In my opinion, I absolutely agree that development is a form of exploitation. Even though that concept of development is a contested concept, but according to Rostow (1960), the concept of development is connected to the economic growths which linked to economic performance. In general, development happens for the pursuit of economy. Then, Rostow (1960) seen development as an increase of production and efficiency and measured primarily by comparing the per capita income. Dimensions of development are diverse; economic, political, social, environment, technology and so on. Meanwhile, exploitation in the other hand is harmless, consensual, and is mutually beneficial for the developers and the society (Meyers, 2004). He added that exploitation …show more content…
For example, in the Third World or known as less developed countries in the world; Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Less developed countries urged for development exactly indicated through the economic interdependence on the developed countries. This is because they want to improve their quality of lives, instead of lag behind the scientific transformation and technology. They depend on developed countries in terms of foreign trade, international aid, technology and investment. Even though that Frank (1966) claims that modernization (development) theories contends that developed countries should share the responsibility to develop the less developed countries through the transfer of capital aid and technology, but instead of helping, they exploited the less developed countries.
Meanwhile, the developed countries exploit them by; taking their natural and mineral resources, agricultural commodities, manufactured goods, employ the less developed countries worker to work for them or known as cheap labour (by paying them a minimum wage to maximum the profit), technical or technology, free trade (by removing tariff and tax) and coordinate monetary policy. Therefore, Rostow (1960) claims that
“…the persistence of poverty and underdevelopment around the globe was seen as an effect either the countries lagging
…show more content…
They must comprehend their own economic development by develop some technological assistance to increase and improve the production, economic and standard quality of living. Therefore, Frank (1966) suggest that less developed countries should distance themselves from the influence of capitalist system and refrain themselves from being exploited, or from becoming capitalist systems themselves. In order to achieve that, less developed countries should reduce their economic dependencies on foreign aid, international aid, technology and
Let me provide some context for my account by briefly describing the place of exploitation in Marx's theory of history, the connection between the normative and explanatory roles of exploitation, and the relevance of Marx's theory of exploitation for contemporary social philosophy. For Marx exploitation is a concept of historical generality, applying not only to capitalism, but to feudal and ancient modes of production.
In an article entitled “Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalizing networks”, P. Routledge describes neoliberal development, “Contemporary economic development is guided by the economic principles of neoliberalism and popularly termed ‘globalization’. The fundamental principal of this doctrine is ‘economic liberty’ for the powerful, that is that an economy must be free from the social and political ‘impediments,’ ‘fetters’, and ‘restrictions’ placed upon it by states trying to regulate in the name of the public interest. These ‘impediments’ - which include national economic regulations, social programs, and class compromises (i.e. national bargaining agreements between employers and trade unions, assuming these are allowed) - are considered barriers to the free flow of trade and capital, and the freedom of transnational corporations to exploit labor and the environment in their best interests. Hence, the doctrine argues that national economies should be deregulated (e.g. through the privatization of state enterprises) in order to promote the allocation of resources by “the market” which, in practice, means by the most powerful.” (Routledge)
Third world countries have the name underdeveloped countries, but it is better to call them over-exploited countries. Developed countries are implementing several foreign policies and trading blocks that have nothing to develop the less developed countries; on the contrary, they exploit the development and block growth in many ways such as imperialism, globalization, and capitalism. These practices of developed nations prevent third world countries from development. The countries that have advanced technologies and standard economical status are considered as the developed countries. Besides their growth, these countries have started taking advantage of third world countries that are also less fortunate in terms of economy and technology.
Both arguments concerning the obstacles to development make valid points. The neoliberalism position focuses on the misguided policies enforced by the developing states. They argue that excessive government control of the domestic and the international economy of the state prevents economic growth, while fiscal discipline and non-intervention by the state’s governments allows the economy to stimulate. On the other hand, the dependency theory perspective, which focuses on the global order between rich and poor nations, argues that the wealthy states exploit the weak states, therefore, producing underdevelopment and global inequality.
The simplistic and highly misleading view that depicts the poorer world as passive victims at the mercy of the powerful West has meant that postwar paradigms or in-arguments “for how to conceptualize and overcome development challenges” (City of Johannesburg, 2006) have failed to achieve long-term development outcomes. For example, modernization theory (MT) stated that with investment and planning from the Industrial West, all states could follow a liner process of development where traditional sectors of the economy and rigid social structures would be abandoned and replaced by modern social organisation (Nabudere, 1997; Jolly et. al., 2004; MacKinnon & Cumbers, 2011). In other words, it was believed that once Rostow’s ‘take-off’ stage was
Before the author of this paper proceeds with this chapter, one has to define what development is. Put in simple terms, authors Peet and Hartwick , development economics is the part of economics that deals with how a developing country can improve its economy in terms of growth and better living standards and conditions for its citizens. This includes economic policies, education, health, and working conditions. All these factors are considered to be the minimum essential factors that all humans require to live. It can also be defined as the differing theories con-cerning growth, poverty, institutions, and inequality in the less developed coun-tries . Development economics also is also viewed differently according to different cultures as well
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by 'development ladder' is that development happened in a sequential process through stage by stage while the second premise underpinned by ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards West's values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies. Thus, Rostow's 'development ladder' is highly challenged as it gathers a lot of critiques.
