The Sociology of Development: Case Study of Myanmar

That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates” (Rodrick). If globalization is supposed to present an advantage to developing countries, why have there been so many setbacks? Indeed, both sides will have its winners and losers regardless of which side of the development coin they live on, but for the most part globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, improved the standard of living, and increased life expectancy rates all while keeping developed nations relatively competitive to their developing counterparts. Globalization’s value is that it seeks to create an economic equilibrium in the world, where parties are free from barriers and can benefit from one another through a more efficient allocation of resources. This allows all participating nations to contribute to an integrated economy and where all nations willing to embrace globalization have the potential to benefit. Regardless, the path to successful integration to the global economy has not always been easy. There is contention towards globalization as some argue that it is detrimental to developed nations, while many developing countries that were forced to hastily open up their markets and integrate failed. However, if implemented properly, globalization has proven that it can benefit all parties involved and that the potential gains outweigh the losses.

Eglitis implies that, “The existence of global poverty fosters access to resources in poor states that are needed in, or desired by the West.” (Eglitis 225) The economic state of these poorer nations puts them in a position where they are not even capable of putting forth the capital that would be required to utilize or benefit from their own natural resources. Poverty in the global village makes the monetary influence gained by the wealthier nations of the West have a greater impact. This economic influence ensures that any resistance to exploitation by the West would be marginalized. The underdeveloped countries are simply not in a position economically to resist. This paints for us a grim picture of how western influence fuels the continuing global class system by applying economic leverage that caters to the desires that feed western

Following World War II, economic policies were marked by two major trends. On one hand, industrialized economies gradually removed trade barriers. These policies were based on the idea that free trade is not only a factor for economic prosperity of nations, but also for the promotion of peace. On the other hand, economic policies of many developing countries with the exception of few countries in Southeast Asia have been conditioned by the belief that the key to development rests in the establishment of a powerful manufacturing sector, and that the best way to create such an area was to protect local industries from international competition through substitution imports policies.

First, I will explain the role of empowered institutions and countries in limiting the economic activities of developing countries, impeding on their ability to survive. Afterwards I will explain the obligation people in privileged positions have to improve the lives of those in compromised positions, at a certain degree of self-sacrifices. Finally, I will critically analyze and disprove the counter argument, which attempts to relieve us of the aforementioned duties, by discrediting the roles of institutions and developed countries in the prolongation of impoverishment.

In most cases U.S. citizens who are in poverty are in relative poverty in relation to the rest of the U.S. population; whereas in the world as a whole a greater number of people are in absolute poverty and are barely able to survive on their income, or wages and earnings, and they have very little to no wealth since it is impossible to save any of their money. Ethnocentrism makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of the conditions of poverty and inequality in other nations and cultures. There are many theories concerning the causes and solution for poverty in the global economy. The two major theories are the modernization theory which explains inequality in terms of technological and cultural difference between nations, and the dependency theory which explains poverty in terms of the historical exploitation of poor, or low-income, nations by rich, or high-income, nations. This theory has manifest itself in a new way in today’s world in the form of neocolonialism; economic exploitation by multinational corporations.

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

Feenstra talks about the implications of imposing trade deals or tariffs that could negatively affect a partner and how that could alter relationships against the interest of America. Moreover, he discusses the fact that increased isolationism from the free trade world could impede on the development of countries who export goods to the United States as they attempt to grow and stabilize their developing economies. Feenstra quotes a study from 2009 saying, “developing countries lose $8 billion from the quotas and tariffs applied to textiles by the industrial countries” increasing foreign deadweight loss, which again decreases overall world economy efficiency (Feenstra 167). The American economy is greatly involved and vital to the world economy in this 21st century environment and the world economy, and especially developing nations, would be greatly hindered by American retreatment from the world stage. The Antebellum strategy used for the cotton industry in the 19th century is not applicable in today’s globalized world and the magnitude of the broader American economy is not in need of specialized assistance as it did when it was a developing

Globalization is the growth of interregional and worldwide linkages and the changes the linkages are bringing about (Pulsipher & Pulsipher 2012, G-3). The Structural Adjustment Policy (SAPs), when policies required economic reorganization toward less government involvement in industry, agriculture, and social services is a topic in globalization in Middle and South America (Pulsipher & Pulsipher 2012, 16). People rebelled on this attempt to globalization by electing governments. Now, SAPs has been joined by North American Free Trade and Mesocour to reduce tariffs and other barriers among neighboring countries and others (Pulsipher & Pulsipher 2012, 118-119). Throughout the region nearly everyone depends on the informal economy as a buyer or

