The first essay in the course should help you sort out the BIG picture of how sociologists, historians, economists, pontificators and other big shots think the world works. In the modern era three schools, among others, have emerged to explain it all, they are
World Systems' Theory which takes a very long view and explains all parts of the world as inter-related, Dependency Theory which at its core (pun intended) understands the world as one dominated by an imperialist center (or core) and a periphery, and Modernization Theory, a view of the world that clearly defines all stages in clear categories.
19 comments:
Brunner Alycia
Ap Comp Gov Hr 1-1
9/9/07
I made the mistake of reading all three together back to back when I think I should have one at a time each separately so the mind had more time to digest what was read, especially since I left the most bland for last. The stages of economics or world system's theory seemed more of an overview that could have been developed deeper, besides I don’t really fancy overviews anyways they skip over all the good stuff. Modernization theory, went past industrialization, and blamed all later problems on the fall of agriculture while some what showing the detriment of the “state” as bureaucratization, and absolutism gave more money to the king, and strengthened the monarchy while devaluing the “working man”. The dependency theory is what I am most familiar with so I feel like it’s the more subtle logical and most logical theory over modernization.
I believe that the dependency theory is the most present logical higher developed nations depend on lower ones for several things. Which is in contrast to the Modernization theory which is basically we make the world a better place but realy the only one winning is royalty. Finally the World-Systems wasn't really a theory more of an analysis which ties an "external" nations falling could mean the falling of a periphrual nations fall too.
DeLon Thornton
1-1
Gottinger Abbey
AP Comp Gov Hr.1-1
9/9/07
While reading these three different theories and trying to compare them in my mind, i did not find that one was better than the other, rather i found that each theory coincided with another. In the World System's theory, Wallerstein talks of how after the feudal crisis empires transitioned into more modern capitalistic societies, and through this their economies extended beyond political boundries. Out of this the world economy was born. The countries with strong central governments became core nations and dominated over the countries with weaker governments, called periphery nations. These weaker nations exported raw materials to the core nations, who used their strength to exploit these weaker nations. The dependency theory, states much the same thing. It says that impoverished nations stay impoverished due to the economic growth of advanced industrial nations (core nations). Poor nations export raw materials to wealthy nations, who then, manufacture the materials and sell it back to the impoverished nations at a greater price. Therefore these nations never earn enough on their exports to pay for their imports. Thus the periphery nations are dependent on the core nations. Likewise, the modernization theory just breaks down into more detail the World System's theory, instead of saying the world went from the "feudal crisis" to a modern capitalistic society, it breaks down the transition into five categories: the traditional society, the precoditions for take-off, the take-off, the drive to maturity, and the age of high mass-consumption. These categories describe how the world changed from nationalistic economies to aglobal economy. So basically as i read these three articles i could not decide on which one i felt was the strongest, because they all said the same thing, and could essentially be combined into one great theory.
In my opinion, the Dependency Theory is the best because it creates a worldview which suggests that poor underdeveloped states of the periphery are exploited by wealthy developed nations of the center, in order to sustain economic growth and remain wealthy. As well, that is the theory I most agree with. I feel it is most accurate in explaining how the world works under it’s Capitalist economy. The Modernization Theory and the World Systems Theory might as well have just been combined as one theory, because the world Systems Theory is basically a branch of the Modernization Theory. The difference between them is that the World Systems Theory argues that some regions are, indeed, exploited and kept in a state of backwardness by the developed core.
Morgan Nager
9/9/07
Hr.1
In my opinion, the Dependency Theory is the best because it was for the poorer countries and the serious economic problems countries. It was developed in the late 1950s under the guidancwe of the Director of the United Nations of Economic Commission for Latin America.
McNealey, Kamisha
Hr.1
I agree wit kamisha because the dependency theory was for the poor which is a good thing so i think that the dependency theory was the best theory because it was for the good.
Lee, Nico
Hr:1-1
Ridgeway, Camille
APComGov Hr.1
September 9th, 2007
While Dependency does have a lot of highlights, I feel that World Systems is the most efficient way to explain our global economy, just because it's so relatable to our independent economy in the United States. Every value considered from this theory, compared to our country, is transferable to the world on a much larger scale. The most evident similarity to our economy would have to be the Semi Periphery structure. Think of the middle class in our society. Always evident is the constant struggle to break even. There's a fluctuation that controls how much more the top will gain and how poor the poor will remain.
The Modernization Theory seemed incomplete. It states that anyone, or nation, can reach the highest level. This seems more like communism if you ask me. Not everybody in the world can be equal; I say this in the sense that the top would never even let that happen. It's illogical to believe that with "a few simple steps" every country can be "up there". With a limit of resources and possibly a language barrier here and there, it’s impossible to believe that every nation has the ability to not only understand but do something about their stance in the world.
After reading each of the theories (and re-reading them) I have to say all of the theories are interconnected. The World Systems’ theory and the Modernization theory contain overviews of the past and have a lot in common with each other. The World Systems’ theory does mention a similar idea of the Dependency theory in the fact that a poor country is being kept poor with outside trade of their raw materials. The Dependency theory makes the most sense to me in its explanation of how the, more or less, ruling countries keep their power by exploiting the raw goods of the poor countries. The only thing I question in this theory is their implied solution: Self-reliance, or cutting off exports of their raw materials. This idea has been used in the past in Russia and China and the plans backfired each time. While the Dependency theory talks about the failure of the Great Leap Forward in China, the only reason they attempted that was because of the isolation they kept themselves in before that. To the opposite extreme, completely “selling out” would not help either, you can ask Mexico. In my opinion a happy medium should be found. Each theory had its own ideas but they had a lot of similarities making it very difficult for me to pick a “winner” but, if I had to I would pick the Dependency theory.
