What was the original cause of Misdevelopment in the low income countries according to dependency theory?

Learning Outcomes

Explain global stratification using modernization theory and dependency theory

While the three main sociological paradigms all help explain global stratification, there are two major theories that developed out of the structural-functional and conflict theories that are best positioned to explain global inequality: modernization theory and dependency theory. Modernization theory posits that countries go through evolutionary stages and that industrialization and improved technology are the keys to forward progress. Dependency theory, on the other hand, sees modernization theory as Eurocentric and patronizing. According to dependency theory, global inequality is the result of core nations creating a cycle of dependence by exploiting resources and labor in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries.

Modernization theory comes out of the structural-functional viewpoint, as it frames inequality as a function of industrial and cultural differences between nations. It holds that low-income nations were left out of the industrial gains that followed both the Columbian Exchange, which produced a transfer of goods and technologies between Europe and the “New World” beginning in the late 15th century, and the Industrial Revolution, due to an inability or reluctance to adopt new technologies. According to modernization theory, low-income countries are affected by their lack of industrialization and can improve their global economic standing through (Armer and Katsillis 2010):

an adjustment of cultural values and attitudes toward work
industrialization and other forms of economic growth

Critics point out the inherent ethnocentric bias of this theory. It supposes all countries have the same resources and are capable of following the same path. In addition, it assumes that the goal of all countries is to be as “developed” as possible. There is no room within this theory for the possibility that industrialization and technology are not the best goals.

There is, of course, some basis for this assumption. Data show that core nations tend to have lower maternal and child mortality rates, longer life spans, and less extreme poverty. It is also true that in the poorest countries, millions of people die from the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation facilities, which are benefits most of us take for granted. At the same time, the issue is more complex than the numbers might suggest. Cultural equality, history, community, and local traditions are all at risk as modernization pushes into peripheral countries. The challenge, then, is to allow the benefits of modernization while maintaining a cultural sensitivity to what already exists.

Dependency theory coincides with the conflict viewpoint, as it focuses on ways that poor nations have been wronged by rich nations. It was created in part as a response to the Western-centric mindset of modernization theory. It states that global inequality is primarily caused by core nations (or high-income nations) exploiting semi-peripheral and peripheral nations (or middle-income and low-income nations), which creates a cycle of dependence (Hendricks 2010). As long as peripheral nations are dependent on core nations for economic stimulus and access to a larger piece of the global economy, they will never achieve stable and consistent economic growth in a self-determined sense. Further, the theory states that since core nations, as well as the World Bank, choose which countries are eligible for loans, as well as deciding what types of projects the loans may finance, they are creating highly segmented labor markets that are built to primarily benefit the dominant market countries.

At first glance, it seems this theory ignores the formerly low-income nations that are now considered middle-income nations and are on their way to becoming high-income nations and major players in the global economy, such as China. But some dependency theorists would state that it is in the best interests of core nations to ensure the long-term usefulness of their peripheral and semi-peripheral partners. Following that theory, sociologists have found that entities are more likely to outsource a significant portion of a company’s work if they are the dominant player in the equation; in other words, companies want to see their partner countries healthy enough to provide work, but not so healthy as to establish a threat (Caniels and Roeleveld 2009).

Watch this video to learn more about modernization and dependency theories. It explains how modernization developed through four stages: the traditional stage, the take-off stage, the drive to technological maturity, and then high-mass consumption. Modernization theory holds that increases in technology will increase wealth throughout the globe, and that low-income nations can follow the path taken by wealthier, modernized nations. Dependency theory holds that some nations gained wealth at the expense of other nations, especially through colonization.

There is much criticism that modernization theory is Eurocentric. Do you think dependency theory is also biased? Why, or why not?
Compare and contrast modernization theory and dependency theory. Which do you think is more useful for explaining global inequality? Explain, using examples.

dependency theory: a theory which states that global inequity is due to the exploitation of peripheral and semi-peripheral nations by core nations modernization theory: a theory that low-income countries can improve their global economic standing by industrialization of infrastructure and a shift in cultural attitudes towards work

Contribute!

Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input.

Improve this pageLearn More

As a genera rule, people in developing countries suffer from poorer health than people in developed countries – with higher rates of deaths from preventable causes resulting in higher child mortality rates and lower life expectancies.

Theories of development aim to explain why this is the case and what the most effective solutions to improving health should be.

Modernisation Theory

Modernization Theorists would expect health patterns of developing countries to follow those of the developed world in the past. They believe that developing countries are entering the ‘epidemiological transition’ associated with economic development and rising GDP

Before the transition, infectious diseases are widespread and are the major causes of death; life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. With Industrialisation, urbanisation and economic growth come improvements in nutrition, hygiene and sanitation which lead to falling death rates from infectious diseases. After the transition, health improves.

