Third World Development

2165 Words5 Pages

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are incompatible at best and totally contradictory at worst. It is because of this, that one must be dominant over the other, and thanks to the power of transnational capital, Globalization emerges as the victor at the expense of the impoverished citizens of developing nations. Using Mexico and its economic relationships as a reference point and a parallel to Globalization, I intend on outlining the opposing agendas found in Neoliberal and Development camps, despite what looks like harmony between the two.

Before discussing underdevelopment and its relationship with globalization we must first have a thorough understanding of underdevelopment and its history. Presently the majority of Latin America, let alone Mexico, is caught in the web of underdevelopment. But this is not simply due to present day circumstances, the build up to this has been in centuries-long participation in the process of world Capitalist development (Frank, 108). Today the bonds of colonialism have long been broken but the consequen...

... middle of paper ...

...s like Mexico, for the betterment of the developed nations, like the US. A look at the rise of East Asia proves that the combination of import substitution and export promotion is not only feasible but also more successful than neoliberal market policy (Kiely, 139). The only problem with it is that it takes away the control of the transnational corporations and their Capitalist parent nations. Market civilization is ugly and contradictory and has no true desire for dealing with for the frontline issues of development, such as malnourishment, lack of education, and unemployment (Gill, 399). The trickle-down/top-down reform and development methods are simply proposed to appease the masses. But indeed, without the collective potential of the people and a bottom up restructuring, the “organic crises” mentioned by Antonio Gramsci, will never be solved (Gill and Law, 63).

Open Document