fbpx
Research studies

Globalization and Third World – Theory versus Reality

 

Prepared by the researcher – Mahmoud Medhat Mokhtar Abdelhameed – Researcher in Political Science – Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University

Democratic Arab Center

Introduction

The main goal of any country in the world is undoubtedly improving its level of development, even if this country is really developed, it will need to be more developed, as a result of the international competition, which forces every single country to be in a continuous status of searching for more opportunities to enhance its national development, in order to preserve its respected position in the international system. However this competition is related more to the developed and welfare countries that have more than the sufficient resources to maintain their survival. But when it comes to the less developed Countries or least developed countries[1], the situation becomes different, as the majority of these countries were colonies and started to look for development mainly as a mean for their survival after they got their independence, which makes the studies of development more concerned with so-called Third World Countries. Consequently, and while studying the process of development in Third World Countries, globalization has been seen as a major factor highly affects this process. As there are three different tendencies in this regard have different perspectives about the relationship between globalization and development in third world. Hyperglobalists see that as a positive relation, while Sceptics see it as a negative relation, on the other side Transformationalists have common views between the two previous tendencies[2]. Hence, the main purpose of writing this paper is to test the following key question:

 Does globalization highly and negatively affect the process of development in the Third World Countries?

Therefore this paper is going to tackle three themes in order to cover the whole aspects needed for answering the main question, firstly it starts with defining the main concepts in this topic: Globalization, Development, and Third world. Secondly it indicates the impact of globalization on development theoretically in Modernization, Dependency, and Marxist schools. Finally it shows in a practical way–by giving actual examples-the relationship between globalization and the level of development in the third world countries. Then it ends up with a conclusion including an answer for the key question and summarizing what has been tackled in the paper, and some suggested recommendations.

I. Globalization, Development, and Third World

For the sake of identifying the right relation between the globalization and development in third world, we have to dismantle first of all these three concepts, as they involve a lot of meanings, to understand and cover their whole aspects, in order to be able to correlate the relations among them.

  1. Globalization:

The word “globalization” is commonly used worldwide nowadays, and it was correlated with the possibility to achieve a high or low rank of development in any society. So in order to know the globalization and its impact we have to recognize firstly some questions regarding globalization, the most important:

  1. What it is?

Although many studies have defined globalization, with no agreement between them on its exact definition, there are some broad, generalized, and prevailing definitions of globalization. For instance Damien Kingsbury defined it as “a proposed or actual situation where there is a process or series of linked processes that lead towards greater interaction or integration between states and within states”[3]. While Joseph Stiglitz said in his book “globalization and its discontents” that it is “fundamentally the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and (to a lesser extent) people across borders”[4] . On the other hand, it was defined in Oxford dictionary in a simpler way as “the universal process or set of processes which generate a multiplicity of linkages and interconnections which transcend the states and societies which make up the modern world system”[5].

Thus, we can simply say that globalization is a process which started when the majority of the world countries began to depend more on each other than on themselves.

  1. When and how did it come?

There are two broad tendencies of scholars. The first one – which is the most popular- sees globalization as a public idea has gained its currency since 1980s, particularly since 1990s following the end of the cold war and the subsequent opening up of global markets, while the term globalization itself was first coined in 1960s, as a result of the real rise of the transnational corporations[6]. Some of these scholars also said that the American culture and its attractiveness to more people around the world during the cold war, had also its sensitive role to give rise to globalization[7]. On the other hand, the second tendency of scholars argues that the roots of globalization may date back to the circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-22, which then leaded to a quick global exploration, and high global trade and investment (that was clearly apparent by the end of nineteenth century, as a result of the proportion of global capital)[8]. Some of them also backed it to even more earlier centuries[9].

