripheral capitalist countries like Brazil will only promote their development if national governments end their external dependence (economic and technological) on countries central capitalists as did, for example, Japan, South Korea and China in the second half of the 20th century, abandon the neoliberal economic model and eliminate their internal factors restricting development. Realizing the economic and technological rupture in relation to the central capitalist countries does not mean autarkic development, but rather to promote the country’s internal development with selective economic opening in relation to the outside as Japan, South Korea and China did in the 1970s , 1980 and 1990, respectively. The rupture of dependence means active participation of the State in the planning of the national economy aiming at the development of the productive forces of the country and the domestic market, domestic production in substitution for imported and export products, the development of its own technology and the formation of internal savings in the amount necessary to not depend on foreign capital for investment. This strategy would provide for the expansion of the national economy with the generation of sufficient business and jobs to meet the country’s needs, in addition to mitigating the impact of the crises that occur in the world economy.
The drivers of development in the economy of any country are related to: 1) availability of capital as a factor of production; 2) existence of internal and external demand for products or services; 3) presence of internal and external entrepreneurs interested in investing; 4) existence of a competitive industrial structure; 5) presence of a competitive business environment that contributes to the innovation of products and processes; and, 6) existence of a favorable macroeconomic situation. The total or partial absence or non-use of any of these factors can restrict a country’s economic and social development. Brazil, for example, does not fulfill any of these conditions.
The non-availability of capital has caused Brazilian governments to open their economy to attract foreign capital, a fact that contributes to increasing their external dependence. The internal demand for products and services is greatly affected by the stagnation of the economy and by worsening mass unemployment by the new Coronavirus pandemic. Internal and external entrepreneurs interested in investing are in small numbers thanks to the stagnation of the economy. Brazil’s industrial structure is not competitive due to infrastructure problems and high taxes, among other factors, which are contributing to the country’s deindustrialization. The absence of a competitive business environment results from the current crisis that contributes to the low level of innovation of products and processes and the existence of an unfavorable macroeconomic situation results from the fact that Brazil has deficits in the balance of payments. Only with the reactivation of the economy with government planning using the methodology of the world system will it be possible to overcome these problems.
Before reactivating the Brazilian economy, it is necessary to abandon the neoliberal economic model implemented since 1990, responsible for Brazil’s current economic debacle, which should be replaced by the national developmental model with selective opening of the Brazilian economy similar to that adopted in the 1930/1980 period when Brazil reached its greatest economic and social development in its history with growth rates between 4% and 8% per year, which corresponds to the period of history in which the federal government played an active role in the economic and social development of the country, differently from 1990 to 2014 when the national economy had a poor growth with an average rate of 2, 58% per year. In 2015 and 2016, for example, GDP grew negative 3.5% and 3.3%, respectively. The neoliberal economic model was a negative milestone for the country’s economic history. Now, Brazil is experiencing 5 years of recession with no prospect of a short-term solution. In 2019, GDP grew only 1.1%. For 2020, the expectation is that Brazil’s GDP will drop by 6% according to the World Bank, which was aggravated by the new Coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, the Bolsonaro government does not adopt any strategy that contributes to boost the Brazilian economy and eliminate its obstacles to development.
The Brazilian government should consider as a number 1 priority to reactivate the economy with the immediate execution of a broad program of public infrastructure works (energy, transportation, housing, basic sanitation, etc.) with the participation of the private sector to combat current mass unemployment, raising the levels of employment and income of families and companies to, in order to, consequently, promote the expansion of the consumption of families and companies resulting, respectively, from the increase in the salary mass of families and the income of companies with investments in public works to make Brazil grow economically again. In addition to the public works program, the Brazilian government should develop a broad export program, especially in agribusiness and the mineral sector, the drastic reduction in bank interest rates to encourage household consumption and investment by companies, the reduction of the burden tax with the freezing of high salaries in the public sector, the cut of perks and public administration organs and the drop in the charges with the payment of interest and amortization of the public debt to be renegotiated with the creditors of the public debt for the government to have resources for investment in economic and social infrastructure. In addition, the Brazilian government should tax the large fortunes and dividend gains of the shareholders of the companies. Without the adoption of this strategy, Brazil will inevitably be driven to economic ruin and political and social upheaval.
Today, in much of the world, many governments lament the lack of a development plan or project that makes their countries self-sufficient because, with the adoption of the neoliberal economic model, they left the free market to make decisions such as closing factories on national territory and taking them to places where profit margins would be higher, such as China, India and Southeast Asian countries. This stance was dictated by the vision that came to prevail in the world since 1990, which was that of globalization and the opening of markets according to the neoliberal ideology. The decision by governments not to produce locally by transferring it to places where profit margins would be higher was a determinant of the decision by governments not to invest in the production of medical materials and equipment in their countries by transferring it to countries with lower production costs, as is the case in China. The result is catastrophic because there is a lack of supplies for the manufacture of drugs, respirators and even masks to protect health professionals and the population in the fight against the new Coronavirus. In Brazil, the situation is deplorable because industry, science and national technology have been scrapped since 1990 with the adoption by the various governments of neoliberal policies that have contributed to increase technological and industrial dependence on the outside.
Countries, such as Brazil, that have not overcome their dependence on the outside by adhering to the neoliberal economic model are threatened with the consequences of their internal crises and, also, of the global economic crises that tend to worsen with the evolution of time with the prospect of the collapse of the international financial system and the explosion of the global debt, especially the public debt of the United States. Brazil will only be immune to these crises if it promotes its economic and social development breaking with the neoliberal economic model and its economic planning is outlined based on the theory of the world system to adopt strategies that contribute to eliminate internal factors that restrict development and lead to end its dependence on capital and technology in relation to the outside. This task can only be carried out by a government that is truly committed to national interests.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 80, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018, em co-autoria) and Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019).
Site Title 