1.

Introduction to the Field of International Development and Its Political

Context

2. Overview of the History and Evolution of International Development

1. Introduction to the Field of International Development and Its Political

Context

Defining International Development

International development is broadly understood as the process through

which countries, particularly in the Global South, seek to improve the
economic, political, and social conditions of their populations. It involves
efforts to reduce poverty, achieve economic growth, ensure equality, and
improve access to essential services such as education, healthcare, housing,
and sanitation. However, international development is not just about
increasing income levels; it also includes enhancing human rights,
democracy, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. Institutions
such as the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund,
along with governments and NGOs, play key roles in setting agendas and
implementing development projects.

What makes international development particularly complex is that it

operates at multiple levels—local, national, and global—and is influenced by
a variety of actors and ideologies. The process is not purely technical or
economic but also deeply political. It is shaped by how power is distributed in
the international system, how policies are formulated and implemented, and
how the interests of different stakeholders are managed or negotiated. For
this reason, the concept of development cannot be divorced from its political
context, as every developmental goal or project inevitably involves questions
of power, justice, and representation.

The Political Dimensions of Development

Development policies and strategies are heavily influenced by global political

dynamics. Historically, many development initiatives have been linked to
foreign policy interests of powerful countries. For instance, during the Cold
War, the United States and the Soviet Union both used foreign aid and
development programs as tools to gain influence over developing nations. In
today’s context, rising powers such as China are offering development
financing and infrastructure projects to expand their geopolitical reach,
exemplified by initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative. Therefore,
development becomes an instrument of diplomacy, soft power, and even
strategic competition.

Domestically, the politics of development are influenced by state capacity,

governance quality, corruption levels, and political will. In countries with
strong, transparent institutions, development tends to be more inclusive and
sustainable. In contrast, in countries with weak or authoritarian regimes,
development aid may be diverted for elite benefit or used as a political tool
to suppress dissent. Civil society, media, and grassroots movements also
play crucial roles in holding governments accountable and ensuring that
development truly benefits marginalized communities. Thus, development is
not merely a matter of resource allocation or economic planning—it is a
contested space where different actors negotiate outcomes based on
interests, ideologies, and power relations.

2. Overview of the History and Evolution of International Development

Colonial Legacies and the Post-War Development Agenda

The roots of international development are embedded in the colonial era,

during which European powers extracted resources from their colonies and
imposed governance systems that prioritized the colonizers’ economic
interests. The infrastructure and administrative systems set up during
colonization were rarely designed to benefit local populations. When many
countries gained independence after World War II, they inherited economies
dependent on primary exports, weak institutions, and high poverty levels.
These conditions laid the foundation for the modern development agenda, as
newly independent states sought to rebuild and redefine their societies.

In the aftermath of World War II, the idea of “development” gained

prominence in global policy discussions. The establishment of the Bretton
Woods institutions—the World Bank and IMF—marked the beginning of
structured financial support for development. U.S. President Harry Truman’s
1949 inaugural address introduced the concept of international development
as part of U.S. foreign policy, stating the need to support underdeveloped
areas of the world. This laid the foundation for a development framework
based on Western models of industrialization, modernization, and capitalist
growth. The Marshall Plan in Europe and subsequent aid programs in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America reflected a belief that economic assistance would
foster not only prosperity but also political stability and alignment with the
West during the Cold War.

Development Theories and Shifting Paradigms

The early decades of international development were dominated by

Modernization Theory, which argued that developing countries should follow
the same path of industrialization and urbanization as Western nations. This
theory was optimistic, assuming that with the right policies and investment,
traditional societies could “catch up” to the developed world. However, this
approach was criticized for being Eurocentric, ignoring historical injustices,
and failing to consider the structural barriers facing the Global South. In
response, Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory emerged in the
1960s and 1970s, arguing that underdevelopment was not a stage of
progress but a result of exploitative global economic structures that favored
developed countries.

The 1980s marked a major shift with the rise of neoliberalism, promoted by
the Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Structural Adjustment Programs
(SAPs), imposed by the IMF and World Bank, required developing countries to
adopt market-oriented reforms such as deregulation, privatization, and
austerity. While these reforms aimed to promote growth and reduce public
debt, they often led to social unrest, weakened public services, and
increased inequality. In response, the 1990s brought a renewed emphasis on
human development, championed by economists like Amartya Sen, who
argued for expanding individual capabilities and freedoms as central to
development.

The MDGs, SDGs, and the Future of Development

The turn of the 21st century saw a more holistic and coordinated approach to
development with the launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
in 2000. These eight goals aimed to address key global challenges, including
extreme poverty, hunger, disease, gender inequality, and environmental
degradation, with specific targets to be achieved by 2015. The MDGs
succeeded in mobilizing international efforts, particularly in areas like
reducing child mortality and improving access to education. However, they
were also criticized for being top-down, donor-driven, and overly focused on
measurable outcomes without addressing deeper structural inequalities.

Building on the MDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were

introduced in 2015 as part of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda. Unlike their
predecessors, the 17 SDGs are broader in scope, applying to all countries—
developed and developing alike—and emphasizing sustainability, inclusivity,
and interconnection. They include goals on clean energy, climate action,
peace and justice, and strong institutions, alongside traditional development
concerns like poverty and education. The SDGs represent a significant
evolution in the development paradigm, recognizing that challenges such as
climate change, inequality, and migration are global in nature and require
collective action.

Today, the field of international development is marked by both hope and

uncertainty. On one hand, advances in technology, global cooperation, and
awareness have created unprecedented opportunities to address
longstanding issues. On the other hand, rising nationalism, climate
emergencies, pandemics, and economic inequality threaten to reverse
decades of progress. Moreover, questions are increasingly being asked about
the legitimacy and effectiveness of international aid, the power dynamics
between donors and recipients, and the need to decolonize development
thinking. As the world continues to change, so too must the theories,
practices, and institutions of international development.

1. Comprehensive Security Concept of Barry Buzan

2. Approaches to the Study of International Development (Four Debates

of International Relations)

.
 1. Comprehensive Security Concept of Barry Buzan

Introduction to Barry Buzan’s Security Framework

Barry Buzan is one of the most influential scholars in security studies. His
book “People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International
Relations” laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen
School of Security Studies. Buzan challenged the traditional, narrow concept
of security that focused primarily on military threats and state sovereignty.
Instead, he proposed a broader and more comprehensive framework that
includes political, economic, societal, environmental, and military dimensions
of security. This multidimensional approach has significantly influenced how
security is conceptualized in both academic and policy circles.