  1. Development:

Development is considered to be the multi-faceted or multi-dimensional process to change any society. The scholars of development and the leaders of developing countries have put a wide range of goals toward which the processes of development are presumably directed. That means that development as a concept has been confused with other terms, such as[10]:

  • Economic growth: in 1960s, economists consider that development is basically the increases in per capita gross national product (GNP). This was perhaps articulated by Arthur Lewis in 1955 when he said that “our primary interest is in analyzing not distribution but growth”, that is, “growth of output per head of population”. However, in late 1960s it became clear that economic growth alone was not enough to attain the real development, for example the case of Brazil, when its president said that “Brazil is doing well, but Brazilians are doing poorly”.
  • National autonomy: by breaking the bonds posed by the global capitalist system on developing countries. (dependency theory)
  • Political order and stability: in late 1960s, political scientists became more occupied by the problems of political order and stability. They saw that these problems can be solved by having democracy as in western models. (Modernization theory)

Moreover, there are two main general categories see development in different perspectives. The first one is the traditional meanings of development in which many thinkers have traditionally given their views on the process of development, the most important and known two are Walt Rostow who considered that Capitalism is the ultimate level of development that any country can achieve, and Karl Marx who saw, on the contrary, that Communism is the real development. Also in this category, development was mentioned as the ability to use the natural resources, in order to supply infrastructure, build roads and dams, and provide electricity and other forms of energy, to productively utilize or exploit the unused areas of land, or to devise new forms of technology for productive use. The second category is called the contemporary meanings of development, simply in this category, development has no longer been seen as just a good thing in all the times, but it can also be a source for domination and exploitation (as we will see in the dependency theory)[11].

  1. The three main tendencies in the relationship between globalization and development [12]:

There are three main and broad tendencies having different views about the kind of relationship between globalization and development. First one is, the Hyperglobalists who posit globalization as the ultimate expression of modernism and developmentalism, and as the logical endpoint of human development and it is to every one’s benefit, they also tried to cite some evidence, to support their assertion, such as the foreign exchange rate – as a result of economic integration- increased by 10 times between 1979 and 1997, furthermore the growth in Chinese’s incomes increased highly and noticeably from 1980 to 2011. In contrast, Sceptics see that if globalization has positive effects, they primarily go to the developed countries of North America, Western Europe, Japan, and not for the developing countries. One of their famous evidences they gave was that the poorest 20% of the world’s population take just 1 % of global GDP (Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamed was one of the most known fellows of this tendency). On the other hand, Transformationalists intersect with the previous two tendencies, as they see that globalization may sometimes have negative impacts (such as the case of Argentina which vigorously suffered from the problem of income inequality as a result of globalization), and may sometimes have positive impacts (as the case of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong).

  1. Third world:

Although the precise historical origins of this term are disputed, there is a semi- agreement that this term dates back to the cold war period, as during this period the term was applied to the less developed countries that belonged to neither the advanced industrial capitalist west countries (First world), nor the Soviet socialist bloc (Second world). This term also referred to the poor countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (these countries were also called the South, in order to distinguish them from the North, yet that was to a large extent on economic not ideological grounds)[13].

Moreover, this term also erupted another dispute about whether it was just a legacy of the cold war, because many countries of the Third World have actually differed from one another[14]. Or although they differed from each other, they still share a lot of characteristics in common, which makes the term really true and not just a legacy[15].

 The impact of globalization on development in Modernization, Dependency, and Marxist schools (In theory):

  1. Marxism:

In the second half of the nineteenth century, Karl Marx (1818-83) envisaged in his writings, four stages of historical development. He saw that when the society gradually passes to each following stage, it will achieve a higher level of development, until it reaches the fourth stage, in which the complete level of development is attained, as follows[16]:

  • First stage: Marx thought that all societies are considered to emerge from this primal stage, in which individuals are overwhelmingly concerned with satisfying the most basic needs as having food, clothing and shelter. Additionally, higher notions like self-expression and individual freedoms are not entertained until basic survival is firstly and mainly ensured.
  • Second stage: Marx called it the feudal stage, in which private property exists but is held by the aristocrats, who oppress, alienate, and directly exploit the masses (the majority or the subordinate serf class), however they are dependent upon them in order to increase the production. This stage also provides no freedom for the proletariats or any opportunity for their self-fulfilment.
  • Third stage: In this stage feudalism is followed by the capitalist stage. This capitalist society will provide private property, as well as the capacity of productivity will grow rapidly. An entrepreneurial and capitalist class seeks out commercial opportunities will emerge. A more modern, technical, and advanced economy relying less on agriculture and more on industry, will also consequently emerge. This will be as a result of capitalism, as it is the best suitable way to increase the productive capacity of the economy. However, in this stage, the working class will still be exploited, impoverished, and alienated through its submission to wage labour, while the capitalist class will be enriched by the expansion of the productive capacity of the economy (by economic globalization in our current terms).
  • Final stage: The three previous historical stages will culminate in this fourth stage, which Marx called Communism. That the enrichment of the capitalist class which led to the impoverishment of the proletariat class in the capitalist stage, will lead to the latter overthrowing the former. Which means that the proletariat class will take the place of the capitalist class, as they will seize the means of production, transferring them to public or collective ownership, and encourage social relations, which will benefit everyone equally. As a result, the true freedom for the proletariat would then be achieved, and the society will reject all the previous values and perpetuated the rulers who interested only in their own-self interests. This equal sharing of the productive capacity means that everyone’s living standards in this society are relatively high.

