Neoliberalism believe privatisation, deregulation, and low taxes to promote economic development
According to neoliberalism big government and too much official development aid prevent economic and social development, while deregulation, privatisation and lowering taxation are required to achieve economic growth.
This post outlines neoliberal strategies for development and then briefly assesses the effectiveness of neoliberal policies.
What is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism – The Dominant Ideology since Reagan and Thatcher
While the usage of the term neoliberalism varies considerably, for the purpose of this post i use the term to refer to that set of economic policies which have become popular in economic development over the last 30 years (since the late 1980s) – namely increased privatisation, economic deregulation and lowering taxation.
Neoliberalism replaced modernisation theory as the official approach to development in the 1980s. It focuses on economic policies and institutions which are seen as holding back development because they limit the free market. The agreement by the World Bank and IMF that neoliberal policies were the best path to development is referred to as the Washington Consensus following a meeting in Washington by world leaders in 1989.
What prevents development?
Neoliberals argue that governments prevent development – When governments get too large they restrict the freedom of dynamic individuals who drive development forward.
Neoliberals argue that there is some pretty powerful evidence for this – Think of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, although these governments forced through industrialisation, they would not allow people enough freedom to bring about the kind of consumer culture (based on individual freedom of choice and expression) that emerged in Western Europe in the 1960s, so development stagnated in those countries because of governments having too much power. Similarly, neoliberals argue that even in Capitalist countries where there is too much ‘red tape’ – or too many rules, regulations, taxes, and so on, it’s harder to do business and so harder for economies to develop.
Neoliberals are also critical of the role of Western aid money. They point to the many corrupt African dictatorships which emerged in Africa in the 1960s-1980s. These were often propped up by aid money from Western governments, and during this period billions of dollars were siphoned off into the pockets of government officials in those countries and not used for development at all.
How can countries develop?
Chile – The First Neoliberal Experiment
Neoliberalism insists that developing countries remove obstacles to free market capitalism and allow capitalism to generate development. The argument is that, if allowed to work freely, capitalism will generate wealth which will trickle down to everyone.
Another way of putting this is that neoliberals believe that private enterprise, or companies should take the lead in development. They believe that if governments promote a business-friendly environment that encourages companies to invest and produce, then this will lead to exports which will encourage free trade. So encouraging ‘free’ trade is a central neoliberal strategy for development.
The policies proposed are those that were first tried in Chile in the 1970s, then in Britain in the 1980s under Thatcher. They include:
Deregulation – Removing restrictions on businesses and employers involved in world trade – In practice, this means reducing taxes on corporate profits or reducing the amount of ‘red tape’ or formal rules by which companies have to abide – for example, reducing health and safety regulations.
Fewer protections for workers and the environment – For the former this means doing things like scrapping minimum wages, permanent contracts. This also means allowing companies the freedom to increasingly hire ‘flexible workers’ on short-term contracts.
Privatisation – selling to private companies industries that had been owned and run by the state.
Cutting taxes – so the state plays less of a role in the economy
Neoliberalism and Structural Adjustment Programmes
Some countries willingly adopted these policies, believing they would work; others had them imposed on them as part of Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). SAPs basically involve the World Bank or IMF agreeing to a loan for a developing country (this might be to build roads, hospitals, industrialise, mechanise agriculture, build sewage systems, schools, etc.) as long as the country fulfils certain conditions. Since the 1980s, these conditions have meant such things as deregulation and privatisation.
Criticisms of Neoliberalism
A report from the CEPR compared the period from 1960 to 1980, when most countries had more restrictive, inward-looking economies, to the period from 1980 to 2000, the period of neoliberalism, and found that progress was greater before the 1980s on both economic and social grounds.
Those countries that have adopted free market policies have developed more slowly than those countries that protected their economies.
Dependency theorists argue that neoliberalism is merely a way to open up countries so they are more easily exploitable by transnational corporations.
Transnational corporations do not tend to invest in the poorest countries, only in LDCs and NICs.
Core countries exploit those on the periphery in a global economic system.
World Systems Theory was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the late 1970s. He argued that a global economic system had developed consisting of three Zones: core, semi-periphery and periphery and that core countries (mainly those in the west) exploited peripheral countries (mainly those in the global south) working with international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF to do so.
Wallerstein built on the ideas of Dependency Theory but believed that it was no longer the case that individual nation states exploited other nation states through crude colonialism, rather a more complex global system had evolved.
Wallerstein accepts the fact ex-colonies are not doomed to be forever trapped in a state of dependency; it is possible for them to climb the economic ladder of development, as many of them have done. However, he also believes that the global capitalism system still requires some countries, or at least regions within countries to be poor so they can be exploited by the wealthy at the top.
Immanuel Wallerstein developed World Systems Theory.
A summary of Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory including the key ideas of Core, Semi-Periphery and Periphery countries, relevant to A Level Sociology Global Development Module.
World Systems Theory
Wallerstein’s theory has four underlying principles:
We now have a global economic system above the level of the nation state, which should be our level of analysis.
The modern world system is organised into core, semi-periphery and periphery nations.
Core nations exploit peripheral nations
Countries can be mobile, up or down the power structure in this system
Analyse the global system as a whole
One must look at the world system as a whole, rather than just at individual countries. Dependency Theory tended to argue that countries are poor because they used to be exploited by other countries. However focusing on countries (or governments/ nation states) is the wrong level of analysis.
Governments today have declined in power, whereas Corporations are more powerful than ever. Global Corporations, and global capital, transcend national boundaries, and nation states (even wealthy ones) are relatively powerless to control them, thus in order to understand why countries are rich or poor, we should be looking at global economic institutions and corporations rather than countries.
The Modern World System
Global Economic Institutions form what Wallerstein called a Modern World System (MWS) , and all countries, rich and poor alike are caught up in it.
Wallerstein believed that the MWS is characterised by an international division of labour consisting of a structured set of relations between three types of capitalist zone:
Core-Periphery and Semi Periphery Countries
The core, or developed countries control world wages and monopolise the production of manufactured goods.
The semi-peripheral zone includes countries like South Africa or Brazil which resemble the core in terms of their urban centres but also have areas of rural poverty which resemble the peripheral countries. The core contracts work out to these countries.
Finally, there are the peripheral countries at the bottom, mainly in Africa, which provide the raw materials such as cash crops to the core and semi periphery. These are also the emerging markets in which the core attempts to market their manufactured goods.
