Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Neoliberalism vs Keynesian economics
Globalization and dependency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Neoliberalism vs Keynesian economics
Both arguments concerning the obstacles to development make valid points. The neoliberalism position focuses on the misguided policies enforced by the developing states. They argue that excessive government control of the domestic and the international economy of the state prevents economic growth, while fiscal discipline and non-intervention by the state’s governments allows the economy to stimulate. On the other hand, the dependency theory perspective, which focuses on the global order between rich and poor nations, argues that the wealthy states exploit the weak states, therefore, producing underdevelopment and global inequality.
Neoliberalism centers on the reduction of protectionist policies, such as government subsidies, quotas, tariffs,
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, truth and happiness are falsely engineered to create a perfect society; the belief of the World Controllers that stability is the the key to a utopian society actually led to the creation of an anti-utopian society in which loose morals and artificial happiness exist. Huxley uses symbolism, metaphors, and imagery to satirize the possibiliy of an artificial society in the future as well as the “brave new world” itself.
The globalization of ideas and policies has consequences that hinder social reproduction. The effects of globalized neoliberal policies are apparent in Sonagachi. Neoliberal policies influence free market economies, individualism, and privatization, which contradict previous existing structures in their society. Dominant cultures view poverty as a result of weak government that can be fixed by neoliberal policies. International organizations such as the World Bank pressure less developed countries to implement market economies, which privatizes the family and reverses social policies that citizens rely on. The lack of social policies and government assistance force children into the working sphere to help provid...
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1932. In reality that Huxley had created, God is only recognized as science, human-nature is only holding back people from what their true potential and “purpose” truly is. In Huxley’s story, science has improved everything by removing emotions and everything that defines a human, human. The most bizarre aspect of Huxley’s science fictional story, is that the science behind making this story plausible is not something that is out of the reach of humans today.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
As Escobar points out in The Problematization of Poverty, one of the many changes in the post-WW2 era was the "discovery" of mass poverty throughout the world. This "discovery" had massive implications for development discourse. Prior to WW2, development discourse was limited to the colonial experience. But with the end of colonial rule lurking on the horizon, western academics began to formulate theories of economic growth and "modernization." As a result, an entire genre of academic research emerged: the development discourse. The aim of development discourse was to chart out patterns of growth (which were based on the historical successes of the West) that newly independent countries could use, primarily to escape vicious cycles of poverty, famine, etc.
Up until this point, this paper has discussed a particular instance in which State Intervention in the economy exerted negative outcomes on industrialization. Henceforth, this paper will now look at the circumstances in which State Intervention can wield beneficial outcomes on industrialization for a developing country. The Neopatrimonial State, which sits on one end of the spectrum in terms of the effectiveness of State Intervention, means that the Cohesive Capitalist State is typically the polar opposite and in turn, can experience positive results from State Intervention.
... less developed countries should distance themselves from the influence of capitalist system and refrain themselves from being exploited, or from becoming capitalist systems themselves. In order to achieve that, less developed countries should reduce their economic dependencies on foreign aid, international aid, technology and investment.
Economic Structuralists see this unequal division of core and periphery creating what they call "Dependency theory". Dependency theory is a historical condition which has formed a certain structure of world economy in a way that it favors some countries to the disadvantage of others and limits the possibility of development possibilities in subordinate economic countries. This leads toa situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is dependent on the development and expansion of another economy (Dos Santos, 1971: 226). Constructivists do recognize the anarchic world, however its structure is not as realists perceive it to be in material terms but rather defined in cultural or ideational terms and nonetheless this anarchic system is not constant (Viotti and Kauppi, 2012:
The central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the world system. The Dependency theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own and are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market
A major part of the world today faces the universal problem of poverty, and hence the consequences that follow. Global inequality is an extremely grave problem that needs the world’s attention. Dependent development has played a very significant role in bringing about global inequality. This theory of dependency suggests that the “core” or rich countries of the world have an unfair advantage over the “periphery” or poor countries. They appear to benefit from the development that occurs in poor countries, resulting in the peripheral countries to be worse off than before. According to the lecture, the rich always have an upper hand over the poor, both financially and politically. Hence, it turns out that the developing countries have to rely on the developed ones, which hinders their opportunity to become industrialized.
in relation to development. Development is explained by the Oxford Dictionary as the process of developing or developed in a specified state of growth or advancement. Underdeveloped as according to the Oxford Dictionary is ‘not fully developed or not advanced economically’ which is meant for a country or a region. We can certainly see the difference between underdeveloped and developed where the changing situation emerges from the economic point of view. To be more specific, worlds within world were created i.e. the nomenclature of First World and Third World came into picture. The First World is said to be the industrialised, capitalist countries of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand who are developed (as explained in the definition). The Third World includes the developing countries of- Asia, Africa and Latin America who are still in the mode of developing. Normally we understand the situation of underdevelopment is because the third world was under the colonies or the colonial rule for a certain period of time and lags behind the first world in every aspects like- social, economical, political, technological advancements which are yet to be seen in the third world fully like the first world. In this paper we will talk about various theorists from - Karl Marx (capitalism and class conflict), Kay and Amin (merchant capitalism, colonialism and neo-colonialism), Vladimir Lenin (imperialism), Andre Gunder Frank (third world dependency), Lipton (urban bias) and dependency theory. Here in this paper we will try to explain and understand the relevance of the various underdevelopment theories and different attributes related to it terms of the Indian Context.