Theories of International Relations and Global Inequality Notes

Foundations of Dependency Theory

Dependence is defined as a specific situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. This relationship of interdependence between two or more economies, and between these and the global trade system, takes the form of dependence when dominant countries are able to expand and remain self-sustaining, while dependent countries can only achieve expansion as a reflection of the dominant country's expansion. This reflection can result in either a positive or a negative effect on the immediate development of the dependent nation.

The concept of dependence allows for the internal situation of dependent countries to be viewed as an integral part of the world economy. In the Marxian tradition, the theory of imperialism focuses on the expansion of imperialist centers and their subsequent world domination. Conversely, the theory of development views the situation of underdeveloped countries as a product of their failure or slowness to adopt the efficiency patterns found in developed countries, often referred to as the failure to modernize.

Underdevelopment is interpreted not as a lack of development, but as a direct consequence and a fundamental part of the world expansion of capitalism. The world economy integrates national economies into a global market of commodities, capital, and labor power, but this integration produces unequal relations. These relations are unequal because the development of some parts of the system occurs specifically at the expense of other parts.

Economic Dynamics of Global Inequality

Trade relations within the global system are predicated on the monopolistic control of the market. This structure leads to the transfer of the surplus generated within dependent countries to the dominant countries. Financial relations, viewed from the perspective of dominant powers, are based on loans and the export of capital. This allows dominant powers to receive interest and profits, which increases their domestic surplus and strengthens their control over the economies of other nations.

For dependent countries, these economic relations represent an export of profits and interest. This process carries off a significant portion of the surplus generated domestically and results in a loss of control over their own productive resources. To sustain these disadvantageous relations, dependent countries are forced to generate large surpluses. However, these surpluses are not used to create higher levels of technology but are instead derived from the use of superexploited manpower.

The consequences for dependent nations include:

• A limitation on the development of the internal market.

• A restricted technical and cultural capacity.

• A decline in the moral and physical health of the population.

Combined development refers to the combination of these inequalities and the transfer of resources from backward, dependent sectors to advanced, dominant ones. This combination explains and deepens global inequality, transforming it into a necessary and structural element of the world economy.

Historical Forms of Dependence

Historical forms of dependence are conditioned by three primary factors:

1. The basic forms of the world economy, which possesses its own laws of development.

2. The type of economic relations dominant within the capitalist centers and the manner in which those centers expand outward.

3. The types of economic relations existing inside the peripheral countries that are incorporated into a dependent status within the network of international economic relations generated by capitalist expansion.

Two distinct historical forms are identified:

• Colonial Dependence: This is trade-export in nature. Commercial and financial capital, allied with the colonialist state, dominates the economic relations between Europeans and their colonies. This is achieved through a trade monopoly complemented by a colonial monopoly of land, mines, and manpower (utilizing serf or slave labor) in the colonized territories.

• Financial-Industrial Dependence: This form consolidated at the end of the nineteenth century. It is characterized by the domination of big capital in hegemonic centers and its expansion through investment in the production of raw materials and agricultural products intended for consumption in the hegemonic centers.

From the perspective of imperialism, the consequence for dependent economies and colonies was their integration into the international market. Inequality resulted as the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods became the basis of the imperialist-colonial relationship. The reproduction and amplification of this inequality between advanced and dependent economies is a by-product of the capitalist growth process itself.

Corporate Integration and Structural Imperialism

Through technological advantage, corporations secure key roles in the global system of capital accumulation. Some local prosperity is possible when foreign investments produce consumption goods locally, inducing dynamic effects in dependent economies. However, the global process of capitalist development interconnects the consumption goods sector with the capital goods sector, thereby reproducing the links of dependency.

Structural theory of imperialism begins with two observations: the tremendous inequality within and between nations regarding human living conditions and the power to decide over those conditions, and the resistance of this inequality to change.

The world is conceptualized as consisting of Centre and Periphery nations. Each nation, in turn, contains its own centre and periphery. Imperialism is a sophisticated dominance relation between collectivities (nations) that cuts across national boundaries. It is based on a "bridgehead" that the centre in the Centre nation establishes within the centre of the Periphery nation for their joint benefit.

The Nature of Interest and Conflict in Imperialism

Imperialism is a general structural relationship that relates parts of collectivities through harmony or disharmony of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as a situation where parties pursue incompatible goals. In this context, goals are often stipulated by outsiders as the "true" interests of the parties, regardless of what the parties explicitly state they value. This occurs for two reasons:

1. The rejection of the dogma of unlimited rationality: Actors may not know or be able to express their interests.

2. Uneven distribution of rationality: Some may dominate the minds of others, leading to "false consciousness."

Imperialism is defined as a relation between a Centre and a Periphery nation such that:

1. There is harmony of interest between the centre in the Centre nation ($Cc$) and the centre in the Periphery nation ($Pc$).