NB ‘countries’ are used to illustrate the three different zones above, but technically you could have all three zones within one country – China and India contain regions which fit the descriptors for each of the three zones.
Core countries exploit peripheral countries
The Modern World System is dynamic – core countries are constantly evolving new ways of extracting profit from poorer countries and regions. Three examples of new ways of extracting profit from poor countries include:
Unfair Trade Rules (we come back to this in the next topic) – World trade is not a level playing field – The best example of this is in Agriculture – Agriculture is Africa’s biggest economic sector. It has the capacity to produce a lot more food and export to Europe and America but it can’t because the EU and America spend billions every year subsidising their farmers so imported African products seem more expensive.
Western Corporations sometimes use their economic power to negotiate favourable tax deals in the developing world. A good case in point here is the mining Company Glencore in Zambia – The company recently arranged a long term contract to mine copper with the Zambian government – it exports $6 billion a year in copper from Zambia, but pays only $50m in tax, while as part of the deal the Zambian government is contractually obliged to pay for all the electricity costs of mining – a total of $150m a year.
Land Grabs – These are currently happening all over Africa – Where a western government or company buys up thousands of hectares of land in Africa with the intention of planting it with food or biofule crops for export back to western markets. In such cases the western companies take advantage of the cheap land and gain much more than the African nations selling the land in the long term. In some case studies of land grabs thousands of indigenous peoples are displaced.
Countries can move up or down
Countries can be upwardly or downwardly mobile in the world system. This is one of the key differences between World System’s Theory and Frank’s Dependency Theory. Many countries, such as the BRIC nations have moved up from being peripheral countries to semi-peripheral countries. However, most countries do not move up and stay peripheral, and the ex-colonial powers (the wealthy European countries) are very unlikely to slip down the global order.
Evaluating World Systems Theory
There are more causes of underdevelopment than just economic dominance through Capitalism, such as cultural factors, corruption and ethnic conflict. There are other ways people can be exploited and oppressed – such as tyrannical religious regimes for example.
Some areas are still not included in the World System – some tribal peoples in South America and Bhutan for example remain relatively unaffected by global capitalism.
Wallerstein’s concepts of Core, Semi-Periphery and Periphery are vague and this means his theory is difficult to test in practise.
Signposting and Related Posts
This material is mainly relevant to the Global Development option taught as part of the second year in A-level sociology.
World systems theory is a response to the criticisms of Dependency Theory (and for the purposes of the exam can still be treated as part of Dependency Theory).
NB This is very much a summary designed to get an 18 year old through an exam, so may not suit higher level students.
The plan below is just one suggestion as to how you might go about answering this essay.
Briefly introduce Dependency Theory
Dependency theory is a Marxist theory, developed in the 1970s as a criticism of Modernisation theory. The best known dependency theorist is Andre Gunder Frank
Underdevelopment is because the West exploits labour and resources in the developing world. The West gets rich at the expense of the developing world. This is in contrast with the modernisation theory which tends to assume that lack of development is because of internal cultural and economic barriers.
Dependency theorists see history as essential to understanding the situation that we are in today, pointing out that many civilizations were wealthy and complex before contact with the west –such as Aztec culture in Mexico and Chinese and Indian civilizations. It is only after Colonialism that these countries become poor relative to the West.
During Colonial Rule the core nations of the west exploited the satellite nations of the developing world.
More recently Neo-Colonialism keeps developing countries poor –
The Legacy of Colonialism
Colonialism – Where European Nations (core nations) took over other territories and turned them into satellite nations, essentially becoming the property of those nations and being subject to their laws.
Colonies were then run for the benefit of the core nations, with resources such as gold, silver and exotic foods being extracted from the colonies and exported to the west for immense profit. Local populations were often turned into slaves and controlled by occupying military forces.
This process locked much of Africa, Asia and Latin America into exploitative relationships with Western European Nations from about 1650 – 1900.
When ex-colonies gained independence from their Colonial masters (in Africa through the 1960s) they struggled to develop because of the damage done to them by Colonial rule. Two ways in which this happened are as follows:
Colonial powers turned the colonies into ‘monocultures’ – each country was used to grow and export only one or two products that were best suited to that climate. This has had a lasting consequences – Today, at least two thirds of African countries derive over 50% of their export earnings from only one or two commodities. Today, many African countries are still dependent on low value exports for much of their GDP which prevents them from developing.
Divisions and conflicts between ethnic groups were created during colonialism as those tribes loyal to the colonising powers were given economic and political power. It tended to be those tribes that came to power following independence, causing heightened tension between them and opposing ethnic groups. The worst case of this is the Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s.
Neo-colonialism
According to dependency theorists although colonies have gained political independence, they are still exploited economically by more developed countries – a situation which Frank describes as Neo-Colonialism. Neo-Colonialism takes the following forms
Unfair Trade Rules World trade is not a level playing field – The best example of this is in Agriculture – Agriculture is Africa’s biggest economic sector. It has the capacity to produce a lot more food and export to Europe and America but it can’t because the EU and America spend billions every year subsidising their farmers so imported African products seem more expensive
Tied Aid – Aid packages from the World Bank often come with strings attached – In return for a development loan, for example, a country might be asked to privatise certain sectors and allow Western companies in to run those services, ultimately benefitting western interests.
Western Corporations use their economic power to negotiate favourable tax deals in the developing world. A good case in point here is the mining Company Glencore in Zambia – The company recently arranged a long term contract to mine copper with the Zambian government – it exports $6 billion a year in copper from Zambia, but pays only $50m in tax, while as part of the deal the Zambian government is contractually obliged to pay for all the electricity costs of mining – a total of $150m a year.
STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
For some dependency theorists, underdevelopment appears permanent; the only way out of dependency is for an underdeveloped nation to escape from the global capitalist system and master-servant relationship with richer countries, taking action itself rather than relying on outside help. Countries need to find alternative pathways to development that protect their fragile economies from Western Capitalist-Industrialist Capitalism. Some alternatives include:
Isolation, as in the example of China from about 1960 to 2000, which is now successfully emerging as a global economic superpower having isolated itself from the West for the past 4 decades. Another, different example, is that of Bhutan.
Socialist revolution as in the case of Cuba. This resulted in sanctions being applies by America which limited trade with the country, holding its development back.
Alternatively there is Associate or dependent development. – Here, one can be part of the system, and adopt national economic policies to being about economic growth such as. Import substitution industrialisation where industrialisation produces consumer goods that would normally be imported from abroad, as successfully adopted by many South American countries.
