CC BY
41
UDC 339.9.01-047.44
N. Kravchuk,
PhD (Economics), Department of International Finance at Ternopil National Economic University
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT DIVERGENCE AND CONTEMPORARY GRAVITATIONAL PROCESSES IN GEO-ECONOMIC SPACE
Introduction
The history of global development shows that the euphoric interest in perfect social order projects, around which agiotage grew but subsequently died away with the advent of a new era, has been arising since the turn of the last century. The period from the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century was no exception, as it was marked by dynamic economic progress. As a result, the world became more interconnected but at the same time more separated and more dissymmetric. And if the interdependence of this world needs more stability and convergence then dissymmetric becomes the reason of growing dispassion and divergence. In the similar turning points the world tends to stability, but it is clear that it cannot be really achieved. As experience shows, balance and convergence -in their orthodox meanings and which had turned into the idee fixe of the twentieth century - failed at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Growing divergence was marked by the far-seeing conclusion that is perceived as weird: “.. .the world will not be balanced as this world is always in the condition of constant changes and imbalances.” (P. Bernstein) [1, p. 227].
In the last century, in which there was a historical transit from the industrial to the postindustrial epoch, ended in geo-political faults that demonstrated to the whole world that “the global balance is very fragile and can be easily destroyed.” (Pavel Bobkov) [2, p. 22]. It is a paradox, but in the epoch of globalization the world became less safe than during the period of restriction. This syndrome will be difficult to overcome as more actors have come to the forefront and conflict lines have become more clear and their significance less transparent (Vladislav Inozemtsev) [3, p. 520]. There is a need to understand the deep nature of processes that happen in the global-centric world. Questions of radical importance have appeared on the agenda: Why has the contemporary world become less predictable and balanced than it was in the years of polar geo-political systems with all their contradictions? Why has the international community witnessed the frequent growth of currency and intensification of financial crisis, significant market fluctuations, price shock on the world markets, and global currency volatility? How significant is the influence of global gravitational processes on the national development
of some countries and regions? What new threats and challenges will the world encounter in the third millennium? What architecture of the new world order will humanity develop?
There is no single answer to these questions. Instead, quite lively discussions and debates on the formation of innovative foundations and the construction of new “fundamental frames” for contemporary paradigms of global development are being held.
Analysis of Recent Research and Publications Related to This Topic
Western scientists Z. Bauman, D. Bell, M. Castells, J. Rosenau, A. Toffler, F. Fukuyama, and Russian scientists E. Kochetov, M. Cheshkov, Y. Yakovets have made important contributions research on fundamental issues of contemporary global transformations. In recent years, the problem of convergence and global disparities, and of inequality and global economic development asymmetry have been revealed in the research works of many foreign and Ukrainian scientists (S. Amin, H. Berry, R. Wade, B. Gesling, A. Giddens, M. Guillen, R. Korzhenevych, T. Moran, M. Spence, G. Firebaugh, A. Hendi, A. Halchynskyi, D. Lukyanenko and Y. Stolarchuk). However, “gravitational processes” that occur in geo-economic space, which are accompanied by the destruction of vertical hierarchic and linear- determined systems, have not received due attention, especially in terms of heterogeneity, reain The analysis given in this article is an attempt to outline the problem that lies on the plane of relevant global-intersystem transformations.
The Hypothesis of This Research and Its Formulation
The hypothesis of this research is that the level of increases in gravitational charge in the condition global development asymmetry has been deepening. In this context, the following methodological construction is being singled out: asymmetries in global development have activated gravitational processes in geo-economic space. These processes have caused heterogeneity and a divergence of global development under the influence of gravitational factors of both an endogenous and exogenous nature. The purpose of this article, then, is to highlight systematic determinants of gravitational processes in geo-economic space, to build a geo-strategic matrix of divergences in global development, to assess
Ukrainian geo-strategic positioning in geo-economic space, and to project on problems related to global-intersystem transformations.
Results
From the conceptual point of view, this research is one of the key and at the same time one of the most controversial problems in the methodology of modern intersystem transformations related to the systematic uncertainty of the correlation “divergence - convergence of global development”. Ambiguous points of view on this problem abound. One of them, “orthodox-conservative” divergence (from Latin divergere - deviate, diverge), is seen as the antithesis of convergence (from Latin convergentio - converge). Due to this etiological reference we can state that the term “divergence” is used in economics to represent the quantitative dynamics of trends deviation (the gap between the development level of certain countries becomes wider, their macroeconomic indicators deviate from those averaged in the region or integrated association) as well as to deepen the qualitative differences among models of national economics and their separate structures and arrangements. In the sphere of the international policy, this divergence is logically identified with the increase of heterogeneity in political institution, social and cultural forces, and ideological and other forms of international affairs that as a rule lead to the complication of already existing systems and the emergence of new ones.