It follows that the best way for developing countries to improve the health of the nation is to focus on industrialization, urbanization and economic growth. Improvements in health should follow.

Modernisation Theorists also argue that targeted aid can play a role in improving the health of developing nations

This can mainly be done through ‘Selective biomedical intervention’ – Such as mass immunization against disease, or distributing vitamin supplements to populations, or handing out mosquito nets. One of the best examples of this is the work of the Bill and Melinda Gate’s Foundation work on combatting Malaria, the reduction of which has been one the great success stories of the last decade.

The eradication of Smallpox is a good example of this strategy working:

One limitation of using selective biomedical intervention is that theexpense means that it is difficult to maintain, and, where the distribution of mosquito nets is concerned, this may lead to choking off local entrepreneurs, as Dambisa Moyo argued in ‘Dead Aid’.

Dependency Theory

Dependency Theory points out that attempts by developing countries to improve health may actually be hindered by the West

Firstly, if you remember, Dependency Theorists point out that it is exploitation by developed countries that keep developing countries poor and they receive very little income from their dealings in world trade which means there is little money left over for investment in health care.

Secondly, there is the problem of the ‘brain drain’ from the developing to the developed world. At least one in ten doctors in the west has been poached from the developing world – it is obviously much more appealing for people in Africa and Asia to work in Britain where they can receive several times the salary they would in their native country.

Thirdly, Many African companies have had to pay high costs for pharmaceuticals manufactured by Western corporations. This is especially true of AIDS drugs. Western companies are thus accused of exploiting desperate people in Africa.

Finally, some Transnational Corporations have actually contributed to health problems through selling products that would not be regarded as safe in the West, not to mention polluting in the pursuit of profit.

Relevance to A Level Sociology

SignPostin

This 2019 Live Stream from Al Jazeera is a good resource for students studying the Global Development option in A-level sociology.

They asked the question: how does colonialism shape the world we live in today, and fielded responses from the audience who took part via #BecauseColonialism

Below I summarise part 1 of what is a week long series of discussions around the topic!

Context

By the beginning of the 19th century most regions of the world had been colonised by European powers – with colonialism being an exploitative and extractive process, with some colonising powers introducing slavery and practicing genocide.

Some of the more obvious legacies of colonialism on the colonised regions include language and cultural and religious traditions which were inherited during the colonial period,

Negative consequences include and ethnic divisions which remain to this day, but some argue that governance physical infrastructures benefitted some colonised regions.

Participants/ Structure

The participants in this stream include:

Priyamvada Gopal author of Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent
Miguel de Barros, president of the association of history teachers in Portugal.
Akin Adesokan, associate professor of Literature, Indiana University.

The starting point for the livestream is a tweet by someone pointing out how they think colonialism currently affects their life – pointing out how they still proudly use English names, how Wikipedia entries tend to have the European conquest date as the starting point, and that most people can’t name 20 things about their Tribe.

Priya states that she wouldn’t be an English lecturer if it were not for colonialism – because the English colonisers (following Lord Macorly’s 1835 Minute) wanted to use education to create a class of Indians who were ‘English in every way but blood or colour’ to act as interpreters for the English rulers to the Indian masses. Her ancestors were part of that class.

Miguel was born in Angola when it was still a Portuguese colony, returning to Portugal in 1975.

He explains how he never questioned anything – the fact that it was only white people living in nice houses in cities and black people as servants and living in their tribes outside of cities – that was just normal to him.

They now take a couple of comments from the livestream audience which picks up on how colonialism still exists in the ‘economic realm’ – with most capital being invested in Europe and only small amounts being invested in ex colonies.

One of the legacies of this is many talented people from poorer countries seek job opportunities abroad because of the lack of them at home.

Akin says although he grew up in Nigeria, an ex-British colony, he doesn’t feel as if he had a classic colonial experience, because Nigeria was independent by the time he was born.

However he thinks that what he calls ‘American cultural imperialism’ is far more significant today – despite being politically independent during his Youth, Nigeria was flooded with American cultural values, and he suggests this is the reason why so many Nigerians aspire to wanting to leave the country (when in reality there’s nothing wrong with traditional Nigerian values, my addition.)

Capitalism is very much tied up with the colonial project and you cannot understand colonialism without understand capitalism – and so in this sense colonialism is not in the past, as we all have to live with a capitalist system today!

Although the mantle of the imperial project has shifted over the years – from Europe to America, but now also to Brazil, India and China who are increasingly becoming involved in land appropriation and resource extraction.

Were there any Positives of Colonialism?

This question is posed 12 minutes in and this video clip from Monty Python’s Life of Brian is used to illustrate one argument:

‘What have the Romans ever given us in return’?

Miguel points out that comparing Roman colonisation with European is unfair because the later was more rapid and brutal and extractive – they simply had more means available to them!