Evaluation
Some countries benefited from Colonialism – India for example benefitted from the transport networks put in place under British Colonial Rule, whereas many countries that were never colonised, such as Afghanistan, are much less developed.
Modernisation theory would argue that at least some satellite nations have benefited from TNC investment, as with the Asian Tiger economies such as Korea benefited from investment by Japanese TNCs.
Neoliberalism points out that it would be wrong to purely blame western TNCs for the dependency of Satellite Nations. Corrupt governments are just as much to blame today.
Paul Collier’s theory of the bottom billion suggests there are more reasons other than
Colonialism that explain why certain countries are underdeveloped. Two of these include the ‘resource curse’ and ‘corruption’
Conclusion
It is important to recognise that the history of colonialism has held some countries back, and that isolation has worked as a route to development for some nations such as China. However, in today’s rapidly changing, ex-colonial world, in which many ex-colonies are developing successfully and even due to overtake European Nations by 2050 (India and Brazil) it is clear that in the long term Dependency Theory is not sufficient to explain why some countries are developed and others are developing.
Having said this it does need to be recognised that in many countries neo-colonialism does seem to prevent development, and the idea that the west needs to look at how its policies affect developing countries is also sensible. and moreover it is unclear that this model of development which defines development as being characterised by industrialisation, strong nation states, and economic growth is applicable today – It might be the case that alternative models and notions of development are the only way to guarantee the long term sustainable future of the 7 billion people on earth today
Dependency Theorists argue that rich countries accumulated their wealth through exploiting poorer countries. Initially this was through colonialism and slavery, later on through neo-colonialism. To develop, poorer countries need to break free from these exploitative relations.
This post is a brief summary of the Dependency Theory view of Development and Underdevelopment. It is, broadly speaking, a Marxist theory of development.
Andre Gunder Frank (1971), one of the main theorists within ‘dependency theory’ argued that developing nations have failed to develop not because of ‘internal barriers to development’ as modernisation theorists argue, but because the developed West has systematically underdeveloped them, keeping them in a state of dependency (hence ‘dependency theory’).
Dependency Theory is one of the major theories within the Global Development module, typically taught in the second year of A-level sociology.
The World Capitalist System
Frank argued that a world capitalist system emerged in the 16th century which progressively locked Latin America, Asia and Africa into an unequal and exploitative relationship with the more powerful European nations.
This world Capitalist system is organised as an interlocking chain: at one end are the wealthy ‘metropolis’ or ‘core’ nations (European nations), and at the other are the undeveloped ‘satellite’ or ‘periphery’ nations. The core nations are able to exploit the peripheral nations because of their superior economic and military power.
From Frank’s dependency perspective, world history from 1500 to the 1960s is best understood as a process whereby wealthier European nations accumulated enormous wealth through extracting natural resources from the developing world, the profits of which paid for their industrialisation and economic and social development, while the developing countries were made destitute in the process.
Writing in the late 1960s, Frank argued that the developed nations had a vested interest in keeping poor countries in a state of underdevelopment so they could continue to benefit from their economic weakness – desperate countries are prepared to sell raw materials for a cheaper price, and the workers will work for less than people in more economically powerful countries. According to Frank, developed nations actually fear the development of poorer countries because their development threatens the dominance and prosperity of the West.
Colonialism, Slavery and Dependency
Colonialism is a process through which a more powerful nation takes control of another territory, settles it, takes political control of that territory and exploits its resources for its own benefit. Under colonial rule, colonies are effectively seen as part of the mother country and are not viewed as independent entities in their own right. Colonialism is fundamentally tied up with the process of ‘Empire building’ or ‘Imperialism’.
According to Frank the main period of colonial expansion was from 1650 to 1900 when European powers, with Britain to the fore, used their superior naval and military technology to conquer and colonise most of the rest of the world.
During this 250 year period the European ‘metropolis’ powers basically saw the rest of the world as a place from which to extract resources and thus wealth. In some regions extraction took the simple form of mining precious metals or resources – in the early days of colonialism, for example, the Portuguese and Spanish extracted huge volumes of gold and silver from colonies in South America, and later on, as the industrial revolution took off in Europe, Belgium profited hugely from extracting rubber (for car tyres) from its colony in DRC, and the United Kingdom profited from oil reserves in what is now Saudi Arabia.
In other parts of the world (where there were no raw materials to be mined), the European colonial powers established plantations on their colonies, with each colony producing different agricultural products for export back to the ‘mother land’. As colonialism evolved, different colonies came to specialise in the production of different raw materials (dependent on climate) – Bananas and Sugar Cane from the Caribbean, Cocoa (and of course slaves) from West Africa, Coffee from East Africa, Tea from India, and spices such as Nutmeg from Indonesia.
All of this resulted in huge social changes in the colonial regions: in order to set up their plantations and extract resources the colonial powers had to establish local systems of government in order to organise labour and keep social order – sometimes brute force was used to do this, but a more efficient tactic was to employ willing natives to run local government on behalf of the colonial powers, rewarding them with money and status for keeping the peace and the resources flowing out of the colonial territory and back to the mother country.
Dependency Theorists argue that such policies enhanced divisions between ethnic groups and sowed the seeds of ethnic conflict in years to come, following independence from colonial rule. In Rwanda for example, the Belgians made the minority Tutsis into the ruling elite, giving them power over the majority Hutus. Before colonial rule there was very little tension between these two groups, but tensions progressively increased once the Belgians defined the Tutsis as politically superior. Following independence it was this ethnic division which went on to fuel the Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s.
An unequal and dependent relationship
What is often forgotten in world history is the fact that before colonialism started, there were a number of well-functioning political and economic systems around the globe, most of them based on small-scale subsistence farming. 400 years of colonialism brought all that to end.
Colonialism destroyed local economies which were self-sufficient and independent and replaced them with plantation mono-crop economies which were geared up to export one product to the mother country. This meant that whole populations had effectively gone from growing their own food and producing their own goods, to earning wages from growing and harvesting sugar, tea, or coffee for export back to Europe.
As a result of this some colonies actually became dependent on their colonial masters for food imports, which of course resulted in even more profit for the colonial powers as this food had to be purchased with the scant wages earnt by the colonies.