Jennifer Donahoe
Hr: 1
Maranda Klabunde
HR 1
The Dependency Theory struck me as the most logical theory of the three. Though they have, at some point or another, the same view on certain things they do stand out from each other. To me the Dependency Theory made me immediately think of our country's control and dependence of other countries. I was able to make a definate connection with the theory and the real world. The World System Theory seemed similiar to the Dependency Theory only in the fact that they both concentrate on an international economy. But the World System Theory focused deeply on the fall of the fuedal system and the consequences of it. The Modernization Theory was more like an overview of political and economic growth over the centuries. Though it was accurate if you were to be following Western European growth, it wouldn't do much justice for countries that are still struggling with modernizing their economies.
I believe that the dependency theory is the most logical theory. The powerful nations depend on lower nations for many reasons.
The Modernization theory is basically making the world a better place to live in.
Anna Strattner
AP Comp. Politics
It is hard to say which theory is the best. I certainly do not agree with the Modernization Theory. This exemplifies teh elitist attitude of the western world. This is the idea that, because we ahve industrialized and exploited labor and resources from other countries, we are superior in every aspect of culture and should, therefore, impose western culture on the underprivlaged countries. It's basically wack.
The Dependency Theory adn World Systems seemed to go hand in hand. And, to some extent, I agree. The only reason the core countries are as powerful as they are is because the step on the down troden and less fortunate. We exploit resources so that we may industrialize. It's sickening that it's the world we live in - but it is, none the less, the world we live in.
The world systems theory and the dependency theory sound the same. Yes, the world is interconnected, but if you think about it, many countries are dependent on one another, thus resulting that all countries go under the dependency theory in an essence. America and Europe may go under the more dominant countries, but they depend on the cheap labor (America more than most) provided by other countries such as lower china and middle eastern countries.
Kostal, Alex
Hour. 1
09/09/07
After reading all three systems I remembered the dependency and the modernization theory from Mrs. Fleet's class. It's easy to want to agree with the modernization theory because it praises the way we in the western world do things. However the dependency theory seems correct because it's easy to see the effect big industrialized countries have on the smaller less fortunate part of the world. The world systems theory doesn't seem to have a noticable bias. It seeks to explain all parts of the world and breaks everything down into four neat little categories. I personally see the U.S as a core country myself. I would be intrested in knowing the thoughts of the other theorys about the world economy.
Horne,Azha
AP Comp Gov
Hour 1-1
Out of these theories, i think the Modernization is up there. i think this because somebody has to lead and have some control and organization to this world. If there wasnt any organization then there would be chaos. Im not saying that we should be ruled by dictators or kings and queens,but there has to be some kind of control and organization.
I think out of all of the theories that the dependency theory is the most similar to our country because, our country and other powerful countries depends and needs the poor countries for many things.
DeJohnett, Gunsby
Hr.1
Abel Tekle
Hr: 1-1
In my point of view I personally think that the dependency theory was the most logical. The reason why I think that is because it changes the economic standards. This helps out the poor countries. The modernization theory only benefit’s the rich countries. Also the world systems theory was more of a tie of the modernization theory.
Shovanni Henderson
Ap Comp Gov Hr 1-1
9/10/07
Well, from my point of view I agreed with the dependency theory. I agreed with the dependency theory because it was the poor society that was being treated fair unjustly just like the society is still treating the poor unjustly. All people have the right to be treated fair and anyone thats not getting the deserved treatment is wrong. The more wealthier ones was buying the poor goods and then reselling them for a higher price which was just so unfair. Everyone was trying to make their own money and taking advantage of the less unfortunate ones was not the way to do it. The dependency theory was more logical.
All three theories seem quite similair in my mind. Each explains in its own way that the world economy has been created by a process of exploitation. The world systems theory best demonstartes this point. As far as i can tell it states that the owlrd is divided into makers of wealth and stealers of wealth. In this theory it is explained on an international scale but it fits the model that even within nations (not just between nations) wealth is created by common workers and then consolodated by either a superior government body (such as a monarchy) or a social elite. This theory rings true to todays global economy. Most of the world lives in ralative poverty to the industrialized nations. I believe that every nation can reach a higher level of wealth and I believe that equality can be acheived on an international level (as outlined by the modernization theory) but i don't believe that is accurate to descibe the current trend of the world economy as being geared in that direction.
Robert Martin
AP Comp Gov't
Hour 1
Sept 13th, 2007
Each perspective, if read without a contradiction, has a degree of authenticity in the way it reads. Going into this, I felt that nations such as ours, nations with so much prosperity and such a desire to further such, were not doing all within their power to aid the periphery. While I still feel it necessary for Americans to get past the capitalistic greed and possibily sympathize with those in poorer nations, the explanation of such as given by the Modernization Theory seems to make a fair amount of sense. When taken as a reality of how the world works, and not as wishful thinking about what we could be doing, I feel the ideas in the Modernization Theory are most prevalent today. While it seems to me that the Modernization Theory leaves a lot of blame off of the shoulders of nations who experience wealth, it also identifies five stages which are at least loosely accurate. Essentially, I'm torn. Perhaps not so much torn as too ignorant to assert myself.
Post a Comment