The purpose of Buzan’s approach is to reflect the changing nature of threats

in the post-Cold War era. In a world where interstate wars were declining but
new challenges like terrorism, climate change, pandemics, and migration
were emerging, it became necessary to reconceptualize security. Buzan
emphasized that security is not just about survival from military threats but
also about the stability and well-being of political systems, societies,
economies, and ecosystems. He argues that insecurity in any one of these
sectors can affect national and international stability, making it essential to
address security as a complex and interconnected phenomenon.

The Five Sectors of Security

Buzan’s comprehensive security framework identifies five interrelated

sectors:

1. Military Security: This remains the traditional core of security studies

and concerns threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
 state from external or internal armed forces. While this aspect
dominated Cold War security thinking, Buzan argues that it should be
seen in relation to other sectors rather than in isolation.

2. Political Security: This refers to the organizational stability of states,

governments, and ideologies. Political security is endangered when
there are threats to the sovereignty of a state’s political institutions,
such as regime change, ideological subversion, or foreign political
interference. Political instability can also arise from within due to
authoritarianism, weak governance, or political polarization.

3. Economic Security: Economic stability and access to resources are

critical for national development and individual well-being. Economic
insecurity can arise from dependency on foreign markets, global
financial crises, trade imbalances, or unequal access to natural
resources. According to Buzan, economic decline or disruption can act
as both a cause and consequence of insecurity in other sectors.

4. Societal Security: This sector focuses on identity-based threats, such as

ethnic tensions, religious conflicts, cultural erosion, and issues related
to immigration or minority rights. Societal insecurity occurs when
communities feel their identity or way of life is under existential threat.
Buzan emphasizes that societal security is not necessarily tied to state
sovereignty but rather to collective identities.

5. Environmental Security: This is the most recent addition and deals with
the impact of environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and
natural disasters on human and national security. Climate change,
deforestation, water shortages, and pollution pose indirect but critical
threats that can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities in all other sectors.
Securitization and the Copenhagen School

One of the major theoretical contributions from Buzan and his colleagues in
the Copenhagen School is the concept of “securitization.” Securitization is
the process through which issues are framed as existential threats that
require emergency measures and justify actions outside the normal bounds
of political procedure. For example, when a state declares migration a
national security issue, it can enact restrictive policies or even military
responses that might otherwise be unacceptable.

Securitization is significant because it is not merely about identifying real

threats but about how threats are constructed through discourse. An issue
becomes a security concern not because it is objectively dangerous but
because it is portrayed and accepted as such by relevant audiences. This
process gives power to political actors to shape agendas and mobilize
resources. However, critics warn that securitization can lead to undemocratic
outcomes and abuse of power, especially when used to suppress dissent or
justify authoritarian measures.

Implications for International Development

Buzan’s comprehensive security framework has profound implications for

international development. Development cannot occur in a vacuum—it is
deeply influenced by security conditions in all five sectors. For instance, a
country facing economic instability and political corruption will struggle to
implement sustainable development goals. Similarly, environmental
degradation and societal tensions can derail progress in education, health,
and infrastructure.

Moreover, international development efforts need to be “conflict-sensitive”

and take into account the complex, interlinked nature of security challenges.
Development projects that ignore societal or political grievances may
inadvertently fuel instability. Conversely, development that promotes
inclusive governance, economic resilience, and environmental sustainability
contributes to long-term peace and security. Buzan’s framework encourages
a more integrated and holistic approach to policymaking that bridges the gap
between security and development.

2. Approaches to the Study of International Development (Four Debates

of International Relations)

First Debate: Realism vs. Idealism

The First Great Debate in International Relations (IR), taking place in the
interwar period (1919–1939), was between Realists and Idealists. Idealists
(also known as Liberal Internationalists) believed in the possibility of creating
a peaceful international order based on international law, institutions, and
cooperation. They were the intellectual force behind the creation of the
League of Nations and believed that rational diplomacy and moral values
could prevent wars.

Realists, on the other hand, argued that the international system is anarchic
and that states act primarily in pursuit of power and self-interest. Scholars
like Hans Morgenthau criticized idealists for being naïve and ignoring the
realities of power politics. According to Realism, war is an inevitable outcome
of the struggle for power among states, and peace can only be maintained
through a balance of power. This debate set the stage for foundational
questions in IR, including whether human nature is inherently conflictual or
cooperative, and whether international institutions can meaningfully restrain
state behavior.

In terms of international development, this debate has influenced how

development is perceived. Idealist-inspired institutions like the United
Nations promote cooperative efforts to eliminate poverty and conflict. Realist
perspectives, however, suggest that development aid and projects are often
tools of foreign policy used to gain influence or control over weaker states.
Thus, even developmental actions can be interpreted through the lens of
power and national interest.

Second Debate: Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism

The Second Debate (1950s–1960s) was methodological, pitting Traditionalists

against Behavioralists. Traditionalists used qualitative, historical, and
normative methods to study IR, emphasizing the importance of philosophy,
human judgment, and historical understanding. Behavioralists, inspired by
the rise of positivist social science, argued that IR should adopt scientific
methods, including empirical data, statistical analysis, and testable
hypotheses.

This debate influenced development studies by shifting focus from

ideological or philosophical arguments to evidence-based policy and
measurable outcomes. The rise of Modernization Theory during this time was
a product of the behavioralist approach. It posited that developing countries
could follow a linear path of economic growth, industrialization, and political
development modeled after the West. However, the failure of these theories
in practice, especially in Africa and Latin America, led to a critique of the
behavioralist reliance on Western-centric models and quantitative indicators.
The Behavioralists’ legacy remains in contemporary development policy,
where success is often measured in quantifiable outcomes such as GDP
growth, literacy rates, and health statistics. While useful, this approach has
been criticized for neglecting cultural, political, and historical contexts that
are crucial for meaningful development.

