Development by Trade? A Critical Reading of Aid for Trade Narratives

By Nick Natrella

Affiliate at the Post Growth Institute

Editorial Assistant at The Irenaut

Introduction

Exchange—giving and receiving—is a deeply human activity. Trade, at its best, could be seen as a long-distance extension of this tradition: celebration, connection, peace-making. To receive something from a faraway land, a gift that offers a glimpse into another way of life, is a beautiful thing. Yet modern trade has strayed far from this imagined ideal. Today, it more often resembles extraction than exchange. Disposable goods arrive bearing only a ‘Made in ___’ label, their origins reduced to supply chains marked by violence and exploitation. Faceless are the garment workers in Bangladesh; nameless, the lives lost in the Congo to feed Big Tech’s hunger for cobalt. This essay does not seek to reconstruct a utopian trade regime. Rather, it aims to uncover the falsities embedded in the dominant narrative that all trade is good trade, especially when it is framed as a tool for development. In particular, I examine the "Aid for Trade" (AfT) framework, which suggests that development assistance should be used to promote trade. From a post-growth perspective, this logic is ecologically unsustainable, socially unjust, and economically misleading. The political return of Donald Trump, with his chaotic tariffs and nationalist rhetoric, has reignited global debates about protectionism. Ironically, his team—perhaps accidentally—touched on a historical truth: the United States, like most now-developed nations, used protectionist policies to foster industrial growth. Yet today, these same policies are denied to poorer countries under free trade orthodoxy. Trade liberalisation is preached as a one-size-fits-all solution, even as it deepens inequality, erodes local resilience, and accelerates ecological breakdown. Here, I intend to critically analyse the narratives that uphold trade as a global good—tracing the forces that enabled its rise to dominance, and exploring more compelling, human-centred alternatives to the current regime of international exchange.

Narratives

Narratives, or ‘stories with purposes and consequences’ (Dry & Leach, 2010, pp. 5-9), seek to carve out clear paths to solutions in the midst of debilitating uncertainty and complexity (Roe, 1994, pp. 3-4). However, with a highly-unequal, globalised economic system which teeters on the edge of ecological collapse, uncertainty and complexity define the prevailing environment in which we live, something we are unable to simply wish away with elaborate fairytales. In foregrounding certain assumptions, the consequences of these dominant narratives are seen in institutional and policy responses (Dry & Leach, 2010, pp. 5-9). Moreover, which narrative comes to dominate is often a question of power, and not just certain entities ‘power to’ frame, but also their ‘power over’ policymaking institutions (Mohan & Thomas, 2007, p. 183). Meanwhile, the purposes of certain narratives are often both covert and overt. Logic and conventional wisdom are required for a narrative to be widely accepted, however proponents will neglect how such a narrative may serve their unique interests. For example, the ‘outbreak narrative’ emphasises the need to channel resources to disease prevention which comes at the expense of primary health care funding (Dry & Leach, 2010, p. 6), which may benefit wealthier nations more than low-income nations. Unsurprisingly, in the realm of development policymaking, where the most influential organisations are headquartered in Europe and North America, Western-rooted narratives tend to stick more. One such narrative which perseveres to this day is that of Aid for Trade (AfT).

The broad narrative of AfT is as follows: by allocating aid towards the improvement of developing countries’ trade infrastructure, capacity, and institutions, they can better leverage trade to achieve economic growth and poverty alleviation. I deconstruct and critically analyse these narratives using relevant materials from prominent policymaking institutions. Then, equipped with Dry & Leach’s (2010, p. 9) pathways approach, I analyse the interplay of factors which enabled the narratives’ rise to dominance. Subsequently, I critique the narratives’ misconceptions regarding the trade regime, highlighting alternative narratives (Roe, 1991, p. 288) which embrace pluralism and inclusivity (Dry & Leach, 2010, pp. 13-14). By focusing on alternative narratives like that of a ‘solidarity mode of living’ (Brand & Wissen, 2021), I seek to question Western notions of modernity (Mignolo, 2009, pp. 160- 166), namely the desirability of unfettered trade liberalisation and limitless economic growth. How did the AfT narrative become so prevalent? The ascendancy of the AfT narrative finds its roots in the broader narrative of Trade Liberalisation for Development (TLfD). Krueger (2020, pp. 51-56), former Chief Economist at the World Bank, articulates this narrative, concentrating on developing countries that have not fully embraced global economic integration, opting for protectionist measures. This narrative contends that by removing barriers to trade, foreign and domestic firms can engage in reciprocal market competition, reducing prices. Meanwhile, aligning production with the country’s comparative advantage allows firms to export goods and accumulate surpluses for reinvestment, thereby driving economic growth, increasing employment, and consequently alleviating poverty. The narrative also posits dynamic gains from trade, emphasising competition’s role in stimulating innovation and broadening consumer choice. This perspective rejects the ‘infant industry’ argument espoused by List which stresses the value of protectionism for nascent industries. Instead, trade is presented as a win-win endeavour. The widespread acceptance of this narrative is showcased by the World Bank’s (2022) unreserved endorsement of trade, declaring it as ‘an engine of growth that creates better jobs, reduces poverty, and increases economic opportunity.’