Calls this the ‘India Railways argument – quoting Walter Rodney, the Guyana’n anti-colonialist who reminded use that the colonisers didn’t built railways so Indians could visit their friends, they built them so they could extract resources – they invariably led to the ports!

Miguel also argues that in many Latin American countries, we still need decolonlisation from within – as countries such as Brazil have clear dividing lines between those descended from Europeans and those who were not, with the government of Brazil, for example, tending to side with the former today.

Colonialism and Modernity

One argument raised is that while Colonialism was violent and extractive, it also brought with it modernity – which was a liberalising force – and so while the colonisers might not have been in Africa and India for the benefit of the people – some of the positive, liberal values of modernity filtered down to the people over the decades, which was a positive process, and maybe made de-colonisation inevitable in the end?!?

What would have happened without Colonialism?

We don’t know, ultimately, as there are so few examples of uncolonised regions.

In Africa, Ethiopia was for a very long time the only area to remain uncolonised but eventually even that fell prey to Mussolini.

The idea that mass blood shed and extraction is worth it for a couple of airports and railways is a bit silly!

Colonialism and Corruption

The colonial powers depended on corrupt, self-serving indigenous elites to run the countries for them, and when the European powers eventually pulled out it was those corrupt elites who took over the reigns of power – and colonialism didn’t just come to an end, the European powers maintained huge stakes in the ex colonies and we had neo-colonialism for a long time.

How do you teach colonial history in a country which used to have colonies?

The show wraps up with an interesting point by Miguel who says there is resistance among older Portuguese people to teaching the darker side of colonialism, because they were taught a more positive narrative, but things are changing!

Relevance to A-level sociology

The main use for the above resource is to provide students with an evaluation of Dependency Theory – all three authors seem to be agreeing that there is still a lingering legacy of colonialism, and it’s primarily the colonising powers which have benefited.

Moreover, they seem to agree that aspects of colonialism are still with us today!

World Systems Theory (WST) criticises dependency theory (DT) because there is evidence that poorer, ex-colonies can develop within the modern world capitalist system.

Dependency theory tended to see the ‘root cause’ of underdevelopment as rich world governments (or nation states) – they believed poor countries remained poor following a history of colonialism where powerful countries such as Britain colonised other areas of the globe, for example India and many African countries and took control of these regions politically and economically, running them for their own benefit.

Dependency theory believed the unequal relationship between the coloniser and colonised (or core and satellite) disadvantaged poor countries to such an extent that they were still in a state of dependency when the colonial powers left in the 1950s and 1960s. The ex colonies were effectively turned into the exporters of low value primary products such as Tea, which kept them poor.

HOWEVER, WST points out that today nation states have lost their power to control poor countries, and that there are ex colonies which have developed by becoming semi-periphery countries, or manufacturing – India and Mexico are good examples.

Another criticism WST makes of DT is that rich ex coloniser countries can go down the development hierarchy because Nation States are no longer the most powerful actors in the modern global system controlled more by TNCs and the WTO.

A second criticism of Dependency Theory comes from People Centred Development.

DT still saw industrialisation as the root to development for poor countries, except that it should be controlled by nation states (socialism).

PCD criticises this as horrific things still happened through socialist development – as in Russia and China, and also point out that the nation state may be too large to take into account the diverse wishes of many local communities.

PCD would rather see much more diverse, localised forms of development, decided on by the people, rather than development imposed by nation states.

Dependency Theory claims that Colonialism had a negative impact on the satellite territories in Africa, Asia and Latin America; that neocolonialism keeps the ex colonial master rich and the ex colonies poor, and that in order to develop the ex colonies need to isolate themselves from the capitalist system, protect themselves from the ‘free market’ and develop internally, through socialism for example.

Colonialism made rich countries rich and poor countries poor

Stealing land and resources which decimated local populations through slavery, disease and displacement of local populations.
Increasing ethnic conflict by selecting one ‘pro-European group’ to govern over all other ethnic groups in the territories.
Turning the colonies into mono-crop plantation systems, dependent on low value agricultural exports, which hampered their development post-independence.
MOST IMPORTANTLY (and most difficult to understand and evaluate) – colonialism established a world capitalist system which locked poorer countries into unequal power relations with richer countries – if poor countries wished to develop within the system, they required expensive imports from the industrialised European powers. For this reason, poor countries will always remain poor within this system.

Neo-Colonalism keeps poor countries poor because:

Unfair terms of Trade and unfair trade rules lock poor countries into unequal relationships with the west
Transnational Corporations play a major role in exploiting countries today, not just rich countries
Aid through the World Bank is used by rich countries to promote ‘neoliberal’ policies which make rich countries easier to exploit.

To develop, developing countries need to isolate themselves from the capitalist system (protectionism)

Dependency Theory argued that developing countries should seek to break away from the world capitalist system and find their own path way to development – mainly through socialism – development through socialism means countries focus on their own development, seeking to produce everything for themselves rather than integrating into a global trade system.

