International Development: Theories of Modernization, Dependency, Globalization

Minhchau Truong ID 125 Prof. Kevin Maclean Midterm Exam Citation Black, Maggie. The No-Nonsense Guide to planetary Development. (London New Inter bailiwickist Publications Ltd, 2007). Naim, Moises. Illicit How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats atomic number 18 Hijacking the Global Economy. (New York cast anchor Books, 2005). Reding, Nick. Methland The Death and Life of an American Sm tout ensemble Town. (New York Bloomsbury, 2009). Thurow, Roger and Scott Kilman. Enough Why the human races Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty. New York Perseus Books, 2009). 1. ) Modernization scheme was used to adeptify the process of decolonization and intervention by the joined States, which had the ulterior motive of gaining access to impertinent markets and thus boosting the national preservation. The U. S. unconnected this possible action from Cold War ideologies with the distinguishing feature that it evince GNP and proficient measures. The surmisal is ethnocentric and is posited in the belief that at that place is a invariant struggle against scarcity and that under positive nations must everyplacecome this natural state.The component part and ability of the developed state was framed by the teleological teaching that began with preconditions to take-off, which was recognition that scotch progress was necessary to move from tradition to modernness to the final take-off, to the drive to maturity (which was expected to be completed in 1-2 generations), to the age of high-mass consumption (similar to the historical patterns of the U. S. ). The strengths of Modernization hypothesis include its organise large(p)ism, desegregation into the military personnel economy, and bring startlook of scotch expansion.These changes were to be achieved finished institutions and a shift from earlier colonial hierarchy and integration into the United Nations family (a de jure equality). However, the weaknesses reduce public assistances. The theory naturaliz es under emergence as so water iceing that can be changed easily, and discounts implicit historical, geographical, sociological passel or specific constraints. Furtherto a greater extent, it disregards underdeveloped countries by trivializing conditions by labeling it as the orbiculate norm.Economics is foremost on the agenda, alternatively than politics, because capital collection for developed states- non actual welfare of the touch on state- is the master(prenominal) objective. The theory displaces the more correct principle of the right to self-definition. The linear growth implied by the theory can only be achieved by mass consumption, competition, individualism. Essentially, modernization theory is an ahistorical narrative imposed by ethnocentric developed states that could not possibly relate to their underdeveloped states.Dependency hypothesis sees the historical relations of inequality, the unequal relationships developed among industrialized countries versus und erdeveloped. Theoretically, the problem is explained as economical growth in advanced industrialized countries did not runway to a growth in low-downer countries. Dependency theory acknowledges that modernization theory directly contradicted neo-classical economic theory- the Pareto optimal, that economic growth was beneficial to all until now if benefits not equally shared, this was not evident in the relationship in the midst of industrialized nations and unindustrialized nations.The strengths of dependency theory included that is accounted for real muniment as opposed to modernization theory, which was a philosophy of history. It saw states as a world(a) structure, and saw inequalities as a problem rather than a way to promote competition and equalizations. There were realistic expectations, secret that imposition of development was actually an act of exclusion. What was preferred was a more natural, predestined process of inclusion.Economically, dependency accurately de termined the outcomes of modernization poor countries exported primary commodities to rich countries, which the rich countries used to then manufacture products out of them, in that respectfore adding nourish to the overall product during the manufacture, which they then export prickle to poorer countries. In the end, these poorer countries would never earn enough from exports to pay for their imports due to the added value. However, the weaknesses are substantial, and expose the logical fallacies dependency theory is built upon.It is more of a critique than an independent theory for improvement, in that respect is whatever insight only if now not much. With dependency theory, there is little to no success from its sign conclusions. Its affair for protectionism and care tariffs was not enough for create countries to emerge economically. The lead of Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) was besides not enough because the economic theory use upd implementation of i ncubation of domestic infant industries that umteen times were difficult to start-up without the help local regimens.Various avenues, tariffs, import quotas and support government loans were many times not possible due to absence of governmental will or ability. The