This broader narrative originated from the intellectual authority of neoclassical economics, the congruence of liberalisation with the interests of US corporate entities (owing to profit opportunities stemming from the elimination of investment and import controls), and the institutional hegemony of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, culminating in the policy paradigm recognised as the Washington Consensus (Babb & Kentikelenis, 2021, pp. 525-530). Amidst converging crises, a novel multipurpose trade policy paradigm has ascended to prominence, broadening the scope of trade policy considerations beyond an efficient international division of labour (IISD, 2023). Formerly considered externalities, issues of inequality, poverty, and sustainability are integral to this multipurpose trade policy framework (ibid.). This fortifies the dominance of the AfT narrative, reinforcing the notion that trade can serve as a strategic tool for achieving developmental goals. Against the backdrop of a ‘retroliberal’ aid regime, characterised by the subsidisation of corporate capitalism through aid under the guise of ‘shared prosperity’ (Mawdsley et al., 2018, pp. 25-30), AfT emerges as another conduit for Western political actors to tether aid to national interests. The global nature of the ‘growth paradigm’ (Schmelzer et al., 2022, pp. 38-40) fortifies both narratives which rely on the conceptualisation of trade as an ‘engine for growth’ (World Bank, 2022), appealing to both political and corporate interests in the Global North, although in distinct ways. Political endorsement of growth is underpinned by the structural dependence of social institutions on perpetual growth. The ‘productivity trap’ (Hickel, 2020, pp. 98-100) exemplifies this, wherein states seek growth to sustain employment levels, mitigating the impact of labour productivity improvements leading to cost-cutting and subsequent layoffs. Furthermore, the international mobility of capital limits governments' tax capacities for public investment in essential sectors like healthcare and education, making growth a vital avenue for resource acquisition (ibid.). The public debt trap compounds this dynamic, as compound interest rates necessitate sustained growth to generate revenues for repayment. Meanwhile, shareholder primacy and unrestricted competition compel multinational corporations to leverage trade in the pursuit of growth. Trade enables the net appropriation of resources and labour in the Global South, a consequence of the unequal exchange embedded in global value chains (Hickel, 2022, pp. 1-3), 80% of which are intertwined with multinational corporations (Oxfam, 2022, pp. 9-11). Thus, both narratives’ emphasis on growth aligns seamlessly with the intersecting interests of capital and politics, as exemplified by Keir Starmer’s (Leader of the UK Labour Party) declaration that ‘the race is on for […] new supply chains that will emerge’ (Labour Party, 2023).

The Trade Regime

Despite the championing of trade as a tool for pursuing other policy objectives such as sustainability and equality, an interdisciplinary examination finds both narratives to be founded on misconceptions. The primary misconception lies in the prescription that developing nations must alter their strategies to fully capitalise on trade liberalisation. Conversely, alternative perspectives posit that it is imperative for an anti-colonial restructuring of trade relations to foster a more equitable and mutually beneficial distribution of benefits. If not founded on innocent misconceptions, these narratives constitute part of a wider deliberate strategy of ‘ladder-kicking’, as suggested by Chang (2002).