Third Debate: Neorealism/Neoliberalism vs. Critical Theories

The Third Debate (1980s–1990s) saw the clash between

Neorealism/Neoliberalism and Critical Theories. Neorealists like Kenneth
Waltz reformulated classical realism using structural analysis, focusing on the
international system rather than human nature. They argued that the
structure of anarchy forces states to pursue security and power. Neoliberals,
such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, acknowledged the anarchic
structure but emphasized the role of international institutions in facilitating
cooperation.

On the other side were critical theorists—including Marxists, Neo-

Gramscians, feminists, and poststructuralists—who challenged the
assumptions of mainstream IR. They argued that global inequalities,
historical exploitation, and dominant ideologies must be addressed to
understand international relations and development. For example,
Dependency Theory claimed that underdevelopment in the Global South is a
result of exploitation by the Global North, and that global capitalism
reproduces this inequality.

This debate has had significant impact on development discourse.

Neoliberalism led to the adoption of market-oriented reforms and structural
adjustment programs in developing countries. However, critical theories
exposed the failures and injustices of these approaches. Feminist scholars
emphasized the gendered nature of development, while postcolonial
theorists highlighted the need to decolonize knowledge and practices. This
debate expanded the field of development to include power, identity, and
justice as central concerns.

Fourth Debate: Positivism vs. Post-Positivism

The Fourth Debate, which began in the 1990s and continues today, is a
philosophical and epistemological conflict between Positivists and Post-
Positivists. Positivists believe that objective knowledge about international
relations is possible through scientific methods. They support hypothesis
testing, causal explanations, and empirical validation. Most policy-oriented
research falls under this tradition.

Post-Positivists challenge this by arguing that knowledge is socially

constructed and deeply influenced by power relations. They emphasize
interpretation, reflexivity, and the importance of language and discourse.
Post-structuralism, feminism, critical theory, and constructivism fall into this
category. These approaches argue that the study of IR and development
cannot be neutral or value-free, because the very categories and concepts
used (e.g., “developed,” “third world,” “modern”) are loaded with historical
and ideological meaning.

This debate has enriched international development by promoting diverse

perspectives and methodologies. Post-positivist approaches encourage the
inclusion of marginalized voices, local knowledge, and alternative
worldviews. They question whose interests are served by dominant
development paradigms and advocate for more democratic and participatory
models of development. The debate also challenges researchers and
practitioners to reflect on their own positionality and the ethical implications
of their work.
Conclusion

Both Barry Buzan’s comprehensive security framework and the four debates
of IR offer valuable insights into the complex relationship between security,
power, and development. Buzan’s five-sector model highlights how threats in
one area can destabilize others, urging a holistic understanding of
development challenges. Meanwhile, the IR debates reveal the ideological
and methodological struggles that shape our understanding of the
international system and development policy. By engaging with these
frameworks, scholars and practitioners can better navigate the contested
and evolving landscape of international development in the 21 st century.

1. Introduction to Theoretical Frameworks in International Development

Theories in international development serve as essential tools for

understanding global inequalities, policymaking, state behavior, and the
mechanisms that drive or hinder progress. These theoretical perspectives
help practitioners and scholars make sense of the world by offering
structured explanations of development outcomes and guiding the design of
development strategies.

The choice of theory profoundly influences how development is approached.

For instance, some theories view development as a linear, Western-centric
process, while others highlight the exploitative nature of global capitalism. In
this section, we explore the major theories—Liberal Internationalism,
Modernization Theory, Structuralism (Dependency Theory), World Systems
Theory, and Neo-Liberalism—along with their functional implications.

2. Liberal Internationalism

Liberal Internationalism is a political ideology rooted in the belief that

democracy, international institutions, economic interdependence, and
human rights contribute to global peace and development. It gained
prominence after World War I, with the establishment of the League of
Nations, and later with institutions like the UN, IMF, and World Bank.

Functionally, Liberal Internationalism assumes that states can cooperate to

solve global problems through dialogue and institutions. This theory
promotes development through foreign aid, trade liberalization, good
governance, and multilateral engagement. It supports the idea that a liberal
world order—marked by democratic governance and economic openness—
will result in more equitable and peaceful development outcomes. However,
critics argue that this framework often imposes Western models of
governance and development on non-Western societies, without adequately
considering their unique historical and cultural contexts.

3. Modernization Theory: Does Economic Development Cause

Democratization?

Modernization Theory emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as a dominant

explanation for how underdeveloped countries could progress. It posits that
all societies follow a similar path to development, moving from traditional to
modern stages. Key indicators of modernization include industrialization,
urbanization, education, and rational bureaucracy. This theory is closely tied
to the works of Walt Rostow and his “Stages of Economic Growth.”

A key functional implication of modernization theory is the belief that

economic development will eventually lead to democratization. The logic is
that as economies grow, a middle class emerges, demanding greater political
participation, rule of law, and accountability. Western aid programs in the
Global South during the Cold War were heavily influenced by this thinking.
However, critics have pointed out that this theory is overly deterministic and
Eurocentric. It neglects the role of colonialism, global inequality, and political
will, and it assumes that all societies must conform to a Western
developmental trajectory.

4. Structuralism and Dependency Theory

Structuralism and Dependency Theory emerged as critiques of

modernization theory, particularly from scholars in Latin America such as
Raúl Prebisch, Andre Gunder Frank, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. These
theories argue that underdevelopment is not a result of internal deficiencies
but rather the structural inequalities in the global economic system, where
wealthy nations exploit poorer ones.

Dependency theorists argue that the world is divided into a “core”

(industrialized nations) and “periphery” (developing countries), and that
development in the core is made possible by the exploitation and
underdevelopment of the periphery. This is reinforced through unfair trade
terms, debt dependency, and multinational corporate exploitation.

The functional implication of this theory is the advocacy for import

substitution industrialization (ISI), self-reliance, and reducing dependency on
Western economies. It also called for structural changes in international
trade, financial systems, and political institutions. However, while the theory
was influential in the 1970s and 80s, its application often resulted in
economic inefficiencies, protectionism, and corruption, leading to mixed
development outcomes.

5. World Systems Theory

An extension of dependency theory, World Systems Theory was developed

by Immanuel Wallerstein. This theory provides a more dynamic and historical
account of global inequalities by dividing the world into three zones: the
core, semi-periphery, and periphery. These zones are connected through
global capitalism, where the core countries benefit from cheap labor and raw
materials from the periphery.