Therefore, it is clear that Marx has criticized Capitalism (which has been put by Adam Smith), which was the prevailing economic system in his time. He mentioned that the nature of capitalism will automatically lead to the exploitation of the proletariat class, as he said in his Communist Manifesto – published in 1848- that “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,” he continued, “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere”[17]. So Marx saw that capitalism, in order to grow, needs to be expanded everywhere, which requires the relentless search for new markets, cheap labour, and an incessant demand for more natural resources[18]. Overall, Marx analyzed the impact of globalization- as a common term we use it nowadays and did not exist in his time- by tackling how capitalism is enriched, and he concluded that it impoverishes, exploits the working class, and restricts its human freedoms[19].

  1. Modernization:

Modernization theory is considered to be a body of thoughts that attempts to incorporate a big number of societies, many of which were in the process of becoming new states. Some of its roots backed to the optimism followed the period of the Second World War, as there was an existing belief that countries which achieved or approached independence, could not only benefit from the independence, but also from the colonials’ technology, culture, liberal democracy, and capitalism. This idea of modernization was essentially conceptualized by USA social scientists, sponsored by a generous government support[20]. This sponsorship can be explained through the expected benefits that USA would gain, when it attracts more fellow countries (which would be for the interest of its markets), as it was leading the philosophy of Capitalism in the world, against its main enemy at that time the Former Soviet Union who was the leader of Communism on the other hand. This explanation can indicate why this theory was mainly western financed by USA. Furthermore, when all social sciences, during 1960s and part of 1970s, involved aspects of modernization, all of them carried the same building promise that all nations however poor they are-with the implementation of correct policies-able to achieve a modern standard of living as developed countries, by following exactly the same growth path as that pioneered by the western nations[21].

When Walt Rostow (1916-2003) published his book “The stages of economic growth: a non-communist manifesto” in 1960, the features and aspects of modernization theory began to appear. As Rostow believed that any society, in order to be really developed and to achieve the desired economic development, it has to pass through 5 stages[22]:

  • The traditional society: This stage is characterized by low levels of productivity and technology, an economy dominated by the agricultural sector with most people living and working on the land, a very hierarchal social structure characterized by an agricultural life, and little upward mobility (people who were born poor will still be poor, and the successive generations were often no better off than each other, as the economic growth is very low or non-existent).
  • Pre- conditions for take-off: In this stage the society commences the process of transition. An entrepreneurial activity emerges, with a class willing and able to save from their incomes, which creates a pool of funds can be invested, through emerging banks and other institutions. An increase in the investment in communications and transport emerges. Modern technologies are utilized.
  • Take-off: There are two main factors characterizing this stage. The first factor is that the institutional resistances to steady economic growth are largely removed (these resistances may be, for example, a social class whose interests are to retard general economic advancement, such as an elite class that wants a pool of cheap labour). The second factor is the emergence of large increases in the incomes of both who save increasingly larger shares of their incomes, and who invest these savings in the modern sectors of the economy. In this period savings increase approximately by up to 10 % of national income.
  • The road to maturity: This stage is reached after the end of the take-off stage in 40 or so years. Here, the economy is involved in the international trade. New industries emerge and the older ones disappear or tapper-off. Savings and investments will increase by about 10 to 20% of national income, as well as national output and income regularly exceeds that of population.
  • High mass-consumption: Here, the society is truly developed, and no longer accepts the ongoing application of modern technology as a fundamental objective. The economy primarily geared towards the production of consumer durables and services on a mass basis. Those who were once poor in the previous stages would no longer be so, as economic expansion would ensure high levels of employment, and a high demand for employees would ensure higher wages. Which is referred to as the theory of trickle-down[23].