Trade and Colonialism

In their call for increased trade, the narratives of AfT and TLfD demonstrate a lack of awareness towards the contemporary trade regime's connection to colonialism and underdevelopment in the Global South. Walter Rodney, a radical anti-imperialist, emphasises the pivotal role of the trade regime in facilitating the transfer of wealth from Africa to Europe (2018, p. 86), delineating how the international division of labour was structured to ensure that high-value, high-skill activities were concentrated in the Global North (ibid., p. 213). Notably, monopolistic enterprises like Unilever extended their high-value operations across the Global North, enabling even capitalist nations without colonies to participate in and benefit from this wealth appropriation (ibid., p. 230). Rodney also observed the detrimental impact of colonial activities focused on export, such as mining and cash-crop farming, on cultural life (ibid., p. 282). It is in this historical context that the modern trade regime’s structures are rooted.

Protectionism

Historical illiteracy plagues both narratives which ignore the legitimacy of List’s ‘infant industry’ argument. The successful state interventionist approach adopted by South Korea, characterised by export promotion and import replacement (Wade, 2010, pp. 155-156), demonstrates the merits of protectionist measures for developing countries. Chang (2002, p.54) furthers this point by highlighting how, at similar levels of development, now-developed countries (NDCs) leveraged protectionist policies to maintain their competitive advantage, exemplified by Britain’s prohibition on the emigration of skilled labour. Nonetheless, the narratives dismiss this evidence and continue to promote the removal of protectionist measures. Similar to the ‘good governance’ discourse, which attributed the shortcomings of the Structural Adjustment Programmes to the absence of ‘appropriate institutions’ in developing countries (Mkandawire, 2007, p. 681), the AfT narrative places responsibility on the institutional deficiencies of trade authorities in developing nations for the inability of trade liberalisation to generate enduring reductions in poverty. Yet, a more enlightened perspective advocates for an interventionist state, cultivating internationally competitive sectors before removing protectionist measures.

Commodity Dependence

Both narratives overlook the complex social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with trade, namely the trade of commodities. With 89% of sub-Saharan countries classified as commodity-dependent (UNCTAD, 2019), exporting producers are vulnerable to international commodity price shocks (Sindzingre, 2012, pp. 989-990), with documented effects on a range of factors such as child malnutrition, land privatisation, anti-refugee violence, and expected returns to education (Mekasha et al., 2022; Albertus, 2019; Lehmann, 2023; Cogneau & Jedwab, 2012; Kebede, 2022). This contrasts to the narrative’s contention that AfT ‘can help developing countries build resilience and adjust to shocks that ripple through international markets’ (Hynes & Lammersen, 2017, p. 28). In this case, further global integration increases producers’ vulnerabilities. Alternative narratives promote food and energy self-sufficiency (Atimniraye, 2023), calling for localised, needs-oriented production, whereby trade is no longer an environmentally detrimental means for subsistence, but a conduit for mutually beneficial exchange (Schmelzer et al., 2020, pp. 244-249).

Neoextractivism

Meanwhile, an examination of neoextractivism exposes the misguided claims of sustainable trade. Notably, the World Bank's acknowledgment that ‘the extraction and processing of natural resources account for more than 90 percent of biodiversity loss and […] half of greenhouse-gas emissions’ contradicts its subsequent promotion of trade as a driver of sustainable growth, suggesting it ‘can foster the spread of Environmental Goods and Services.’ Empirical evidence refutes the notion of decoupling growth from material and energy use, underscoring the inherent contradiction within this concept of ‘sustainable growth’ (Hickel, 2020, p. 103). Moreover, studies find trade openness tends to result in higher carbon dioxide emissions (Duan et al., 2022, p. 1). Electric vehicles (EVs), anticipated to propel the green transition in the Global North (UK Government, 2023), exemplify this contradiction. EVs require critical materials such as lithium, with over 75% of reserves concentrated in the ‘Lithium Triangle’ between Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia (Ahmad, 2020). Lithium extraction, marked by an energy- and water-intensive process with substantial environmental impacts (Rajaeifar, 2022, pp. 2-3), is often accompanied by conflicts over water and land rights between mining companies and indigenous populations (Dorn & Gundermann, 2022, p. 356). Surging global demand coupled with public ownership of critical resources has resulted in a phenomenon termed ‘neoextractivism’, whereby states form a dependency on perpetual extraction to generate export revenues required for social programmes (Alonso-Fernández & Regueiro-Ferreira, 2022). In Guyana, where the extractive sectors comprise nearly 85% of export value (EITI, 2020, p. 16), documented cases of environmental degradation, state violence, and workers’ rights abuses in areas of multinational mining operations (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2014, pp. 150-163) underscore the potential exacerbation of such issues with increased trade.