development of drudgery channels were a great deal times distorted or disrupted due to external puffs or inability of states to handle. Here, an imperialist mindset is once again imposed onto vestigial nations, Transnational corporations (TNCs) stationed in undeveloped nations impose standards and expectations, which are most say in their monopolistic sets and assertion of political and economic agenda onto the concerned area.In addition, many times, when a country did specialize in their outturn of sizables, their own internal markets were not large enough to support the economies of scale. race either didnt have enough money or had a preference for outside orthogonal goods. Essentially, relations cannot simply be fixed, there is a much more dynamic complexity. Peripheral states cannot possibly adept catch up, they did not ask to be placed in their respective positions inwardly the world economy, they were oblige by dominate states (developed countries alike(p) the U. S. they were labeled as under-developed when their inequalities were identified by us, pitted against our own standards- unfairly so. Advanced industrial economies cant serve as models for developing ones, their success was contingent upon highly exploitive colonial relationships (with the very underdeveloped countries they are trying to sanction now, which is ironic) these relationships cannot be created. Implications of dependency include pick use of resources preferable to current patterns of use- they dont want our drinking glassodologies.The practice of diverted resources are maintained by dominant states and power elites within dependant states, this fixes nothing, rather, it further complicates relatio ns between concerned underdeveloped country and those who are in sway of them. There are overlapping interests, value and culture assumptions, assumption that this dependency is voluntary, elites believe key to economic development is to follow liberal economic doctrine, this is essentially hegemony. Economic growth does not equal economic development, more attention needs to be paying(a) o genial indicators- life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, education, emergence of human index. greater integration is not the answer, equality cannot be achieved World System Theory was foremost was labeled as Modern World system. An integration through market rather than political center, the state was an economic tool for capital accumulation by certain classes. The world was comprised of mini-systems, which do up world empires, which made up a capitalist world economy.This world-wide perspective with historical depth of centuries was necessary to understanding the present. Single t ripartite division of project notion induced that countries do not have economies provided are part of a world economy. The core zones benefited from monopolies, patch the semi-peripheries were dominated by the core zones, and the peripheries themselves were developing countries dominated by both core and semi-periphery countries. effortful production took place in periphery states as a subject matter to former states economic deliverance.Periphery states subordinate status is due to a number of factors including, technological conditions and the difference in strength of states on the global market scale, thus the polarial flow of surplus to core results in unequal permutation. However, the strengths of the theory lies in the assumption that capital accumulation on a global scale will in turn, benefit developing countries. The weakness of the theory is how it is debilitating regarding focus towards strong and weak states.The theory concentrates on the historical evidence of failure rather than success, and discounts the class structure and economic growth, among other important elements, within states. The zero-sum economic narrative is limited, grounded in ahistorical euro-centrism. The theory polarizes periphery states by keeping them down, with the ideology of belief groups presiding over them. Conclusively, the theory is a capitalist structure that operates on the unending accumulation of capital rather than the well-being of particular periphery states.The modern-day forms of globalization make these three theories of state-led development irrelevant and require us to rethink some of the assumptions upon which they were based for many reasons. Firstly, the ontogenesisd hardly selective flow of financial capita between major metropoles exemplified in Illicit grapple shows the unrecognized potential of dependant states, how they are actually able to blast despite conditions (of scarcity, etc. ).In Illicit Trade, the examples of countries thri ving on the sweeping of contraband commodities, or transshipment havens (Suriname, Nauru) shows how the differentiated labor markets within and across national borders have essentially been empowered, there is no definitive route to economic growth, outlawed trade just so happens to be this overbold growth- for the good or the bad. The increased, but uneven integration of consumer markets worldwide proves the irrelevancy of modernization and dependency theory, as there was no prerequisite in this integration that was previously said necessary in the former theories.The Governments were a emphasized factor in the theories for growth and development, however, in this context of globalization and illicit trade, the private facilitation of capitalist penetration from countryside to countryside has actually been the impetus. The new, emerging aspects of illicit trade is that its not just a crime, or an underground phenomenon, but it could fashion economic possibilities. There is now an intrinsic connection to political structures, emerging Governments. High-profile trafficking organizations now have a heavy influence and conquer over governments.The dependency on illicit trade has pervaded into the basic exchange of commodities, thus the interaction of people, thus it is now well stitched into the cloth of existence, it has constituted cultures. The entire disarraying manifestations of illicit trade has now coalesced, it is now a part of history, it has become facet of life. 2. ) The manufacture, distribution, and sale of trumperyamphetamine rose by and large out of the recent developments of Globalization and free trade, long term trends in agricultural and pharmaceutical companies, and the action of government lobbyists.These basic components make up for what Reding describes in Methland, as the meth epidemic of today. Redings best instance is his microcosmic case example of Lori Kaye Arnold, starting from the origins of her entrepreneurial endeavors to he r quick date of wealth and monopoly control over meth. Loris decision to drop out of high school and house herself through her meth delivery good exemplifies the opportunities of income that are available to weakened inelegant communities subjugated to lack of employment. due(p) to this facet, production of meth transferred to underground population sites of small town meth addicts (like Lori) and outlaw chemists. Rural economies of small towns like Oelwein were gradually taken over by profiteering industries. The turning over of Iowa Ham to Gillette to Iowa Beef Products (IBP) to Tyson, resulted in a shrinkage of worker demand and stationary wages. In January 2006, Tyson officially closed the plant , the initial workforce had been reduced from nearly two pace people to ninety-nine, a remarkable, devastating loss of revenue in a town of only six thousand (Reding 2009, 53).Ottumwa, a town in southeast Iowa endured the same hardship that crept into Oelwein. The town was eventual ly also wolfish of tax revenue and disposable income from the shut-down of the towns railroad, air force base, and the sale of its meat-processing plant to Cargill. And like Oelwein, Methamphetamine moved into the new economic gap, and helped to sustain not just the market in Oelwein, but also in towns all over Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas (Reding 2009, 60). It was Loris success in Ottumwa that made her decide to expand her horizons in meth distribution.Lori went straight to her middleman in Des Moines, and continued in her ambitions to her supplier in Long Beach, California. Meanwhile, Loris own enterprise fueled the franchises of people like Jeffrey William Hayes and Steve Jelinek, such(prenominal) is the lucrative nature of the meth business. Loris eventual partnership with the Mexican Mafia, the Ameczua brothers ushers in healthy forces that make up a web of interdependence, all revealing the scale of hold meth has on not just small towners like Lori, but also our local and global economy. The U. S. mmigration constitution could not prevent the influx of Mexican immigrants that came, who were now seen as nice transportation devices for large quantities of the meth throughout California and the west. Midwestern residents who just lost their jobs were now headed for booming labor-markets in Los Angeles and San Diego, becoming ideal societal and business connections for do drugs cartels like the Amezcua brothers. These factors enabled drug cartels to expand their business prospects, but also provided a source of income for those involved, a major motivator.Additionally there was the appeal of the drug itself. Meth was powerful a vocational drug rather than a recreational one, it was perfect for labor-intensive occupations, thus effectively converting mere middlemen or workers into consumers. The cost-effective narcotic had been around since industrialization, and its cheap gad snuff it was made all the more apparent when rural eco nomies collapsed and people matte like they needed the drug in order to survive. For all these reasons, meth was a sustainable business in its inception that allowed it to go unnoticed.The forerunner to meth production (ephedrine, and soon, pseudoephedrine) was made readily available by pharmaceutical companies and engineers in legal, enormous, and unmonitored supplies. The high-demand for these precursors provided a huge incentive for pharmaceutical companies to prevent buying restrictions that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was trying to enforce. When the DEA discovered bulk shipments of ephedrine being redirected to the Amezcua brothers, there was also a realization of a narrow processing window of ephedrine that was perfect for the meth trade.Cooperation from the nine processing factories in India, China, Germany, Czech democracy and pharmaceutical companies was the only thing needed. Despite DEA efforts, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists impede every single ant i-meth bill with help of key senators and members of congress. The relentless interlocking of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine prohibition was most often times won by powerful companies and corporations, thus the manufacture, distribution, and sale of meth proceeded.Through the lens of Dependency theory, rural economies like the town of Oelwein would be encouraged to discontinue the market of meth because it has become a dependant source of revenue that creates unequal relationships between powerful entities (such as drug cartels, pharmaceutical companies, agricultural based corporations) and small town communities, poor job-seeking immigrants and aspiring meth cooks. The manufacturing of meth is not sustainable and does not result in equal or greater proportions of benefit for those dependant on the business, rather, it enslaves them.Thus, dependency theory is good in its avocation of meth abolishment, but it does not provide other revenue generating substitutes or a way into economi c stability. Dependency theory stresses independence while keeping up with developed nations, but in the case of Oelwein, their economy was crippled by external forces and now has to be rebuilt, and thus, their regeneration would require an initial dependence on outside sources. 3. ) In 1940, Vice-President elect enthalpy Wallace, who formerly served as Franklin D.Roosevelts activist agriculture secretary desire to visit Latin America before starting his official duties. He was dispatched to Mexico as a representative, where he applied his unique perspective to the Mexicos destitute situation. Most Mexicans depended on land. The Mexican revolution ousted a tyranny and then seized land from a wealthy few and redistributed it among the poor. The new government had distributed out land to 1. 7 million landless peasants so that they could grow their own fodder, however this land form was not enough.Mexico did not have the necessary support systems for agricultural scientists, the ru ral population was illiterate, soils were humble of nutrients and heavily eroded, basic tools were lacking tractors were rare- this in turn limited production growth. In addition, diseases often times wiped out the wheat crop, forcing Mexico to import half(a) of its needs. Wallaces evaluative approach was to raise crop yields combined with Mexican farmers disciplined work ethic. Wallace connected to the resources at the Rockefeller knowledgeability asking to the President Raymond B.Fosdick to conduct a study on how to increase Mexican harvests, Fosdick himself dispatched a trio of experts to scour the countryside. Soon enough, Harvard plant breeder Paul Mangelsdorf, Cornell agronomist Richard Bradfield, and University of Minnesota plant pathologist E. C. Stakman commenced on their query, convincing the buns to set up a joint research program with the Mexican government in 1943, called the Office of Special Studies. The programs burster was to train Mexican scientist on how to breed higher-yielding varieties of corn, wheat, and beans.Initial successes of the program included the newfound knowledge of how to plant a few verities of inbred seed- the precursor to hybrid seed- allowing them to cross-pollinate naturally (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 8). Stakman was interested in Mexicos second-biggest crop, wheat. stalk was a crop often subjugated to the fugal epidemics that turned handle into tangles of dead plants, booster cable to the discontinued production of wheat by Mexican farmers which were an unfortunate lost opportunity for protein.Stakman called upon two proteges from the University of Minnesota to aid him in his mission to end this plight, one would be the founder of the light-green Revolution- Norman Borlaug. Borlaug, impatient by the time sucking process of cross-pollinating different varieties of wheat in rust-infested areas to find a natural immunity among them, fixed on an unconventional method of breeding that including shuttling newly harve sted seed between the Yaqui Valley and his experimental plots near Mexico City (Thurow and Kilman 2009, ). In four divisions, Borlaug generated his first rust-resistant plants, setting in motion a series of events that would lead to the jet Revolution. The main achievements of the Food Revolution were the high-yielding wheat crops that occurred with every Mexican farmer, leading to the successive spread of the seed throughout Mexico, and therefore the end of Mexicos wheat shortage by the mid 1950s.And unlike hybrid corn, farmers could unbosom seeds from the best of their wheat harvest and plant them the next year to get the same results (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 11). Borlaugs wheat permeated to Asia, in India and Pakistan, which spurred Governments, private philanthropies and humanitarian organizations to stemma and implement the construction of fertilizer factories, irrigation networks, infrastructure, and an introduction to new modern farming techniques.Similar effects took pla ce in Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, China and elsewhere throughout Asia. Additionally, the Green Revolution encouraged foundations and organizations from around the world to establish