ABSTRACT

The World Bank, World Trade Organization and others promote integration into global markets as a certain path towards economic development. Some researchers share this optimism, arguing that development is the record of how one thing leads to another, once peripheral locations have plugged into global networks. Comparing resource peripheries in South America, Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa with regard to the upstream oil and gas sector, we call for a more nuanced assessment. Against the backdrop of 38 narrative, open-ended interviews, we show that there is spatial polarization between ‘gateways’ and peripheral sites in Southeast Asia. Argentinean and Ghanaian case studies reveal that local firms usually provide generic services, with little prospects of venturing into higher value-adding activities. We conclude that at least the oil and gas sector is not suitable for fulfilling very optimistic expectations on development.

摘要

世界银行、世界贸易组织和其他组织推动融入全球市场，以此作为经济发展的必经之路。一些研究人员也持这种乐观态度，认为一旦外围位置接入全球网络，发展就是一件事如何导致另一件事的记录。将南美、东南亚和撒哈拉以南非洲的资源边缘与上游油气行业进行比较，我们呼吁进行更细致的评估。在 38 次叙事性、开放式访谈的背景下，我们表明东南亚的“门户”和外围站点之间存在空间两极分化。阿根廷和加纳的案例研究表明，当地公司通常提供通用服务，涉足更高附加值活动的可能性很小。