MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4402138927 · doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i9.4538

Evaluating how and why the Government of Rwanda failed to achieve middle-income status (MICS) in 2020: Lessons for other African countries

2024· article· en· W4402138927 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominique E. Uwizeyimana

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Development and Aid
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLow and middle income countriesGovernment (linguistics)Development economicsMiddle income countryEconomic growthPolitical scienceDeveloping countrySocioeconomicsEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the 1960s, many East Asian Tiger countries, such as Taiwan, Malaysia, China, etc., faced unfavourable socio-economic conditions like those facing many African countries such as Rwanda. For example, in the 1960s, Singapore was classified as an undeveloped country, with its GDP per capita standing at less than $320. However, all these countries managed to reach a development level like that of Western and North American countries (such as the U.S. and Canada), within a space of less than 15 years. Today, Singapore’s GDP per capita has risen to an incredible $84,501, making it the sixth highest GDP per capita in the world. With Vision 2020, President Kagame promised that Rwanda, which he referred to as “the African lion”, would cruise faster to the middle-income country status faster than Singapore and other middle income status countries, most of which are in East-Asia in less than 20 years. Thirteen years after the introduction of Rwanda’s Vision 2020, President Kagame dashed off the Wall Street Journal and other western media which often referred to Rwanda’s economic development as “the economic tiger of Africa” in his 2013 famous statement as follows: “There is a view that development is a marathon, not a sprint. We do not agree. Development is a marathon that must be run at a sprint. In our pursuit of progress, we have, of course, looked to East Asia’s so-called “tiger” economies for inspiration. But Africa’s experience is unique, and we must now define our own destiny. So, while being described as an “African tiger” is a welcome recognition of how far Rwanda has come, perhaps it isn’t quite right. After all, our continent has its own big cat. Step forward, the new lions of Africa.”. To achieve this objective between 2000 and 2020, Rwanda’s GDP per capita needed to increase from 254.94 USD (2000) to $1240 (in 2020), and the GDP growth rate was to grow consistently between 7% and 10% for a period of 20 years (2000–2020). The objective of this article is to critically analyse how the Government of Rwanda failed to achieve its promise of achieving a middle-income status (MICS) between 2000 and 2020. In 2000 the Rwandan president Paul Kagame launched Rwanda’s Vision 2020. This was a long-term framework for Rwanda’s development in 20 (i.e., 2000–2020). The idea behind Rwanda’s leadership was to imitate whatever Singapore did to become a developed country in just 15 years after its independence in 1965. Blatantly stated, President Paul Kagame wanted to turn his country into the Singapore of Africa. The IMF states that “Vision 2020 was the longer-term socio-economic development framework that sought to transform Rwanda into a middle-income country by 2020”. There is no doubt that Rwanda has made some developmental strides through the implementation of Vision 2020 as an instrument for operationalisation for the Singaporean-modelled developmental state over the past 20 years and has succeeded in some areas. However, the Government of Rwanda has failed in many areas and has failed to achieve the prestigious MICS in 2020. Therefore, among the many gaps in the current literature that this research seeks close is to find out what were some of the accomplishments that Rwanda’s Vision 2020 was unable to achieve? Why did the Government of Rwanda fail to achieve middle-income status within 20 years? What insights can other developing countries gain from Rwanda’s Vision 2020 experience? This study is a significant contribution to the current theoretical knowledge as it sheds light on the reasons behind the Government of Rwanda’s failure to achieve middle-income country status in 2020, a topic that has been largely ignored by the Government’s documents and the media. Despite Rwanda’s Vision 2020, there has been no scientific study to date that has attempted to deal with this topic. Therefore, this study, titled “Why the Government of Rwanda failed to achieve middle-income status (MICS) in 2020” is likely the first of its kind. By addressing

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,089

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,005
Communication savante0,0090,015
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Infrastructure Policy and DevelopmentMême sujetInternational Development and AidTravaux en français237 207