In 1990s and after the fall of the Former Soviet Union, Rostow saw that this can highly prove the truth of his assumptions about capitalism. Moreover Rostow’s view about development indicates how much did he agree that capitalism, and its feeding through expansion and integration in the international trade (economic globalization), serve as the highest level of development that any country can attain. Overall, we can say that Rostow saw that globalization leads to more growth of the state’s developed capitalist economy, and at the same time it leads the developing countries to be developed, since they enter the 4th stage of his road towards development (Capitalism). That absolutely clarifies how Rostow -opposite to Marx-believes in the very positive effects of globalization.

However Rostow accentuated almost all his efforts on the impact of modernization on economic field. Indeed, Modernization is also concerned with other different aspects, the most common[24]:

  1. Social evolution:

Modernization theory believes that the developed society is that one which acquires the same characteristics that western capitalist society has. By eliminating gradually its economic, political, and particularly its social institutions and values, replacing them with the modern ones that western societies have. So, in another meaning, Modernization theory is concerned with social transformations taking place in these developing societies. In addition, this aspect of Modernization strongly relates with the other following 4 aspects.

  1. Differentiation:

This aspect was mainly an idea developed most fully by the French philosopher and sociologist Emile Durkheim, who saw that differentiation is the division of labour in the society. This division means the specialization of roles in the society. As in the traditional societies the family was the main structure performing a number of roles, whereas differentiation in modern societies refers to an increasing level of institutional specialization and greater heterogeneity in the society (for example, specialized institutions for education and economy, so modern society is developed outside the familial framework).

  1. Secularization:

Secularization is tacitly defined by modernization theory as the process in which society becomes more rationalized, by separating the religious beliefs and ideas out of the country. As it sees that religion may be an obstacle for the process of development in the country.

  1. Cultural modernization:

This aspect of modernization requires some patterns to be achieved in the society in order to attain the development. As Parsons put it, he saw that there are some “pattern variables” have to be attained by the developing society, in order to be really developed as western societies, these patterns are as follows:

  1. From community (in which people depend on kinship relations) to society (which is basically an association, where people have defined roles to achieve defined objectives).
  2. Changing some pattern values in the society itself:
  • From particularism in traditional societies, which their people make their judgments dependent mainly on kinship and family relations, without a defined criteria. To Universalism in modern societies, which have a universal criteria the people can be judged upon, regardless of their positions in society or social relationships.
  • From ascribed status, which implies the existence of specific qualities in some concerned people in society without applying independent tests of competence, and which exists in traditional societies. To achieved status, which has independent and abstract criteria (such as educational qualifications), to test people qualities in order to occupy a position in the modern society.
  • From affectivity (which refers to the emotional attachments between people), to neutrality (which based on instrumentality and objectives external to personal relationships).
  • From diffuseness (in which relationships are multi-stranded, and it is impossible to distinguish different roles performed by individuals). To Specificity (when there are specific roles related to specific individuals, so it is possible to know the roles performed by the individuals).
  1. The modernization of personality:

This is a psychological aspect of modernization that emphasizes the importance of individual’s traits that have to be existed in people living in modern society. The important traits emphasized are the need for achievement, autonomy, order and understanding of natural and social sciences.

All in all, while Marxism had strongly refused the globalization (the feed source for capitalism), because it saw that it exploits and impoverishes the labour class, Modernization considered globalization to be the ultimate way for development, and it is for every one’s benefit.

  1. Dependency:

In 1960s dependency theory became popular, mainly as a result of a work made by Raul Prebisch, who believed that the increases of the wealth of the richer countries appeared to be at the expense of the poorer ones. Basically, dependency theory depends on the view that “there is a dominant world capitalist system that relies on a division of labour between the rich ‘core’ countries and poor ‘peripheral’ countries”. It is noticeable that dependency theory, in its extreme form, is based on the Marxist view of the world, which negatively sees globalization, in terms of its dependence on the extension and widespread of market capitalism, and the exploitation of the cheap labour and resources in return for the obsolete technologies of the developed world. Therefore dependency theory adopted an inward looking approach to development, by the increasing of the state’s role in the economy, through imposing barriers on foreign trade, making strong national investments, and promoting the nationalization of the key industries[25].