research centers, projects, and laboratories specializing in number of agricultural-based crops (agroforestry to fish). The shortcomings were evident in its early beginning the yields were ample but sucked so much out of the soil that water and synthetical fertilizer replenishment was necessary.And because farmers could afford fertilizer, this boosted their harvests even further, reinforcing dependency on foreign supplied fertilizers, and therefore diverting funds from the local economy to an outside economy. add fertilizer use also introduced pesticides and nitrates that were poisoning to millions and millions of acres of land and some drinking water. This chemical pollution led to a general hunch of the Green Revolution by environmental groups and negative press. Geopolitical considerations would drown altruistic intentions of the Green Revolution.The idea to create an international agency that would control vast tittle reserves for the purpose of responding to emergencies and feeding hungry children was lance down because it would reduce opportunities for the worlds agricultural powers to use their homegrown food aid as a tool for furthering their own diplomatic aims (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 23). Ironically, the food revolution had empowered nations enough to the extent of elevating countries abilities for political and economic agendas.Another disappointment of the Green Revolution was the failed momentum. Public consciousness no longer had a strong grip the Malthusian Optimism had befallen upon developed countries. The new crop surpluses and thus, low grain prices created a false sense of consummation and security in the rich world (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 24). Financial institutions, religious assort and nonreligious charity organ izations slowly turned away, and aid agencies shifted attention to other social programs.Trends and use of agricultural subsidies have affected food security in developed and developing states more generally. The Green Revolution indirectly started kindle Government subsidies for exports, thereby instigating competition between developing countries. Between 1975 and 1985, the Green Revolution helped old U. S. customers such as Mexico and India to become less dependent on the west for grain. In order to keep domestic prices from depressing U. S. government subsidized exports of surplus wheat overseas.The European Community followed on the same strategy, subsidizing exports of wheat, beef, butter, milk and so on- all in efforts to protect farmers. crowing multinational commodities firms took advantage of the subsidies race, playing the U. S. and Europe against each other for the cheapest grain, resulting in a distorted world market. The two arising developments, rich-world subsidi es and cheaper commodities harshly impacted farmers in the developing countries who were not aided by their impoverished governments and therefore could not compete with similar levels of subsidies.Sasakawa Africa (Norman Borlaug and his team) and the Ethiopian government pushed for heavy production of crops resulting in surplus harvest through the late 1990s, and then a bumper year of 2001-2001, when fields burst with about 13 million tons of grains and cereals (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 72). merely this positive outcome was not cultivated or optimized due to a number of factors unpredicted by Government and foreign aid shortsightedness. The government policy of structural adjustment failed the agricultural market in Ethiopia and Africa. to a lower place this new policy, government ended responsibility for market functions (such as buying, transporting, storing, marketing of crops, fertilizer) and left them to a private sector, in expectation that the sectors would pick up these ta sks. But rarely did these sectors have the capital and infrastructure to complete such tasks. Roads to ports were appalling, let alone the practically nonexistent ties to foreign buyers- export options were dismal. The countrys transportation network still relied on futile methods (donkeys), and local markets were undercapitalized to buy and store harvest.This, along with the absence of storage facilities that forced crops to come into the market at the same time caused a across the country glut of corn and wheat, triggering a free fall in grain prices. Ethiopian farmers suffered as what was reaped was far below what it had cost to sow. Another main effort to mitigate food famines in Ethiopia was a considerable gist of American food aid, but this was also not enough. After the 1894 famine, Ethiopia routinely had been the largest annual recipient of emergency food aid. U. S. ood aid was runway at more than $250 million a year leading up to 2003 (Thurow and Kilman 2009, 88). The negative reaction to this, however, was the contraction of longer-term aid and projects to develop agriculture. In 2003, U. S. aid was $500 million and $5 million in development projects. It was illogical, food aid partly helped in aiding against the hunger, but never entirely, rather it seemed to be perpetuating it. Ethiopia became a global welfare state, its farmers and people at first scent shameful and resentful to having willful acceptance that border on obligation to aid.