Another point of view defines convergence and divergence as two complementary determinants of global development. Thus, the contradictions between them define inevitable conflicts within the process. In this context, the idea of convergence (unlike divergence) is the main one concerning the argumentation and interpretation of integration, internationalization, and globalization processes. Integration processes and world economic globalization determine the prevailing idea on convergence as being the gradual convergence of different economic systems. On this basis, more countries have been involved in the general direction of world civilization. Therefore, scientific discourse currently believes that globalization and convergence are so complementary united that they are almost impossible to separate, globalization being the essential determinant of this convergence and finally the logical consequence of globalization. However the following quotation corrects the correlation of main research objects: “The real world is a combination and interaction of heterogeneous substances. Its power is based on this, and it will remain the same. Its systematic integrity, which in future will be established in natural way, will develop not according to the principles of subjects’ unification and vertical subordination, but according to the principles of
decentralization, priorities establishment of global space horizontal articulations, its heterogeneity”. (A. Galchynskyi) [4, p. 325, 333]. Researchers speak about the prospects of “the new multi-format, multidirectional, nonhierarchical, asymmetric globalization unity formation” in terms of which there is “a significant complication of correspondent interdependences, and thus there is these interdependences subordination to the logic of complicated dissipative systems” [4, p. 326], which develop on the basis of nonlinear dynamics and the logic of gravitational processes in geo-economic space. In this context, the facts and empirical realities convincingly prove that dozens of countries due to certain reasons - for example, the unevenness of economic development structural factors allocation; the asynchrony of cyclic countries and development of integration units; the differentiation of their social and economic spheres; and their institutional, political, social, and cultural models - are not ready to adapt to the imperatives of global development. As a result, the gap between developing countries and global leaders increases. Also, geo-space and the deep marginalization of global-development outsiders in the aggregate have led to existing system complications of stratified geopolitical and geo-economic relations. Therefore, conflicts of interest within heterogeneous economic, political, and social agents, as well as with in the heterogeneous actors of the world economy, prove the existence of global development divergence.
When focusing on relevant uncertainty, we have to stress several myths (popular theses), the discussion of which has a significant methodological importance in the context of contemporary global intersystem transformations.
First myth: “Globalization and unification are the main determinants of global development”. The contemporary world, on the one hand, is gradually and objectively transformed by the sphere of global interaction between all components. On the other hand, despite the increasing trend towards the synchronization of economic cycles, the specificity of reproductive processes both in separate countries and unions remains. The lay-up on geo-space traditional structures of new institutions and relationships, new forms of cooperation and competition, partnership and mutual confrontation, consensus building and conflict in aggravation - the contemporary global crisis only has intensified these tendencies putting on to the agenda the problem of global development divergence. During the pre-crisis period, reminders of this were antiglobalization and myopic pessimism. Over recent years, such phrases as “globalization decline”, “economic nationalism and protectionism”, and “new reality” threaten not only in words to push the idea of globalization to the
side of global development evolutionary dynamics, but they also break traditional notions about the principles and rules of economic development, which should in the nearest future form the foundation of global economic development. Based on this the problems of dualism in global development dualism are actualized. On one side stands the traditional system of relationships between countries, principles of intergovernmental relations according to the settings of traditional diplomacy, protection of national interests and national sovereignty. On the other side resides the idea of a “transnational global world” in which the sovereignty of a national state gradually becomes narrower, and the economic and political decisions on certain vital issues are often made in consideration of global tendencies.
In this context, the questions outnumber the predictable responses. Can the Western model of democracy effectively respond to the challenges of new historical realities in a world where only 15% of countries have passed the test for full compliance with the principles defining a democratic civil society, where more than 50% profess authoritarian (including hybrid) modes of government? How does one question the sacred Anglo-Saxon model of market economy and those values, principles, and directives that form its social and philosophic, moral and ethical basis? In this context, the global crisis has shattered the mythology of the “Washington consensus”, the symbol with which the principles and postulates of theses regarding the era of globalization - the free market triumph and total restriction of state intervention in the economy - has been justified. It is paradoxical, but it is necessary to recognize that traditional economic theories and models, which seem to have been demonstrating the adequacy of market-economy functions and the ability to propose necessary vectors and instruments for the solving of the most difficult problems, under the conditions of contemporary global realities instead have demonstrated their inadequacy. In turn, the so called “Beijing Consensus” has gained increasing popularity based on state regulation of the economy, national interests, and the priority of national sovereignty. So what are the models and priorities that will define the main vectors of global development in the twenty-first century? This is one of the key questions.