Imperial Mode of Living

Contrary to the AfT narrative's claims of inclusivity and contention that developing countries are not fully integrated into the global economy, the actual predicament lies in the fact that low- and middle-income countries are ‘integrated into the global economy on fundamentally unequal terms’ (Hickel et al., 2022, p. 10). This unequal exchange is illustrated by the $242 trillion net worth of labour and resources appropriated from the Global South by affluent nations in the period 1990-2015 (Hickel, 2022, p. 10), facilitated by the depression of the wages and prices of labour and resources in the Global South (ibid., pp. 1-3). Ecologically Unequal Exchange (EUE) theorises how these low-value activities assigned to periphery countries in the international division of labour also exhibit high levels of ecological impact (Alonso-Fernández & Regueiro-Ferreira, 2022, pp. 1-5). Beyond the inherently unequal global character of trade, empirical findings underscore that trade liberalisation also tends to exacerbate internal income inequality within developing countries (Gharleghi & Jahanshahi, 2020, p. 990). Consequently, the augmentation of trade in this context of a dominan ‘imperial mode of living’ (Brand & Wissen, 2021), as advocated by both narratives, risks accelerating appropriation, inequality, and environmental degradation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, three salient findings emerge from this analysis. Firstly, the narratives find support in the confluence of a ‘retroliberal’ aid regime, the pervasive influence of growthism, and the enduring legacy of the Washington Consensus. Secondly, historical illiteracy perpetuates the disregard for the ‘infant industry’ argument, resulting in adverse consequences for two-thirds of developing nations that persist in commodity dependence despite their integration into the global economy (UNCTAD, 2019). Lastly, theories of EUE and neoextractivism underscore major inaccuracies within the narratives, particularly considering their claims of sustainability and inclusivity. A decolonial counter-narrative would delineate a contemporary trade regime predominantly shaped by imperialistic forces which exploit vulnerability for competitive advantage and contribute to climate, economic, and gender injustices (Oxfam, 2022, pp. 9-11). Assuming the Global North’s development as synonymous with the Global South’s underdevelopment (Rodney, 2018), such a narrative would advocate renewed trade relations of a symbiotic nature, embodying a ‘solidarity mode of living’ aimed at securing a ‘good life for all that does not destroy its own biophysical basis’ (Brand & Wissen, 2021, pp. 114-116). Policy responses to such a narrative could include ecological reparations (both financial and technological), localised, needs-oriented production, and preferential trade agreements to enable a ‘solidarity mode of living’ (Schmelzer et al., 2020, pp. 244-249).

Bibliography:

Ahmad, S. (2020). The Lithium Triangle: Where Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia Meet. Harvard

International Review. [https://hir.harvard.edu/lithium-triangle/]

Albertus, M. (2019). The effect of commodity price shocks on public lands distribution:

Evidence from Colombia. World Development, 113, 294–308.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.012

Alonso-Fernández, P., & Regueiro-Ferreira, R. M. (2022). Extractivism, ecologically unequal

exchange and environmental impact in South America: A study using Material Flow Analysis

(1990–2017). Ecological Economics, 194, 107351-.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107351

Asian Development Bank. (2017). Aid for Trade in Asia and the Pacific : Promoting

Connectivity for Inclusive Development. (1st ed.).

Atimniraye, R. (2023). Africa reimagined: Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore advocates for

resilience, recognition, and resistance. Global Voices.

[https://globalvoices.org/2023/08/07/africa-reimagined-burkina-fasos-ibrahim-traore-

advocates-for-resilience-recognition-and-resistance/]

Babb, S., & Kentikelenis, A. (2021). Markets Everywhere: The Washington Consensus and

the Sociology of Global Institutional Change. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 521–541.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090220-025543

Brand, U., Wissen, M. (2021). The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the

Ecological Crisis of Capitalism. Verso.