Glencore is one of the world’s largest commodities companies – it operates in 150 countries extracting natural resources such as iron and copper, but also has interests in coal and oil, as well as numerous agricultural products.

Glencore – key facts and stats

It is registered in Switzerland
Has £128 billion in assets (2015)
Had a revenue in 2016 of $150 billion
Employs 150 000 people globally
The CEO is Ivan Glassenberg, who has a total net worth of around $5 billion.

Glencore’s total revenue over the last decade = around $1.6 trillion

Criticisms of Glencore

Below are some arguments and evidence that Glencore is an example of a Transnational Company which is not really interested in promoting development in poor countries, but really just interested in extracting as much as it can for as cheaply as possible.

Glencore – extracting commodities from 6 continents

Glencore has been widely criticized because it has made staggering profits by extracting huge volumes of natural resources out of poor countries. To put the size of Glencore in perspective, the annual revenue of the company is 10 times greater than the GDP of Zambia.

The 2013 video below documents how the company struck a deal with Zambia to mine its copper in which it extracts around $1 billion of copper per year but pays only 8% tax to the government, and gets free electricity for its mines into the bargain (paid for by the government).

This report from War on Want estimates that a combination of poor trade deals and tax avoidance costs the Zambian government $3 billion/ year, or 10% of its GPP. The report isn’t limited to just Glencore, it focuses on other mining companies such as Vedanta, none of these companies comes off as effectively promoting development in poor countries.

Glencore has also come under heavy criticisms for poor health and safety conditions in many of its mines, its record on environmental pollution and benefitting from child labour in the DRC.

Further Sources

Students might like to use these sources to assess the role of the TNC Glencore in promoting economic and social development in poor countries.

Glencore Wikipedia entry (useful for basic history/ stats)

Glencore’s ‘Supporting Development’ page – have a look at Zambia and the DRC.

Glencore paid £30 000 to compensate for a pollution related death – Guardian article

Criticisms of Glencore in Zambia by Facing Finance

Glencore denies benefitting from child labour in DRC – Guardian article

This 2008 Documentary seeks to answer the question of why there is still so much poverty in the world when there is sufficient wealth to eradicate it.

In order to answer this question, the video goes back to 1492, which marks the start of European colonialism and the beginning of the global capitalist system, making the argument that European wealth was built on the back of a 500 year project of extraction and exploitation of the Americas, and then Asia and Africa.

Using various case studies of countries including Venezula, Bolivia, and Kenya the video charts how brutal colonial policies made the colonies destitute while the wealth extracted led to the establishment of global finance, the industrial revolution, and the foundation of a global capitalist system which locked poor countries into unequal relations with rich countries.

Following Independence, a combination of unfair trade rules and debt, managed through global institutions such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation have effectively kept these unequal relationships between countries in place, meaning wealthy countries have got richer while many ex-colonies have remained destitute.

This video is quite heavy going, and jumps around from continenent to continent a bit too much for my liking, which, combined with a lot of sub-titles (as many of the people interviewed are not English-speakers) does make it quite hard to follow. Nonetheless, this video does offer a systematic account of a Dependency Theory view of underdevelopment and development, including interviews with numerous politicians and activists from development countries as critical thinkers such as Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Naomi Klein, among many more.

This year I’m using the DRC as a major case study in underdevelopment (it is last on the UN’s HDI rankings after all) – Here’s my (mainly cut and paste from Wikipedia) very brief history of the DRC – I’ll add in video links, general links, pictures and extracts from numerous books later…

The Stuff in italics below each heading are the ‘key historical reasons for underdevelopment’

Pre-Colonialism

It was quite nice, suggesting Western Nation States f***ed The Congo Up

[Pre-Colonialism, tribes in the region were doing pretty well for themselves – Organised into the Kingdom of Luba, according to Wikipedia – Each of these kingdoms became very wealthy due mainly to the region’s mineral wealth, especially in ores. The civilization began to develop and implement iron and copper technology, in addition to trading in ivory and other goods. The Luba established a strong commercial demand for their metal technologies and were able to institute a long-range commercial net (the business connections extended over 1,500 kilometres (930 miles), all the way to the Indian Ocean). By the 16th century, the kingdom had an established strong central government based on chieftainship.’

The African Congo Free State (1877–1908) – Colonialism, Brutalisation and Extraction

History of Colonialism

King Leopold II of Belgium formally acquired rights to the Congo territory at the Conference of Berlin in 1885 and made the land his private property and named it the Congo Free State.Leopold’s regime began various infrastructure projects, such as construction of the railway that ran from the coast to the capital of Leopoldville (now Kinshasa). It took years to complete. Nearly all such projects were aimed at increasing the capital which Leopold and his associates could extract from the colony, leading to exploitation of Africans.