The wealth which flowed from Latin America, Asia and Africa into the European countries provided the funds to kick start the industrial revolution, which enabled European countries to start producing higher value, manufactured goods for export which further accelerated the wealth generating capacity of the colonial powers, and lead to increasing inequality between Europe and the rest of the world.
The products manufactured through industrialisation eventually made their way into the markets of developing countries, which further undermined local economies, as well as the capacity for these countries to develop on their own terms. A good example of this is in India in the 1930s-40s where cheap imports of textiles manufactured in Britain undermined local hand-weaving industries. It was precisely this process that Ghandi resisted as the leading figure of the Indian Independence movement.
Colonialism: An Unequal and Dependent Relationship!
Neo-colonialism
By the 1960s most colonies had achieved their independence, but European nations continued to see developing countries as sources of cheap raw materials and labour and, according to Dependency Theory, they had no interest in developing them because they continued to benefit from their poverty.
Exploitation continued via neo-colonialism – which describes a situation where European powers no longer have direct political control over countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa, but they continue to exploit them economically in more subtle ways.
Three main types of neo-colonialism:
Frank identified three main types:
Firstly, the terms of trade continue to benefit Western interests. Following colonialism, many of the ex-colonies were dependent for their export earnings on primary products, mostly agricultural cash crops such as Coffee or Tea which have very little value in themselves – It is the processing of those raw materials which adds value to them, and the processing takes place mainly in the West
Second, Frank highlights the increasing dominance of Transnational Corporations in exploiting labour and resources in poor countries – because these companies are globally mobile, they are able to make poor countries compete in a ‘race to the bottom’ in which they offer lower and lower wages to attract the company, which does not promote development.
Finally, Frank argues that Western aid money is another means whereby rich countries continue to exploit poor countries and keep them dependent on them – aid is, in fact, often in the term of loans, which come with conditions attached, such as requiring that poor countries open up their markets to Western corporations.
Dependency Theory: Strategies for Development
Dependency is not just a phase, but rather a permanent position. The historical colonialists and now the neo-colonialists continually try to keep poor countries poor so they can continue to extract their resources and benefit from their cheap labour, thus keeping themselves wealthy on the back of exploitation.
It thus follows that the only way developing countries can escape dependency is to break away from their historical oppressors.
There are different paths to development with differing emphasis on the extent to which developing countries need to become independent of their historical colonial masters, their neo-colonial ‘partners’ or from the entire global capitalist system itself!
Isolation, as in the example of China from about 1960 to 2000, which is now successfully emerging as a global economic superpower having isolated itself from the West for the past 4 decades.
A second solution is to break away at a time when the metropolis country is weak, as India did in Britain in the 1950s, following world war 2. India is now a rising economic power.
Thirdly, there is socialist revolution as in the case of Cuba. This, however, resulted in sanctions being applies by America which limited trade with the country, holding its development back.
Many leaders in African countries adopted dependency theory, arguing that and developing political movements that aimed to liberate Africa from western exploitation, stressing nationalism rather than neo-colonialism.
Associate or dependent development – here, one can be part of the system, and adopt national economic policies to being about economic growth such as
Import substitution industrialisation where industrialisation produces consumer goods that would normally be imported from abroad, as successfully adopted by many South American countries. The biggest failure of this, however, was that it did not address inequalities within the countries. ISI was controlled by elites, and these policies lead to economic growth while increasing inequality.
Criticisms of Dependency Theory
Some countries appear to have benefited from Colonialism – Goldethorpe (1975) pointed out that those countries that had been colonised at least have the benefits of good transport and communication networks, such as India, whereas many countries that were never colonised, such as Ethiopia, are much less developed.
Colonialism did not prevent India from developing
Modernisation theorists would argue against the view that Isolation and communist revolution is an effective path to development, given the well-known failings of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. They would also point out that many developing countries have benefitted from Aid-for Development programmes run by western governments, and that those countries which have adopted Capitalist models of development since World War Two have developed at a faster rate than those that pursued communism.
Neoliberalists would argue that it is mainly internal factors that lead to underdevelopment, not exploitation – They argue that it is corruption within governments (poor governance) that is mainly to blame for the lack of development in many African countries. According to Neoliberals what Africa needs is less isolation and more Capitalism.
Paul Collier’s theory of the bottom billion. He argues that the causes of underdevelopment cannot be reduced to a history of exploitation. He argues that factors such as civil wars, ethnic tensions and being land-locked with poor neighbours are correlated with underdevelopment.
World Systems Theory – kind of an updated version of dependency theory which is focussed more on the global system rather than country-country relationships.
The New Rulers of the World – summary of the documentary by John Pilger, which seems to be a pretty unambiguous dependency theory perspective on the role of the World Bank, the IMF, and Transnational Corporations in globalisation. The video focuses especially on their role in underdevelopment in Indonesia.
Sources/ Find out More
This Wikipedia article on Andre Gunder Frank provides a brief summary of his theory and links to his main publications.
By the end of WW2 it had become clear that despite exposure to Capitalism many of the countries of the South had failed to develop. In this context, in the late 1940s, Modernisation Theory was developed. Modernisation theory had two major aims
It attempted to explain why poorer countries have failed to develop, focussing on what cultural and economic conditions might act as ‘barriers’ to development
It aimed to provide a non-communist solution to poverty in the developing world by suggesting that economic change (in the form of Capitalism) and the introduction of western values and culture could play a key role in bringing about modernisation.
Why countries are underdeveloped: Cultural and economic barriers to development
Modernisation theorists argue that there are a number of cultural and economic barriers that prevent traditional societies from developing.
Cultural barriers are seen as internal to the country – it is essentially their fault for being backward. Western culture, on the other hand, is seen as having a superior culture that has allowed for it to develop.
Traditional Values –prevent economic growth and change
Modern Values – inspire change and economic growth.
Simple division of labour, less specialised job roles, individuals rely on a few dozen people in their local communities for basic needs to be met.
Complex division of labour, individuals tend to have very specialised jobs and rely on thousands of others for basic needs to be met
Religious beliefs and tradition influence day to to day life (resistance to change)
Rational decision making (cost benefit analysis and efficiency) are more important.
Stronger community and family bonds and collectivism
Weaker community and family bonds means more individual freedom.
Affective relationships
Meritocracy –people are more motivated to innovate and change society for the better.
Patriarchy
Gender equality
Economic barriers to development
These are barriers which may make developing countries unattractive to investors.
