Our central research question is: how do “new powers” integrate SSC strategies in their foreign policy agendas? The category “new powers” here refers to states that must react to the international hierarchy within a broad commitment to some change in status quo (Narlikar, 2010). The six countries also share the legacy of North-South relations, and manifest some sort of geopolitical dissatisfaction. They showcase regional and international leadership and negotiation capabilities, and all have traditional foreign services and a history of national diplomacy. Other countries could also be part of such a list (for instance, Argentine, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Thailand), but as Marijke Breuning (2007, p. 19) recalls, the selection of only six countries is justified by the fact that “comparisons of smaller numbers of cases allow for more detailed analyses of similarities and differences among both the independent and dependent variables of the cases”. As Vicky Randall (2004, p. 46) recalls, these are some features that help “justify studying the politics of Third World countries together as a separate group”.
Moreover, it seems necessary and appropriate to study in comparative perspective, both theoretically and empirically, the reality of foreign policy agendas of the six selected “emerging powers”, since (i) they are all both recipients and donors of development cooperation, (ii) they give greater importance to the diplomacy of south-south cooperation (in their official discourses, through the setting up of institutions, development of projects, and allocate relevant), (iii) they are strategically important in their respective regions and in terms of global geopolitics, (iv) they share the historical legacy in terms of participation, between the years 1950 and 1970, in discussions about the center-periphery relations, non-alignment, Third World and the new international economic order, (v) they are all middle-income countries, and (vi) they show similarities and differences for a comparative approach.
The six selected countries also show some distinctive capabilities to project hard and soft power on the regional and global levels. According to Ryan K. Beasley et al. (2002) in a multipolar system, such powers “often have the most autonomy and regional influence because there is greater choice in alliance partners when the major powers are competing”. Middle powers may worry, however, that the great powers will cooperate and rule the international system like an oligarchy, ignoring their interests, an aspect which may showcase the dialectics between interdependence and asymmetry in the international order. Moreover, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey experience challenges and transformations both internally and externally. In this wake, foreign policy analysis should be seen as a distinct area of inquiry which connects the study of international relations with the study of domestic politics. The first step in any comparative investigation of foreign policy in the field of SSC strategies is to define what we mean by the term “foreign policy”, particularly today when “contemporary politics has blurred the line between what is foreign and what is domestic” (Beasley et al., 2002, p. 3). This does not mean, however, that there is no longer a difference between foreign and domestic policy. At the heart of this distinction is the target of the policy; if the primary target lies outside the country’s borders, it is considered foreign policy, even if it has secondary consequences for politics inside the country. Similarly, if the primary target is inside the country, it is considered domestic policy, even if it affects others outside the country’s borders. Many policies, of course, have multiple targets (inside and outside, towards state, governmental and non-governmental actors…). Another difficulty concerns the status of territorial borders, particularly within integration processes. It is also important to define “policy”, avoiding the traditional trap of restricting the definition to actions of governments, governmental institutions, and government officials.
Further to the challenge that Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil (1994, p. 9) have put forward, “the researcher must provide us with an illustration of comparative imagination”, we have set up an analytical model with four dimensions (historical, geopolitical, institutional and domestic politics), issues and variables.
Dimension 1 - The historical contextual dimension of South-South Development Cooperation (SSC-D) in the foreign policy agendas of each of the selected countries: what is the legacy of North-South cooperation in the selected countries? What are the main pitfalls and critical limits of the North-South cooperation that should be avoided in the SSC-D (in the field of public health, the environment, for example)? How does the SSC-D on the agendas of Brazilian foreign policy and selected countries?
Dimension 2 - The constitutive dimension of regional and global geopolitics, as the SSC-D is linked to regional priorities and global foreign policy? As the SSC-D is related to the priorities of global collective security and regional integration processes? SSC-D follows the strategies of economic investments (public and private) conducted by the six countries selected?
Dimension 3 - The institutional dimension of SSC-D: What are the speeches, agendas and practices of the countries studied in CSS? There are agencies specifically designed to implement these agendas? How to articulate the institutional actors (federalism, bureaucratic politics)?
Dimension 4 - The size of domestic politics: what is the "place" of the agendas of non-governmental Brazilian SSC-D? What are their perceptions about the SSC-D of their respective countries? How to articulate the economic operators and social actors on the agendas of SSC-D in the case of Brazil and in comparative perspective? There would be tensions between public and private interests in the implementation of these agendas SSC-D, particularly in Latin American and African?
The main assumptions of this research project are the following:
(i) The legacy of North-South relations, the fight for a new international economic order in the sixties and seventies, among other independent variables, play a significant historical role (a) in the framing (social representation, national history) of international problems and (b) in the conception of viable alliances and coalitions among developing countries.
(ii) The definition of SSC-D strategies follows a complex decision making process in which geopolitical and economic factors work as key intervening variables. SSC strategies implemented by “new powers” also depend on their national and collective capabilities (material and economic strength), geographical location (regional priorities), and cultural affinity (being part of a community).
(iii) SSC-D strategies are not homogeneous: they may assume the specific shape of technical cooperation, may be more focused on bilateral cooperation, and also the result of the internationalization of public policies. There is a need to empirically analyze such development cooperation schemes and set up empirical typologies so as to reveal distinct country profiles in terms of political behavior and soft power projection.
(iv) Institutional experience is heterogeneous, and is related to (a) the national political and bureaucratic relevance of each ministry of external relations, (b) the existence and relative autonomy of an aid agency, (c) the multilateral experience of each country, (d) the support to self-determination and sovereignty in international relations, and (e) the demands of domestic actors (professionalization, transparency).
(v) Democratization and internationalization of bureaucracies and societies are key variables for political participation in SSC decision-making. The politics of domestic actors in each country influences the negotiation and implementation behavior of States. Leaders, their personalities and beliefs also play a relevant role in this process. Government changes (dramatic regime change or change through elections) have effects on foreign policy agendas and SSC strategies.

References

BEASLEY, Ryan; KAARBO, J.; LANTIS, J.; SNARR, Michael T. (eds.). Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective: domestic and international influences on state behavior. Washington: CQ Press, 2002.
BREUNING, Marijke. Foreign Policy Analysis: a comparative introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
DOGAN, Mattei; KAZANCIGIL, Ali (eds.). Comparing Nations: concepts, strategies, substance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.
NARLIKAR, Amrita. New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage Them. New York: Columbia, 2010.
RANDALL, Vicky. Using and Abusing the Concept of the Third World: Geopolitics and the Comparative Political Study of Development and Underdevelopment. Third World Quarterly, vol. 25, no 1, pp. 41-53, 2004.