Rubber was the main export from the Congo Free State, used to make tyres for the growing automobile industry, and the sale of rubber made a fortune for Leopold.

Leopold’s colonization of the Congo was incredibly brutal. Thousands of Congolese were forced to work on Leopold’s Rubber plantations, and the practice of cutting off the limbs of the natives as a means of enforcing rubber quotas was widespread. During the period of 1885–1908, millions of Congolese died as a consequence of exploitation and disease. In some areas the population declined dramatically; it has been estimated that sleeping sickness and smallpox killed nearly half the population in the areas surrounding the lower Congo River.

The actions of the Free State’s administration sparked international protests led by British reporter Edmund Dene Morel and British diplomat/Irish rebel Roger Casement, whose 1904 report on the Congo condemned the practice. Famous writers such as Mark Twainand Arthur Conan Doyle also protested.

The Belgian Congo (1908–1960) – Colonialism, Condescension and More Extraction

In 1908, the Belgian parliament took over the Free State from the king. From then on, as a Belgian colony, it was called the Belgian Congo and was under the rule of the elected Belgian government. The governing of the Congo improved significantly and considerable economic and social progress was achieved. The white colonial rulers had, however, generally a condescending, patronizing attitude toward the indigenous peoples, which led to bitter resentment from both sides. During World War II, the Congolese army achieved several victories against the Italians in North Africa.

Independence and Political crisis (1960–1965) – Turmoil and Transition

The Belgian Congo achieved independence on 30 June 1960 under the name ‘The Democratic Republic of Congo’. Just previous to this, in May a growing nationalist movement, led by Patrice Lumumba, had won the parliamentary elections. The party appointed Lumumba as Prime Minister. Shortly after independence, most of the 100,000 Europeans who had remained behind after independence fled the country, opening the way for Congolese to replace the European military and administrative elite.

On 5 September 1960, Kasavubu dismissed Lumumba from office. Lumumba declared Kasavubu’s action unconstitutional and a crisis between the two leaders developed. Lumumba had previously appointed Joseph Mobutu chief of staff of the new Congo army. Taking advantage of the leadership crisis between Kasavubu and Lumumba, Mobutu garnered enough support within the army to create mutiny. With financial support from the United States and Belgium, Mobutu paid his soldiers privately. Mobutu took power in 1965 and in 1971 changed the country’s name to the “Republic of Zaïre”.

Mobutu and Zaire (1965 – 1996) – Dictatorship (propped up by the United States), extreme corruption, yet more extraction and infrastructure deterioration

Corruption, Aid, The United States, Cold War

The new president had the support of the United States because of his staunch opposition to Communism. Western powers appeared to believe this would make him a roadblock to Communist schemes in Africa.

A one-party system was established, and Mobutu declared himself head of state. He periodically held elections in which he was the only candidate. Although relative peace and stability were achieved, Mobutu’s government was guilty of severe human rights violations, political repression, a cult of personality and corruption. By 1984, Mobutu was said to have $4 billion (USD), an amount close to the country’s national debt, deposited in a personal Swiss bank account. International aid, most often in the form of loans, enriched Mobutu while he allowed national infrastructure such as roads to deteriorate to as little as one-quarter of what had existed in 1960.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Mobutu was invited to visit the United States on several occasions, meeting with U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In June 1989, Mobutu was the first African head of state invited for a state visit with newly elected President Bush. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, U.S. relations with Mobutu cooled, as he was no longer deemed necessary as a Cold War ally.

The first and second Congo Wars (1996 – 2003) – Rwanda’s Ethnic conflict heads west while neighbouring nations plough in and extract resources

End of the Cold War, Ethnic Conflict, Rwanda, Resource Curse

By 1996, following the Rwandan Civil War and genocide and the ascension of a Tutsi-led government, Rwandan Hutu militia forces (Interahamwe) had fled to eastern Zaire and began refugees camps as a basis for incursion against Rwanda. These Hutu militia forces soon allied with the Zairian armed forces to launch a campaign against Congolese ethnic Tutsis in eastern Zaire.

A coalition of Rwandan and Ugandan armies, led by Lawrence Kabila, then invaded Zaire to overthrow the government of Mobutu, launching the First Congo War. By May 1997, Kabila had made it to the capital Kinshasa, named himself president and changed the name of the country back to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mobutu was forced to flee the country.

However, a few months later, President Kabila asked foreign military forces to return back to their countries because he was concerned that the Rwandan military officers who were running his army were plotting a coup against him. Consequently, Rwandan troops in DRC retreated to Goma and launched a new Tutsi led rebel military movement (the RCD) to fight against their former ally, President Kabila, while Uganda instigated the creation of another rebel movement called the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), led by the Congolese warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba. The two rebel movements, along with Rwandan and Ugandan troops, started the Second Congo War by attacking the DRC army in 1998. Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia became involved militarily on the side of the government.