Unlike dependency theory, World Systems Theory recognizes the possibility

of countries shifting positions within the system, such as semi-peripheral
states like Brazil or Turkey, which exhibit both developed and
underdeveloped characteristics. The global system is viewed as a single
capitalist world economy, and development is understood as relational rather
than isolated.

Functionally, this theory encourages critical reflection on globalization and

encourages South-South cooperation, alternative trade blocs, and resistance
to neocolonial institutions. However, critics argue that its macro-level focus
sometimes overlooks internal governance issues, local dynamics, and agency
within developing states.

6. Neo-Liberalism and the Washington Consensus

Neo-liberalism gained prominence in the 1980s with leaders like Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and institutions like the IMF and World Bank. It
is based on classical liberal economic principles such as free markets,
privatization, deregulation, and minimal state intervention. The Washington
Consensus was a set of policy prescriptions reflecting this ideology,
recommending structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in developing
countries facing debt crises.

Functionally, neo-liberalism shifted the focus of development from state-led

models to market-driven reforms. Countries were encouraged to reduce
public spending, open up to foreign investment, and privatize state-owned
enterprises. These reforms were supposed to generate growth, attract
foreign capital, and promote efficiency.

However, in practice, many countries experienced severe social

consequences: rising inequality, reduced public services, and increased
poverty. Critics argue that neo-liberal policies prioritized macroeconomic
stability over human development and undermined national sovereignty.
Despite these criticisms, neoliberalism remains influential in many
development institutions and policies today.

7. Critical Theories and Post-Development Thought

Critical theories—such as feminism, postcolonialism, and post-development

theory—challenge the assumptions of mainstream development models.
These theories argue that development has often served to reproduce global
hierarchies, marginalize indigenous knowledge systems, and promote
Western cultural hegemony.

Feminist development theory, for instance, critiques the gender blindness of

mainstream development and highlights the role of women in informal
economies, unpaid labor, and social reproduction. Post-development
theorists, like Arturo Escobar, go even further by suggesting that the very
concept of “development” is a Western-imposed discourse that delegitimizes
non-Western ways of life and knowledge systems.

The functional implication of critical theories is the promotion of grassroots

development, participatory approaches, cultural sensitivity, and alternative
development paths. These approaches emphasize local empowerment,
sustainability, and justice. While not offering a unified alternative model,
they urge scholars and practitioners to question dominant narratives and
remain reflexive in their work.

8. Conclusion

Understanding the major theories of international development is essential

for grasping the complexities of global inequality, progress, and change.
Each theory offers unique insights and prescriptions: Liberal Internationalism
champions cooperation, Modernization Theory emphasizes economic and
institutional evolution, Dependency and World Systems Theories highlight
global power imbalances, Neo-Liberalism promotes market solutions, and
Critical Theories question the very foundations of development practice.

In reality, development is not guided by one theory alone. Policymakers often

draw selectively from different frameworks depending on the context, goals,
and political climate. As development challenges grow more interconnected
—climate change, migration, pandemics—it becomes increasingly important
to adopt interdisciplinary, inclusive, and critical approaches that reflect both
global and local realities.

!
Does Economic Development Cause Democratization?

The relationship between economic development and democratization is a

central debate in both political science and development studies. The
question essentially asks: As countries become wealthier and more
economically developed, do they naturally transition into democracies? The
answer is complex and nuanced, with evidence supporting both sides of the
argument. This section explores the core arguments, theoretical background,
and empirical observations.

1. Theoretical Background: Modernization Theory

The strongest support for this question comes from Modernization Theory,
particularly the works of Seymour Martin Lipset. According to Lipset,
economic development creates the social conditions favorable for
democracy. As societies industrialize and grow economically, they develop:

A larger middle class

Higher levels of education

Urbanization and better communication systems

Greater political awareness and participation

These conditions, in theory, demand more accountability from governments
and foster democratic values like individual rights, pluralism, and political
freedom.

Functional Implication: This theory influenced much of U.S. foreign policy

during the Cold War. Western powers believed that promoting economic
development in the Global South would eventually lead to democratization
and reduce the appeal of communism.

2. Empirical Evidence: Mixed Outcomes

Some cases support this view. For example:

South Korea and Taiwan transitioned from authoritarian regimes to vibrant

democracies following periods of rapid economic growth.

Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary democratized after

significant economic liberalization following the fall of the Soviet Union.

However, there are many counterexamples:

China has experienced massive economic development without transitioning

to democracy.

Saudi Arabia remains authoritarian despite high levels of wealth.

Russia underwent partial economic reform in the 1990s but has seen
democratic backsliding.

These examples show that while economic development can create

favorable conditions for democracy, it does not guarantee democratic
outcomes.

3. Conditional Factors and New Perspectives

Recent scholarship argues that development alone is insufficient. Other

factors must align for democratization to occur, such as:

Political institutions and rule of law

Civil society and active media

International influences and pressures

Leadership choices and historical context

Some scholars propose the “threshold hypothesis”: economic development

may only support democracy after a certain income or education level is
reached. Others emphasize the “authoritarian resilience” theory, where
regimes adapt economically while maintaining political control, as seen in
China or the Gulf states.
 4. Conclusion: No One-Size-Fits-All Answer

While economic development can create the structural conditions that

support democracy, it does not cause it automatically. Political culture,
institutional design, leadership, and global dynamics all interact with
economic variables. In some cases, democracy may precede development
(like India); in others, development may not lead to democracy at all.

Ultimately, the link between economic development and democratization is

context-dependent. It is better to view economic development as one of
many possible enablers—not a guaranteed pathway—to democratization.

1. Introduction

Theories such as Structural Imperialism and World System Theory emerged

as critical responses to the dominant Western-centric models of development
like Modernization Theory and Liberal Internationalism. Both highlight how
the global system is structured in a way that benefits powerful countries at
the expense of weaker, developing ones. They argue that underdevelopment
in the Global South is not accidental or internal but a product of historical
exploitation and structural inequalities embedded in the international
political economy.
These theories are especially relevant in understanding why certain nations
remain poor despite globalization, foreign aid, and international trade. They
shed light on the persistent power asymmetries in global relations and offer
an alternative explanation to the mainstream notion that development is
simply a matter of policy reform or better governance.