Calì, M., & te Velde, D. W. (2011). Does Aid for Trade Really Improve Trade Performance?

World Development, 39(5), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.018

Chang, H. J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective.

London: Anthem.

Clapp, J. (2017). Food self-sufficiency: Making sense of it, and when it makes sense. Food

Policy, 66, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.001

Cogneau, D., & Jedwab, R. (2012). Commodity price shocks and child outcomes: The 1990

Cocoa crisis in Côte d’Ivoire. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 60(3), 507–534.

https://doi.org/10.1086/664017

Dasgupta, B. (1997). SAP: Issues and Conditionalities: A Global Review. Economic and

Political Weekly, 32(20/21), 1091–1104. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405415

Dorn, F. M., & Gundermann, H. (2022). Mining companies, indigenous communities, and the

state: The political ecology of lithium in Chile (Salar de Atacama) and Argentina (Salar de

Olaroz-Cauchari). Journal of Political Ecology, 29(1), 341–359.

https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5014

Drabo, A. (2017). Climate change mitigation and agricultural development models: Primary

commodity exports or local consumption production? Ecological Economics, 137, 110–125.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.014

Dry, S., & Leach, M. (2010). Epidemics: Science, Governance and Social Justice (1st ed.).

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776424

Duan, K., Cao, M., & Abdul Kader Malim, N. (2022). The Relationship between Trade

Liberalization, Financial Development and Carbon Dioxide Emission—An Empirical

Analysis. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 14(16), 10308-.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610308

Edenhofer, O. (Ed.). (2012). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation :

special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change / edited by Ottmar

Edenhofer [and ten others]. Cambridge University Press.

European Commission. (2023). Aid for Trade: EU remains among the major global providers

with €23 billion. [https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/aid-

trade-eu-remains-among-major-global-providers-eu23-billion-2023-01-

20_en#:~:text=The%20EU's%20Aid%20for%20Trade%20strategy%20was%20adopted%20i

n%202007,play%20in%20their%20sustainable%20development.]

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. (2020). Guyana Extractive Industries

Transparency Initiative Report. Fiscal Year 2020. [https://eiti.org/sites/default/files/2023-

07/GYEITI%2Breport%2BFY2020%2B-%2BFinal.pdf]

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. (2023). FCDO response to the Independent

Commission on Aid Impact’s review of UK aid for trade, June 2023.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/icai-recommendations-on-uk-aid-for-trade-uk-

government-response/fcdo-response-to-the-independent-commission-on-aid-impacts-review-

of-uk-aid-for-trade-june-2023]

Gnangnon, S. K. (2017). The Impact of Multilateral Trade Liberalisation on Economic

Development: Some Empirical Evidence. Economic Affairs (Harlow), 37(3), 397–410.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12246

Gharleghi, B., & Jahanshahi, A. A. (2020). The way to sustainable development through

income equality: The impact of trade liberalisation and financial development. Sustainable

Development (Bradford, West Yorkshire, England), 28(4), 990–1001.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2051

Hickel, J. (2020). Less is more : how degrowth will save the world / Jason Hickel. William

Heinemann.

Hickel, J., Dorninger, C., Wieland, H., & Suwandi, I. (2022). Imperialist appropriation in the

world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015. Global

Environmental Change, 73, 102467-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102467

Hynes, W. and F. Lammersen. (2017). Facilitate Trade for Development: Aid for Trade.

ADBI Working Paper 670. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available:

https://www.adb.org/publications/facilitate-trade-development-aid-trade

Independent Commission for Aid Impact. (2023). UK aid for trade: a review. June 2023.