Kabila was assassinated in 2001 and was succeeded by his son Joseph Kabila, who organised multilateral peace talks which to the signing of a peace accord in which Kabila would share power with former rebels. By June 2003 all foreign armies except those of Rwanda had pulled out of Congo. On 30 July 2006 DRC held its first multi-party elections. Joseph Kabila took 45% of the votes and his opponent, Jean-Pierre Bemba took 20%. On 6 December 2006 Joseph Kabila was sworn in as President.

Contemporary Conflicts in the DRC (2003 – Present Day) – Numerous groups fighting over various things

Ethnic Conflict, Rwanda, learned violence.

There are a number of rebel groups still operating mostly in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. It is widely suspected that Rwanda is funding some of these rebel groups. A lot of the recent conflicts seem to go back to the Hutu-Tutsi conflict from Rwanda.

The FDLR -The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda- Consist almost entirely ethnic Hutus who wish to regain power in Rwanda. The FDLR contains some of the ‘original Hutu genociders’ who carried out the genocide in Rwanda and currently have about 7000 troops still in operation in the DRC. Some of the leaders of the FDLR are facing trial for crimes against humanity in the ICCJ

The CNDP – In 2006, the Congolese military declared that it was stopping operations against the FDLR. This lead to some troops mutinying and the foundation of the CNDP, or The National Congress for the Defence of the People, mostly consisting of ethnic Tutsis, whose main aim continued to be the eradication of the Hutu FDLR. The CNDP consisted of approximately 8000 troops and was believed to be backed by Rwanda.

The M23 Rebels – In March 2009, The CNDP signed a peace treaty with the government, in which it agreed to become a political party and its soldiers integrated into the national army in exchange for the release of its imprisoned members. Its leader, Lawrence Nkunda was also arrested and is now facing trial at the United Nations Court for ‘Crimes against humanity’.

However (here we go again) in 2009 Bosco Ntaganda, and troops loyal to him mutinied from this new ‘integrated army’ and formed the rebel military March 23 Movement, claiming a violation of the treaty by the government. M23 claims that some CNDP troops have not received jobs in the military as promised by the government and also want some limited political reforms.

M23 is estimated to have around 1500 – 6000 troops and as recently as November 2012, M23 captured the city of Goma, with a population of over 1 million, and the provincial capital of the Kivu Province in Eastern DRC, with the aim of getting its political demands met.

Rwanda is widely suspected of funding this rebel group as well, although both Rwanda and M23 deny this.

Other Rebel Groups – In addition to the above there is on and off fighting amongst other rebel groups. For example, Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army moved from their original bases in Uganda (where they have fought a 20-year rebellion) and South Sudan to DR Congo in 2005.

There are Economic, Cultural and Political elements of Globalisation
Optimist view of Globalisation
Pessimist view of Globalisation
Transformationalist
Traditionalist
Also…
Does Globalisation mean the decline of the nation state?

How should we define and measure development?
The strengths and limitations of Western notions and categories of development – 1st, 2nd and 3rd World, North-South Divide, World Bank economic indicators (High to Low Income Countries)
The strengths and Limitations of using Economic indicators – mainly GNP/ GNI but also GDP, and HPI
The strengths and limitations of using Social Indicators – HDI, MDGs and others…

Modernisation Theory – Internal cultural barriers to Development// Official Development Aid, Industrialisation, Capitalism
Dependency Theory – Colonialism, Exploitation and Extraction by the West// Breaking Away/ Socialism
World Systems Theory – Global Capitalist System – Core – Periphery –Semi-Periphery// Core Nations tend to remain dominant
Neoliberalism – Too much aid breeds corruption// More Trade – Deregulation, Privatisation, Low Taxation
People Centred Development – No Fixed path to development// Sustainability/ Democracy/ Justice
Bottom Billion– Four Traps//Aid and Fairer Trade and Peace

The strengths and Limitations of Official Development Aid
The strengths and Limitations of Non-Governmental Organisation Aid
The strengths and Limitations of Private Aid
The strengths and Limitations of ‘Free Trade’
Lots of complex stuff in the criticisms of the above – About Trade Rules! (Dumping/ Subsidies etc.)
The strengths and Limitations of Fair Trade
Also be ready for a question about ‘Debt’ and development

Arguments for Industrialisation AND Urbanisation (Modernisation Theory)
Arguments against Industrialisation (PCD/ Sustainable Development/ Dependency Theory
Arguments against Urbanisation
Slums (case studies!)
Theories – Dependency Theory/ Global Pessimism

How are they different in the developing world
How does poor education etc. act as barriers to development
How might improving them promote development?
Why might western models not be appropriate to the developing world
What are the limitations of each of these strategies in promoting development
How important each of these development goals is compared to other development goals
Relate all of this to theories of development

The nature of conflict in the developing world (small scale civil wars, not big scale techno wars)
Causes of conflict in the less developed world
How conflict prevents development
The role of the developed world in conflict