First, Ferguson argues that the development discourse produces and sustains the invented “less-developed country”– mainly, the “Third World” concept. Second, the author explains how the “development fantasy’s” detachment from what is really occurring in a particular locale (reality on the ground) often causes projects to fail at their specified goals. Last, Ferguson explains why the development community has produced the almost constant growth and underpinning of bureaucratic state power. The central claim here, and the greatest takeaway, is that the development discourse should be considered a form of knowledge that is (often) institutionally created to support the actions of development agencies via a forced reconstruction of social, cultural, and economic realities at the local
To present his argument, Ferguson uses the first three chapters to define and analyse the concept of development. In this analysis he implicitly implies that there is a gap between what is planned and what is implemented in development schemes, that development is a gross injustice. This theme is continued throughout the book and can be seen over and again other examples that Ferguson uses. The next two chapters ...
When looking through the topic of development, two drastically different ways to assess it arise. The majority of the western world looks at development in terms of per capita GNP. This means each country is evaluated on a level playing field, comparing the production of each country in economic value. Opposite this style of evaluation is that of the alternative view, which measures a country’s development on its ability to fulfill basic material and non-material needs. Cultural ties are strong in this case as most of the population does not produce for wealth but merely survival and tradition.
Most governments see that development is very important to them as is beneficial to both the country and the local groups by helping them maintain their culture, as well as improving their livelihood. However, there are many activists or organization which argue that development is only an excuse to exploit the indigenous people and the available resources for the authority to gain superiority while destroying traditional and practices in the process.
Rodney’s argument is broken down into six chapters each consisting of several subdivisions and case studies supporting his principle argument. The first chapter works towards defining the terms of development and underdevelopment and argues the comparative nature of these terms; a country is only ‘underdeveloped’ by European standards. This chapter begins by tracing European development from its early stages of communalism through feudalism and finally capitalism. Then, he works towards developing an understanding of the term ‘underdevelopment’ and through an analysis of a variety of development indices what it constitutes in present day society: “In Niger, one doctor must do for 56, 140 people; in Tunisia one doctor for every 8,320 Tunisians”(18). The Marxist concept of inherent inequalities within the international capitalist system un...
...hat: poor countries are separated from the world economy. It ignores the possibility that one country's prosperity may mean another countries poverty. Further, modernization theory ignores the roles that powerful state governments play in helping with wealth-creation as they support, regulate, and direct economic growth.
Globalization, love it or hate it, but you can’t escape it. Globalization may be regarded as beneficial from an economic and business point of view, but however cannot be perceived the ditto when examined from the social sciences and humanities side of it. Globalization can be argued as a tool for economic growth, advancement and prosperity through co-operation between the developed and developing countries. The pro-globalization critics argue that the benefits that globalization brings to developing nations surpasses or outcasts the negative impacts caused by globalization and may even go a step further to state that it is the only source of hope for developing nations to prosper and stand out. However, the real question to be asked is as to what extent are the positives argued upon without taking into account the negative aspects of globalization towards developing countries. Moreover, how many developing countries out of many are exactly benefiting or even prospering from globalization is another question to consider. Therefore, my paper will dispute that indeed growth and advancement provided by globalization to developing countries is beneficial in short-term, but in the long-run, it will only bring upon negative impacts and challenges due to the obstacles involved such as exploitation of labour and resources, higher increase in poverty, and effects of multi-national corporations on local businesses and the economy, and to an extent the effects on the developing country itself.
in relation to development. Development is explained by the Oxford Dictionary as the process of developing or developed in a specified state of growth or advancement. Underdeveloped as according to the Oxford Dictionary is ‘not fully developed or not advanced economically’ which is meant for a country or a region. We can certainly see the difference between underdeveloped and developed where the changing situation emerges from the economic point of view. To be more specific, worlds within world were created i.e. the nomenclature of First World and Third World came into picture. The First World is said to be the industrialised, capitalist countries of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand who are developed (as explained in the definition). The Third World includes the developing countries of- Asia, Africa and Latin America who are still in the mode of developing. Normally we understand the situation of underdevelopment is because the third world was under the colonies or the colonial rule for a certain period of time and lags behind the first world in every aspects like- social, economical, political, technological advancements which are yet to be seen in the third world fully like the first world. In this paper we will talk about various theorists from - Karl Marx (capitalism and class conflict), Kay and Amin (merchant capitalism, colonialism and neo-colonialism), Vladimir Lenin (imperialism), Andre Gunder Frank (third world dependency), Lipton (urban bias) and dependency theory. Here in this paper we will try to explain and understand the relevance of the various underdevelopment theories and different attributes related to it terms of the Indian Context.