Second Myth: “Globalization is the way to convergence and a unipolar world”. Tough changes in trends of global development during the 2000s that occurred within the intensification of global processes to some extent have contributed to the convergence of social and economic models. No essential change of national institutions that define the character of economic and social systems of countries and regions has taken place.
As a result, the current global crisis in its open form convincingly has demonstrated a rapid self-destruction of the unipolar world idea, the steady destruction of foreign policy conceptions that are implicitly built on the idea of “economic and military superiority of the West over the rest of the world”, reaffirming the problem of global development asymmetry and polycentricism. Note how the world economic development vector has shifted in the direction of developing countries. In particular, the world has witnessed an obvious redistribution of geopolitical and geo-economic influence, wealth, and economic potential in the countries of East and SouthEastern Asia and Latin America, the most industrially developed of which have become members of “convergence clubs”. Currently, “new gravitation fields” in world economic policy concerning China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Mexico are being formed alongside the “old” ones: the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. In the nearest future, these countries will form the “higher league” of geopolitics and geo-economics. Regional leaders have appeared, the “second echelon” of geopolitics and geo-economics, including the Republic of South Korea, Turkey, Argentina, Chili, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries which rapidly have increased their economic, military, and political power. There is a tendency of small countries geo-economic activity growth, that have a powerful scientific and technical, financial potential.
Many questions need answers. What are the perspectives of the higher league of countries expanding? When and on what scientific and technological bases will this come to pass? And will the countries of the “second echelon” became “the bearing structure of regional stability and democratization of the world order”? Surely, their strategic positioning in geo-space remains the essential determinant of the divergence in global development.
Third myth: “Globalization in its pro-Western variant undergoes inversion”. While developing the concept of geo-space polycentricism, researchers must acknowledge how accelerated changes in world GDP redistribution, economic power, and wealth diffusion have become. As a result of this acceleration, the countries of the non-Western world have been transformed into energetic actors in the world economy. In this context, the traditional division of countries into three worlds gradually has lost meaning, especially the notion of the Third World. In the context of unprecedented changes of qualitative and quantitative composition of global development leading countries, globalization in its proWestern variant became gradually to undergo inversion. But amid these optimistic forecasts exists the fact that in the beginning of the twenty-first century, the so-called the “Age of Post-Industrialism”, over 1 million people (one-
sixth the world population) live in slums. The countries of Asia top this list with 60% of their populations living in slums. African countries come next with 20%. Finally, in Latin America the rate is 14%. The countries of the “old gravitational centres” report having 54 million people (6% of their populations) living in slums.
Scientists have to admit that “all the self-deception about the new world order actually sprang from the Faustian collusion between the East and the West”. This collusion has allowed Eastern economies to escape from the grim reality of the Third World through interventions by Western customers and infrastructure development. However, Western customers have enjoyed unreal salaries and standards of living from Walt Street to Stuttgart, as the unfair collusion has led to the concentration of wealth among the world industrial and financial titans. This paradox represents only the outer shell of global inequality, whereas the fundamental basis of “architectural construction” of the world-financial pyramidal structure (in the laws and proportions of the world GDP redistribution and economic power and wealth diffusion) remains unchanged. The world financial oligarchy sits at the top of this pyramid, but they do not have a definite registration; the “centre of the international market system” as George Soros terms the economies of developed countries, occupy the middle layer; and finally the lowest layer are the economies of the “world capitalism periphery”. The world-financial pyramidal structure proves that in the global-centered economy the principles of foreign exchange and redistribution equality and equity do not work. The principle of the global society proprietary polarization works instead.
In summary, the problem involves changing S. Amina’s “three world projects” to restore positive, evolutional human dynamics. Unless we find an adequate answer to this fundamental question any hope for overcoming the global crisis and constructing a new world order will remain an id?e fixe of the twenty-first century.
Fourth myth: “Country marginalization in geospace is the consequence of globalization”. Despite the background of optimistic rhetoric about the convergence totality the phenomena of the states ’ marginalization in the process of global development which is often appropriated with the status of “fallidos”, Spanish for “losers”, remain unsolved under a guise of populism and sophistry about globalization benefits. The problem is not globalization as it is usually interpreted, but in the fact that the benefits of globalization as a rule do not reach their social and economic area, and thus they remain the “marginalized roadside” of not only globalized postindustrial society but also the undisclosed subject of modern comparative literature. Due to the lack of economic development structural factors, these countries
have different survival techniques, from domain-names trade in Tuvalu and the Federal States of Micronesia to massive emigration and export-commodity flows in Kobo-Verde, Kiribati, and the Kumar Islands. Nauru offers illegal shelter to immigrants, while the creation of offshore zones flourishes in Vanuatu, Dominic, and Samoa. Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, St Kits, and Nevis, then, participate in tourism.