This trend was popular in colonial times and has survived due to help from international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. One such way this that has been encouraged is through the Washington Consensus. The IMF and World Bank implemented the Washington Consensus, a set of fixed ideas about international trade and economic development, through structural adjustment programs which were mandatory for countries if they wished to borrow money from either of the organizations (Nederveen, 2004, p. 11). In conjunction with structural adjustments to continue the dependency theory, the United States uses both the IMF and the World Bank as tools to further their foreign policy and to support US aims and polices (Finnegan, 2003, p. 43). These programs were supposed to reduce poverty and facilitate growth but really just ended up screwing over many countries. Additionally, they were really just ways for America to assert their control under the guise of an international organization providing support to developing countries’ economies (Finnegan, 2003, p. 42). Ultimately structural adjustments were used to implement policies that the United States thinks is best for the world and promote American values (Manzo, 1999, p. 112). The World Bank and the IMF listen to the rich countries and implement policies that they believe are best for those countries that are in development while creating a situation that contributes to the continuation of a cycle of dependency (Manzo, 1999, p. 110). Ultimately neoliberalism has created a global regime that promotes dependency on the United States and allows them to decide what is best for countries that are still developing (Nederveen, 2004, p. 7). In the end, the fact that neoliberalism has many of the same contradictions that

Over the years, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has prided itself as the central element in the international economic management system across the world. This system incorporates other international bodies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund as well as a series of other regional trade regimes that are growing. Collectively, these structures provide a mechanism that addresses international economic interdependence as well enhancing economic interactions that offer the promise of maximizing social welfare across the globe. These aspects have been brought about due to the focus given in the post-Cold War era where international relations have evolved beyond a narrow emphasis on politico-military affairs.

After the end of the World War II the world faced the challenges of economic and social recovery. The majority of developing countries based their economies on Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), the state-oriented approach to a trade and economic policy. ISI supports the replacement of import with domestic production in order to reduce foreign dependency. This protectionist policy dominated in developing countries, especially in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, during the first 30 years after the World War II. By 1980s, when the main gains of ISI were exhausted and it demonstrated its inefficiency, the countries of East Asia adopted a new development strategy. Consequently, this new export-oriented and market-friendly strategy, so-called East Asian model, has determined the successful economic and trade policy of East Asian countries during the next several decades. To understand the reasons of the shift from ISI to the East Asian model, it is needed to carefully examine and contrast these two approaches and their supporting theories.

According to Richard N (2006), the free movement of goods due to free market or trade has led to globalization. Though the effects have been assumed to benefit all, there is a large inequality among the poor and the rich both within the countries among the nations. Capitalism is contributed to technological advancement, which has then influenced free trade. The uncontrolled globalization has resulted in more developed societies becoming rich. The rich economies are able to exploit the market by producing at lower price due to their level of technology and advancement in research. They are also able to protect their economy through export subsidies and production subsidies to their farmers. This translates to lower prices for their goods in the global market hence controlling it. The poor countries despite having comparative advantage in production of some commodities they also suffer from competitive advantage from the developed countries they are forced to sell their commodities at a lower price than their expected. They suffer a lot in global trade, which is mainly controlled by the wealthier nations. There are regulations, which restrict the flow of goods in the world market from poor societies. This makes

Globalization is defined as a worldwide development, the process of spreading ideas. More recently, globalization has become more focused on economics, the spreading of capitalism and opening international trade. Globalization through the past 50 years has developed a bad reputation, one that does not benefit countries the way people thought it would. Joseph E. Stiglitz, in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, stresses that modern globalization is a good thing, but has not been done correctly in the past few decades. The ideas behind globalization have the potential to benefit the world, specifically developing countries. Stiglitz goes into detail about how the problem falls with the misguided attempts of the international economic institutions to solve developing countries’ economic problems. Something has gone very wrong with globalization, and the purpose of this book is to shed some light on where it went wrong. Stiglitz presents the problems with the international economic institutions’ damaging policies and their effects using ethnographic field work and historically comparative methods.

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized

Although it is right that globalization promotes free trade among the states and unites them, but there are also negative outcomes, which states whether rich or poor try to protect their own interests? These negative outcomes of globalization have made the dependency theory significant in describing the state of affairs in the present world. Poor countries attempt to protect their national markets and become self-reliant (Hewison, 1999). Self-reliance can be seen as supporting a strategy of controlled relations with the world economy. Poor nations should only approve relations on the condition that the relations will enhance the societal and financial well being of the larger population. However, endeavour by the peripheral states to oppose the impact of dependency can result in results in financial sanctions and/or military attack (Sen, 2010). One example of such resentment against globalization is “localism“that surfaced during the financial crisis in Thailand (Hewison, 1999). Localism is an illustration of populist response to the changes and disparities created by globalization. Localism gained substantial energy from the Thai King’s speech in 1997, where he recommended a self-contained economy to counter the negative effects