There are two major prepositions of dependency theory[26]:

  1. The world is being increasingly divided between the powerful core/central regions, and the impoverished periphery
  2. Dependency relations are not the same, they evolve over time, in the beginning they take the form of primitive dependency, in which the resources of the dependent countries are taken by force and that leads to the bankruptcy. Then these relations take the form of colonial dependency, which is a better state of dependency, but leads to unequal exchange between the periphery (mainly depends on raw materials) and the center. The third stage is the financial and technological dependency in which the developing countries (periphery) embark on the path of industrialization but face the problem of indebtedness.

Under the conditions of dependency, there is a controversy on whether dependency (economic globalization) can lead to a development for the periphery, or it cannot. Here, there are two different views[27]:

  • The first view: It is a radical view, conducted by Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin. They could not conceive of development under the conditions of dependency, as they claimed that under these conditions the center will still grow at the expense of the periphery. So they saw that the only solution is to delink completely from the world economy.
  • The second view: It is a milder vision of dependency, pioneered mainly by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was a former president of Brazil, and his co-author Enzo Faletto. They believed that under capitalism both rich and poor could grow but unequally. This view is a mixture of protectionism and Keynesianism that became known as import-substituting industrialization (ISI)[28]. It is also believed that if local elites adopted ways like tariff walls, generous state subsidies, and an active fiscal policy, as well as a drop of central planning here and there, poor countries can benefit from dependency. So this view saw that development under globalization is possible under some conditions.

III.

The impact of globalization on the level of development in the Third World Countries (In practice).

It is necessary to recognize the manifestations and consequences of globalization on world countries, in order to evaluate and assess its real impact on the developing countries of the third world. Making that requires giving a comparative look to the situations of these developing countries since globalization has appeared in its current meaning.

Here, there are the most famous countries succeeded under globalization:

  1. China: Joseph Stiglitz, who was an excellent expert in economics and the vice-president of the World Bank, astonished in his work “Making globalization work” published in 2006, that growth in China, in the last three decades, has been in excess of 9.7 % economic growth, as a result of exploiting the phenomenon of globalization by improving its resources, technology, and education[29].
  2. Chile: According to the World Bank, Chile, however it still has some economic problems, has achieved a really fast rate of economic growth compared to other Latin American Countries, as it has succeeded to reduce the amount of population living in poverty from 30% in 2000 to 3.7% in 2017, thanks to its solid macroeconomic framework which enabled it to deal with the effects of the international volatile context[30].
  3. Brazil: According to UNCTAD report in 2016, Brazil has become a successful emulated model for development. As it established the Brazilian Development Bank in 1952 on which Brazil has mainly relied. The bank’s assists amounted to 15% of the country’s GDP, in addition, it highly contributed in the country’s economic growth. So it became the country’s successful instrument of capitalist development[31].
  4. India: It has also succeeded in increasing its economic capacity, by nearly the same manner of Brazil, through the creation of a large number of Development Finance Institutions. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural development, and the Small Industries Development Bank of India, are the most two current successful financial institutions in India, and they still expand their operations in recent years[32].
  5. Asian Tigers: They are made up of four countries in East Asia (South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan), which are considered to be the first generation of the Newly Industrialized Countries. Since 1960s they all went through rapid growth, by going through industrialization when they chose to be the host countries to the Multi-National Corporations which were looking for cheap labour and low costs. Japanese MNCs especially chose these four neighbouring less developed countries, particularly South Korea and Taiwan, as areas for their factories and manufacturing. This gave many benefits for the Asian Tigers, such as having a reasonably well-developed level of infrastructure, relatively well educated population with existing skills, increasing in its trade, imports and exports[33].