2. Structural Imperialism: Johan Galtung’s Theory

Structural Imperialism is a theory developed by Norwegian sociologist Johan

Galtung in the 1970s. He argued that global inequality is not merely the
result of historical colonialism, but is maintained and reproduced through a
set of structural relationships between developed (core) and underdeveloped
(peripheral) countries. These structures are not always visible but are deeply
embedded in economic, political, and social systems.

According to Galtung, in both the developed and underdeveloped countries,

there exists an internal elite (center) and a marginalized population
(periphery). These elites in the core and periphery countries form alliances—
what he calls “center-center” relationships—that allow the core elites to
exploit their own peripheries as well as the global periphery. For example,
the elite in a developing country may benefit from foreign investment, arms
deals, or multinational companies, while the majority of the population
suffers from poverty, exploitation, and marginalization.

Functionally, this theory implies that aid, trade, and even diplomacy often
serve the interests of powerful nations and their allied elites in developing
countries. Structural imperialism thus critiques both the economic and
cultural dominance of the West, which shapes the values, political
institutions, and economies of the periphery in its image. For Galtung, peace
and true development require dismantling these hierarchical structures and
enabling self-reliance and equality in international relations.
 3. Core Concepts of Structural Imperialism

A few key concepts make Galtung’s theory impactful:

Vertical Interaction: The relationship between the core and periphery is

hierarchical and exploitative. Core countries dominate trade terms,
technology, and cultural narratives.

Feudal Interaction: The periphery is often segmented and isolated,

preventing unified resistance against the core. This is especially evident in
the way developing countries are encouraged to compete with each other for
foreign aid or investment.

Center-Periphery Division Within States: Not only do global inequalities exist

between countries, but they are also mirrored within nations. Urban elites
often live in a ‘core’ setting, benefiting from global linkages, while rural
populations live in conditions similar to international peripheries.

This theory explains why development efforts often fail to uplift the poorest
and instead enrich a small, globally connected elite. It calls for restructuring
both international and domestic systems of power to enable inclusive
development.

4. World System Theory: Immanuel Wallerstein’s Contribution

World System Theory (WST), developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the
1970s, expands upon the structuralist critique of global capitalism. Instead of
viewing each nation as an independent unit, WST sees the entire globe as a
single capitalist world economy organized into a hierarchy of core, semi-
periphery, and periphery zones.

The core countries are economically diversified, technologically advanced,

and politically stable. They control global markets, dictate trade rules, and
extract raw materials and cheap labor from the periphery.

The periphery countries are underdeveloped, dependent on exporting raw

materials, and suffer from political instability. They are structurally
disadvantaged in the global system.

The semi-periphery represents a transitional zone with characteristics of both

core and periphery. Countries like Brazil, Turkey, or India may have strong
industrial sectors but still face inequality and external dependency.

Wallerstein’s key contribution was his insistence that underdevelopment is

relational: the prosperity of core countries is linked to the exploitation of the
periphery. Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same
coin in the capitalist world system.

5. Historical Context and Application of WST

Wallerstein argued that the capitalist world economy has its origins in the
16th century with European colonial expansion. Colonial powers integrated
distant regions into a global division of labor, where colonies supplied raw
materials and consumed manufactured goods. This structure was reinforced
through slavery, military conquest, and imperial domination.

In the modern era, though formal colonialism has ended, the world system
remains intact. Multinational corporations, international financial institutions,
and trade agreements continue to uphold a system where core countries
benefit disproportionately. For example, African countries may export cocoa
and coffee but import expensive finished goods, receiving a fraction of the
global value. They are also trapped in cycles of debt and conditional aid,
controlled by institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

This theory is especially relevant for understanding global inequality, trade

imbalances, and the failure of development aid. It also explains why global
capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in a few countries while reproducing
poverty elsewhere.

6. Functional Implications of Both Theories

Both Structural Imperialism and World System Theory offer critical insights
that challenge mainstream development discourse. Functionally, they have
several implications:

Development is not neutral: It is tied to global power structures and

economic interests.

Aid and trade often reinforce inequality: Instead of uplifting poor nations,
they may entrench elite dominance and dependency.
Change requires systemic transformation: Addressing poverty and
underdevelopment is not just about better policies but about changing the
rules of the global economic system.

The role of elites is crucial: Domestic elites in developing countries often

collaborate with global powers, benefiting themselves while their populations
remain poor.

These theories have also inspired South-South cooperation, calls for debt
cancellation, fair trade, and critiques of globalization. They emphasize the
need for a more just and equitable international order that enables
sustainable and independent development.

7. Criticisms and Limitations

Despite their influence, both theories have faced criticism. Structural

Imperialism is sometimes seen as too deterministic, downplaying the agency
of developing countries and assuming that all international relationships are
exploitative. Similarly, World System Theory has been critiqued for its
economic determinism, underestimating cultural, political, and
environmental factors in development.

Additionally, WST’s rigid classification of countries does not always capture

the complexity of modern global dynamics. For example, some countries
have moved from periphery to semi-periphery or core-like status (e.g., South
Korea), suggesting that mobility is possible.
Yet, these criticisms do not negate the broader insight: that global
development must be understood in relational and historical terms, not as
isolated national projects.

8. Conclusion

Structural Imperialism and World System Theory remain foundational for

understanding the deep-rooted inequalities in the international system. They
reject the idea that development is a purely technical issue and instead
expose how it is shaped by historical power relations, economic structures,
and elite interests.

By reframing development as a political and structural issue, these theories

provide a compelling explanation for why billions of people remain in poverty
despite decades of development efforts. They call for not just reform, but
transformation—in both national policies and international systems—to
ensure genuine, inclusive, and sustainable development for all.

1. Understanding Development: From Economic Growth to Sustainable

Development

For much of the 20th century, development was largely synonymous with
economic growth. A country’s success was measured by how rapidly its GDP
increased, how many factories it built, and how much it exported. This
approach, often rooted in modernization theory, assumed that if a country
achieved industrialization and higher per capita income, it would
automatically experience improvements in education, health, governance,
and overall quality of life.

