|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
120902
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2007, a South Korean geologist discovered large deposits of diamonds in Cameroon. To Cameroon, this discovery is particularly significant because it has the potential to engineer sustainable development. Cameroon suffers from acute levels of poverty, high unemployment, devastating levels of corruption, and bad governance. The spoils of diamonds could provide an undeniable avenue to engender sustainable development. However, if history is a guide, the examples of Angola, Sierra Leone, and Democratic Republic of Congo offer instructive lessons of destructive effects of diamond exploration in countries that are contemptuous of good governance and are experiencing lawlessness, economic deprivation, social unrest, and political instability. This essay provides a timely reminder to Cameroon on the consequences of mismanaged natural resources. It explores Cameroon's socioeconomic condition, examines the history of diamond exploration and mining in Cameroon, and analyzes the implications for sustainable development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
102411
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
That good governance is necessary for economic development was until recently the conventional wisdom. In 2002, for example, a USAID study asserted that 'without good governance, it is impossible to foster development'. The Economist's Africa editor, Robert Guest, wrote in 2004 that 'Africa's wars spring mostly from bad government … Bad governance is also the main reason why Africa is so poor.' Even Milton Friedman, a champion of market liberalisation, later endorsed the good-governance paradigm: 'I was wrong. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic [to development] than privatization.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
167328
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The policies of Going Out and Good Neighbor have worked in tandem to direct Chinese diplomacy toward Southeast Asia over the past decades. This article asks how these policies have shaped Chinese energy and mining firms’ business decisions in the region. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, this article argues that while Going Out and Good Neighbor have contributed to the growth of China’s energy and mining development projects in Southeast Asia, this outcome is not merely the result of a state-directed initiative. The growth is also driven by Chinese state-owned firms that take advantage of Beijing’s policy agenda and the institutional shortcomings behind it to plow state-backed resources into business partnerships with weak rule-of-law governments in the region. These partnerships and the associated projects are often touted as an arm of Chinese diplomacy, emboldening these firms to make risky expansion. Moreover, market, diplomatic, social, and geographic factors inherent to Southeast Asia further catalyze Chinese firms’ risky business practices while at the same time Beijing, prioritizing diplomatic relations over good governance, has been slow to police problems stemming from its firms’ dubious partnerships. In the end, this situation has hurt China’s image, contrary to Good Neighbor’s intended objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|