Lack of infrastructure
Lack of technology
Lack of skills in the work force
Political instability
Lack of capital in the country
See the next sheet for details of modernisation theory
Modernisation Theory 2: How countries should develop
Rostow believed that an initial injection of aid from the west in the form of training, education, economic investment etc. would be enough to jolt a society into economic growth overcoming these cultural barriers.
Rostow suggested that development should be seen as an evolutionary process in which countries progress up 5 stages of a development ladder
Rostow’s five stage model of development
Stage 1 – Traditional societies whose economies are dominated by subsistence farming. Such societies have little wealth to invest and have limited access to modern industry and technology. Rostow argued that at this stage there are cultural barriers to development (see sheet 6)
Stage 2 – The preconditions for take off – the stage in which western aid packages brings western values, practises and expertise into the society. This can take the form of:
Science and technology – to improve agriculture
Infrastructure – improving roads and cities communications
Industry – western companies establishing factories
These provide the conditions for investment, attracting more companies into the country.
Stage 3 – Take off stage –The society experiences economic growth as new modern practices become the norm. Profits are reinvested in infrastructure etc. and a new entrepreneurial class emerges and urbanised that is willing to invest further and take risks. The country now moves beyond subsistence economy and starts exporting goods to other countries
This generates more wealth which then trickles down to the population as a whole who are then able to become consumers of new products produced by new industries there and from abroad.
Stage 4- the drive to maturity.
More economic growth and investment in education, media and birth control. The population start to realise new opportunities opening up and strive to make the most of their lives.
Stage 5 The age of high mass consumption. This is where economic growth and production are at Western levels.
Variations on Rostow’s 5 stage model
Different theorists stress the importance of different types of assistance or interventions that could jolt countries out their traditional ways and bring about change.
Hoselitz – education is most important as it should speed up the introduction of Western values such as universalism, individualism, competition and achievement measured by examinations. This was seen as a way of breaking the link between family and children.
Inkeles – media – Important to diffuse ideas non traditional such as family planning and democracy
Hoselitz – urbanisation. The theory here is that if populations are packed more closely together new ideas are more likely to spread than amongst diffuse rural populations
Criticisms of Modernisation Theory
The Asian Tiger economies combined elements of traditional culture with Western Capitalism to experience some of the most rapid economic growth of the past 2 decades.
Ignores the ‘crisis of modernism’ in both the developed and developing worlds. Many developed countries have huge inequalities and the greater the level of inequality the greater the degree of other problems: High crime rates, suicide rates, health problems, drug abuse.
Ethnocentric interpretations tend to exclude contributions from thinkers in the developing world. This is a one size fits all model, and is not culture specific.
The model assumes that countries need the help of outside forces. The central role is on experts and money coming in from the outside, parachuted in, and this downgrades the role of local knowledge and initiatives. This approach can be seen as demeaning and dehumanising for local populations. Galeano (1992) argues that minds become colonised with the idea that they are dependent on outside forces. They train you to be paralysed and then sell you crutches. There are alternative models of development: See sheet no…
Corruption (Kleptocracy) prevents aid of any kind doing good, Much aid is siphoned off by corrupt elites and government officials rather than getting to the projects it was earmarked for. This means that aid creates more inequality and enables elites to maintain power
There are ecological limits to growth. Many modernisation projects such mining and forestry have lead to the destruction of environment.
Social damage – Some development projects such as dams have lead to local populations being removed forcibly from their home lands with little or no compensation being paid.
Some Marxist theorists argue that aid and development is not really about helping the developing world at all. It is really about changing societies just enough so they are easier to exploit, making western companies and countries richer, opening them up to exploit cheap natural resources and cheap labour. Joseph Stiglitz notes that those countries that followed alternative models of development ignoring western advice are now competing with the west, China and India are two examples.
Transformationalists argue that globalisation is complex two way process and that it can be reversed.
Transformationalists argue that globalisation should be understood as a complex set of interconnecting relationships through which power is mostly exercised indirectly.
They argue that the flow of culture is not one way, from the west to the developing world; it is a two-way exchange in which Western culture is also influenced, changed and enriched by cultures in the developing world.
Transformationalists also believe that globalisation can be reversed, especially where it is negative or, at the very least, that it can be controlled.
Examples of supporting evidence for the transformationalist view of globalisation include increasing cultural hybridity and detraditionalisation.
Against Global Pessimists, Transformationalists argue that local cultures are not simply swallowed up by western cultures – rather people in developing countries select aspects of western culture and adapt them to their particular needs, a process which he calls ‘glocalisation’. A good example of this is the Bollywood film industry in India, or the various ‘glocal’ manifestations of McDonald’s burgers.
Transformationlists and postmodernists also see the global media as beneficial because it is primarily responsible for diffusing different cultural styles around the world and creating new global hybrid styles in fashion, food, music, consumption and lifestyle. It is argued that in the global, postmodern world, such cultural diversity and pluralism will become the norm. Postmodernists thus see globalisation as a positive phenomenon because it has created a new class of global consumers, in both the developed and the developing world, with a greater range of choice from which they can construct a hybridised global identity.
There is also evidence that global communications systems and social networks can assist local cultures to rid themselves of repressive political systems such as dictatorships. Kassim (2012) argues that the ‘Arab Spring’ movement that occurred between 2010 and 2013 succeeded in removing totalitarian dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, partly because of the information supplied through social networking sites such as Facebook, which was used to bypass government censorship. Kassim suggests that social networks broke down a psychological barrier of fear by helping people to connect and unite against repressive leaders, providing a catalyst for positive change.
Two further sociologists who might be described as ‘transformationalist’ globalists are Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck:
Anthony Giddens on Globalisation
In his classic 1999 text, Runaway World, Anthony Giddens argues that one consequence of globalisation is detraditionalisation – where people question their traditional beliefs about religion, marriage, and gender roles and so on. Giddens uses the concept of ‘detraditionalisation’ rather than ‘decline of tradition’ to reflect the fact that in many cases people continue with their traditional ways of life, rather than actually changing them, but the very fact that they are now actively questioning aspects of their lives means cultures are much less stable and less predictable than before globalisation, because more people are aware of the fact that there are alternative ways of doing things and that they can change traditions if they want to.
Ulrich Beck on Globalisation
Ulrich Beck (1992) argues that a fundamental feature of globalization is the development of a global risk consciousness, which emerges due to shared global problems which threaten people in multiple countries – examples include the threat of terrorism, international nuclear war, the threat of global pandemics, the rise of organised crime funded primarily through international drug trafficking, and the threat of planetary melt-down due to global warming.