However, over time, scholars and policymakers began to realize that

economic growth alone does not equal development. Many countries
achieved high GDP growth while poverty, inequality, and environmental
degradation worsened. The 1980s and 1990s showed that countries could
grow economically while experiencing increasing corruption, poor healthcare,
limited access to education, and declining environmental standards. In
response, the definition of development began to evolve.

Today, development is viewed as a multidimensional process that includes

not just economic growth but also social justice, human well-being, gender
equality, environmental sustainability, and institutional strength. It is about
enhancing people’s freedoms and capabilities, as described by Amartya Sen
in his influential work Development as Freedom. This new approach paved
the way for a global rethinking of development goals, leading to the creation
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2. What Are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals

adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. They were designed to replace the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and offer a more comprehensive and inclusive
framework to guide global development efforts.

The SDGs aim to tackle the root causes of poverty, inequality, and
environmental degradation, while also promoting peace, justice, and strong
institutions. What sets the SDGs apart is their universality—they are
applicable not only to developing countries but also to developed nations,
recognizing that every society has development challenges to overcome.

Here are some of the key SDGs:

Goal 1: No Poverty

Goal 2: Zero Hunger

Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being

Goal 4: Quality Education

Goal 5: Gender Equality

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

Goal 13: Climate Action

Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Each of these goals is further broken down into targets and indicators,
allowing countries to monitor and measure their progress systematically.

3. The Shift Towards Sustainable Development

The adoption of the SDGs marked a significant paradigm shift in

development thinking. It moved the world away from a narrow focus on
income and economic outputs toward a more balanced model that integrates
economic, social, and environmental dimensions. This is the essence of
sustainable development: meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This shift was driven by growing awareness of global challenges like:

Climate change and the need for environmental protection

Persistent inequality between and within countries

Global health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic

Resource depletion and unsustainable consumption patterns

Sustainable development seeks to ensure that progress in one area (e.g.,

economic growth) does not come at the expense of others (e.g.,
environmental sustainability or social equity). For instance, a country may
boost its GDP through industrialization, but if this leads to air pollution,
deforestation, and displacement of local communities, it is not sustainable.

4. Key Principles of Sustainable Development

The SDGs are based on several key principles:

a. Inclusivity and “Leave No One Behind”

A core idea of the SDGs is to eradicate extreme poverty and reduce

inequality, ensuring that all groups—especially the marginalized—are
included in development. This includes addressing gender disparities,
empowering indigenous communities, and ensuring access to healthcare and
education for all.

b. Integration Across Sectors

Unlike past approaches that treated economic, social, and environmental

issues in silos, the SDGs emphasize integration. For example, improving
health outcomes (Goal 3) is linked to access to clean water (Goal 6), poverty
reduction (Goal 1), and education (Goal 4). Policymakers are encouraged to
design cross-cutting policies that reflect this interconnectedness.

c. Long-Term Vision

Sustainable development is not about quick fixes or short-term economic

gains. It requires a long-term perspective, particularly when dealing with
issues like climate change, infrastructure development, and environmental
conservation.
 5. Challenges in Implementing the SDGs

While the SDGs provide a comprehensive and noble agenda, implementation

remains a challenge. Many countries, especially in the Global South, face
limitations such as:

Lack of funding and resources

Political instability and corruption

Weak institutions and policy frameworks

Data gaps for monitoring progress

Furthermore, global crises—like pandemics, wars, or economic recessions—

can disrupt progress toward the goals. For instance, COVID-19 reversed gains
made on poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare in many countries.

Despite these challenges, the SDGs remain a powerful guiding framework.

They offer a shared language and set of priorities for countries, international
organizations, civil society, and the private sector to work toward common
goals.
 6. Conclusion

The journey from economic growth to sustainable development reflects a

maturing of global development thinking. While growth is still important, it is
no longer sufficient on its own. Today’s development efforts must be
inclusive, equitable, environmentally conscious, and future-oriented.

The Sustainable Development Goals provide a roadmap for this new

approach. Though ambitious and challenging, they offer the most
comprehensive vision to date for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world.
Their success depends on collective global effort, national commitment, and
local innovation. For students and practitioners of international development,
understanding the SDGs is essential to shaping a better future for all.

Introduction: The Importance of SDGs 1–7

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015 by the United

Nations as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, represent
a global call to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.
SDGs 1 to 7 specifically address some of the most pressing challenges in
human development: poverty, hunger, health, education, gender inequality,
water and sanitation, and energy. These goals are interlinked and
foundational for achieving the broader vision of sustainable development.
Below is an in-depth discussion of each of the first seven SDGs.

SDG 1: No Poverty
Goal: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Poverty is one of the gravest challenges faced by humanity. SDG 1 seeks to

eradicate extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $1.90 a day) and
reduce the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in
poverty in all its dimensions. The goal addresses not only income poverty but
also multidimensional poverty, which includes lack of access to education,
healthcare, housing, and basic services.

Targets under this goal include ensuring equal rights to economic resources,
access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of
property, inheritance, natural resources, and new technologies. Social
protection systems are also emphasized, particularly for vulnerable groups
such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, and children.

Poverty reduction is central to the entire SDG framework because it

intersects with all other development areas. Without tackling poverty, other
goals such as health, education, and equality cannot be effectively achieved.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

Goal: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote
sustainable agriculture.

SDG 2 targets both the quantity and quality of food. It aims to ensure that all
people, especially the poor and vulnerable—including infants—have access
to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round. Hunger and
malnutrition remain major global challenges, with millions of children stunted
or undernourished, primarily in low-income and conflict-affected regions.
This goal also focuses on sustainable agriculture—increasing productivity and
incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous
peoples, and family farmers. Sustainable food production systems and
resilient agricultural practices are essential to adapt to climate change,
extreme weather, drought, flooding, and other disasters.

A key part of SDG 2 is investing in rural infrastructure, agricultural research,

technology, and gene banks. These efforts are aimed at doubling agricultural
productivity and ensuring food systems are resilient and environmentally
sound.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being

Goal: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Health is a fundamental human right and a necessary condition for

sustainable development. SDG 3 seeks to reduce the global maternal
mortality rate, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other
communicable diseases, and reduce non-communicable diseases (NCDs)
such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

The goal also includes targets to reduce deaths and injuries from road traffic
accidents, strengthen mental health services, and achieve universal health
coverage (UHC). Ensuring access to affordable, quality health care services,
essential medicines, and vaccines is emphasized.

