This article approaches the recent phenomenon of South–South cooperation with a focus on Brazil’s recent interventions in the agricultural sector. It reports on the case of Brazil as a provider of technical cooperation for the African continent, based on the experience of its national agricultural research institute, best known by its acronym Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). The first section provides a historical genealogy of South–South cooperation and the experience of Brazil. The second compares two projects that EMBRAPA is currently implementing in Africa. Based on this historical and comparative discussion, it concludes by assessing the potential of South–South cooperation for re-politicizing international development.
BatistellaM., & BolfeE. L. (2010). Paralelos: Corredor de Nacala. Campinas: Embrapa Monitoramento por Satélite.
2.
CabralL., & WeinstockJ. (2010). Brazilian technical cooperation for development: Drivers, mechanics, and future prospects. London: Overseas Development Institute.
3.
CesarinoL. (2012). Anthropology of development and the challenge of South-South cooperation. Vibrant, 9(1), 507–537.
4.
CesarinoL. (2013). South-South cooperation across the Atlantic: emerging inter-faces in international development and technology transfer in agriculture. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
5.
CesarinoL. (2014). Antropologia multissituada e a questão da escala: reflexões com base no estudo da cooperação Sul-Sul brasileira. Horizontes Antropológicos, 41, 19–50.
6.
ChichavaS., DuranJ., CabralL., ShanklandA., BuckleyL., LixiaT., & YueZ. (2013). Brazil and China in Mozambican agriculture: Emerging insights from the field. IDS Bulletin, 44(4), 101–115.
7.
ClementsE., & FernandesB. (2013). Land grabbing, agribusiness and the peasantry in Brazil and Mozambique. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 2(1), 41–69.
8.
CooperF., & PackardR. (Eds). (1998). International development and the social sciences: Essays on the history and politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
CorreaM. L. (2010). Prática comentada da cooperaça˜o internacional: Entre a hegemonia e a busca de autonomia. Brasília: Ediça˜o do Autor.
10.
D’ÁvilaJ. (2010). Hotel Tropico: Brazil and the challenge of African decolonization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
EscobarA. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
FergusonJ. (1994). The anti-politics machine: ‘Development’, de-politicization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
FingermannN. (2013). Os mitos por trás do ProSAVANA,IDeIAS, Boletim, No. 49. Retrieved 30October2015, from http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/outras/ideias/ideias_49.pdf
14.
FingermannN. (2014). A cooperação trilateral brasileira em Moçambique—um estudo de caso comparado: O ProALIMENTOS e o ProSAVANA (PhD Dissertation). São Paulo: Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
15.
Funada-ClassenS. (2013a). Fukushima, ProSAVANA e Ruth First: Análise de ‘Mitos por trás do ProSAVANA’ de de Natalia Fingermann. Retrieved 30October2015, from http://macua.blogs.com/files/fukushima-prosavana-and-ruth-first-pt---final.pdf
16.
Funada-ClassenS. (2013b). Analysis of the discourse and background of the ProSAVANA program in Mozambique: Focusing on Japan’s role. Retrieved 30October2015, from http://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ProSavana%20Analysis%20based%20on%20Japanese%20source%20(FUNADA2013).pdf
17.
GardnerK., & LewisD. (1996). Anthropology, development and the post-modern challenge. London: Pluto Press.
MartinW. (2013). South Africa and the ‘new scramble for Africa’: Imperialist, sub-imperialist, or victim?Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 2(2), 161–188.
20.
MawdsleyE. (2012). From recipients to donors: Emerging powers and the changing development landscape. London: Zed Books.
21.
MosseD. (2013). The anthropology of international development. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42(1), 227–246.
22.
NogueiraI., & OllinahoO. (2013). From rhetoric to practice in South-South development cooperation: A case study of Brazilian interventions in the Nacala corridor development program. Geneva: Institute of Socioeconomics, University of Geneva.
23.
Sá e SilvaM. (2009). South-South cooperation: Past and present conceptualization and practice. In ChisholmL. & Steiner-KhamsiG. (Eds), South-South cooperation in education and development (pp. 39–61). New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
SaraivaJ. F. S. (1996). O lugar da África: A dimensão atlântica da política externa brasileira (de 1946 a nossos dias). Brasília: Editora UNB.
25.
SchlesingerS. (2013). Cooperação e investimentos do Brasil na África: O caso do ProSavana em Moçambique. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fase.
26.
ToumaniTouré, A., & CompaoréB. (2003, 11July. Your farm subsidies are strangling us. New York Times. Retrieved 26February2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/opinion/your-farm-subsidies-are-stranglingus.html
27.
UNCTAD. (2010). South-South cooperation: Africa and the new forms of development partnership. Economic development in Africa 2010 Report. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
28.
WalzJ., & RamachandranV. (2011). Brave new world: A literature review of emerging donors and the changing nature of foreign assistance(Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 273). Retrieved 30October2015, from http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425691_file_Walz_Ramachandran_Brave_New_World_FINAL.pdf
29.
World Bank, & IPEA. (2011). Bridging the Atlantic: Brazil and Sub-Saharan Africa—South-South partnering for growth. Washington, DC and Brasília: World Bank and IPEA.