On the downside, the constant media focus on such global problems has led to a widespread culture of fear and increasing anxiety across the globe, which has arguably contributed to things such as Paranoid Parenting and Brexit, but on the plus side, new global international movements and agencies have emerged through which people come together across borders to tackle such problems.
Supporting evidence for the Transformationalist view of globalisation
Trade has many complex formations
So it is difficult to say that it is either good or bad. Besides Free Trade, Fair Trade is expanding, and there is also illegal trade – in drugs for example.
The Global Trade in drugs is quite a good example of Transformationalism – It certainly can’t be regarded as something that benefits people, and it certainly isn’t something that benefits the West at the expense of the developing world. The global trade in drugs is not controlled by Corporations or Western governments – it’s controlled by international criminal organisations, and arguable this is a case of poor farmers in the developing world benefiting (relatively) at the expense of people in the West –
On a more positive note, the Fairtrade Foundation has many examples of how trade can benefit people the world over in all sorts of different ways (NB you may think this works better as an example of global optimism) –
The transformationalist view of Transnational Corporations
TNCs operate in dozens of countries. Clearly there are going to be winners and losers in different cases. Also governments the world over regulate international companies in different ways – Pollution laws, tax law, minimum wages, health and safety.
There are many examples of cultural hybridity
Increasing consumerism isn’t just good or bad – cultural globalisation is characterised by hybridity – new brands come into contact with local cultures and they are modified by those cultures, creating new products – Bollywood, Chiken Tikha Massala. A related concept here is glocalism…
There are plenty of examples of cultural hybridity in music – This is America by Childish Gambino is a great one:
Here’s another one, from back in the day….
All in all a very ‘global experience’ and a great example of ‘ground up globalisation’ – Hip Hop being transformed into something new and different as it mixes with different local traditions…
New sporting formations the world over are also good examples of cultural hybridity
Political Globalisation
The transformationalist view on political Globalisation is that the world is increasingly characterised by new political formations, not just the spread of democracy or the spread of American dominance
E.G China is a Communist country that doesn’t allow voting but supports Capitalism, while many African ‘democracies’ are so corrupt they can’t really be called democracies. Also, many countries have proved more than capable of resisting American force – mostly in the Middle East.
The Paradox of China – Apparently the Communist government is now commanding Chinese businesses to aggressively pursue profit.
This Glocalist Manifesto is an interesting e.g. of glocalism applied to politics –
The spread of global media
The globalisation of media is maybe one of the best examples of transformationalist globalisation, which has lead to diverse uses – e.g. crowdsourcing, microfinance, and mobile phone use in Africa.
http://www.kickstarter.com/ is a good example of a crowdsourcing site. It encourages people around the world to fund projects. Global flows of money funding local businesses = glocalism
Anthony GIddens argues that ‘detraditionalisation’ is part of Globalisation – People increasingly challenge traditions as they come into contact with new ideas.
You might like to read this blog post on ‘detraditionalisation’ and summarise Giddens’ view of what effect globalisation has on culture – Is this closer to the optimist or transformationalist view of globalisation?
Revision notes on globalisation…
If you like this sort of thing and want some more context on globalisation, then you might like these revision notes on globalisation, specifically designed for A-level sociology.
Nine pages of summary notes covering the following aspects of globalisation:
– Basic definitions and an overview of cultural, economic and political globalisation – Three theories of globalisation – hyper-globalism, pessimism and transformationalism. – Arguments for and against the view that globalisation is resulting in the decline of the nation state. – A-Z glossary covering key concepts and key thinkers.
Five mind-maps covering the following:
– Cultural, economic, and political globalisation: a summary – The hyper-globalist view of globalisation – The pessimist view of globalisation – The transformationalist/ postmodernist view of globalisation. – The relationship between globalisation and education.
These revision resources have been designed to cover the globalisation part of the global development module for A-level sociology (AQA) but they should be useful for all students given that you need to know about globalistion for education, the family and crime, so these should serve as good context.
They might also be useful to students studying other A-level or first year degree subjects such as politics, history, economics or business, where globalisation is on the syllabus.
Pessimist globalists argue that globalization is a form of Western, American Imperialism. They see globalization as a process in which Western institutions and ideas are imposed on the rest of the world. Transnational Corporations are the backbone of this new global order and these are the institutions that benefit from especially economic globalization. Two examples of pessimist globalists are Ha-Joon Chang and Jeremy Seabrook.
Chang argues that neoliberals paint a false picture of the benefits of economic globalization through the spread of neoliberal economic policy, suggesting that neo-liberal policies actually benefit rich countries and corporations more than poor countries. Neoliberal policies simply make it easier for western companies to move into a poorer country, take over local businesses, extract natural resources, pay local people low wages, and leave behind a trail of pollution because there are fewer national regulations which prevent them from doing so.
Chang refers to the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO as the ‘Unholy Alliance’ and claims they exist to force developing countries down the free-trade road. For example, the IMF and the World Bank will only lend money to developing countries on the condition that they adopt free-trade policies. Change points out that, as a result, the neoliberal world economy is dominated by the developed-world – rich countries conduct 70% of world trade for example, while Sub-Saharan Africa still (even in 2017) accounts for much less than 10% of global trade.
Seabrook argues that, by definition, globalization makes all other cultures local, and, by implication, inferior. He suggests that globalization implies a superior, civilised mode of living – it implicitly promises that it is the sole pathway to universal prosperity and security – consequently diminishing and marginalisation local cultures. Seabrook suggests that globalization sweeps aside the multiple meanings human societies and cultures have derived from their environments. He argues that integration into a single global economy is a ‘declaration of cultural war’ upon other cultures and societies and that it often results in profound and painful social and religious disruption.
Pessimists are further concerned about the concentration of the media in the hands of a few, powerful media corporations. Media conglomerates, mainly American (such as Disney, Microsoft, Time Warner and AOL) and Japanese (Sony) have achieved near monopolistic control of newspapers, film, advertising and satellites. It is suggested that media moguls are able to influence business, international agencies and governments and, consequently, to threaten democracy and freedom of expression.
It is also argued that such companies are likely to disseminate primarily Western mainly American, forms of culture. For example, most films releases by these organisations are produced in Hollywood and of a formulaic (predictable) plot. There have been concerns that these Western forms of culture reflect a cultural imperialism that results in the marginalisation of local culture.
