THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT
Francis Joe Mathew
Development Studies
TISS, Hyderabad
1. Classical economics, which claims universality and progress for everyone, is a class biased from the start. Reflect on this statement.
In the year 1776, Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher came up with a book called ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’. This is where the modern economic school of thought called classical economics pioneered. The idea of classical economics was widely discussed and debated by several economists for a couple of decades and many have written extensively on it. Economists like David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich List so on and so forth are among the others who have contributed to the idea of classical
…show more content…
Classical economics started as a way to bring down inequality between the noble landlords and the small merchants and traders but they left out the wage earning working class in this process. A group of economists and philosophers argued that the benefits derived from a mode of production are not equal for all classes. Even though the labourers are paid wages for the work they do, they are exploited. The capitalist class have been accumulating capital and free markets have enabled them to prosper whereas the labour class have not got the opportunity in the same way to improve their lives. The effects of classical economic approach have led to income inequality and a low level equilibrium trap. We could state that the classical economics brought about income inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the effects of it are being felt now in the economy. The effects of it are still visible in our economy. A report by Oxfam International was presented at the World Economic Forum and it stated that 48% of the global wealth was in the hands of 1% of the people. The other 99% of the people owned the remaining 52% of the global …show more content…
What lessons can we learn from the state-led development experience of South Korea and how they are relevant to India?
Almost seventy years ago, the per capita GDP of South Korea was lesser than Bolivia and Mozambique but today it has a per capita GDP of around 33,200 dollars which is more than that of Spain and New Zealand, according to an article by ‘Foreign Affairs’. Their growth story was incredible and is being discussed and studied widely by economists around the world. This paper looks to understand South Korea’s unprecedented path to achieving high growth rate and if these measures taken by them can be adopted to the Indian
Wealthy elites or the bourgeoisie continued to earn high profits while the poor proletarians continued to take part in labor intensive work in factories. Marx and Smiles both saw this as a major problem in their society. In Marx’s Communist Manifesto, he wrote, “ not only are they [the proletarians] slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself…” What Marx means is that the bourgeoisie is looking down at the proletariats and using them as merely a way to earn profit. In contrast to Marx, Smiles said, “...they [the proletarians] resemble the savage tribes, who know no better, and do no worse.”
The wealth distribution has been a major problem in modern society. The economic system has currently divided the nation more into a society of either being classified as rich or poor. The allocation of goods and services are not equally distributed worldwide. We are supposed to live as one and share goods and services equally, but because of capitalism, there are many individuals that must live a self- interest and greedy lifestyle to survive. Since resources are scarce, we live in an all for one society.
In David S. Landes book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, he decides to take a historical approach on the reasons behind why some people remain poor and how others are so rich by trying to comprehend the reasons that lead to advances in economies and modernization in certain regions around the world over the past few decades. In other words by asking how we have come to where we are today in the sense of making, getting and spending. Throughout the book, Landes talks about how we live in a world filled with inequality and diversity therefore leading to classifying those who are poor and unable to afford medical health care living in the North and the wealthy in the South. David S. Landes aim was to basically make people aware of how it is actually geography that is responsible for this division between countries that have caused a lot of hardship for the unprivileged people by making it impossible for them to improve economically as a result of their geographical location on the map.
In the beginning of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution caused a massive economic spike from small-scale production to large factories and mass production. Capitalism became the prevalent mode of the economy, which put all means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or the upper class. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels argue that capitalism centralizes all the wealth and power in the bourgeoisie, despite the proletariat, or the working class, being the overwhelming majority of the population. The manufacturers would exploit the common proletariat and force them to would work in abysmal conditions and receive low wages, furthering the working class poverty. “The Communist Manifesto” predicts that as a result of the mistreatment
John Bodley’s article, “Price of Progress”, argues that America and other developed countries worry about economic development less than developing countries. The economies in developed countries believe that every culture should be full of progress. Progress in economies is defined by how high your income is, how high your standard of living is, greater security and how good your health is. The most common used measure of progress is one’s standard of living. The lowest class of people is the tribal people who have different cultures and lifestyles and they find ways to survive on their own.
The Gilded Age was to describe America in the late nineteenth century. The outside of the US seemed glamorous and splendid alongside industrial development and massive economic growth. However, the dark sides were hidden beneath it. In my perspective, I believe we are living in the 2nd Gilded age.
The economic views of Adam Smith and Karl Marx Microeconomics Eduardo De Oliveira Superti Table of Contents: Abstract 3 Introduction 4 The economic views of Adam Smith 5 The economic views of Karl Marx 6 Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx 7 Examples in the world of today 9 Conclusion 10 Recommendations 11 Bibliography 12 Introduction Adam Smith and Karl Marx were completely contrasting economists throughout their time and had an enormous effect on the world and the way we view economics. They represent the ideas of capitalism and socialism.
The difference in social classes shows how the Marxist analysis approach can be applied to Life in the Iron Mills. Social structure wasn’t always present in society, in fact towards the start of the human race, everyone was actually equal. Sure, there were the hunters and there were the gathers, but they realized they
The problem with the widened wealth gap is that the inequality may harm the quality. Meaning that those in the higher classes see it as you can use the money with no restrictions. However, economist believe that the “relationship between inequality and economic freedom, with the possibility that policies that are meant to reduce inequality will reduce economic freedom, which will then only make inequality worse.”
Marx advocated revolution by the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie to reduce income and social class inequality. However, Smith felt that the Invisible Hand and the division of labour would eventually bring the poor out of poverty, but may not entirely resolve the income inequality or equal distribution of
Industrialization also enhanced the capitalism which is focused on the issue of more profit and conflict between capital and workers. While owner of productions take more profit with less labor, workers take less profit even with much more labor force. Karl Marx is one of the thinkers who criticizes this situation of capitalism in terms of workers and capitals in industry, especially he focuses on the situation of
Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Karl Marx are known for many as the pioneers of contemporary economies. Their Work and researches were the bases of most of nowadays economic models used by countries around the world. Adam Smith, David Ricardo and their followers were labeled as the classical economists when later on Karl Marx and his followers were labeled as the Marxists. These two economic schools were some of the biggest in history, but yet differed in many ways. Through this paper, we would discuss the says of the Classical and Marxism schools concerning their views on wages, their different opinions about the theory of value, their sides about capital accumulation and finally the different point of view of the schools regarding the diminishing returns.
Why do some countries prosper while others stagnate? Why does almost half the world live on $2.50 a day? Why are most of the world’s nations living in poverty? In our modern world, the three main factors that determine a country’s wealth are institution, culture and geography. Rich countries have very good institutions while poor countries have extremely devastating ones.
Through improving agriculture, export businesses, science and technology, Korea was able to improve living standards in all aspects and improve equality between citizens in terms of the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and Per Capita Income. This insured that the road for development in Korea was the right path to follow through improving all aspects of the economy. Although government intervention might be viewed as an incorrect way to achieve development, Korea and East Asia were able to achieve miracles in development in both impact and speed of achieving these growth rates. Since South Korea was able to replicate the Japanese model for development, with minor adjustments, this means other countries have the opportunity to achieve massive growth rates with further adjustments to be compatible with both their culture and economic
He contends that underdevelopment is generated by the same historical process that generated development. Underdevelopment is a result of country’s participation in the same capitalist system. Frank thus rejects the notion that underdevelopment is traditional or original. He challenges the notion that underdevelopment follows a linear path. He rather argues that ‘’underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations...”