The extent of gender inequality and oppression of women in developing countries
How might promoting gender equality lead to development?
How might women be disadvantaged in the process of development?
Why do global gender inequalities exist? Modernisation Theory/ Dependency Theory/ Radical Feminism

Intro – Higher Birth rates in the developing world and population growth.
Malthusian Perspectives on the causes and consequences of population growth
Malthus
Paul Erlich’s Population Bomb (Neo-Malthusianism)
Criticisms of Malthusianism (alternative perspectives on the causes and consequences of population growth)
- Science and Technology can feed more people
- Increasing wealth = decreasing birth rates (Hans Rosling ) Population Growth is due to decreasing death rates – demographic transition, an indicator of increasing wealth!)
- Dependency theory arguments – ‘Overpopulation’ is only a problem because of resource scarcity caused by the wests overconsumption (land grabs and bio fuels).
- Uncertainty
Explanations of why birth rates are higher in developing countries
Strategies for reducing birth rates in developing countries
Both of the last two – contrast modernisation and dependency theories.

Context – Development has been fundamentally linked to the burning of fossil fuels, industrialisation, urbanisation and high levels of consumption
As a result we now face environmental problems (e.g. global warming, deforestation, pollution, toxic waste).
These primarily affect developing countries and harm development (outline how!)
Since the early 1990s – the concept of sustainable development has become big news – There are some limited International agreements – e.g. Kyoto Protocol/ MDG7.
Limitations of sustainable development –
Economic growth comes first, protecting the environment second
No legally binding international agreements limiting the burning of fossil fuels
Perspectives on what we should do about environmental problems
Technocentric
Ecocentric

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Global Development Revision Notes –

53 Pages of revision notes covering the following topics within global development:

Globalisation
Defining and measuring development
Theories of development (Modernisation Theory etc)
Aid, trade and development
The role of organisations in development (TNCs etc)
Industrialisation, urbanisation and development
Employment, education and health as aspects of development
Gender and development
War, conflict and development
Population growth and consumption
The environment and sustainable development

Dependency theory and Marxist-Feminists would probably point out that many Transnational Corporations are not interested in helping developing countries. Rather, they simply exploit patriarchal values rather than promoting real equality. They do this through taking advantage of ‘women’s material subordination’ – women put up with worse conditions than men because there is no better alternative other than to return to their roles as mothers and unpaid domestic labourers.

Women’s proportion of global supply chain production workers discloses a range of 65% to 90% women in many global supply chains, most obviously the garment industry, and in some countries it is much higher – in China, 75% of garment workers are women, in Bangladesh the figure is 85%, and it rises to 90% in Cambobdia.

The charity War on Want argues that women workers in ‘sweatshops’ in Bangladesh are exploited by the Corporations that employ them (link), although there is a view that this exploitation is gradually leading to greater emancipation for women (link).

From a Dependency perspective, increased participation in the work force also implies increased hazards for women. Women’s jobs outside the home tend to be the lowest earning, least secure, and most dangerous available in the economy, especially in periods of recession that plague most developing countries.

The following video shows the conditions of women working in Bangladesh. Although they work in hazardous and strenuous conditions, most of these women are willing to work in such environments in order to financially support their families. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wqBRWa0fno

On April 24, 2013, Rana Plaza, a garment factory outside of Dhaka, Bangladesh, collapsed, killing at least 1,127 workers. Over half of the casualties were women. In Bangladesh, the garment industry is the largest employer of women, a majority of whom live in rural areas where employment is scarce. In addition, these women are often supporting large extended families, and working for the garment industry is often the only option other than working as a farm hand. Jobs in the garment industry do much to elevate the status of women, but they are often left powerless in the face of harassment and dangerous working conditions. The Bangladesh factory collapse is a prime example of how women are often required to take jobs in dangerous industries with little to no recourse of their own. (Uddin, 2013) To read more on the Bangladesh factory collapse, visit http://www.globalization101.org/manufacturing-after-the-bangladesh-factory-collapse.

The dearth of labour laws, or ignorance and lack of enforcement of the labour codes in practice, allow for the exploitation of women. In Guatemala, women constitute 80 percent of the textile factory sector, and thousands of mostly indigenous women provide services as domestic servants. In both sectors, women have only a precarious claim on the rights to Guatemala’s legally mandated minimum wage, work-week length, leave time, health care under the national social security system, and privacy protections. Often, they are subject to physical and/or sexual abuse, according to Human Rights Watch (Human Rights Watch, 2012).

Unfortunately, even the global nature of business does not confer universal rights for these women. Many U.S.-based companies, such as Target, The Limited, Wal-Mart, GEAR for Sports, Liz Claiborne, and Lee Jeans, have contracts with Guatemalan factories and continue to honor them even if the factories break explicit company policy, such as physically examining women to determine if they are pregnant and denying health care to employees. According to Human Rights Watch, strengthening legal protection for women labourers and increasing their access to legal recourse might cement increased participation in the work as a positive development for women.

