The Global South is emerging not only as a geopolitical force but as a growing ideological current that is reshaping the global political and economic order amid historic transformations. With more than 150 countries under its umbrella—diverse in geography, national circumstances, and cultural backgrounds—the only issue that can unite these nations is development. Development stands as the shared historical mission of the Global South.
In today’s world, the dominant neoliberal discourse of “democracy” and “human rights” is in decline. Within the West, conservative right-wing populism is rising, seeking justice and fairness for disillusioned lower classes. In contrast, in the Global South, the retreat of neoliberalism has made room for a powerful resurgence of a new development-centered discourse. Concepts such as “development,” “state capacity,” “autonomy,” and “decolonization” are replacing the clichéd vocabulary of democracy and human rights. This ideological shift reveals that the future of the Global South hinges not on replicating the Western path, but on building an alternative value system grounded in their own experiences.
For the Global South to succeed, it must rally around an intellectual framework—a theoretical and practical model of development rooted in national histories, cultures, and realities, yet adaptable across diverse contexts. This emerging framework can be called “New Developmentalism.” It is more than just a set of policy preferences; it is a synthesis of successful development experiences across the Global South, elevated into a coherent and ideologically potent worldview.
In the current era, development is far more than an economic concept. It carries deep political economic implications and is increasingly giving rise to a new set of globally resonant values. These include principles like “common development and shared prosperity,” “inclusive growth,” “the balance between political and economic development,” and “sustainable development with ecological civilization.” The political-economic nature of development is also becoming more pronounced. Many Global South countries are grappling with the structural tension between democratic forms and effective state capacity, or between indigenous tribal governance systems and transplanted Western constitutional democracy. They must also navigate the delicate balance between development, reform, and stability. These questions call not just for pragmatic solutions but for a theoretical framework that can explain and guide.
For the past 80 years, most Global South countries have followed Western development theories found in mainstream textbooks. But repeated attempts to apply these theories have yielded one failure after another. Western development theories are numerous, but four major strands have had a lasting impact.
The first is classic developmentalism, which emerged during the Cold War. To counter the appeal of Soviet socialism, the United States promoted a modernization theory that framed development as a process of copying the West, assuming that today’s West is tomorrow’s Global South. This binary view—modern vs. traditional—ignored cultural and historical diversity. The result of applying American-style modernization in many countries was social fragmentation, inequality, and in some cases, revolutionary backlash, as seen in Iran.
The second is neoliberal development theory, dominant since the Cold War’s end and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neoliberalism, particularly through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, promoted market fundamentalism: efficiency-maximizing markets, minimal government intervention, and the idea that democracy must precede economic growth. This theory reigned for over three decades but triggered deep crises in many Southern countries, leading to civil wars, institutional collapse, and widespread failure.
The third major strand is dependency theory, rooted in Latin American leftist thought. It argued that underdevelopment in the South is structurally linked to capitalism’s global expansion. Within this world system, Southern countries can only grow in a dependent and subordinate way. The solution, according to this view, was economic self-isolation and protected industrialization. Although this idea inspired many Latin American policies, the region largely failed to achieve meaningful industrial development. In a globally interconnected economy, detachment from international markets proved both unrealistic and counterproductive.
The fourth influential trend comes from development discourses shaped by international organizations like the UN Development Programme and the World Bank. Emerging in the 1960s, this approach emphasized a values-based development model in which economic growth must be conditioned upon the protection of human rights, environmental rights, women’s rights, and cultural rights. This gave rise to concepts like participatory development, local governance, and community empowerment. Though well-intentioned and still influential, this framework often avoids addressing unjust international structures and domestic inequality. By overemphasizing certain rights or importing progressive norms prematurely, it can hinder the necessary steps of structural transformation and gradual economic progress.
As one development theory after another has risen and fallen, the Chinese model of modernization is gaining increasing global attention. For many Global South nations seeking autonomy and results, the Chinese experience offers a rare example of successful, independent development without subordination to Western paradigms.
China’s model cannot be understood merely as a set of economic policies. Its political foundation is equally, if not more, important. Key elements include the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China, a socialist market economy, policies oriented toward shared development and prosperity, the strategic role of state-owned enterprises alongside an open environment for private capital, and a commitment to balancing reform, development, and stability. China’s development reflects a series of dialectical balances: between state and market, efficiency and equity, central planning and local flexibility. These political dynamics are what make China’s modernization unique—and what offer powerful lessons for others.
As China’s model evolves and more Southern countries experiment with alternative paths, a new theoretical framework is beginning to emerge—New Developmentalism. It is not a static ideology, but a living, unfolding intellectual and practical tradition. From today’s vantage point, several features stand out.
First, unlike classical developmentalism, New Developmentalism is grounded in post–Cold War development realities, drawing directly from the experiences of the Global South. Second, it simultaneously emphasizes three interdependent goals: economic development, social transformation, and resistance to an unjust global order. Development confined to the domestic sphere or focused only on growth is insufficient. Third, New Developmentalism stresses the importance of building strong state capacity. Without effective states, development cannot be sustained. Lastly, it insists that any modernization path must be grounded in national context. While the direction of modernization is broadly shared, its specific forms must be diverse, reflecting the uniqueness of each society.
New Developmentalism is already taking shape across the Global South. Its theoretical contours are still being refined, but its energy is unmistakable. As more countries seek alternatives to failed neoliberal experiments and exhausted Western models, New Developmentalism may yet become the defining ideology of the next global era. It is time to summarize its lessons, deepen its theory, and turn it into a guiding force for the Global South’s collective rise.
Source: the paper, shxyj ajcass, collapseofindustrialcivilization
