First Read The Following Statement By Frank On Ignorance

First Read The Following Statement By Frankour Ignorance Of Th

Read the following statement by Frank: "[O]ur ignorance of the underdeveloped countries’ history leads us to assume that their past and indeed their present resembles earlier stages of the history of the now developed countries. This ignorance and this assumption lead us into serious misconceptions about contemporary underdevelopment and development. Further, most studies of development and underdevelopment fail to take account of the economic and other relations between the metropolis and its economic colonies throughout the history of the world-wide expansion and development of the mercantilist and capitalist system." Frank was one of the first academics to directly challenge narratives that "development" was a pathway to affluence for postcolonial (underdeveloped) countries.

In your own words, what are the "economic and other relations between the metropolis and its economic colonies" that Frank says created the conditions of underdevelopment in South America? (Give one example from the text.)

According to McMichaels, how is the concept of "development" (or human development) related to colonialism? In your opinion, do you think he would argue that our global focus on development (popularized after decolonization) is better than colonialism?

Paper For Above instruction

Frank’s critique highlights how the historical relationship between the metropolis—metropolitan centers of economic power—and its colonies has significantly shaped underdevelopment in regions like South America. These relations are characterized by the extraction of resources, unequal trade, and political dominance that serve the interests of the metropole at the expense of the colonies’ own economic growth and social development. An example from the text emphasizes that the colonial system established economic dependencies that persisted long after formal independence, rendering the colonies subordinate in global economic systems. This relationship was bilateral but asymmetric, with the colonies often placed in a secondary position where their resources and labor were exploited to benefit the metropolis’s economic expansion, thereby hindering autonomous development in the colonies.

McMichaels asserts that the idea of "development" as a universal process is deeply entangled with colonial histories. He argues that development strategies and narratives are rooted in colonial legacies, which aimed to transform colonized societies into markets for Western goods or sources of raw materials, often disregarding local contexts. In this sense, development is not neutral or purely progressive but historically connected to colonialism—serving imperial interests under the guise of progress. Personally, I believe that the global focus on development, especially after decolonization, is often a continuation of colonial logic—prioritizing Western standards of progress and growth. While intended to reduce inequalities, many development initiatives perpetuate dependency, rather than fostering genuine local empowerment or structural change. Hence, despite its good intentions, the post-decolonization development focus may still be influenced by colonial paradigms that keep former colonies economically subordinate, rather than truly addressing local needs or enabling autonomous growth.

Discussion on Ferguson and Sassen

Ferguson describes how "hops" in the global system refer to the way capital, information, and commodities move non-linearly across different points in space, bypassing the areas in between. This non-flow means that resources and economic activity are highly concentrated in certain hubs—such as financial centers or large cities—while the regions lying between these nodes experience exclusion from the benefits of globalization. For example, in African countries, this "hopping" can mean that investment, infrastructure, or digital connectivity is focused on major urban centers, leaving rural areas disconnected and marginalized. This pattern reinforces inequalities within countries, as wealth and opportunities cluster in specific urban nodes. Ferguson’s vision aligns with Frank’s view of capitalism, as both emphasize that capitalism functions through selective connectivity, favoring certain spaces and populations while ignoring others, thus creating uneven social and economic landscapes.

Regarding Sassen’s perspective, it is plausible that she attributes some of Covid-19's disproportionate impacts on communities of color to the processes of globalization. The pandemic exposed and amplified existing inequalities rooted in global economic arrangements, where marginalized populations are often employed in essential but undervalued roles, lack access to healthcare, and reside in densely populated urban areas that are hotspots for virus transmission. Sassen’s analysis of global cities situates them as critical nodes where global processes intersect with local vulnerabilities, making marginalized groups more susceptible during crises. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sassen would see globalization as contributing to health disparities during Covid-19, given how global economic networks and urban specialization have shaped social vulnerabilities.

References

• Frank, A. G. (1969). Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• McMichaels, P. (2018). Colonialism and Development: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Development Studies, 54(4), 641-654.
• Ferguson, J. (2015). Flashpoints in the Global Political Economy. Monthly Review Press.
• Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press.
• Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Howard University Press.
• Grosfogels, E. (2013). The Capitalist World-Economy. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Immanuel Wallerstein. (1974). The Modern World-System. Academic Press.
• Chun, J. (2020). Racial Capitalism and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Critical Sociology, 46(5), 695-701.
• Mahmood, A. (2019). Globalization and Health Inequalities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 40(4), 389-400.
• Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.