Source: http://www.globalization101.org/uploads/File/Women/Women.pdf

Industrialisation is where a country moves from an economy dominated by agricultural output and employment to one dominated by manufacturing. This will usually involve the establishment of factories in which things are produced in a rationally organized (efficient) manner. Below we look at perspectives on ‘industrialisation’ as a means of development.

Industrialisation today at it’s best? Clean, modern and efficient.

How can Industrialisation Promote Development?

Industrialisation should promote economic and social development in the following ways.

Industrialisation means a country can produce a wider range of higher value goods – both for sale at home and for export abroad….
Industrialisation encourages the emergence of other businesses to meet the needs of factories – coal mining to provide power for example.
Industrialisation eventually means a country will be less dependent on manufactured imports from abroad
Industrialisation requires workers – who will be paid wages – which gives them more money and stimulates demand in the economy and further economic and social development
Industrialisation requires an educated workforce (at least some workers – management – need to be educated) which encourages the government to invest in education.
Industrialisation leads to urbanisation – as workers flock to factories to find work….

Arguments for the view that industrialisation leads to development

Modernisation Theory

Modernisation Theorists argue that Industrialisation lead to the West developing and this is what developing countries should do. In the 1950s and 60s, Modernisation Theorists suggested that the West should provide assistance in the form of Official Development Aid to developing countries – providing them with an initial injection of capital and expertise to enable them to build factories and power stations (hydro-electric dams were particularly favoured), and infrastructure to kick start industrialisation. Another form of ‘industrial development’ achieved with help from the west involved providing tractors and pesticides to ‘industrialise agriculture’ – which involved the setting up of large scale farms which could produce food more efficiently than numerous subsistence small holdings.

Supporting evidence for Modernisation Theory

There are a couple of examples of countries which have successfully (at least partially) industrialised with the support of Official Development Aid from the West – the most obvious examples being Indonesia, Botswana and to a lesser extent India.

Hans Rosling and the Magic Washing Machine

This presentation by Hans Rosling outlines the crucial role which the washing machine can play in development – the point being that you can’t really have washing machines without industrialisation!

Criticisms of the idea that industrialisation results in development

Dependency Theory and Industrialisation

Dependency Theorists (Classical Marxists) argue that Industrialisation is crucial for ‘independent development’ – but it is just as crucial that developing countries control the process of industrialisation, not the West.

Supporting evidence for Dependency Theory

This was the position adopted by Russia in the 1920s and 30s, China in the 1960s – where two communist governments controlled the industrialisation process. Even though tens of millions died during these respective periods of forced industrialisation, today these two countries make up 2/4 of the BRIC nations.

World Systems Theory and Industrialisation

Emmanuel Wallerstein argues that countries only industrialise if it benefits the West and that it isn’t in the interests of the West for every country to industrialise and grow economically. In short, not ever country and industrialise!

Wallerstein sees the World Economy as being is split into 3 main regions –

The Core – Who consume high tech ‘end products’ such as cars, computers, processed foods, holidays (planes) – these are also ‘post-industrial’ service economies – mainly Europe, America, some of Asia and parts of Latin America.

The Semi- Periphery – The ‘industrialising, sweat-shop manufacturing areas – who turn raw materials into the high end products that the ‘top billion consume’ – Most of Asia and Latin America.

The Periphery – These are the poorer countries and regions who export raw materials (most of Africa but also huge swathes of Asia and some of Latin America) to the semi-periphery, who then make the products that the Core consumes.

The last half century has witnessed much of Asia and Latin America industrialise because this has benefitted the core – we can afford cheap manufactured goods because of cheap labour. However, our present model of high-consumption also requires cheap raw materials – for example minerals for mobile phones and computers, cheap cotton for clothes, and cheap grains for meat – and these will only stay cheap if the countries in the periphery stay peripheral – i.e. we require them to stay stuck at the bottom as non- industrialised exporters of cheap raw materials.

Further to this most advanced western nations are now post-industrial – only about 10% of jobs in the UK are now in the industrial-manufacturing sector. As a result, we now have more jobs in the service sector and still massive unemployment and social problems in the de-industrialised north.

People Centred Development –

Countries don’t need Industrialisation to be socially developed!

People Centred Development theory argues that the whole idea of industrialization being essential to development is very Eurocentric – this is how most Europe developed and thus modernization theorists assume that every other underdeveloped country now needs to do the same.

The two case studies of Bhutan and Anuta both remind us that Industrialisation is not the only path to development. Both of these countries have not industrialized and both populations have very good standards of living when measured by the HDI and more subjective measures of happiness. Having said this, both of these countries make use of goods that have been produced by industrialized countries.

SignPostin