Thus, the beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed “the sharp turn” in the geo-political and geo-economic relations that caused the balance deviation on a global basis and affected the dynamics of economic relations internationalization. This “sharp turn”, without exaggeration of historical significance, is characterized by the fundamental and system transformation of economic, political, sociocultural and inter-civilization correlation. The number of states is increasing - so-called “gravitational centres”, some of which are permanently going to the status of geo-strategic global and regional leaders, their influence is growing, including by means of traditional leading countries of the Western world. The “club” of economic and political cooperation, the system of diplomatic institutions and “places for political dialogues” begin to build up by actions of such countries in the Asian region. As a result, there is a formation of a multipolar world; the role of new gravitational centers in the world politics and global rent redistribution is growing (Fig.1). What are the criteria signs of geo-economic space new configurations?
To answer this question, researchers should refer to the analysis of the global development divergence geostrategic matrix. (Fig.1). The main idea is to reveal the systemic determinants of gravitational processes in geo-economic space that lead to nonlinear dynamics in global development; to outline the regions that will be the most dynamic in the future; to show the way redistribution processes of world economic wealth and the diffusion of economic strength between the “old” and “new” gravitational centres; and to stress the problems of global development asymmetry through multi-dimensional and multi-level asymmetry in geo-space. At the foundation of the geo-strategic-matrix lie a cluster analysis based on linguistic changes and the integrated analysis of key tendencies of the state and global development in a wide range of socio-demographics, socio-economics, energy technologies, geo-politics, and institutional and sociocultural aspects. That is why grouping countries into convergence clubs was held not only on the principle of their economic or civilization proximity but also by a consideration of levels of economic wealth and economic human freedom, their greater or lesser risk appetite of global imbalances, and social and geo-political shocks. [6, p. 156 - 244].
Ekohomwhmh BicHHK fl,OH6acy № 4 (34), 2013
The economic freedoms
The risk level of global imbalances
JJS A
jq‘
ET
Japan
Germany
Great Britain France Ttaly Spain Canada Australia
Netherlands Belgium Sweden Austria Switzerland Norway '' Denmark Finland Ireland
©
iTf'
Qatar ** UAE ** Hong Kong Singapore Kuwait **
Luxembourg Brunei Darassulam Iceland, Macau
4^-
4^
I
i
Q.
Q.
©
Russia**
I
South Korea J
jr Poland
Malaysia
Greece
Portugal
Chile**, Israel TNew Zealand
i_
- [—-----------------------rv-— — — ■
Oman ,, Bahrain Cyprus
T rinidad and Tobago
©
Czech -------------
j-'"Hungary, Croatia I Slov'Stkja
i--------------
I I -1 ** s _
I_______Libya___________
Lithuania
Slovenia
Latvia
Estonia
China
Brazil
Mexico
o
Turkey J
Jf' India j
▼ Indonesia I
Iran* *v Thailand, Argentina South"Africa, Egypt, 'Colombia, Venezuela**, Ukraine, Algeria* *, Romania, Pern**, Kazakhstan** Man-oko, Traq**, Ecuador** Belarus, Bulgaria, Syria, Tunisia, Sri Lanka Serbia, Angola**
©
Pakistan
Philippines
Nigeria**
Vietnam
Bangladesh
Sudan
'Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Azerbaijan-, ^Uruguay, Botswana, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan;,Kenya, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Myanmar, Afghanistan. Antigua and Barbuda, Saint KitfS'^nd Nevis, Vanuatu, Dominica, Siena LconCs Cape Verde, Comoros Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Samoa, ^Cayman islands, Tuvalu ... ’ ” "fg
