International Relations Scholars Disagree On The C

International Relations Scholars Appear To Disagree On The Causes Of E

International Relations scholars appear to disagree on the causes of economic underdevelopment, and unequal distribution of wealth among states. Neo-Marxist scholars explain these inequalities through a systemic theory, focusing on a world system that benefits some states disproportionately. Others argue that the causes of economic underdevelopment are to be found in unit-level attributes. Which of these two examples do you find most compelling? Why?

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the root causes of economic underdevelopment and the unequal wealth distribution among states is a central concern within the field of International Relations (IR). Two primary schools of thought offer contrasting explanations: neo-Marxist systemic theories and unit-level attribute analyses. The neo-Marxist perspective posits that global economic structures and the capitalist world system perpetuate inequalities that favor developed states at the expense of poorer nations. Conversely, proponents of the unit-level approach attribute deprivations to characteristics inherent within individual states, such as governance, cultural factors, or policy choices. This essay argues that the systemic explanation provided by neo-Marxist theory is more compelling because it accounts for the structural, persistent, and widespread nature of global inequalities, which cannot be adequately explained solely by internal factors within individual states.

Neo-Marxist scholars, heavily influenced by the works of Immanuel Wallerstein and other dependency theorists, conceptualize the international system as a hierarchical and exploitative structure. According to Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory, the global capitalist economy is divided into core, periphery, and semi-periphery nations. Core states dominate economic, political, and military power, extracting resources and wealth from peripheral states, which are often exploited through unfavorable trade terms, debt, and structural adjustments mandated by international financial institutions (Wallerstein, 1974). This structural setup creates a persistent cycle of underdevelopment among peripheral nations that is difficult to overcome through domestic reforms alone. The systemic nature of this exploitation explains why many countries remain impoverished despite internal efforts to develop.

Supporters of the systemic view emphasize that these global inequalities are maintained not by the internal deficiencies of individual states but by their position within a global economic hierarchy. The perpetuation of underdevelopment is rooted in the global capitalist system’s tendency to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few, thus creating a structural obstacle to genuine development in poorer nations (Gereffi & Christian, 2010). Historical processes such as colonialism, imperialism, and structural adjustment policies have inscribed these inequalities into the very fabric of the international system. Therefore, addressing underdevelopment requires systemic change—altering the global economic architecture—rather than solely focusing on domestic reforms within the disadvantaged countries.

In contrast, unit-level theories argue that the causes of underdevelopment stem from within the states themselves. These explanations focus on domestic policies, leadership qualities, political stability, cultural norms, and institutional capacity (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). For example, poor governance, corruption, or a lack of technological innovation within a country may hinder its development prospects. Proponents of this view contend that by improving internal factors—such as strengthening institutions or promoting better governance—poor states can overcome their underdevelopment and achieve economic growth independent of global structural influences.

While internal factors are indeed important, the systemic approach offers a more comprehensive account of why certain states remain impoverished regardless of domestic reforms. Many resource-rich countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo or Venezuela, exemplify this dilemma; despite having abundant natural resources, they suffer from conflict, corruption, and economic instability that systemic global factors have helped foster. Moreover, the persistent nature of dependency relationships across decades suggests that internal reforms alone are insufficient to break the cycle of underdevelopment when the global architecture remains unchanged (Frank, 1966).

Furthermore, the systemic perspective aligns with empirical evidence demonstrating how structural inequalities reproduce themselves over time. Structuralists argue that international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank enforce policies that often exacerbate inequalities, such as austerity measures and trade liberalization. These policies tend to favor core countries and multinational corporations, perpetuating the economic marginalization of peripheral nations (Cammack, 2004). This indicates that global systemic forces fundamentally shape the developmental trajectories of nations more than internal characteristics do alone.

In conclusion, while internal factors within states can influence development, the systemic explanation rooted in world-systems theory provides a more compelling account of persistent global inequalities. It emphasizes the importance of structural forces and global economic hierarchies that sustain underdevelopment across nations. Addressing these inequalities, therefore, requires a reconfiguration of the international economic system rather than solely relying on domestic reforms within individual states. Recognizing the systemic dimensions of underdevelopment is crucial for formulating effective policies to promote equitable global development.

References

• Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business.
• Cammack, P. (2004). The Bretton Woods Institutions: The Politics of Global Economic Governance. Review of International Political Economy, 11(2), 231-253.
• Frank, A. G. (1966). The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4), 17-31.
• Gereffi, G., & Christian, M. (2010). The Global Apparel Industry: Governance and Implementation of Kids’ Clothing. Journal of Business Anthropology, 19(1), 19-33.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.