Li Zongfang, Postdoctoral Fellow at Peking University’s School of International Studies, and Wang Dong, Professor at the same School and Executive Director of the Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding (iGCU), Peking University, argue in International Forum that the 21st-century revival of South-South Cooperation (SSC) is best understood through the “practice turn” in international relations. They suggest that SSC is not merely a static result of power shifts or functional utility but a dynamic international practice driven by background knowledge. By transcending the representational bias of mainstream Western theories, this perspective highlights how SSC is co-constructed through ongoing activities within specific social and political fields.
SSC’s evolution is traceable to the 1955 Bandung Conference, which established principles of sovereignty and economic cooperation among nations unified by anti-colonial resistance. While the field’s power structure was relatively flat during the 20th century, its modern revival is driven by “lead states” such as China, India, and Brazil. These actors have institutionalized the field through mechanisms like the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), the Silk Road Fund, and the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). This transition introduces a micro-political competition over leadership narratives while collectively challenging Western-led global governance systems.
The deep impetus for contemporary SSC lies in background knowledge—the implicit, shared experiences of colonial history and development struggles. Unlike standardized Western aid models, SSC practices are pragmatic and emphasize a learning-by-doing approach. The researchers identify sustainable economic development as the anchoring practice that organizes the modern SSC field. This goal manifests through three core pillars: flexible financing, infrastructure interconnectivity, and institutionalized knowledge sharing.
Complementing these are discursive practices—the strategic use of terms such as “equality,” “mutual benefit,” and “non-interference.” These social actions build a collective identity that redefines development assistance as a horizontal partnership. Ultimately, this practice-based approach serves as a tool to dismantle Western-centrism in global development theory. For China, this underscores the importance of transitioning from the output of products to the co-production of knowledge alongside other Southern partners to create an autonomous, pluralistic development knowledge system.
Subscription
