Global South, Global North, or just Global?

Stereotyped world

In one of the Finnish Broadcasting Company’s political discussion programs, the Finns Party Member of Parliament, Dr. Teemu Keskisarja, referred to people coming from the developing countries as of “low quality” (YLE A-Studio on 27th of August 2025). I was not the only one to be shocked by this statement, and obviously many of his arguments were very easy to shoot down as there is simply no evidence for them. Having more than 20 years of experience in international collaboration and living in a multicultural family myself, it was easy to disagree with Dr. Keskisarja’s argument. A few days later, on 6th September 2025, Dr. Shadia Rask (2025) wrote a column in YLE webpage highlighting how twisted our views might be on the African countries, on under-development, corruption, and conflicts. As Rask notes, we often forget that the economies and markets of many African countries are growing. It is estimated that due to the negative image conveyed by the international media, African countries lose almost four billion euros annually, as the risk of investing in Africa is perceived to be greater than it in reality is. This also leads to overly high loan interest rates. According to Kimeu (2024), Moky Makura, the executive director of Africa No Filter, said that “[w]e’ve always known that there’s a cost to the persistent stereotypical media narratives about Africa. Now we’re able to put an actual figure to it,” continuing that “[t]he scale of these figures underscores the urgent need to challenge [these] negative stereotypes about Africa and promote a more balanced narrative.”

As Kapazoglou and Goris (2020) point out, the roots of imbalances in economic development can be traced back to the late 15th century when European traders began transporting Africans across the Atlantic Ocean as slaves to the Americas. This slave trade, which lasted for four centuries, destroyed trade relations between African countries, emptied the continent of its workforce, and halted the development of African and American economies and societies. In Europe, on the other hand, industrialization progressed at a rapid pace, securing the continent’s economic dominance. In addition, Kapazoglou and Goris note that this development led to Europeans starting to view Africans and other non-Western peoples as inferior and subservient. This kind of division of countries into developed and underdeveloped, consequently, led to industrial colonialism, and this acceleration ultimately created the need for an industry focused on development cooperation. (Kapazoglou & Goris, 2020).

Weak attempts towards the change

According to Kapazoglou and Goris (2020), in the early 1990s, a new approach was adopted in development cooperation, aiming for more effective cooperation, a people-centred approach, and consideration of local needs. This new approach challenged the traditional donor-recipient dynamic. Non-Governmental Organizations emerged as key actors in development cooperation, offering an alternative approach to the unsuccessful state- and market-driven approach of previous decades. They also came under criticism for their links to institutional and state donors which were seen as reminiscent of colonial power relations. The development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) meant a shift in the mindset. The process of defining the SDGs involved a wide range of stakeholders from developing countries, and it was intended to increase country ownership. Furthermore, the SDGs are universal. This means that also developing countries must shoulder their responsibilities and contribute to solving the challenges that affect all of humanity. This principle of shared responsibility aims to dismantle the colonial practices of classifying countries according to Western standards. Unfortunately, although developing countries’ own responsibility seems to have increased, at least so far, the SDGs have not succeeded in changing the traditional donor-recipient dynamics. (Kapazoglou & Goris, 2020).

Indeed, the legacy of the colonial roots of aid should not be undermined. As Peace Direct reports (2021), the modern aid system is often regarded as apolitical, and therefore it fails to meet the community’s needs, neglecting to address underlying political causes. In practice, this is visible, e.g., in power structures of the development projects, which generally lie within the partners from the Global North, unequal salary structures, and outdated language, using vocabulary such as “beneficiaries” and “capacity building” (Peace Direct 2021).

Also the financing for the SDGs has not succeeded. By now, development co-operation has grown into a huge business. According to United Nation’s report (2024), the Official Development Aid (ODA) has reached new record sums. For example, in 2022 the OECD countries alone allocated $211 billion to it. Over the past two decades, funding for humanitarian finance has risen about thirtyfold, from $2 billion in 2000 to a record high of $57 billion in 2023. Even these numbers are far from the demand. (United Nations, 2024) It is probably impossible to count the number of people who work or have a professional career in this field. Johansson (2017) describes development cooperation as a huge industry that is already a prisoner of its own practices. Often, due to the cemented system, there are also no realistic conditions for ending development cooperation.