[https://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/UK-aid-for-trade_ICAI-review.pdf]

International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2023). Toward multipurpose trade

policy? How competing narratives about globalization are reshaping international trade

cooperation. [https://www.iisd.org/articles/policy-analysis/multipurpose-trade-policy]

Kebede, H. A. (2022). The Pass-Through of International Commodity Price Shocks to

Producers’ Welfare: Evidence from Ethiopian Coffee Farmers. The World Bank Economic

Review, 36(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhab020

Labour Party. (2023). Keir Starmer's speech at Labour Conference. Retrieved from

https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-at-labour-conference/

Lehmann, M. C. (2023). Macroeconomic volatility and anti‐refugee violence in developing

countries: Evidence from commodity price shocks. Review of Development Economics,

27(2), 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12972

Mawdsley, E., Murray, W. E., Overton, J., Scheyvens, R., & Banks, G. (2018). Exporting

stimulus and ‘shared prosperity’: Reinventing foreign aid for a retroliberal era. Development

Policy Review, 36(S1), O25–O43. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12282

Mekasha, T. J., Molla, K. G., Tarp, F., & Aikaeli, J. (2022). Commodity price fluctuations

and child malnutrition. World Development, 158, 105927-.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105927

Mignolo, W. 2009. ‘Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial

Freedom’, Theory, Culture & Society, 26 (7-8): 159-181

Mkandawire, T. (2005). Maladjusted African Economies and Globalisation. Africa

Development / Afrique et Développement, 30(1/2), 1–33.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484599

Mkandawire, T. (2007). ‘Good governance’: the itinerary of an idea. Development in

Practice, 17:4-5, 679-681. DOI: 10.1080/09614520701469997

Mohan, G., & Thomas, A. (2007). Research skills for policy and development how to find

out fast. Sage in association with the Open University.

Oxfam. (2022). Fair Trade: Justice and Sustainability for People and the Planet: Oxfam

Position Paper on Fair Trade, 2022. [https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-

2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-

03/Oxfam%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Fair%20Trade_EN.pdf]

Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2014). Extractive Imperialism in the Americas : Capitalism’s

New Frontier. (1st ed.). BRILL.

Rajaeifar, M. A., Ghadimi, P., Raugei, M., Wu, Y., & Heidrich, O. (2022). Challenges and

recent developments in supply and value chains of electric vehicle batteries: A sustainability

perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, 106144-.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106144

Rodney, W. (2018). How Europe underdeveloped Africa / Walter Rodney. Verso.

Roe, E. M. (1991). Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint development.

World Development, 19(4), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(91)90177-J

Roe, E. M. (1994). Narrative policy analysis theory and practice / Emery Roe. Duke

University Press.

Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022). The future is degrowth : a guide to a

world beyond capitalism / Matthias Schmelzer, Aaron Vansintjan, Andrea Vetter. Verso.

Schumacher, E. F. (1993). Small is beautiful : a study of economics as if people mattered.

Vintage.

Siddiqui, K. (2015). Trade Liberalization and Economic Development: A Critical Review.

International Journal of Political Economy, 44(3), 228–247.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08911916.2015.1095050

Sindzingre, A. (2012). THE IMPACT OF THE 2008-2009 CRISIS ON COMMODITY-

DEPENDENT LOW-INCOME AFRICAN COUNTRIES: CONFIRMING THE

RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF POVERTY TRAP? Journal of International

Development, 24(8), 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.2877

UK Government. (2023). Government sets out path to zero emission vehicles by 2035.

GOV.UK. [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-path-to-zero-

emission-vehicles-by-2035]

UK Government. (2023). PM’s speech on the economy: 20 November 2023. GOV.UK.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-the-economy-20-november-2023]

United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. [https://sdgs.un.org/goals]

UNCTAD. (2019). Countries dependent on commodities hit 20-year high.

[https://unctad.org/press-material/countries-dependent-commodities-hit-20-year-high-says-

un]

Wade, R. (2010) After the Crisis: Industrial Policy and the Developmental State in Low-

Income Countries. Global Policy. [Online] 1 (2), 150–161. Available from:

doi:10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00036.x.

Wahl, D. C. (2016). Designing regenerative cultures Daniel Christian Wahl. Triarchy Press.

Wallace-Wells, D. (2019). The uninhabitable earth : a story of the future / David Wallace-

Wells. Allen Lane.

World Bank. (2022). Trade. [https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/overview]

World Trade Organisation. [Accessed on 7/12/23]. The Enhanced Integrated Framework.

[https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/enhance_if_e.htm]

World Trade Organisation. [Accessed on 7/12/23]. Building Trade Capacity.

[https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/build_tr_capa_e.htm]

World Trade Organisation. [Accessed on 8/12/23]. Aid for Trade fact sheet.

[https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/a4t_factsheet_e.htm]