IQ
cr
X
high
middling
Fig. 1. Geo-strategic matrix of the global development divergence*
low The economic wealth of the country
*Worked out by the author
** Countries exporting primary commodities and/or fuel have been marked.
N. Kravchuk
Convergence clubs, located on the plane of the “adaptation syndrome” vector field (Fig.1 - diagonal from the lower left to the upper right corner) are marginal and the most dynamic gravitational fields regarding positioning in geo-space. They are “wandering internationalized cores” (Ernest Kochetov) [7, p. 122 - 124] in geo-space that can lose their geo-strategic positions in the case of low-development levels of the “adaptation syndrome”. The four large world economies that cooperate under the well-known acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are located on this diagonal, as well as the dynamically developing economies of Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea, which together can become the new “gravitational centres of global economic development” or at least they possess the prerequisites to obtain this position. Occupying 9% of Earth's landmass with a population of 47.3% of all people in the world, the countries located on this diagonal produce 38.3% of the world GDP and concentrate 30.2% of the world’s population into financial potential. Almost all countries from these gravitational fields gravitate toward cooperation in production and investing, leading to an increase of in the supply of a networked, internationalized character. Through the formation of global and regional value-added chains, these countries are connected closely with the markets of the “old gravitational centres” - the United States and the countries of Western Europe - and therefore tend to produce asymmetric shocks and conjuncture fluctuations on these markets.
“Convergence clubs” located above the diagonal include eighteen countries with a general area of 6% of the Earth's landmass and a population of almost 11% of all humanity. They account for 47.5% of the world GDP and 64% of the world population's financial potential that actually forms global consumer demand. Countries that are members of this club differ in that they have a high level of rights and freedoms in their collective social and political life. All of them without exception have evolved through agrarian and industrial development stages and are currently working through a post-industrial stage characterized by a leading role in the service national economy, where from 60% to 80% of the world GDP is produced; high consumer demand; continuous progress in the science and technology; and state and social policy strengthening. In general, these countries have concentrated the enormous potential of wealth for the amortization of economic and social consequences of the crisis. Despite the structural problems related to their economic development, imbalances in the sector of employment, and failures in the regulation mechanisms of financial markets that were especially clearly manifested in conditions of the current global crisis, all the “old gravitational centres” will continue their gradual
development in the coming decade. However, researchers cannot neglect the fact that these nations fully encountered the phenomenon of “imperial overpressure” (P. Kennedy) [8] - that is, a lack of various strategic resources needed to support geo-strategic advantages. Among the key factors that can provoke gravitational processes and influence their geo-strategic positioning in the global space in the coming decades include a combination of pressures due to migration, social consequences of structural problems associated with an aging population, and a reduction in productivity.
“Convergence clubs” located under the diagonal are very prone to global imbalances due to their underdeveloped levels of “adaptation syndrome”. In fact, the formation of internationalized reproductive cores in these countries is historically determined by the nature of their foreign economic affairs. The prevailing trade and intermediary model of foreign economic relations makes the situation when their inner economic situation is primarily determined by the growth of their foreign trade that outruns the international productive cooperation rate of growth. In due course, the accumulation of their foreign trade flow has not been supported in time by the industrial cooperation and technological integration through the development of value-added chains. This fact was one of the reasons these countries suffered serious national economic backlogs in the single internationalized reproductive process. Because of these tendencies, the task of integration appeared to be massive. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, trade and intermediary models prevail for most of these countries, and this has caused their national economies to become mired in severe structural crisis. The weak political and economic institutions of these countries of Convergence Club 6 and Convergence Club 9 play a crucial role in such slow and ineffective economic development.
Taking into consideration the above it should be noted that global transformation is not finished yet and the new polycentric architecture of geo-space has not been formed completely. Simply put, there is not a steady balance of economic and political forces in geo-space. But to the contrary, the near future should bring gravitation-process growth in geo-economic space under the influence of fragmentation in the development of information and state technologies, the aggravation of energetic problems, an increase in environmental risks and disasters, and adverse socio-demographic trends [9]. The divergence in global development will be also strengthened by institutional “failures” and socio-cultural bars as well [10]. These aspects should become the subject of the scientific research and the theoretical basis of a new approach to problems in global development. These issues should be taken into consideration while
outlining geo-strategic state positions in the contemporary polycentric and heterogeneous world.
Further summary of the research results is dedicated to the analysis of the system determinants that define the Ukrainian geo-strategic position in geo-economic space. Ukraine is located in the gravitational field of Convergence Club 6 that combines thirty countries, including five countries in Eastern Europe (Belorussia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine); five countries in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru); nine countries in Africa (Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, Tunisia); four countries in South-East Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines); three countries in South Asia (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan); three countries in South-West Asia (Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syrian Arab Republic); and one country in Central Asia (Kazakhstan). These countries form a cluster of unstable economic systems in the phase of “transition to changes”. Developmental impulses appear. In particular, new political ideas and new ideologies, social mobility increases, as does the potential for scientific and technological development. Although, systems seem inert, structural, institutional and political crises become aggravated. Civil society in these local geo-strategic centres remains very weak, and the democratic institutions are, in most cases, the simulacra that mask the uncontrolled domination of officials. In this club’s countries, the preponderance of lower economic populations and their level of freedom lie on the plane of “social stratification” (P. Sorokin). Social stratification based on economics, population-income differentiation define the political, social, and legal statuses of citizens, their rights and privileges, their responsibilities and obligations, their power and influence, and their responsibilities and obligations.