Preparing for the balanced world order

Inevitable change is ahead of us. Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council. Towards a comprehensive Strategy with Africa (European Commission, 2020) and Finland’s Africa Strategy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2021) contain a vision of a more equal partnership and the breaking of the old helper-helpee pattern. The Global North and Global South are seen as strategic partners, and also the Joint Communication notes that “Africa has been recording steady economic growth. In 2018, six of the ten fastest growing economies in the world were African. Thirty African States are middle-income or high-income countries”. The basis for collaboration seems to be economic growth that benefits both partners, not only the Global North or professionals who gain their living from the cooperation business. Finland’s Africa Strategy puts it even more clearly: “The approach of this strategy is new. Its focus is not on development cooperation but on developing and diversifying political and economic relations between Finland and African countries.” At the same time, it seems that the developed North is starting to find some sort of conscience on these matters, overall awareness of these issues seems to be increasing, or maybe criticism for the pejorative traditional dynamics has been loud enough. According to Peace Direct’s report (2021), discussions about unequal power dynamics in the international aid system have entered the mainstream.  

Promoting the change, many actors pay attention to recognizing either the obvious or the hidden power imbalances. In Finland, the Finnish National Agency for Education published Ethical Guidelines for Cooperation with Partners from the Global South (2023), and the Finnish University Partnership for International Development, UNIPID, published Ethical Guidelines for Responsible Academic Partnerships with the Global South, both in 2023. These documents guide towards a more equal approach to collaboration in the education sector, both of them highlighting, among other important things, the role of contextual differences, power imbalances, and counterbalancing the inherent inequalities, such as the role of language.

Old habits die slowly

Nevertheless, there are also voices pointing out that even though the direction may have changed, there is still a lot to do. Ghanase (2025) writes:

“Recent developments in the aid landscape have raised concerns about the politicization of Official Development Assistance. Finland’s current government has been accused of leveraging ODA funding to pressure Southern partner countries into adopting specific policies, a move critics argue undermines genuine partnerships. Meanwhile, the freeze on USAID funding for developing countries by Trump raises questions about the future of international development cooperation.”  

Recently, my colleague and I had an exciting conversation with a transport entrepreneur in Tanzania during a long ride from Dar-Es-Salaam to Handeni. We asked him about the impact of European projects in Africa. He claimed that with the Europeans, it is “all complicated,” continuing that

“they come with their European values, their agendas, they want to change this and that, take care of gender balance, change your means of living, and change your family, kin, and community structures and all that, and pursue this and that and that and this, and want to dictate everything. Conversely, with Chinese, it is easier. They just come and get what they want and go back, and the job for us is done, but they don’t require us to change for nothing.”

I am not promoting China, but this perhaps underlines how hard it is for the Europeans to let go of power.

It also seems hard to let go of images of “otherness” in connection with Africa. We are constantly fed with images of disorder, inferiority, and incompetence in places where, as Rask reminds, economies are in reality steadily growing. The stereotypical images that the Global North is used to seeing from Africa are in tension with burgeoning cityscapes full of skyscrapers, and a young population eager to be part of, e.g., technology and growth companies, the gaming industry, or health technology. Meanwhile, I write funding applications at my desk and wonder why, after all this, I still have to estimate the number of “beneficiaries” in the box on the donors template for the “capacity building” programme, and why do I have to describe how my proposal will “convey the donor’s values” from the Global North to the Global South. It seems difficult for the Global North to let go of the legacy of colonialism and world domination in favour of a more just world order and a more just power balance. However, the White Man’s Burden has been on our shoulders only for 600 years, not for the entire history of the universe. Inequality is not a law of nature in a man-made world.

In cases where the local actors have been given a more autonomous and powerful role, the results have not always been encouraging. The funds may have been misused, or there may not have been enough competence among the staff. However, I find it unfair to compare this to the Global North well-trained and experienced actors who play this game by the rules they have invented themselves. The colleagues from the Global South may not have had the same opportunities to get an education, training, or work experience as we have and they play by rules they did not participate in forming. Having said this, issues of corruption, fund misuse, inappropriate behaviour, or lack of competence come up frequently in the Global North-driven projects as well.

The betterment we can do

The world is not ready, but the change moves in the right direction – towards a world where we are not talking, as Dr. Keskisarja, about the population change, but instead about the power transfer. We can begin to be a part of positive change. We can, for example, start by testing ourselves with the Power Awareness Tool (n.d.). The time of oppressive and stereotypical structures is over.

Author