If the previous successful models -certainly few other models do exist- prove that globalization positively affects the Third World countries, there are other evidences prove that it negatively affects them. When Frank harshly criticized the system of globalization, because it enhances the center-periphery relations, he gave an excellent example by citing what happened to the Latin American Countries during the two world wars when they progressed and developed in their own ways. However after the Second World War the situation gradually became different in Latin America especially since 1980s when its economic performance was disastrous compared to the rest of the world[34].

Moreover, it is also worth noticing that the most negative affected countries by globalization in the world are those so-called Third World, particularly in Africa. For instance, in 2019 the 10 poorest were: Niger, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Chad, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Mali, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and Liberia[35].

Overall, with the majority of the Third World Countries still suffering under globalization, there are few countries succeeded to deal with this phenomenon. That leads us to say that the global system is not shaped for the interest of these developing countries, however they can hardly achieve the desired development.

Conclusion

In this paper the scholar tackled mainly the different impacts of globalization on the process of development, in both a theoretical manner, by discussing what Marxism, Modernization, and Dependency schools said about the kind of relationship between globalization and development. And, in a practical manner, by giving case studies of the countries that have improved their situations under globalization, and the countries that have been negatively affected as a result of it.

The scholar also noticed that globalization does not always highly and negatively affect the countries of the third world. As there were some countries that have benefited from globalization. However, globalization is designed to benefit much more the developed countries than the developing ones.

Suggested recommendations

  • Making a change in the nature of globalization is going to be awkward. The best way for the developing countries is to try to exploit desperately the narrow opportunities that globalization offers (as all successful models did).
  • Developing countries must specialize more amount of their national balances on the investments in infrastructure, education, technology, and resources.
  • Developing countries must struggle to support their national industries, vary their sources of exports, as this can increase their social capital, help them get involved in the international trade, and solve a lot of problems facing them (the most significant is unemployment). On the other hand, they have to keep a level of specialization in some products (either agricultural or industrial), because that may help them having a considerable share in the international market.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. “A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations”, (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2018).
  2. Hofman, André, “The Economic Development of Latin America in the Twentieth Century”, (Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Massachusetts, 2000).
  3. Almond, Gabriel A, Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington (general editors), “AN ANALYTIC STUDY: Understanding POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT”, (Illinois, WAVE LAND, INC, 1987).
  4. Clapham, Christopher, “THIRD WORLD POLITICS: AN INTRODUCTION”, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985).
  5. O’Rourke, Kevin, and G. Williamson, Jeffrey, “When Did Globalization Begin?”, (NBER Working Paper No. 7632, April 2000), available on https://www.nber.org/papers/w7632.pdf
  6. http://developmentandglobalisation.weebly.com/the-asian-tigers.html#:~:text=The%20Asian%20Tigers,low%20costs%20for%20other%20things.
  7. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/16%3A_Economy/16.01%3A_Economic_Systems/16.1C%3A_The_Marxist_Critique_of_Capitalism
  8. https://www.britannica.com/topic/import-substitution-industrialization
  9. https://www.concernusa.org/story/worlds-poorest-countries/
  10. https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Dependency_theory.html
  11. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/chile/overview
  12. Kingsbury, Damien et al, ” INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES”, (Shanghai, Palgrave Macmillan, second edition 2012).
  13. Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Samuel Moore (translator), (Progress Publishers, Moscow,1969).
  14. Mcelwee, Sean, ” Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014″, published in JANUARY 30, 2014 5:30PM ET, last accessed 1/6/2020, available on https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/marx-was-right-five-surprising-ways-karl-marx-predicted-2014-237285/
  15. Smith, B.C, “Understanding Third World Politics”, (Macmillan Press LTD, 1996).
  16. Stiglitz, Joseph E, “Globalization and its discontents”, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002).
  17. Stiglitz, Joseph E, “Making globalization work”, (The Economic and Social Review, Vol.39, No.3, 2008).
  18. United Nations Conference On Trade And Development, “RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS”, (2016, second volume).
  19. Velasco, Andres, “The Dustbin Of History: Dependency Theory”, published on November 9, 2009, available on: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/the-dustbin-of-history-dependency-theory/#:~:text=One%20of%20its%20authors%2C%20Brazilian,)%2C%20was%20about%20to%20arrive.&text=Dependency%20was%20a%20theory%20of,rich%20nations%20of%20the%20center.