Considering the specificity of social stratification among the countries in Convergence Club 6, it is important to note that the level of economic freedom is simultaneously defined by several determinants.
First, it is defined by ambiguities within social policies and the parameters of civil society parameters, by the low level of economic socialization, by institutional transformations and property-relations democratization, by the violation of parity between labor and capital, and by undeveloped-state regulators. But overall the decisive factor remains the low level of social mobility not only horizontally but also vertically, vertical migration being that which provides individuals with the ability to move from lower to higher social stratification groups.
Second, it is defined by the action of “natural forces deepening stratification” that fit the concept of “stratification cycles structure” (P. Sorokin). This not
only has to do with the theoretical construction of a “stratification fluctuation model”, with a real affiliation of Convergence Club 6 countries to different stratification cycles (Fig.2). Some countries are in the phase of transition from the third to fourth cycle (the countries of Latin America and the South-African Republic) where the stratification increases to the “saturation point” after which a society cannot continue moving without a risk of a “major disaster”. Other countries are in the stage of the fourth cycle (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria) where the maximum limit has already been reached (the saturation point), and the alignment forces begin to act (including the civil unrest, revolution, etc.) designed to limit upper sections of the population and on this basis to “cut off’ the boundary stratification fluctuations. Finally, the countries of the third cycle (e.g. Ukraine) are on the stage of social differentiation strengthening, increase of social fluctuations to the “saturation point”, that conditions the necessity of the new constructional (institutional) intervention in social processes.
Third, along with political and institutional factors the decisive influence on the gravitational processes in the unstable economic systems is made by “initial conditions” [11, p. 185 - 186]. Research on their influence contains much analysis by which the following decisions can be reached:
1) Almost all members of the Convergence Club 6 have experienced fundamental changes in the social system as a result of crucial contradictions incidental to the legacy system or directly influenced by other countries that are more powerful in political and economic spheres. Thus, the state of economic instability is caused by the contradiction between the elements of the new system and inevitable remnants of the old one that is increased by the action of the exogenous factors;
2) At the same time, significant structural imbalances in the economies of almost all countries, which are the members of this club, become the reasons of their involvement in the permanent structural crisis, amplified by incomplete institutional reforms and political instability in most of them and accompanied by the intersystem transformations;
3) Ten of thirty countries are only the countries exporting commodities or fuel (Libya, Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, Peru, Iraq, Ecuador, Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan). Though, the natural resources endowment conditions the inflow of investments and budget revenue, but it also restrains the structural reforms and becomes the reason of the “resource curse”;
4) Some of these countries’ proximity to the economically developed countries has a positive influence on their economic subjects’ ability to adapt to new economic conditions;
5) The maximum growth in prosperity can be reached in those countries where the policy directed on the entry into the world and regional political and economic societies has been declared (e.g. Bulgaria and Romania are the members of the European Union and the international political and military organization NATO, Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa - members of the G-20, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam -members of geopolitical and economic international organization ASEAN).
Considering “initial conditions” the countries that are the members of this convergence club tend toward heightened risk of global imbalances because there are no regulatory mechanisms or the ones in place are very weak. Regulatory mechanisms can implement automatic anti-crisis regulation and enhance the stabilization effect by relying on internal adaptive capacities. Besides, the specific feature of the instable economic system is that the crisis factors arise not only as a result of economic-system - inner-contradictions accumulation but also as inherited because of the change of social economic political system, so they are of above-system nature. The key determinants of the economic development strategy in the instable economic systems rely on macro-economic stabilization, structural and institutional reforms conduction, and surmounting the crisis. Thus, the effect of traditional market mechanisms of self-regulation is insufficient for economic stabilization.