Steven argues that ‘for the past century, US political and economic influence has been aided immensely by US film and music. Where the marines, missionaries and bureaucrats failed, Charlie Chaplin, Mickey Mouse and the Beach Boys have succeeded effortlessly in attracting the world to the American Way’.
Finally, mass advertising of Western cultural icons like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola has resulted in their logos becoming powerful symbols to people in the developing world (especially children) of the need to adopt western consumerist lifestyles in order to modernise.
Cultural globalization may therefor eventually undermine and even destroy rich local cultures and identities. Barber and Schulz (1995) fear the globalized world is turning into a monoculture, or McWorld in which cultures and consumption will be standardised, while other commentators have expressed concern about the coca-colonisation of the developing world.
Supporting Evidence for the pessimist view of globalization
1. Increased trade has had unequal benefits. Mainly Europe and America, lately Asia have benefited, but most of Sub Saharan Africa is largely left behind.
The graph outlining economic growth since 1800 in different continents on page 1 of the intro to GD document illustrates this point very well..
For a good example of the pessimist view of globalisation read KT’s summary of ‘liquid times’ by Zygmunt Bauman – You only need read the sections entitled ‘surplus people’ and ‘the experience of inequality’. I suggest you read selectively and look for three examples that illustrate Bauman’s point: ‘when the rich pursue their goals, the poor pay the price’.
2. TNCs pollute, extract resources from and exploit cheap labour in the developing world. E.G.s include Shell in Nigeria, Coke in India and of course the Bhopal incident in India.
Also see the following video sources (you can search for both on estream)
The Age of Stupid (section on Shell in Nigeria)
Crude – The Real Cost of Oil (outlines Chevron’s pollution of the Amazon
3. Culture may be increasing global, but this mainly means Americanisation according to Pessimists. This takes the form of Cocacolonisation, and Dysnification – where American forms of popular culture and the shallow materialism this promotes erode local traditions. Another aspect of this is Mcdonaldisation
this and this suggest possibly suggest one of the downsides of the spread of consumer culture…
This illustrates the threat of Americanisation and Cocacolonisation very well – how some French people view Coca Cola as undermining their national identity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxjMqrZ6psw
4. Sport may be increasingly globalised, but just as with trade there are winners and losers, especially where the Olympics are concerned…
5. Rather than the spread of democracy, it is more accurate to talk of the spread of U.S Military power, as outline by John Pilger in the War on Democracy, and the fact that the U.S. spends almost $700 billion on its military every year.
The second half of John Pilger’s ‘The War on Democracy’ outlines America’s military involvement in more than 50 countries since World War 2 – Evidence suggests that the USA uses military force to get rid of democratically elected leaders that are not pro-U.S.
6. The spread of global media really means the spread of massive media firms such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, with programmes such as Fox News presenting a pro-American view of the world. Also think of popular culture – X factor, and Hollywood and global advertising. The pessimist view on such aspects of the global media is that they lead to increasing cultural homogenisation.
7. Zygmunt Bauman argues that global cities are best described as ‘fortress cities’ – especially in the developing world cities are places of huge inequalities where the rich hide themselves away in exclusive gated communities and the poor are left to the slums.
If you like this sort of thing and want some more context on globalisation, then you might like these revision notes on globalisation, specifically designed for A-level sociology.
Nine pages of summary notes covering the following aspects of globalisation:
– Basic definitions and an overview of cultural, economic and political globalisation
– Three theories of globalisation – hyper-globalism, pessimism and transformationalism.
– Arguments for and against the view that globalisation is resulting in the decline of the nation state.
– A-Z glossary covering key concepts and key thinkers.
Five mind-maps covering the following:
– Cultural, economic, and political globalisation: a summary
– The hyper-globalist view of globalisation
– The pessimist view of globalisation
– The transformationalist/ postmodernist view of globalisation.
– The relationship between globalisation and education.
These revision resources have been designed to cover the globalisation part of the global development module for A-level sociology (AQA) but they should be useful for all students given that you need to know about globalistion for education, the family and crime, so these should serve as good context.
They might also be useful to students studying other A-level or first year degree subjects such as politics, history, economics or business, where globalisation is on the syllabus.
hyper globalists argue globalisation is a positive process of economic growth and increasing prosperity for the majority and the spread of democracy.
Hyper-globalists (sometimes referred to as global optimists) believe that globalisation is happening and that local cultures are being eroded primarily because of the expansion of international capitalism and the emergence of a homogeneous global culture; they (as the ‘optimist’ part of the label implies) believe that globalisation is a positive process characterised by economic growth, increasing prosperity and the spread of democracy.
Thomas Friedman (2000) argues that globalisation has occurred because of the global adoption of neoliberal economic policies. Neoliberalism insists that governments in developing countries need to remove obstacles to free trade and free market capitalism in order to generate development. Governments should limit their role to providing a business-friendly environment that enables businesses (both inside and outside the country) to make a profit.
The theory is that if governments allow businesses the freedom to ‘do business’, wealth will be generated which will trickle down to everyone.
Friedman identifies a neoliberal economic set of principles that he calls the ‘golden straight jacket’ that countries need to fit into if they are to achieve success in the global economy: deregulation, fewer protections for workers and the environment, privatisation and cutting taxes.
Friedman argues that the golden straitjacket is “pretty much one size fits all… it is not always pretty or gentle or comfortable. But it’s here and it’s the only model on the rack this historical season’.
Friedman attributes economic globalisation to the fact that most developing countries have adopted neoliberal policies since the 1980s. Neoliberalism has effectively restricted the power of nation states, making trade between nations easier. It has resulted in the freer movement of goods, resources and enterprises, and ultimately more jobs, cheaper products and increasing economic growth, prosperity and wealth for the majority of people on the planet.
These countries were often shepherded onto the ‘right’ economic path by the ‘good Samaritans’ of Western governments, especially the ‘three sisters’ of free trade: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, global institutions which have played a central role in shaping globalisation according to hyper globalists.
Hyper Globalism: Supporting Evidence
Three pieces of supporting evidence include:
increased international trade has generally resulted in improved economic and social development for most countries
More cultural globalisation has led to more tolerance and more global events such as the Olympics.
There is more democracy and freedom as a result of globalisation
There are more global cities today.