An important aspect of SDG 3 is the strengthening of health systems,

including health financing, the recruitment and training of the health
workforce, and improving early warning systems for health risks. The COVID-
19 pandemic highlighted the urgency of resilient health systems and global
cooperation in addressing public health crises.

SDG 4: Quality Education

Goal: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
learning opportunities for all.

Education is both a human right and a driver of development. SDG 4 aims to

ensure that all children complete free, equitable, and quality primary and
secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
The goal extends to early childhood development and pre-primary education,
technical and vocational training, and higher education.

Key targets also include eliminating gender disparities in education, ensuring

equal access to education for vulnerable populations (including persons with
disabilities and indigenous peoples), and promoting education for sustainable
development and global citizenship.

Quality education enables people to escape poverty, improves health

outcomes, empowers women and girls, and strengthens peace and
democracy. Investment in teachers, infrastructure, curricula, and digital
learning technologies is critical to achieving this goal.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

Goal: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
SDG 5 addresses the systemic inequalities and discrimination faced by
women and girls. Despite progress, gender disparities persist globally in
access to education, economic opportunities, political participation, and
basic rights. This goal seeks to eliminate all forms of violence against
women, including domestic abuse, human trafficking, and harmful practices
like child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM).

One of the key targets of SDG 5 is ensuring equal participation and

leadership for women in political, economic, and public life. It also
emphasizes unpaid care and domestic work, calling for shared
responsibilities within the household and improved access to reproductive
health and rights.

Gender equality is not only a moral imperative but also an economic one.
Empowering women leads to stronger economies, healthier families, and
more resilient communities. Achieving SDG 5 has a multiplier effect on the
success of other goals.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

Goal: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and

sanitation for all.

Access to clean water and sanitation is essential for life and dignity. Still,
millions of people globally lack access to safe drinking water and adequate
sanitation facilities. SDG 6 aims to achieve universal and equitable access to
safe and affordable drinking water and end open defecation, especially for
women, girls, and those in vulnerable situations.
It also promotes the improvement of water quality by reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping, and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals.
Efficient use of water resources, integrated water management, and
protection of water-related ecosystems (like rivers, wetlands, and lakes) are
vital components of this goal.

The SDG emphasizes the role of community participation in water and

sanitation management. Sustainable access to clean water not only improves
public health but also supports economic growth, agriculture, and climate
resilience.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

Goal: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy

for all.

Energy is central to nearly every major challenge and opportunity the world
faces today. SDG 7 addresses the need for universal access to modern
energy services, especially in rural and underdeveloped areas where people
still rely on biomass or kerosene, which are harmful to health and the
environment.

A major focus of this goal is on increasing the share of renewable energy

sources (such as solar, wind, and hydropower) in the global energy mix and
improving energy efficiency. It also calls for upgrading infrastructure and
technology for clean energy in developing countries and expanding access to
research and investment in energy innovation.

Achieving SDG 7 has widespread implications for climate change mitigation,

economic development, and social equity. Reliable energy enables education,
healthcare, communication, and job creation. Clean energy also reduces
greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation.

Conclusion: Interconnectedness of SDGs 1–7

The first seven Sustainable Development Goals represent the foundation for
human well-being and environmental sustainability. Each goal addresses a
specific area, but they are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. For
example, achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) depends on progress in SDG 4
(Quality Education) and SDG 3 (Good Health), while SDG 6 (Clean Water)
impacts SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).

These goals are not just technical targets but call for transformational
change in policies, systems, and mindsets. They require coordinated efforts
from governments, international organizations, civil society, and individuals.
Only through such integrated and inclusive approaches can the world move
closer to a sustainable and equitable future for all by 2030.

Summary of all topic’s

1) History and Evolution of International Organizations

Introduction

International organizations have played a pivotal role in shaping the

geopolitical landscape of the modern world. These organizations are critical
instruments of international diplomacy and cooperation, enabling states to
work together in pursuit of common goals such as peace, security, economic
development, and human rights. The development of international
organizations has been deeply influenced by the changing political, social,
and economic dynamics of the world.

Early International Cooperation (Pre-20th Century)

The roots of international organizations trace back to the 19 th century,

although informal forms of international cooperation existed even earlier.
Some of the early examples include the Congress of Vienna (1815), which
sought to establish a balance of power after the Napoleonic Wars. This was
not a formal international organization, but it laid the groundwork for
multilateral diplomacy. The establishment of the International Telegraph
Union (1865) and the Universal Postal Union (1874) marked the beginning of
more structured international cooperation on specific issues.

The League of Nations (1919–1946)

The League of Nations, founded after World War I, is often considered the
first formal international organization with the goal of maintaining peace and
preventing future conflicts. Its founding was a response to the devastation
caused by World War I, and it aimed to promote collective security. Although
it had some successes, it failed to prevent the rise of aggressive nationalism
and fascism, leading to World War II.

The United Nations (1945–Present)

The United Nations (UN), established in 1945 following the end of World War
II, represented a major shift in the structure and functioning of international
organizations. Unlike the League of Nations, the UN was designed with
stronger enforcement mechanisms, including the creation of the Security
Council with permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States), each possessing veto power. The UN’s
founding principles included the maintenance of international peace and
security, the promotion of human rights, and the advancement of social and
economic development.

Post-Cold War and Regional Organizations

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 led to
the expansion of international organizations, as new states emerged, and
existing states adapted to the new geopolitical landscape. Regional
organizations, such as the European Union (EU), African Union (AU), and
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), gained importance as they
focused on regional security, economic integration, and political cooperation.

Contemporary International Organizations

In the 21st century, international organizations continue to evolve. The World

Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) play central roles in the global economic system. Issues such as
climate change, human rights, and public health have led to the creation of
specialized international organizations like the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

2) Truman Doctrine and the Rehabilitation Plan

The Truman Doctrine (1947)

The Truman Doctrine, articulated by U.S. President Harry S. Truman in 1947,

was a foreign policy strategy aimed at containing the spread of communism
during the early stages of the Cold War. The doctrine came in response to
crises in Greece and Turkey, where communist movements were gaining
strength due to economic instability and political disarray following World
War II.