Fourth, while analyzing social stratification it is
important to take into consideration not only the premise but also the effectiveness of reforms. [12, p. 331 - 332]. The question is:
- national strategy existence. If while introducing reforms, the political elite clearly defines final goals and methods of conduct, and if these goals and methods are shared by the majority of the society, the possibility for radical reform increases as with, for example, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia’s reversion in the “womb of civilization”, or as with the forcing of the “economic-centric strategies of export potential increase” in the countries of SouthEast Asia (Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines). If the majority of the elite and society realizes the importance of reforms and imagine the strategic goals, but there is no unanimity in the reform methods introduction then the orientation on the evolutional development variant (Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Latin America) or less radical reform variant (Belarus, Kazakhstan) is possible; and finally, initial radicalism in the absence of a national strategy can turn into quite contradictory results, such as in Ukraine);
- political elite quality (if the political elite quality is not high enough on the level of professionalism, especially in terms of moral responsibility to society, reforms introduction is accompanied by the permanent errors and selective nature in the “interests of individual groups”);
- interests abidance of all population groups (we mean the reform “justice” that is characterized by the
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Depression Reactivation Upturn Crisis
Upper Stratification
Point
Disasters, economic life
destruction, mass
impoverishment
Social differentiation Stratification reaches
^ strengthening, increase the “saturation point”,
Stratification of social fluctuations, after which a society
imbalance weakness which can lead to the cannot continue
and stratification “saturation point” and moving without a risk
proportions leveling crisis situation of a “major disaster”
Lower limit - “” society
Fig. 2. Stratification cycles curve*
Constructed by author Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4 (34), 2013
income dynamic of the most society members (especially in comparison with the income level of the richest population groups); by competition spread and small business (not only big business). Consideration of these criteria gives us grounds to conclude that in most countries from the “convergence club 6” only a narrow population segment can experience the reform results (as evidenced by Gini index which in most countries - South Africa, Colombia, Ecuador, Nigeria, Peru, Venezuela, Argentina -is next-higher order than worldwide average).
• So a peculiar variant of a “dualistic society” has been formed in the countries of “convergence club 6” with: 1) contrast social polarization; 2) uneven development of different regions; 3) coexistence of post-industrial and traditional sectors; 4) appropriate value and cultural transformations that occur in a complex combination of geopolitical and socio-economic contradictions - a kind of “fault lines” (Rahuram Radgan) [13]. In view of the foregoing, the peculiarity of these countries’ geo-strategic development lies not in the transition to industrial or postindustrial market system (this is the simplified linear global transformation comprehension), but in clearer orientation on general civilizational parameters and criteria.
Discussions, conclusions on this research and the prospects for further development
In the result of this research we can conclude that the global development at the beginning of the XXI century is accompanied by the simultaneous deployment of polar vector processes. Along with a pronounced increase in global convergence the heterogeneity of the global centric economy components (different countries’ economies approximation, their involvement in the general stream of the world civilization) is increasing. Due to different reasons, many countries are not ready to adapt to the imperatives of the contemporary scientific and technical progress, to the structural changes on the world market. In the result, the contemporary globalization processes, international economic integration and convergence occur in the complex combination of the geo-political and social and economic contradictions that strengthen the gravitational processes in the geo-economic space and global development divergence.
The geo-strategic matrix analysis of the global development divergence in several dimensions proves the nonlinear dynamics of the globalization processes and the redistribution of world economic wealth between the “old” and “new gravitation centres” that is accompanied contradiction aggravation between: 1) capital cosmopolitism and state sovereignty as a form of society organization;
2) harmonization processes, social and economic development unification on the principles of globalism and political power that is still concentrated on the state level; 3) between the traditional state decesion-making
institutions and new global centres that control the necessary for their resources and economic processes. In the result of the unrealized ideas and social economic convergence tasks the global development asymmetry is deepening and so along with the integration processes the gravitation processes grow. Hence, the main conclusion is that on the one hand the world becomes homogenous and interconnected; on the other hand, it is heterogeneous and divided. One of the key tasks in the frames of the contemporary postmodern alternative is to search the combination reasons of the global development divergence polarities and factors.