2. There is more disharmony of interest within the Periphery nation than within the Centre nation.

3. There is disharmony of interest between the periphery in the Centre nation ($Cp$) and the periphery in the Periphery nation ($Pp$).

Interaction Patterns in Centre and Periphery Nations

The $Cc$ establishes a bridgehead in the $Pc$ so they are linked to "go up together and down, even under, together." Both nations are vertical societies with gaps in living conditions. In the Centre nation, the gap is often reduced or kept constant through welfare state activities and redistribution of income (though usually not power). In the Periphery nation, the gap is at best constant or opens more quickly as the centre grows more than the periphery.

The $Pc$ often serves as a "transmission belt" (e.g., commercial firms or trading companies) for value like raw materials forwarded to the Centre. This value enters the $Cc$, and some of it "drizzles down" to the $Cp$. Because there is less disharmony in the Centre, the total arrangement is in the interest of the $Cp$. Consequently, the $Cp$ sees themselves as partners of the $Cc$ rather than the $Pp$. This avoids alliance-formation between the two peripheries, making the Centre more cohesive and the Periphery less so.

Mechanisms and Stages of Imperialism

Imperialism operates through two primary mechanisms:

1. The Principle of Vertical Interaction Relation: This concerns the interaction itself and whether it is symmetric or asymmetric.

2. The Principle of Feudal Interaction Structure: This concerns how relations are organized to protect the inequality.

Interaction is analyzed based on value-exchange (inter-actor effects) and effects inside the actors (intra-actor effects). Intra-actor effects include pollution, depletion, and exploitation. There are three stages of unequal exchange:

• Stage 1: Looting, where raw materials are taken with nothing offered in return, often forcing "natives" to work.

• Stage 2: Offering a ridiculous price (e.g., beads) for resources like oil or land.

• Stage 3: A balance in the flow between actors may exist, but huge differences remain in the internal effects (spin-offs). For example, a nation exporting oil may only need a derrick, while a nation exporting tractors develops complex social and technical infrastructures.

The Feudal Interaction Structure is defined by four rules:

1. Interaction between Centre and Periphery is vertical.

2. Interaction between Periphery and Periphery is missing.

3. Multilateral interaction involving all three parties is missing.

4. Interaction with the outside world is monopolized by the Centre (Periphery cannot interact with other Centre nations or their Peripheries).

This results in trade concentration where a Periphery nation conducts most trade with "its" Centre nation. It also leads to commodity concentration, where the Periphery exports only one or a few primary products. Because the Periphery typically has a much smaller Gross National Product ($GNP$), trade with the Centre represents a high percentage of its total economy, making it vulnerable to price fluctuations.

Feminist Traditions in International Relations

Feminist scholarship challenges traditional visions of world politics by focusing on the role of gender and women. It highlights that women have been subordinated in global industries such as tourism, agriculture, and the armed forces. Women participate in the world economy primarily as undervalued laborers, including domestic workers, diplomatic wives, and prostitutes outside military bases.

Feminism is similar to Marxism in its emphasis on structural inequality. It argues that capitalism and the system of states constitute a system of domination where women are at the bottom. Feminist critique targets traditional theories (constructed largely by men) that look at the world from the perspective of state leaders. The goal is to expose gender bias and offer views from the standpoint of the weak and powerless.

Feminist Propositions and the Critique of Realism

Feminist thinkers focus their critique on realist theory, identifying gender bias at every level. The language of "high politics" is male-oriented (e.g., "statesmen," "mankind"), suggesting world politics is a "man's world." There is a hidden assumption that the "public sphere" of power is masculine, while the "private sphere" of home is feminine. This has created a closed intellectual system.

Feminist approaches suggest that if concepts like state, power, and anarchy were not reinforced by male biases, international relations might emphasize:

• Cooperation

• Mutual gain

• Interdependence

• Societal understanding

A central argument is that women are systematically underrepresented. While gender relations differ by country, they are almost always unequal. The lack of representation is a matter of justice and a lost opportunity to use the capacities of half the human race. Global statistics indicate:

• Women fill only $17\%$ of parliamentary seats.

• Women fill only $14\%$ of ministerial-level positions.

Levels of Analysis in Feminist Theory

Feminist theory applies gender lens at multiple levels:

• Individual Level: Individuals are defined by gender, which influences how they think about world politics.

• State Level: States are typically led by men who bring specific male impulses to state power. The conflict orientation of many men may reinforce the conflict-inducing character of international anarchy.

Under-representation in positions of power is viewed as an indicator of social injustice and inequities within current economic and political systems.