Truman’s doctrine stated that the United States would provide political,
military, and economic assistance to countries threatened by communism.
This marked the beginning of U.S. containment policy, which aimed to
prevent the spread of Soviet influence worldwide. The doctrine led to the
Marshall Plan (1948), a broader economic assistance program to rebuild
Western Europe, and the establishment of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) in 1949.

Rehabilitation Plan (Marshall Plan)

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program) was an

American initiative to aid Western Europe’s recovery after World War II.
Proposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, it offered substantial
economic aid to war-torn European countries. From 1948 to 1952, the U.S.
provided over $13 billion (equivalent to around $130 billion today) in grants
and loans.

The Marshall Plan was not just about humanitarian aid; it also had a strategic
purpose. It aimed to stabilize Western Europe economically and politically to
prevent the spread of communism. By boosting economic recovery, the U.S.
hoped to create strong, democratic governments that would resist Soviet
influence. The success of the Marshall Plan was crucial in rebuilding Western
Europe and creating the foundation for modern European integration.

3) Four Debates of Security: Deepening of Security, Social, Political,

and Economic

Introduction
The concept of security has evolved significantly over the years. Initially, it
was primarily viewed in military and territorial terms, focusing on defense
and protection from external threats. However, with globalization and the
changing nature of global conflicts, the concept of security has expanded to
include non-traditional dimensions such as social, political, and economic
security.

Deepening of Security

The deepening of security refers to broadening the concept of security

beyond traditional military concerns. It suggests that security is not just
about protecting states from external threats but also about addressing
human security. This approach considers the safety and well-being of
individuals, not just the integrity of states. It emphasizes that issues like
poverty, health crises, human rights violations, and environmental
degradation can also constitute security threats.

The human security concept, introduced by the UNDP in its 1994 Human
Development Report, is a key aspect of deepening security. It focuses on
ensuring individuals’ freedom from fear, want, and indignity. This approach
reshapes security from a state-centric focus to a people-centric one.

Social Security

Social security involves ensuring the basic social and economic rights of
individuals. It includes access to healthcare, education, adequate living
standards, and protection from poverty. In the context of international
security, social security means promoting social inclusion, equality, and
human development, which helps prevent social unrest and instability.

Political Security
Political security addresses the protection of human rights and the stability of
political institutions. It ensures that individuals can live in societies where
they have the right to participate in political processes and have their
freedoms protected. Political security includes democratic governance, rule
of law, and the protection of civil rights.

Economic Security

Economic security focuses on ensuring that individuals and nations have

access to the resources necessary to maintain a decent standard of living.
This involves addressing issues like poverty, unemployment, and economic
inequality. In international relations, economic security also means ensuring
access to critical resources, like energy, food, and water, and protecting
them from disruptions caused by conflict or global economic volatility.

4) Modernization Theory and its Five Stages

Modernization Theory is a framework used to explain the process of

development in societies. It originated in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly
among American scholars, and is heavily associated with Walt Rostow and
his book “The Stages of Economic Growth” (1960). The theory posits that
there is a linear process of development through which all societies must
pass to achieve modernity.

The Five Stages of Modernization

1. Traditional Society: This is the pre-industrial phase, where societies are

agrarian, technologically backward, and have limited social mobility.
These societies are often characterized by subsistence farming,
hierarchical social structures, and limited access to education.
2. Pre-Conditions for Take-Off: In this stage, societies begin to develop the
basic conditions needed for industrialization, including improvements
in infrastructure (like transport and communication), education, and
health. There is also a rise in investment and a more dynamic business
class.

3. Take-Off: This is the phase of rapid economic growth and

industrialization. The economy shifts from being primarily agrarian to
becoming more industrialized and urbanized. It is characterized by an
increase in investments, a growing middle class, and advancements in
technology.

4. Drive to Maturity: In this stage, the economy diversifies, and the

industrial base strengthens. The society begins to produce a wide
range of goods and services, and there is a general shift towards high-
tech industries, education, and welfare. The economic growth is
sustainable and becomes self-generating.

5. Age of High Mass Consumption: The final stage of modernization is

characterized by a shift from production to consumption. In this phase,
societies experience high levels of affluence, with widespread access
to consumer goods, services, and social welfare programs. It is marked
by an advanced, diversified economy and the emergence of a strong
service sector.
 5) Imperialism: Core, Periphery, and Semi-Periphery States &
Structural Imperialism

Imperialism refers to the policy or practice of extending a nation’s power and

dominance over other countries or territories, often through colonization,
economic exploitation, or military force. The World Systems Theory of
sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein provides a framework for understanding the
global economic system and the relationships between countries in an
imperialist system.

1. Core States: These are the economically dominant countries with

advanced technological capabilities, highly diversified economies, and
political power. Core states exploit peripheral states for resources and
cheap labor. Examples include the U.S., Germany, and Japan.

2. Peripheral States: These are the countries that are economically

dependent on core states, often providing raw materials, labor, and
markets for goods. These states are typically less developed and have
limited control over their economic and political systems.

3. Semi-Peripheral States: These states fall in between the core and

periphery. They have some degree of industrialization and economic
diversification but still rely on the core for certain resources and
markets. Semi-peripheral states, like India and Brazil, are important
players in the global economy.
Structural Imperialism refers to the way in which the global economic system
perpetuates inequality between core and peripheral states. In this view,
imperialism is not just about military conquest but about maintaining
economic dominance and structural inequality.

6) Dependency Theory

Dependency Theory emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a critique of

Modernization Theory. Scholars like Raúl Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank
argued that development is a process that is shaped by the historical and
structural exploitation of less developed countries (LDCs) by wealthier, more
industrialized nations. According to dependency theory, the global economic
system is designed to maintain the economic dominance of the wealthy
countries, leading to dependency in the peripheral and semi-peripheral
countries.

Dependency theorists argue that the development of wealthy nations has

been built on the underdevelopment of poorer nations. They emphasize the
need for structural changes in the global economic system, such as reducing
dependency on foreign capital and fostering self-sustaining economic growth
within developing countries.