References
1. Bernstein P. Fundamental Ideas of the Financial World: Evolution / Peter Bernstein; Transl. from Engl. -M. : Alpina Business Books, 2009. - 247 p. 2. Bobkov P. Globalization and Human Problems / Pavel Mykhailovych Bobkov // Cheliabinsk State University Journal. - 2007. -№ 16 (94). - p. 22 - 31. - p. 22. [E-resource]. - Mode of access: http://www.lib.csu.ru/vch/094/21.pdf 3. Inozemtsev V. L. On the Edge of the Centuries. Economic tendencies and their noneconomic consequences / V. L. Inozemtsev. - M. : ZAO “Publishing House “Economy”, 2003. - 776 p. 4. Halchynskyi A. S. Economic Methodology. Innovation Logic, K. : “ADEF -Ukraine”, 2010. - 572 p. 5. Gadgiyev K. World Economic Crisis in the Mirror of the Sociocultural and political cultural transformations / Kamaludin Serazhudinovych Gadgiyev // World Economy and Foreign Affairs. -
2010. - № 8. - p. 19 - 31. 6. Kravchuk N. Y. Global Development Divergence: Modern Paradigme of Geo-Financial Space Formation / Nataliya Kravchuk. - K. : Znannia, 2012. - 784 p. 7. Kochetov Y. G. Geo-Economy. The World Economic Space Assimilation / Y G. Kochetov. -M. : Norma, 2006. - 528 p. 8. Kennedy P. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers / Paul Kennedi. - London: Unwin Hyman Ltd. - 1987. - 704 p. 9. Klinov V. World Economy: The assumption till 2050 / V. Klinov // Economy Questions. - 2008. - № 5. - p. 62 - 279. 10. Yasin Y., Snegovaia M. Institutional and Cultural restrictions of the developing countries / Y. Yasin, M. Snegovaia // Economy Questions. - 200. - № 11. - p. 32 - 49. 11. Zhuk M. V. International Strategies of the Economic Devlopment / M. V. Zhuk, T. V. Baulina. - K. : Publ. Palyvoda A. V., 2006. - 348 p. 12. The World Economy and foreign Economic Affairs: Student / edd. by prof. A. S. Bulatova, prof. N. N. Liventseva. - M. : Master, 2008. - 654 p. 13. Radzhan R. G. Fault Lines: Hidden Cracks That Threaten the World Economy / Rahuram G. Radzhan. Transl. from English I. Freedman involving N. Edelman. - M. : Publ. Gaidar Institute,
2011. - 416 p.
Кравчук Н. Глобальний розвиток дивергенції та гравітаційні процеси у геоекономічному просторі
Композиційно дослідження розгортається у двох основних напрямах: перший - аналіз асиметрій глобального розвитку, що активізують гравітаційні процеси у геоекономічному просторі; другий - зорієнтований на поглиблене вивчення причин гетерогенізації геоекономічного простору і дивергенції глобального розвитку під впливом гравітаційних факторів ендогенного та екзогенного характеру. Розкрито системні детермінанти гравітаційних процесів у геоекономічному просторі, побудовано геостратегічну матрицю дивергенції глобального розвитку, окреслено геостратегічні позиції України у геоекономічному просторі у проекції на проблематику глобальних міжсистемних трансформацій. Доведено, що рівень гравітаційного навантаження зростає в умовах поглиблення асиметрій глобального розвитку.
Ключові слова: конвергенція, дивергенція, глобальний розвиток, геоекономічний простір, гравітаційні процеси, гравітаційні центри, клуби конвергенції, фрагментарність геопростору, асиметрії глобального розвитку.
Кравчук Н. Глобальное развитие дивергенции и гравитационные процессы в геоэкономи-ческом пространстве
Композиционно исследование разворачивается в двух основных направлениях: первое - анализ асимметрий глобального развития, активизирующих гравитационные процессы в геоэкономическом пространстве; второе - посвященное углубленному изучению причин гетерогенизации геоэкономического пространства и дивергенции глобального развития под влиянием гравитационных факторов эндогенного и экзогенного характера. Раскрыты системные детерминанты гравитационных процессов в геоэкономическом пространстве, построено геостратегическую матрицу
дивергенции глобального развития, очерчены геостратегические позиции Украины в геоэкономическом пространстве в проекции на проблематику глобальных межсистемных трансформаций. Доказано, что уровень гравитационной нагрузки возрастает в условиях углубления асимметрий глобального развития.
Ключевые слова: конвергенция, дивергенция, глобальное развитие, геоэкономическое пространство, гравитационные процессы, гравитационные центры, клубы конвергенции, фрагментарность геопространства, асимметрии глобального развития.
Kravchuk N. Global Development Divergence and Contemporary Gravitional Process in Geo-Economic Space
From the compositional point of view, research on this topic has revealed two main directions: (1) an analysis of global development asymmetry that has activated gravitational processes in geo-economic space; and (2) a direction that focuses on the profound study of the causes for heterogeneity in geo-economic space and divergence in global development under the influence of gravitational factors of nature on the endogenous-exogenous axis. Systemic determinants of gravitational processes in the geo-economic space have been revealed, a geo-strategic matrix of divergence in global development has been built, and Ukrainian geo-strategic positions in the geo-economic space in the projection of problems on global intersystem transformations have been outlined. It has been proved that the level of gravitational charge grows under conditions involving the deepening of global development asymmetries has been proved.
Key words: convergence, divergence, global development, geo-economic space, gravitational processes, gravitational centres, convergence clubs, geospace fragmentation, global development asymmetries.
Received by the editors: 23.09.2013
and final form 04.12.2013