[1] Least developed countries are the poorest countries in the world, and those whose poverty is the most profound(per capita GDP is less than US$2 a day or sometimes less than US$1 a day), so for whom special help is supposed to be available, examples include Laos, Cambodia, East Timor, Burma, and many of sub Saharan African countries. On other hand the Less developed countries are little richer, include, for example, South Africa, Egypt, the Central American States, India and Indonesia.

Damien Kingsbury et al, ” INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES”, (Shanghai, Palgrave Macmillan, second edition 2012), p4

[2] IBID: 126-133.

[3] IBID: 115

[4] Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Globalization and its discontents”, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002) P.9.

[5]  “A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations”, (Oxford University Press, 4th edition,2018) P.237

[6] Damien Kingsbury, Op.cit:124

[7] IBID: 120

[8] IBID:124

[9] Kevin H. O’Rourke and Jeffrey G. Williamson, “When Did Globalization Begin?”, (NBER Working Paper No. 7632, April 2000), available on https://www.nber.org/papers/w7632.pdf

[10]Gabriel A. Almond, Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington (general editors), “AN ANALYTIC STUDY: Understanding POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT”, (Illinois, WAVE LAND, INC, 1987), p 4-6

[11] Damien Kingsbury et al, Opt.cit:24-43

[12]IBID:126-133

[13]  Oxford dictionary, Opt.cit: 552

[14] Christopher Clapham, “THIRD WORLD POLITICS: AN INTRODUCTION”, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), P.18

[15] IBID : 2

[16] Damien Kingsbury et al, Opt.cit: 27-28

[17] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Samuel Moore (translator), (Progress Publishers, Moscow,1969) p.16

[18] Sean Mcelwee, ” Marx Was Right: Five Surprising Ways Karl Marx Predicted 2014″, published in JANUARY 30, 2014 5:30PM ET, last accessed 1/6/2020, available on https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/marx-was-right-five-surprising-ways-karl-marx-predicted-2014-237285/

[19] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/16%3A_Economy/16.01%3A_Economic_Systems/16.1C%3A_The_Marxist_Critique_of_Capitalism

[20] B.C Smith, “Understanding Third World Politics”, (Macmillan Press LTD, 1996), P 61-62.

[21]Damien Kingsbury et al, Opt.cit:58-59

[22] IBID: 26-27

[23] A theory means that the poorest in society gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

[24]  B.C Smith, Opt.cit: 62-79

[25] https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Dependency_theory.html

[26]B.C Smith, Opt.cit: 48-53

[27] Andres Velasco, “The Dustbin Of History: Dependency Theory”, published on November 9, 2009, available on: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/11/09/the-dustbin-of-history-dependency-theory/#:~:text=One%20of%20its%20authors%2C%20Brazilian,)%2C%20was%20about%20to%20arrive.&text=Dependency%20was%20a%20theory%20of,rich%20nations%20of%20the%20center.

[28] A development strategy focusing on promoting domestic production, through substituting the imported goods with national goods, to promote the industrialization.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/import-substitution-industrialization

[29]  Stiglitz E.  Joseph, “Making globalization work”, (The Economic and Social Review, Vol.39, No.3, 2008), p174-175

[30] https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/chile/overview

[31] United Nations Conference On Trade And Development, “RETHINKING DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS”, (2016, second volume) P 24-25

[32]  IBID: 25-26

[33] http://developmentandglobalisation.weebly.com/the-asian-tigers.html#:~:text=The%20Asian%20Tigers,low%20costs%20for%20other%20things.

[34] André A. Hofman, “The Economic Development of Latin America in the Twentieth Century”, ( Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Massachusetts, 2000) p 127

[35] https://www.concernusa.org/story/worlds-poorest-countries/

الوسوم

المركز الديمقراطى العربى

المركز الديمقراطي العربي مؤسسة مستقلة تعمل فى اطار البحث العلمى والتحليلى فى القضايا الاستراتيجية والسياسية والاقتصادية، ويهدف بشكل اساسى الى دراسة القضايا العربية وانماط التفاعل بين الدول العربية حكومات وشعوبا ومنظمات غير حكومية.

مقالات ذات صلة

اترك تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى
إغلاق
إغلاق