The Relationship between Political Structure and Economic Exploitation in Prosperity and Violence by Robert Bates

New imperialism was the mid nineteenth and twentieth centuries cultural equivalent to a modern day mafia, its roots entangled in the economic, cultural, and humanistic aspects of life. The sole objective of the nations entailed the exploitation of their controlled state. Gestating from the change in control of Asian and African nations to the Europeans by means of political deviance, malicious sieges, and strategic military attacks. The juxtaposition to the modern equivalent endures as the aforesaid is sheltered by the fairytale that these nations were in need of aid and by doing so the Europeans were the good guys. The ideas of new imperialism are greatly influenced by those of the enlightenment. Taking place during the eighteenth and

During the 20th century different regions and countries of the extra European world –Japan, China, India, the Middle East and Latin America- have been invested by profound transformations, that in part went to aliment the tensions that later would have brought to the second world war, and in part determined the beginning of the process of decolonization .

Underdevelopment can also be, and has been, understood as a reflection or product of the economic, social, political and cultural characteristics of said country. Yet with a look at history we see that the underdevelopment of a “satellite” nation can be traced directly back to the past and current economic relations the nation has held with developed “metropoles”. This relationship between a metropolitan and satellite countries pertains back to the process and development of the world capitalist system, which benefits its Western

Just as westward expansion did in the years before, imperialism gave the U.S. new sources of raw materials and new opportunities for investment (Tindall and Shi, p. 898). These new regions of the world

During the nineteenth century and the period of the industrial revolution, countries were divided into three categories based on how they dealt with industrialization. The “joiners,” the “in-betweeners,” and the “outsiders” all went through the same process of an internal debate and crisis but with different results. The Joiners included countries whose leaders decided to industrialize, and were successful while also becoming imperialistic.

The U.S. endorsed the concept of capitalism, liberalism, and democracy. Therefore, gave way for the US to rise as a superpower at the end of the Cold War. Given the segregated global context owing to ideological difference, the U.S. intended to gain supremacy over the Marxist ideology of other regions and nation-states based on capitalism and liberal democracy (Taeheok 223). However, we see the United States hegemony on a swift decline in places like Latin America, the Middle East and Far East Asia.

Here, they acknowledge how states can be self-interest as they seek to secure their own capital growth. They continue to argue that the US forms a sort of informal empire where America “requires the economic and cultural penetration of other states to be sustained by political and military coordination with other independent governments” (Panitch & Gindin,2004, p.8).

Due to the Industrialization of European countries during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, exploitative imperialism was the only viable option for continued sustainable growth. The switch to indirect imperialism was a temptation for governments in many countries, an idea which would continue their economic growth following the ideals of free trade. This concept would then be practiced with those regions of the globe indirectly managed by the imperial powers to gain similar economic advantages to directly controlling the territory. By laying the usual colonial responsibilities aside, the European empires could gain more money in the short term from their possessions without the financial investments. This flavor of imperialism was practiced when it followed a period of direct imperialism. Elsewise it was in danger of losing the political capital that such systems relied upon. Due to its inherent western concepts, the ideals of free trade required the subsidiary partner of the indirect imperialism required a firm alliance in culture and political goals and views to be successful when opposed to direct imperialism.

Over the centuries Colonialism and Imperialism have been viewed, justified and experienced differently throughout the world. The very idea created questions of both legitimacy as well as indignity in the minds of historians, writers, scholars and critics of the world. However, the growing incongruence and dissimilarity among nations brings forth the rationality to infuse the colonial purview in a modernized way in some parts of the world. So long the development of the weak states matters and the overall global effects involved, the approaches

For post-development theorists such as Esteva or Escobar, development is socially constructed and based in a western economic structure and in the power relationships between developed and developing countries, with a clear domination of the first ones (Escobar p.18, Esteva & Prakash, 1998b, p. 175-182). Positivists claim that development can only be sustained and attained by industrialization, which is achieved through human

In Vladimir Lenin’s essay, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, he expresses that the drive for colonizing developing nations to increase capital growth encourages the “intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world” (307). Lenin depicts an unevenness, or social stratification, among the people; not only has social inequality occurred at a national level, but also imperialism has spread its virus [capitalism] on an international sphere. Growth is considered beneficial to capitalists; yet, the wealth becomes unequally distributed, leaving some in poverty and others in luxury. The gap between the rich and poor grows wider as capitalism undergoes expansion. Conclusively, Lenin labels imperialism-a kind of capitalism-as

By far the most dominant and intriguing wing of the imperialist structure has been its economic influences on the Third World. Early on multinational corporation learned that “to assure themselves access to foreign markets on favorable terms, to arrange intricate export subsidies and insurance against nationalization, to manipulate other governments through foreign aid and

The term “development” has been used by political, economic and international relations scholars to explain the relative economic statutes of various countries around the world. Numerous scholars have concerns about the potentially hegemonic nature of using the term “development”. Rhetorically, their concerns range from potential bias at the expense of indigenous methods to the continuation of western imperialist domination and exploitation of lands yet to be further explored. A few of the main concerns of these scholars is ethnic cleansing, resource extraction and false perceptions of the term.

While in Section 4 it explores the process by which resources become linked to armed conflicts, focusing on processes of inclusion, exclusion and criminalization. In this section an interpretation has been created that builds on the concept of ‘bad governance’ characterizing ‘weak’ or ‘failed’ states. While developing countries enjoying ‘good governance’ may be considered for inclusion, countries affected by ‘bad governance’ are deemed prone to ‘chaotic’ conflicts and considered a new plague requiring their exclusion. This understanding has fed into the paradigm of a ‘coming [dangerous] anarchy’ resulting

Among developed and underdeveloped nations, the role of the state in development is often one that is contested. The differing perspectives include that of the state as being essential, an obstacle, or less of a factor in development than others. In this paper, I will first discuss how the state is essential for development by creating the conditions for investment and economic growth to happen. Next, I will discuss how the state can kill growth by pursuing overly protectionist policies as well as being corrupt. I will then analyze how ethnic diversity can be a determinant of development, more so than the state. Finally, I will argue that