By Aneesh Sood
In his world-systems theory, American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein presents the idea that the world is an economic system by which the dominant countries exploit weaker ones. This theory presents a fairly pessimistic view of capitalism. While there is no doubt that poorer countries have been subject to exploitation in the past, the problem does not inherently lie within capitalism itself but rather in how inclusive the capitalist system is within a particular country.
Wallerstein’s Word-Systems Theory holds that there are three kinds of countries in our world: core, peripheral and semi-peripheral. Core countries – such as the United States, Germany, etc. – are dominant capitalist countries with high levels of industrialization, and they exploit the peripheral countries for labor and raw materials. Peripheral countries, on the other hand, are less industrialized and mainly rely on core countries for their capital. Examples of these countries can be found in Africa and South America. Finally, semi-peripheral countries are those that share characteristics of both core and peripheral countries. India and Mexico are two good examples. According to Wallerstein, core countries are technological and economic hubs that attract the best talent and use the labor and materials provided by peripheral countries. The peripheral countries are not left with much, and whatever they do have remaining in their possession is scooped up by the wealthy few, leaving little to nothing for the poor, average citizen. It naturally follows that this kind of dynamic will have huge ramifications on peace, as increasing inequality within the peripheral countries leads to poverty, which then leads to violence. It may also cause resentment towards the core countries. Given all of these negative consequences, this exploitation and the resulting inequality is a problem that urgently needs to be addressed.
However, in terms of a proposed solution, we should strike a different tone than Wallerstein. The problems aren’t an inevitable parts of capitalism but instead problems in the inclusivity of capitalism. This is more or less the same argument Acemoglu and Robinson make in their book Why Nations Fail. They argue that economic success depends on how inclusive the institutions in a country are – institutions are those where many people have a say in the decision making, where the rule of law is guaranteed, and where there is an incentive structure that rewards peoples’ talents and therefore encourages them to innovate. On the other hand, extractive institutions are those in which the elite exploit others, extract wealth from non-elites, and where innovation does not occur because there is no incentive. To borrow an example from Acemoglu and Robinson, a real life demonstration of this can be seen by the United States’ Bill Gates and Mexico’s Carlos Slim. In the case of Gates, business innovation in a country such as the US which has primarily inclusive institutions and encourages innovation, leads to further creativity and further jobs in this country and ends up benefitting all in some way. In Slim’s case, however, wealth created through monopolistic practices in an extractive institution make the few elites richer while leaving nothing to the everyday citizen.
Therefore, the goal should be to attack inequality by promoting inclusive institutions across the world. This will lead to further innovations and increased economic prosperity. In addition, I also think it would be wise to have some kind of system that strongly monitors and punishes the potential exploitation of poorer countries. This would lead to a more fair economic system which encourages both innovation and peace.
On the same note, the United States and Europe is current facing a refugee crises from nations that are poorer. This crises is leading to the rise of scapegoat politics in the form of President Donald Trump in our country, Marine Le Pen in France, Nigel Farage in the UK and the Golden Dawn in Greece. Inequality is an issue that is intertwined with the security of the U.S., EU countries and the UK. What if wealthy countries commit themselves to settling refugees and helping pull poorer countries out of poverty?
The disruptive politics represented by the leaders above also leads to a negative nationalism that means more defense spending as suspicions between the countries increase. Less trust means less arms control. When do the wealthy countries of the world see the connection between less absolute poverty, security for refugees and arms control?
Aneesh Sood is an arms control intern with the Peace Economy Project. If you like this story, please link here and make a donation of $5 or more: https://peaceeconomyproject.org/wordpress/sample-page/contribute/