More international trade is good
This Hans Rosling Video illustrates the relationship between increasing wealth (brought about by trade) and health
The case of China’s economic growth – Use this ‘trading economics’ web site to check out how China’s GDP growth over the last ten years (from 2001) appears to be directly correlated with its growth in exports (use the links to the right to change between graphs – you might need to change the years selection around too).
China is not the only country benefiting from increasing trade (imports and exports) – China is just one of four nations known as the BRIC Nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) – 4 up and coming economies that are predicted to be wealthier than Britain by 2050.
More people around the world are consumers rather than living subsistence lifestyles. Also people increasingly consume similar foods and brands (and shop for them in similar ways). Increasing global tourism is another feature of this. Evidence below…
Coke’s advertising supports the optimist view of cultural globalisation – Advert 1 (I’d like t teach the world to sing…) and advert 2 – The Happiness Bus
Also, sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympics have become more popular.
Are the Olympics a good example of optimist globalism?
Globalisation has lead to more democracy and freedom
The spread of Democracy and respect for human rights since the end of WW2 – E.G. The end of colonial rule in Africa, the collapse of communism and the Arab Spring. This is also evidenced in the establishment of the United Nations and the growth of global social movements such as green peace.
The growth of social media (Facebook and Twitter) have lead more freedom around the world.
Global cities
Urban centres which have highly educated, politically engaged middle classes, which relates to Antony Giddens’ concept of Cosmopolitanism.
Signposting and Related Posts
This material is usually taught as part of the Globalisation and Global Development module, as part of the second year of A-level sociology, but this post should be of interesting to anyone studying Globalisation.
The posts below cover related theoretical perspectives:
If you like this sort of thing and want some more context on globalisation, then you might like these revision notes on globalisation, specifically designed for A-level sociology.
Nine pages of summary notes covering the following aspects of globalisation:
– Basic definitions and an overview of cultural, economic and political globalisation – Three theories of globalisation – hyper-globalism, pessimism and transformationalism. – Arguments for and against the view that globalisation is resulting in the decline of the nation state. – A-Z glossary covering key concepts and key thinkers.
Five mind-maps covering the following:
– Cultural, economic, and political globalisation: a summary – The hyper-globalist view of globalisation – The pessimist view of globalisation – The transformationalist/ postmodernist view of globalisation. – The relationship between globalisation and education.
These revision resources have been designed to cover the globalisation part of the global development module for A-level sociology (AQA) but they should be useful for all students given that you need to know about globalistion for education, the family and crime, so these should serve as good context.
They might also be useful to students studying other A-level or first year degree subjects such as politics, history, economics or business, where globalisation is on the syllabus.
A few criticisms of the role of Transnational Corporations in International Development
Transnational Corporations are one of the primary agents of Global Capitalism and many have been criticised because of the social and environmental harms they cause in the pursuit of profit. In this blog I outline some case studies of Corporations exploiting workers.
My main inspiration for writing this blog is ‘The Corporation’ (1) (2). However, although this blog does draw on this excellent resource, it also provides more contemporary examples of corporate harm than this 2004 documentary.
Examples of Corporations exploiting workers
Probably the best known criticism to be levelled at well known Corporations such as Nike, Addidas and Primark is that they profit from ‘sweatshop labour’ – with the workers who manufacture their products working extremely long hours in poor conditions and for extremely low wages.
In chapter 5 of The Corporation, one researcher calculates that workers at one of Nike’s factories in Indonesia were earning 0.3% of the final selling price of the products they were making. Now, I know there are middle men, but in classic Marxist terms, this is surely the extraction of surplus value taken to the extreme! The anti- sweat shop campaigns are years old now, but still ongoing –
Of course sweat shop labour is not limited to the clothing industry – the BBC3 series ‘Blood Sweat and T shirts/ Takeaways/ Luxuries’, (3) in which young Brits travel to developing countries to work alongside people in a wide range of jobs, clearly demonstrates how workers in many stages of the productive process, including rice sowing, prawn farming, gold mining, and coffee packing, suffer poor pay and conditions. Many of the goods focussed on in this series end up being bought and the sold in the West by Transnational Corporations for a huge mark up, and it is extremely interesting to see the Brits abroad struggling with the injustice of this.
The Daily Mail recently conducted some undercover journalism in a Chinese factory that makes the i-pad – where the report they ‘encountered a strange, disturbing world where new recruits are drilled along military lines, ordered to stand for the company song and kept in barracks like battery hens – all for little more than £20 a week.’ Apparently workers have to endure shifts up to 34 hour s long, and the factory has been dubbed the ‘i nightmare factory’ (4)
Even worse conditions are to be found at some of Coke’s bottling factories in Columbia according to the killer coke campaign. Campaigners have documented a ‘gruesome cycle of murders, kidnappings and torture of union leaders involved in a daily life and death struggle’ at these plants. The bosses at some of Coke’s factories in Columbia have contacts with right wing paramilitary forces, and use violence and intimidation to force unionised labour out of work, and then hire non unionised labour on worse contracts for half the pay. There have been more than 100 recorded disappearances of unionised labour at Coke’s factories. (5) (6)
Now the Coca Cola Corporation is obviously not directly to blame for this, as Columbia is one of the more violent countries on the planet, and this culture of violence and intimidation is widespread. The company is, however, responsible for making the conscious decision to choose to invest in a region well known for such practices, and failing to either pull out or protect its workers.
See http://www.nosweat.org.uk/ for more details of Corporate Complicity in sweat shop labour and Union Busting (7)
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6103 – The BBC web site for the recent ‘Blood, Sweat and luxuries programme which has an interest blog of comments and a ‘what can you do to help’ link.
(7) http://www.nosweat.org.uk/files/New%20general%20leaflet%2009.pdf – A link to the most recent nosweat leaflet which has some nice ‘sweatshop sums’ peppered throughout which provide facts such as ‘Children as young as 10 were found working in a shop for Primark – Primark made sales of 1.1 billion in the sixth months to March 2009.’
The Golden Arches Theory of Decline – This 2016 post by George Monbiot argues that Transnational Corporations such as Mcdonalds are undermining democracy and that a global system which concentrates power in the hands of a relatively few TNCs is not compatible with the democratic will of the people of Nation States – hence why Trump won in the USA – he’s one of the few political candidates to have promised to limit the power of TNCs.
Transnational Corporations are one of the primary agents of Global Capitalism and many have been criticised because of the social and environmental harms they cause in the pursuit of profit. In this blog I outline some case studies of Corporations exploiting workers.
