search this site: search the web:

result #76051 - WHAT KEEPS THE POOR COUNTRIES SO POOR? IS IT BY EXTERNAL (WESTERN OPPRESSION) OR INTERNAL FACTORS?

user ballots Login Register Add One FAQ/Contact Popular Ballots Recent Popular Recent Votes Best Worst Yes or No Choices What If Prediction Advice Would You Crime Recommend Quiz TV & Movie Music & Radio Political Science Sports Relationship Techonology Culture Philosophy Religion Ethics History Food & Health Fashion & Beauty Crime FanBase Discussion Bug Report

political : WHAT KEEPS THE POOR COUNTRIES SO POOR? IS IT BY EXTERNAL (WESTERN OPPRESSION) OR INTERNAL FACTORS? [+] serious ballot by EUROTOPIA created Sun Jun 26, 05 I will provide two official theories- one that argues that the reasons are internal factors (the classical economic development theory) and one that argues that it is a lot to do with external factors (Structuralism theory)... CLASSICAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THEORY: They argued that the major barriers to development were posed by third world (now called Global South) countries’ own internal characteristics. To overcome these barriers, most classical theorists recommended that the wealthy countries supply various ‘missing components’ of development, such as investment capital through foreign aid or private direct foreign investment. This is predicted that its benefits would ‘eventually trickle down’ to broad segments of those societies. Even though the rich and elite would get richer in those countries, it was argued that as incomes in the world grow as a whole, the odds increase that a pre-industrialised economy will grow faster and eventually reduce the gap between it and poorer countries. STRUCTURALISM : This builds on theories of economic imperialism or ‘neo-imperialism’. Its central proposition is that the relationship between the advanced capitalist societies at the core of the world political economy and the developing countries is exploitative and that the underdevelopment of the Global South has been caused by the international hierarchy that is necessary to world capitalism. The division of the world into two halves- one modern and industrialised (the consumers), and the other backward (the suppliers). The global north owns the wealth of poor countries through corporatism and thus control their economies. The success of the Global North’s industrialisation and consumerism is dependent on the ownership of the material wealth of foreign nations- especially the poor nations. The rich countries make exploitative rules for trade and production, and the ruling elite in the Global South support it anyway because they are the ones who also get richer by that system, they sacrifice their nation’s well being for personal gain. Multi-national corporations are the primary agents of neocolonial penetration because they transfer profits from the penetrated countries to the penetrators. This hierarchy is detrimental to development from the Global South. ... so which theory do you think is more correct? Explain your thought process. Classical Economic Development Theory 50% Struturalism 35% Other (explain below) 15% Ballot #76051: has 40 total votes. invite people to vote on this ballot! Comment: content @ BESTANDWORST.COM smile bank: email this ballot link to friends You can also reach this ballot at : http://BestAndWorst.com/key/What_keeps_the_poor_countries_so_poor?_Is_it_by_external_(Western_oppression)_or_internal_factors? similiar ballots: 56061. Do Multi-national corporations help or hurt poor countries? 58240. WHY ARE POOR PEOPLE POOR? 31684. What's the best way to help the poor? 78011. Were you ever poor? 96726. What is your definition of poor? 104980. Helping the poor 122882. Was This Poor Planning? 58369. What is the worst thing about being poor? 100266. This poor lebanese woman . . . 100469. AWWWW, Poor Pluto COMMENTS: * Sorry, The 2nd choice should be 'structuralism' not 'Struturalism'. by EUROTOPIA on Sun Jun 26, 05 11:57am [+] I think a lot of it has to do with structuralism. Which is why the West panics and declares war whenever any Global South nation democratically decides to nationalise some of its material wealth. by EUROTOPIA on Sun Jun 26, 05 12:04pm [+] A combination, but primarily Structuralism, IMO. by Cathexis on Sun Jun 26, 05 12:11pm [+] Structuralism plays an important role, but also there is something else. Unfortunately I had the "opportunity" to study the phenomenon while its developing. Is true that big industrialized countries don't have any interest to see other countries developing an economy of their own and so to become a strong competition. But lack of education, wide spread corruption, incompetent politicians in those countries also keep them from developing. EU alocated billions to my country, but to no avail. Those money ended up in the pockets of greedy politicians, mafiosi, or just poor quality works. We shouldn't blame the west for everything that goes wrong in the world. Local culture has the decisive contribution in most cases. Romanians are those who should be blamed first for the sad situation our country is in this moment. by johan_moritz on Sun Jun 26, 05 3:35pm [+] Western Oppression is not the reason anymore. However it caused the internal problems that occur today. by DeathMetal_101 on Sun Jun 26, 05 5:08pm [+] Culture and people. And just bad luck to an extent. by thc2883 on Mon Jun 27, 05 12:02pm [+] In the beginning - I mean the VERY beginning when all things were more or less equal - economies were shaped by internal factors of culture, geography, religion, etc. However, I would be hard-pressed to argue that Structuralism doesn't play a major part nowadays. by looneyteach on Mon Jul 11, 05 12:05am [+] I'd say it's probably both by Kiki on Sat May 06, 06 10:47am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |