Economic Development and Social Change Essay Example for Free

Economic Development and Social Change Essay Section 1 1) What is the primary goal of modernization theory in contrast to theories of capital formation? Compare and contrast Hoselitz’ formulation of modernization theory with Lewis’ theory of capital formation In the 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment, an idea named the Idea of Progress emerged whereby its believers were thought of being capable of developing and changing their societies. This philosophy initially appeared through Marquis de Condorcet, who was involved in the origins of the theoretical approach whereby he claimed that technological advancements and economical changes can enable changes in moral and cultural values. He encouraged technological processes to help give people further control over their environments, arguing that technological progress would eventually spur social progress. In addition, Émile Durkheim developed the concept of functionalism in the sociological field, which emphasizes on the importance of interdependence between the different institutions of a society and their interaction in maintaining cultural and social unity. His most well known work, The Division of Labour in Society, which outlines how order in society could be controlled and managed and how primitive societies could make the transition to more economically advanced industrial societies. Another reason for the emergence of the modernization theory derived from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which represented the widespread practical interest on economic development during a time when there was a constant relation between economic theory and economic policy that was considered necessary and obvious. It was by analysing, critiquing, and hence moving away from these assumptions and theories that the modernization theory began to establish itself. At the time the United States entered its era of globalism and a ‘can do’ attitude characterized its approach, as in the functionalist modernization advanced by B. Hoselitz: â€Å"You subtract the ideal typical features or indices of underdevelopment from those of development, and the remainder is your development program†. As he also presents in Social Structure and Economic Growth , this body of economic theory â€Å"abstracted from the immediate policy implications to which it was subject†Ã ‚  and also â€Å"assumed human motivations and the social and cultural environment of economic activity as relatively rigid and unchanging givens†(23-24). He claims that the difference lies in the extra examination of what is beyond simply economics terms and adjustments, by â€Å"restructuring a social relations in general, or at least those social relations which are relevant to the performance of the productive and distributive tasks of the society†(26). Most forms of evolutionism conceived of development as being natural and endogenous, whereas modernization theory makes room for exogenous influences. Its main aim is to attain some understanding of the functional interrelationship of economic and general social variables describing the transition from an economically â€Å"underdeveloped† to an â€Å"advanced† society. Modernization theory is usually referred to as a paradigm, but upon closer consideration turns out to be host to a wide variety of projects, some presumably along the lines of ‘endogenous change’ namely social differentiation, rationalization, the spread of universalism, achievement and specificity; while it has also been associated with projects of ‘exogenous change’: the spread of capitalism, industrialization through technological diffusion, westernization, nation building, state formation (as in postcolonial inheritor states). If occasionally this diversity within modernization is recognized, still the importance of exogenous influences is considered minor and secondary. I do not view ‘modernization’ as a sing le, unified, integrated theory in any strict sense of ‘theory’. It was an overarching perspective concerned with comparative issues of national development, which treated development as multidimensional and multicausal along various axes (economic, political, cultural), and which gave primacy to endogenous rather than exogenous factors. (Tiryakian, 1992: 78) In the context of Cold War modernization theory operated as a highly interventionalist tool enabling the ‘free world’ to impose its rules and engage in ‘structural imperialism’. Typically this occurred in the name of the forces of endogenous change such as national building, the entrepreneurial spirit and achievement orientation. In effect modernization theory was a form of globalization that was presented as endogenous change. Modernization theory, therefore, emerged from these ideas in order to explain the process of modernization within societies. The theory examines  not only the internal factors of a country but also how with the aid of technology and the reformation of certain cultural structures, â€Å"traditional† countries can develop in the same manner that more developed countries have. In this way, the theory attempts to identify the social variables, which contribute to social progress and the development of societies, and seeks to expl ain the process of social evolution. The question of the functional relations between all or most culture traits is left open, and special attention is â€Å"given only to those aspects of social behaviour that have significance for economic action, particularly as this action relates to conditions affecting changes in the output of goods and services achieved by a society†(30). They conceptualize the process of development in a similar linear, evolutionary form as older evolutionary theories of progress, but seek to identify the critical factors that initiate and sustain the development process. These factors, they argue, are both intrinsic and extrinsic: the former involves the diffusion of modern technologies and ideas to the developing world, while the latter requires the creation of local conditions, such as the mobilization of capital, which will foster progress. Modernization theorists believe that primitive production, an anachronistic culture, and apathetic personal dispositions combine to maintain an ar chaic socioeconomic system that perpetuates low levels of living. Modernization theorists hold that policies designed to deal with these traditional impediments to progress primarily through economic intervention, provide the key to prosperity. Overall, Hoselitz’s modernization theory is a sociological theory of economic growth that determines the mechanisms by which thesocial structure of an underdeveloped economy was modernized – that is, altered to take on the features of an economically advanced country. Hoselitz’s answer was based on the â€Å"theory of social deviance† – that is, that new things were started by people who were different from the norm. Unlike Lewis’ theories that we will revise later, Hoselitz thought that small-scale private economic development was the best way of achieving development in Third World economies. This particularly involved revaluing what he called â€Å"entrepreneurial performance†, something that Lewis also agrees with, but in a way that provided not only wealth but also social status and political  influence. In Chapter 8 of Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth, Hoselitz focuses on the creation of â€Å"generative cities† ( that is, cities producing innovations) rather than traditional rural areas were the focal points for the introduction of new ideas and social and economic practices. Many of the early colonial settlements in the New World and South Africa, Hoselitz claimed, were parasitic, enjoying a certain degree of economic growth â€Å" within the city itself and its surrounding environs† only at the expense of the rest of the region, which was ruthlessly exploited for its natural and agricultural resources (p.280). Although prescriptions for inducing social change and removing cultural obstacles to economic modernization in developing countries may be described as social policies, they do not seek to deal directly with mass poverty and its attendant problems of malnutrition, ill-health, inadequate housing, illiteracy, and destitution. These critical welfare concerns are seldom referred to by modernization theorists, namely by Hoselitz. Instead, the implicit assumption in his writings is that the process of economic development and social change will raise levels of living and remedy these problems automatically. Since economic growth, engendered by capital investments in modern industry, will expand employment, the proportion of the population in subsistent poverty will steadily decline. The increasing numbers of workers in the modern economy will experience a steady rise in real income that will be sufficient not only to satisfy their basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter but permit them to purchase consumer commodities as well as social goods such as medical care, education, and social security. Arthur Lewis was one of the first economists to create a theory about how industrialized and economically stable countries are capable of helping undeveloped countries progress. He presented this theory in his work Economic Development with the Unlimited Supplies of Labor† where he brings about the concept of capital formation. He defines it as the transfer of savings from households and governments to business sectors, resulting in increased output and economic expansion. He claims that his â€Å"model says, in effect, that if unlimited supplies of labor are available at a constant real  wage, and if any part of profits is reinvested in productive capacity, profits will grow continuously relatively to the national income, and capital formation will also grow relatively to the national income†(158). From here bridged off his development of the two-sector model of the economy and the theory of dualism. Both posit the existence of a substantial pool of underutilized labo r in a backward, subsistent agricultural sector of an economy that perpetuates low levels of production and mass poverty. This model comprises two distinct sectors, the capitalist and the subsistence sectors. The former, which may be private or state-owned, includes principally manufacturing industry and estate agriculture; the latter, mainly small-scale family agriculture and various other types of unorganized economic activity. Here the capital, income and wages per head, the proportion of income saved, and the rate of technological progress are all much higher in the capitalist sector. The subsistence sector is both at a very low level, and also stagnant, with negligible investment and technical progress and no new wants emerging. Institutional arrangements are the ones maintaining this chronic disequilibrium between the sectors, implicit in these differences in real income and productivity. In the extended family the members receive approximately the average product of the group even if the marginal product is much less. The process of development, initiated by an increase in the share of capitalist s in the national income, I essentially the growth of the capitalist sector at the expense of the subsistence sector, with the goal of the ultimate absorption of the latter by the former. To some extent, this is similar to Hoselitz’s development of the modernization theory, whereby the claims that the formation of his generative cities (a) creates a new demand for industrial raw materials from the surrounding region, and (b) attracts new population to the cities, thereby increasing the demand for food from the countryside. The net effect of these forces is a â€Å"widening of economic development over an increasing area affecting a growing proportion of the population outside the city†(Hoselitz, 282). However, Lewis’ theory has several limitations and conditions, most importantly that his theory can be applied only in countries with unlimited supplies of labor. Unlimited supplies of labor arise from the employment of  more workers than is productively effective. Lewis went through all of the areas of Caribbean society where he thought there were pools of labour in which the marginal productivity was negative, negligible or zero. His plan now was to make this a potential, industrial labour force. He could take all of the labour away from agriculture, away from casual labour, without lowering the profit margins of the places where they are currently employed. This was not a radical, disruptive assault on the existing economic order, which resulted in one of the main reasons that his theory was so successful. Ineffective production, occurring when an additional worker prevented the previous one from producing another product (hence equaling a negative marginal productivity) was common in the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and other undeveloped regions of the world. Several sectors of the economy employ too many people with negligible, zero or negative marginal productivity. According to Lewis these productively unnecessary individuals are employed in agriculture, or are casual workers, petty traders, or women of the household. He claims that the transfer of these people’s work from these areas towards commercial employment is one of the most notable features of economic development. The second source of labor for expanding industries is the increase in the population resulting from the excess of births over deaths. After his analysis of the effect of development on death rate, whereby he concludes that â€Å"[death rates] come down with development from around 40 to around 12 per thousand†(144), he claims therefore that â€Å"in any society where the death rate is around 40 per thousand, the effect of economic development will be to generate an increase in the supply of labor†(144). From this point of view, he states, †Å"there can be in an over-populated economy an enormous expansion of new industries or new employment opportunities without any shortage of unskilled labor†(145), though too many people could again cause ineffective production. He clarifies this by saying, â€Å"Only so much labor should be used with capital as will reduce the marginal productivity of labor to zero†(145). This can be achieved by offering and maintaining decently high wages. The wages offered should be only slightly higher than the wages available in the subsistence sector, since wages that are too high may attract more workers than needed. But firstly, and perhaps most importantly, entrepreneurial-minded capitalists are required in order to invest in the nation. Tax holidays attract the foreign capitalists. It is not a very difficult task, because they have very good incentives to come. The planter class in the Caribbean seemed just like the planter class in the American South – it had no desire to go industrial and no desire to go competitive. It was still trapped in a situation between an old monopoly system and a market situation since they were able to negotiate for a protected market for sugar, not a competitive market. Lewis then looked around realized the only way he could keep this program of industrialization launched would be by visiting England and America where capitalists and entrepreneurs were flourishing and foster their entrance into the Caribbean. Again, he employed the concept of a dual economy where a subsistence sector existed, but also from where he created from scratch this modern industria l sector to establish on modern capitalism. Capitalists in North America and Europe found these labouring conditions and costs in the Caribbean quite attractive. Getting this labour to the imported capitalists would not be resisted locally because he was taking those labourers with marginal productivity of zero. Once they began working, he would then re-invest more capital into the factory, so that it could expand, employ more workers, export more products, and increase profits, hence developing a self-feeding system that would eventually lead the national income to grow. Although Hoselitz also is of the belief that the formation of a dual economy is beneficial, rather than necessarily attract foreign capitalists through such incentives, Hoselitz believes that the creation of westernized cities led the way forward. He claims that cities modelled after the Western cities exhibited a spirit difference from the traditionalism of the countryside. In this way, he differs slightly from Le wis in that he favored a shift in political power away from traditional leaders and toward total control by economic and urban modernizers in underdeveloped countries, not necessarily foreign entrepreneurial capitalist as Lewis asserts. Lewis knew that some products would work better than others, so he developed an Industrial Programming Market – a number of basic calculations about those particular commodities, if produced in the Caribbean, would be  particularly competitive internationally. And so as a result of this study Lewis found that the production of airbrushes, gloves, furniture, needles, shirts, and leather goods would be particularly good to produce, given the skills of the labour force available at the time. For the self-feeding system to be a continuous process, costs of labour had to remain fairly constant. If the cost of labour rose too rapidly, they would not be sustained since the goods would no longer be internationally competitive. The key to this model is indeed international competitiveness. Capitalists can create more capital when the supply of money is higher, and hence if governments create credit, inflation arises yet does not have the same effect as the inflation that arises durin g depression periods. This inflation only has an effect on the prices in the short-run so that in the long run the final effect equal to what it would be if capital was formed by the reinvestment of profit. Lewis discusses at some length the methods by which governments of underdeveloped countries can raise revenue, especially the substantial funds required for government capital formation. For familiar political and administrative reasons much of this revenue has to be raised from indirect taxes, notably import and excise duties and export taxes. He argues that indirect taxation is more likely to increase than to decrease the supply of effort: The taxpayer usually does not know how much tax is included in the prices of the articles he buys, so in so far as the disincentive effect of taxation is psychological it can be avoided by using indirect rather than direct taxes†¦ If it is an increase in indirect taxation, the effect is probably to increase effort rather than to reduce it (414). Because of the multiple restrictions in this model, it is designed for countries with unlimited supplies of labor and hence this growth has a limit: â€Å"The process must stop when capital accumulation has caught up with population, so there is no longer surplus labor†(172). Furthermore, if wages are too high, they may consume the entirety of the profit leading to no re-investment. Several other reasons for the end of capital formation vary; the occurrence of natural disasters, war or a change of political system can also prevent further economic expansion in a closed economy. Lewis’ model is powerful but also highly restricted and specific to only a handful of nations. Some critics also claim that the distinction between the two sectors is too sharp; that small-scale agriculture is often far from stagnant and the emergence of the production of cash crops by individual producers has in fact been a key instrument in economic development since capital formation is actually created in this type of agriculture. Also, this model requires low wages for the labor force, yet very low wages result in a wide gap between the lower and upper class in a society, an issue that many have questioned thoroughly. Lewis says openly that exploitation can easily occur in this model, but that it is part of capital accumulation. He believes that one has to sacrifice a generation to grow the economy, because he assumed that if all goes well and more consumers are attracted to Caribbean, they will generate more business, and the economy will grow to the point where the weal th can be redistributed to the people. He reckoned that it would take, given the rate of growth that he observed in the Caribbean, one generation, thus a period between 40 and 50 years, to grow the economy and claim that poverty could be eradicated in this region. And yet the cost of this would be exploiting this generation, so that their children could benefit from it later. Hoselitz, as stated earlier, applied the ideas of Parsons and other sociologists to an analysis of the development process under the assumption, drawn from Adam Smith, that increasing productivity was associated with more detailed social divisions of labor: A society on a low level of economic development is, therefore, one in which productivity is low because division of labor is little developed, in which the objectives of economic activity are more commonly the maintenance or strengthening of status relations, which social and geographical mobility is low, and in which the hard cake of custom determines the manner, and often the effects, of economic performance. An economically highly developed society, in contrast, is characterized by a complex division of social labor, a relatively open social structure from which caste barriers are absent and class barriers are surmountable, in which social roles and gains from economic activity are distributed essentially on the basis of achie vement, and in which, therefore, innovation, the search for and exploitation of profitable market situations,  and the ruthless pursuit of self-interest without regard to the welfare of others is fully sanctioned. (Hoselitz, 1960: 60). These preceding theories both provide us with some preliminary indications and developments of views of modern social orders broader than that envisaged in the initial models provided. They stress the historical dimensions of the process of development, emphasizing that this process is not universal, something in the very nature of humanity or in the natural development of human societies. Instead, the modernization process is fully bound to a certain period in human history, even though in itself it is continuously developing and changing throughout this period. Development and the challenges it brings forward constitute a basic given for most contemporary societies. Though it certainly is pervasive in the contemporary setting, it is not necessarily irreversible in the future, and it would be wrong to assume that once these forces have impinged on any â€Å"society†, they naturally push toward a given, relatively fixed â€Å"end-plateau.† Rather, as we have seen, they evoke within different societies, in different situations, a variety of responses which depend on the broad sets of internal conditions of these societies, on the structure of the situation of change in which they are caught, and the very nature of the international system and relations, whether those of â€Å"dependency† or of international competition. Section 2 5) Briefly outline David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage; then outline in greater detail Samir Amin’s theory of periphery capitalism and why he thinks that trade between the central and peripheral capitalist economies does not meet the conditions of Ricardo’s theory In 1817, David Ricardo, an English political economist, contributed theory of comparative advantage in his book Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. This theory of comparative advantage, also called comparative cost theory, is regarded as the classical theory of international trade. According to the classical theory of international trade, every country will produce their commodities for the production of which it is most suited in terms of its natural endowments climate quality of soil, means of transport, capital, etc. It will produce these commodities in excess of its own requirement and will exchange the surplus with the imports of goods from other countries for the production of which it is not well suited or which it cannot produce at all. Thus all countries produce and export these commodities in which they have cost advantages and import those commodities in which they have cost disadvantages. Ricardo states that even if a nation had an absolute disadvantage in the production of both commodities with respect to the other nation, mutually advantageous trade could still take place. The less efficient nation should specialize in the production and export of the commodity in which its absolute disadvantage is less. This is the commodity in which the nation has a comparative advantage. Ricardo takes into account the following assumptions: there are two countries and two commodities; there is a perfect competition both in commodity and factor market; cost of production is expressed in terms of labor; labor is the only factor of production other than natural resources; labor is homogeneous i.e. identical in efficiency, in a particular country; labor is perfectly mobile within a country but perfectly immobile between countries; there is free trade; production is subject to constant returns to scale; there is no technological change; trade between two countries takes place on barter system; full employment exists in both countries; there are no transport costs. In 1973, Samir Amin, an Egyptian political economist, begins his dialogue in Unequal Development by referring to Marx’s writing on non-European societies, namely India and China, and creates a work in which he reevaluates Peter Evans theory of Dependent Development and simultaneously presents his theory of peripheral capitalism in developing societies. He shows how these early ideas established the notion of the centre and the periphery, and how â€Å"the development of capitalism in the periphery was to remain extraverted, based on the external market, and could therefore not lead to a full flowering of the capitalist mode of production in the periphery†(199). He then begins to develop his own theory of the transition to peripheral capitalist economy by questioning David Ricardo’s assumptions in his theory of comparative advantage, and later outlines nine theses to support his views. Peripheral capitalism is based on, but not identical to, the imperialistic relationships developed between colonizing nations and their colonies. In this economic relationship, the players are the same – the colonizing nation becomes the center, while the colony becomes the periphery – but the role that each society plays is different from the classic imperialist relationship. The peripheral economy is marked by extreme dependence on external demand, or extroversion, as well as stunted and unequal rates of development within the society. Amin maintains that in order for these societies to break free of extroversion and develop, they must be actively removed from the peripheral capitalist relationship. He proposes nationalization and socialization as an alternative, a system which-when contrasted with peripheral capitalism-could not be a more different approach to economic development. Unfortunately for the developing nations, socialism was largely uns uccessful as an economic experiment, consistently causing stagnation and underdevelopment in societies that attempted it. Peripheral capitalism evolves from colonial imperialism, an economic system in which the colonizing nation penetrates deep into the heart of the colonial economy in an effort to manipulate it towards the benefit of the mother country. Every aspect of the colonial economy is geared not towards the expansion of the colonial economy itself, but rather towards the production of something that the colonizing nation cannot produce itself. As a result, the success and the existence of a particular sector of the colonial economy is dependent upon whether or not the mother country has a need for that sector; colonial economies are rooted heavily in external demand. This extroversion leaves the colonial economy without an indigenous set of linkages, as economic sectors that will benefit from colonial activity function mostly within the economy of the colonizing nation. When autocentric, or internally-driven, economic growth is blocked in such a way that a peripheral economy emerges with the sa me sort of external dependence on the central economy that was suffered by the colonial economy. The peripheral economy is typically plagued by an unequal division of labor, or specialization, between itself and the central economy. While the latter enjoys the benefits and progress associated with industrialization, the periphery tends to remain predominantly agricultural. What little industry may exist in the peripheral economy is most often light industrial production of small, simple goods, as opposed to the heavy industrial production of machinery and complex products that characterizes the central economy. Additionally, Amin argues that there is often a â€Å"hypertrophy of the tertiary sector†(200) of the peripheral economy; too much of the economy is devoted to providing services, â€Å"expressed especially in the excessive growth of administrative expenditure†(201) effectively anchoring the societys development due to a lack of productive advancement. Yet another malady of the peripheral economy is the reduced value of the local ‘multiplier effect’, another result of the remnants of economic infrastructure modification from the colonial period. If an economy is replete with linkage sectors, then any money put into the leading sector will generate a multiplied effect in all of the forward and backward linkages of that industry. Peripheral economies, however, are effectively stripped of linkages during their colonial phase of development hence spending in the peripheral economy ultimately benefits the central economy, where most of the peripheral industries linkages are realized. Not only is the local multiplier effect reduced in the peripheral economy, but Amin claims that it also leads to â€Å"the marked propensity to import†(201), and thus is in effect transferred to the central economy, where revenue is collected every time money is spent in the periphery. Because peripheral input ultimately goes abroad, loc al businesses are not stimulated, as they would be if linkages were realized within the periphery, worsening the already-detrimental conditions of the peripheral economy. Adding to the lack of stimulation of local business is the fact that peripheral industries tend to be dominated by monopolies established from foreign capital. After the majority of revenue goes to the central economy through linkage industries, what little money remains in the local economy is often put into businesses controlled by central capitalists. In other words, almost every dollar put into the periphery ultimately finds its way to the central economy. In Unequal Development, Amin maintains that no economy can be expected to develop without successfully making the transition from extrovert to introvert so that it can â€Å"assert the dominance of the exporting sector over the economic structure as a whole†(203), and that no peripheral capitalist economy can independently heal the economic wounds inflicted by colonialism. Therefore, the only way to promote development in peripheral capitalist economies is to actively remove them from their disadvantageous relationship with the central economy, which, according to Amin, should be replaced by internal nationalization and socialization of the once-peripheral economy. The establishment of a nationalist socialist state would serve both to eliminate external dependence, as well as to reconcile the disarticulated nature of the local economy. The first critique of Ricardo’s theory made by Amin is its lack of specificity – claiming that his examples of trade between Portugal and England were very exclusive to intra-European trade and could not exactly be applied to relations between several different country relations around the World. If there is a large difference in GDP between two countries, then what statistics demonstrate is that the country with the smaller GDP would benefit more from this transaction, and this was â€Å"the source of special problems that dictate[d] development policies in the periphery that [were] different from those on which development of the West was based†(201); a factor that Ricardo hadn’t considered it in his theory. Another vital yet neglected consideration was the importance of the commodity in terms of a nations’ GDP: wine was a big section of the Portuguese GDP, greater than it was for England, so the trade benefited the Portuguese to a greater extent than it did to the British. He elaborates upon this idea by explaining how the relation between central and periphery assumes the mobility of capital, since the centre is investing greatly in the periphery. What the periphery chooses to specialize in is to a large extent determined by the centre, since very often the selection comes after it has been forced to serve the imperial country. As he clearly states, this type of trade â€Å"compels the periphery to confine itself to the role of complementary supplier of products for the production of which it possesses a natural advantage: exotic agricultural produce and  minerals†(200). The result is a decrease in the level of wages in the periphery for the same level of productivity than at the centre, hence limiting the development of industries focused on the home market of the periphery. The disarticulation due to the adjustment of the orientation of production in the periphery to the needs of the centre prevents the transmission of the benefits of econo mic progress from the poles of development to the economy as a whole. Overall, this is what Amin defines by ‘unequal specialization’, which in turn violates the conditions of Ricardo’s theory. Another argument that Amin makes involved the Keynesian multiplier effect. He claims that this effect does not take place to the situation at the centre because of its advantaged stage of monopoly, characterized by difficulties in producing surplus. Due to this unequal specialization as well as the significant propensity to import that follows, the effect is a transferring of multiplier effect mechanisms and the accelerator theorem from the periphery to the centre. Furthermore, Amin includes the social aspect of this process, which is a result of the individual history of each nation and the power imbalance created. Amin finds that the nature of the pre-capitalist formations that took place previously and the epoch in which they became integrated in the capitalist system are both very important factors in determining the presence or lack of development to come. He also draws a line between two different terms, ‘peripheral formations’ and ‘young central formations’, whereby the latter, based on the predominance of a simple commodity mode of production, are capable of independently evolving towards a fully developed capitalist mode of production. Amin terminates by asserting â€Å"the domination by central capital over the system as a whole, and the vital mechanisms of primitive accumulation for its benefit which express this domination, subject the development of peripheral national capitalism to strict limitationsâ₠¬ (202). These countries would hence not gain equal benefits under this trade, only if the patterns of specialization were undertaken in more ideal conditions, conditions that approximated Ricardo’s theory more closely. Rather than being a positive force for development, this type of trade becomes a force created under development. It will contribute to development in the centre, and underdevelopment in the periphery. He concludes that this inevitably hinders the development of peripheral nations: â€Å"the impossibility, whatever the level of production per head that may be obtained, of going over to auto centric and auto dynamic growth†(202).

The Cultural Reproduction And Social Reproduction Sociology Essay

The Cultural Reproduction And Social Reproduction Sociology Essay The word Reproduction as defined in dictionaries is simply the act of copying something whether it be a document, a sound, a culture, so that is looks exactly like the original. Reproduction can be applied to both culture and society so that it turns out to be a process by which aspects of culture are passed on from person to person from society to society. This happens in a number of different ways and so it is helpful to understand a small part of this reproductions history; previously people moved from different countries and places taking with them their customs, traditions, and even behaviors which were learnt by other individuals, which lead to interaction between different people and therefore resulted in the transfer of this information which was accomplished through a process known as socialization. From this we see that both social reproduction and cultural reproduction are very much connected to each other. Cultural reproduction is the transmission of existing cultural values and norms from generation to generation. This is a process by which there is a continuity of cultural experience that has been carried on across time (which often results in social reproduction). Every society is mainly consisted of 3 classes: the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class which may all be further subdivided into smaller classes (ex: occupation, etc.) When we look further into cultural reproduction of the social class, we find two opposing views concerning this issue: A- Culture as a set of class-instilled values B- Culture as a set of class-based skills and experiences A Every social class (especially the poor) has a set of values unique to it: a- Work ethic b- Family values c- Independence vs. dependence These values heavily influence the day-to-day behavior of each class. They are passed along widely in whole from one generation to the next and because of the self-achievable nature of these values, the members of various classes with either seize opportunities for advancement or will not. B When it comes to culture as a set of class-based skills and experiences, we are lead to 4 different outcomes. a- Self-promotion or self-elimination: This means by adjusting ones goals to match real chances of success as well as embracing or avoiding situations that could advantageous depending upon whether the individual feels socially comfortable. b- Institutional fit or mismatch: Children from the middle-class society are equipped with skills valued by ordinary institutions as a result of their parents socialization and valued cultural capital. Meanwhile, individuals with less cultural income are asked to perform at the same level as their more capitally-endowed peers and thus have to work harder to keep even. c- Informed vs. uninformed investments: Individuals with fewer cultural resources end up in less desirable positions and get less out of their cultural investments (such as college selection) through unwise decisions. d- Direct inclusion or exclusion: Members of the middle and upper classes tend to recruit individuals from those who share the same lifestyles, tastes, and experiences, and therefore exclude those who do not share them. On the other hand, social reproduction is rather a sociological term which refers to a process which both strengthens and preserves characteristics of a given social structure of tradition over a period of time. Even though reproduction may mean copying what existed in the past, it may not occur exactly for all societies. This is due to the environmental, social, economic conditions as well as technologies and processes that keep changing over time; eventually there are new individuals who have different characteristic and so relate to others in new and different ways. An example of social reproduction can be seen in birds such as pigeons and parrots, which sit together in a row on a wire and each facing the same direction. Even when they fly, they do so in the same direction and then come back to sit again on the same wire, all facing the same direction (like they are following something). Like them, social reproduction requires us to maintain the uniformity of language as well as communication (just like the birds have to follow one direction) over time. Communication means to stay connected. Just as males and females need each other to biologically reproduce, we need each other to socially reproduce so that we can communicate with each other and relate to experiences; but spoken language alone is not enough for communication Social reproduction allows us to create civilizations like the famous Taj Mahal and many others which can only happen when societies feel CONNECTED. Two sociologists: Karl Marx and Pierre Bourdieu ask What are the effects of Social Reproduction and Cultural Reproduction on schools? This is a question asked by many other sociologists and so the emphasis on the opinions of both sociologists about this topic of social and cultural reproduction is to answer the question above. Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 14 March 1883) was a German sociologist, philosopher, historian, political economist, political theorist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. He developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. His ideas have played a vital role in the development of social science and he published various books during his lifetime, with the most famous The communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1967-1894). Pierre Bourdieu (1 August 1930 23 January 2002) was a French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher and is known for inventing the term Cultural Reproduction. Both sociologists argued in their theories about the effects of Social Reproduction and Cultural Reproduction on schools. They talk about the important function of education is to socialize the working class into a culture of failure so that they take up, without question, routine and dull work. They also argue about that effects of both cultural and social reproduction on schools: the ideas that are taught the values, attitude and personality traits that are instilled in students the ways in which schools are organized Bourdieu also adds that social inequality is reproduced in the educational system and therefore legitimized just as Marx said: Students have to pursue on the formal teaching status quo and so therefore students rarely come into contact with ways of thinking that challenges the existing social order. They also argue that the position of the dominant class is justified by educational success and the under-privileged position of the lower class is legitimated by educational failure. Furthermore, they discuss further that schools socialize students into certain values, attitudes, and personality traits that fit the interest of the dominant social classes ways of working. These arguments lead Bourdieu to conclude that the major role of education in society is to contribute toward social reproduction which is the reproduction of the relationships of power and privilege between social classes. Therefore after looking further into what Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction are, and after knowing the arguments both Marx and Boudieu had about their effects on schools, I ask: HOW CAN CULTURAL AND SOCIAL REPRODUCTION BE MORE OF A DISADVANTANGE TO SOCIETY?

Prohibition Essay example -- essays research papers

Prohibition, A Complete Failure   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Prohibition had become an issue long before its eventual induction as the 18th amendment in 1920. Organizations came about for the sole purpose of an alcohol free America. In 1833, an estimated one million Americans belonged to some type of temperance association (Behr 12). Many believed the absence of alcohol would help the poor as well as big business. Lower class people would put more money into savings accounts and productivity would increase among workers (Hanson 27). More importantly the â€Å"noble experiment†Ã¢â‚¬â€was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, and improve the health and hygiene in America† (Thorton 1). Although gangsters of the 1920’s were notorious for their violent turf wars,â€Å"the fundamental problem with prohibition was that an increasing percentage of American citizens refused to uphold the law† (Hanson 40). Not only did crime increase, ironically, prohibition turned ordinary citizens into lawbreakers. â€Å"In San Francisco, a jury trying a prohibition case was found drinking up the liquor that had been used in court as evidence† (Edey 154). In Texas, shortly after the start of prohibition,† a still turning out 130 gallons of whiskey a day was found operating on the farm of Senator Morris Shepard, author of the 18th Amendment†(Edey 154). â€Å"Americans bought machines for distilling liquor, called stills, at the hardware store.† (Hanson 28). Even if they did not know how to use them they easily get the information from the public library (Hanson28). Everything you could imagine was put into use to make liquor, even bathtubs (Hanson 28). â€Å"In fact, bathtub gin became a common term to describe during the decade† (Hanson28). â€Å"Doctors and druggists were legally allowed to dispense alcohol as medicine† (Hanson 34). â€Å"An average of 10 million prescriptions were issued each year during the thirteen years prohibition was in effect† (Hanson 34). In summary, ordinary citizens were consuming alcohol, an illegal act. They were making alcoholic beverages. They were getting doctors to prescribe alcohol for them under questionable circumstances making the medical profession their accomplice. Somebody had to satisfy the need for alcohol to an eager nation. This is where the rise in organized crime came in. â€Å"For the first time the United States experienced a massive ... ...e or prohibition agents zeroed-in on breweries, Capone was forewarned and hastily converted the targeted facilities to production of near-beer (Heimel 38). As one example of the amount of money changing hands, consider George Remus. He was one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable, bootlegger of the 1920’s. Out of the estimated $40,000,000 a year that he made, half of it went for bribes and payoffs (Behr 104). Prohibition has been called the â€Å"noble experiment† that failed (Hanson 26, 27). One of the reasons behind its monumental failure is that it made criminals of ordinary citizens. Decent, hardworking people broke the law simply because they took a drink of alcohol. And what a drink they took, consumption went from .8 to 1.3 gallons per capita between 1919 and 1929 (Thornton 2). To support this heavy demand for booze criminal gangs became more organized and ruthless, protected by corrupt officials. Corruption dramatically increased in prohibition. And who were people that were corrupted? Ordinary citizens were corrupted, who before prohibition, were decent, law abiding individuals.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  

Limb Transplants -- Modern Miracle or Future Frankenstein? :: Biology Essays Research Papers

Limb Transplants -- Modern Miracle or Future Frankenstein? We all know that transplants save lives. Liver, heart, renal, and other organ transplants are hardly controversial. But what happens when transplants do not save lives? What happens when they actually endanger them? At least twenty-one hands and arms have been transplanted since 1998 (and one in 1964) (1). Sure, the cosmetic and functional value of having a new hand could seem like a miracle to those without hands or arms, but do these benefits outweigh the risks? Limb attachments are not uncommon. Dr V Pathmanathan and his team, who transplanted a left arm onto baby Chong Lih Ying from her twin sister who had died at birth, had already performed over 300 such operations (2). The controversy occurs when the limb is not simply reattached, but is transplanted from one person to another. This is because limb transplant patients, like any other transplant patients, need to be given anti-rejection medication, immunosuppressive therapy (1), so that the body's immune system does not recognize the new limb's tissue as foreign and destroy it (3). In fact, Chong Lih Ying was the only limb transplant patient not to receive immunosuppressive drugs. Because her arm was transplanted from her twin, there was very little risk of rejection (2). As the name suggests, immunosuppressant drugs given to limb transplant patients greatly lower the body's immune system (4). This puts limb transplant patients at a much greater risk of cancer, infections, and other disorders (5), as has been the case in renal and liver transplants (6). Even with these drugs, the patient still has a great risk of rejection. Six weeks after Jerry Fisher's hand transplant, he had already experienced three episodes of rejection, a common and expected occurrence in limb transplant patients (7). To avoid rejection, and to regain functions of the limb, limb transplant patients must follow a strict regime of intense physical therapy. During the period immediately preceding his hand transplant, Jerry Fisher underwent a two-hour physical therapy session six days a week, as well as therapy exercises on his own every two hours (7). Even so, normal functions of the limb come slowly, and according to test results to date, a transplanted limb will never have the full function of a limb with which one was born (6). Transplant recipients must also undergo intense psychological therapy in order to view the hand as part of the self and not to associate it with the deceased body from which it came.

Catcher In The Rye, Compares T :: essays research papers

Throughout life, an individual may endure several emotionally or physically straining moments. In The Catcher In The Rye, Holden Caulfield suffers much verbal abuse, as well as physical. Both forms of the abuse, combined with other factors, eventually leads Holden to suffer a mental breakdown. Holden’s actions prove that ** â€Å"A blow from a whip raises a welt, but a blow from the tongue smashes bones.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Holden experiences several fights throughout the story. Near the beginning, he begins a struggle with Stradlater, his roommate, over his friend’s date, Jane Gallagher. Holden was upset to learn that the couple were alone in a car, knowing Stradlater’s sexual history. Holden’s mind chooses to push out the incident, so it is foggy in his head. But all he knew was, he tried to hit Stradlater but missed. After the miss, Stradlater proceeded to climb on top of Holden and take hold of his wrists, not letting him up. Stradlater dug his knees deep into Holden’s chest to keep him from moving. This seemed to go on for â€Å"around ten hours†. When Stradlater finally gave in and let Holden get up, the struggle started again, ending with a bloody nose for Holden. Afterwards, although Holden was somewhat offended by the actions, he did not seem to care about his dripping nose. He went directly over to Ackley’s room, not even stopping to wipe up his nose. He also did not seem to care about the overall fight, because he talked of it like it meant nothing to him. â€Å"I had a little goddam tiff with Stradlater,† he explains to Ackley. â€Å"Do you feel like playing a little Canasta?† This quick forgetting shows that the fight had little affect on Holden, and that his injury meant little to him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  While Holden is in the Edmont Hotel, the elevator man mentions the prospect of a prostitute. Holden reluctantly agrees to a throw, which would cost him five dollars. Holden was very nervous during his wait, but when the girl showed up he told her he only wanted to talk. Even though they didn’t do anything, Holden paid his money, only to find that the girl was promised ten. Holden refused to pay the extra amount, assuring the girl that he was told a throw was only five and he was not going to pay more. She left, only to return minutes later with the elevator man, Maurice.

Leadership 101

John C. Maxwell is an Evangelical Christian author, speaker, and pastor. He has written over sixty books, known internationally as a leadership expert and coach. Dr. Maxwell has co-founded the company Equip, which is a non-profit leadership company. Also he founded The John Maxwell Company, known for training leaders all over the world. He speaks at many companies and different organizations throughout the years, as well write many books within that time. He has written books for people who cannot attend one of his incredible conferences. The book written by John C. Maxwell, titled â€Å"Leadership 101: What Every Leader Needs to Know. He discussed three main points important to enhancing people leadership abilities. These points include leadership development, traits of successful leader, and what type of impact a leader could have. The first point Dr. Maxwell explains his concept called â€Å"The Law of the Lid. † In this principle the lid is the leadership ability that det ermines a person level of effectiveness. The lower the lid indicates an individual lack of leadership ability which leads to poor effectiveness. On the other hand leaders with greater abilities have greater effectiveness. This means your leadership ability determines your level of effectiveness.Dr. Maxwell said â€Å"Success is within the reach of everyone, and personal success without leadership brings limited effectiveness† (Maxwell 7). Basically leadership and effectiveness goes hand and hand. The next topic Dr. Maxwell discussed in his book was the traits that every leader should posses. One important trait for leaders is self discipline. Dr Maxwell said â€Å"no matter how gifted a leader is he will never reach his full potential without the application of self discipline† (Maxwell 26). Self discipline is the ability to accomplish goals within a certain time period.In order for a leader to be successful they must be able to manage and prioritize their time to reac h their goals. Another important thing related to time manegment and leadership is where to focus your time. Dr. Maxwell also dicusses the twenty / eighty principle, which states twenty percent of your priorities, will give you eighty percent of the production (Maxwell 30). This means the top twenty percent of an individual leadership produces and the next eighty percent is spent to develop it to its greatest potential. Additional traits important for leaders include character traits and vision.Vision allows you to see the final goal that you want to obtain. A leader also needs to relate or connect with others to share that vision. The last topic Dr. Maxwell discusses was the type of impact a leader could have. A leader needs to be able to influence the people around them. Dr. Maxwell said â€Å"the true measure of leadership is influence- nothing more, nothing less† (Maxwell 61). Basically leadership is influence. Influence can be develop and use effectively to get an amazin g outcome that every leader wants to see. By having influence you can make your leadership last. A leader is a lasting value measure by succession†, said Dr. Maxwell (Maxwell 98). Leaders leave legacy of succession. As I read this book, I’ve realize I can be more effective leader by growing and also learning. As I get older, I’m getting wiser. Reading this book the points Dr. Maxwell discussed developing and traits of a leader. I have certain traits that each leader has, and I’m not using my full potential to be as effective as I can be. Dr. Maxwell asked â€Å"Will you leave a legacy? † (Maxwell 99). I know I will one day leave a legacy in the world. I just need to grow and keep learning to be a good leader.

High School Reunions Essay

An observation of a high school re-union was followed by an interview with two of the people attending for this ethnography. The two attendees used for the interview were one male and one female. After identifying some of the possible rationales regarding the culture of the reunion in the observation, the interview was conducted on the basis of the rationales. This was then analysed and compared to some of the findings from cultural research and theory before a conclusion of sorts was made. Observation The group environment and context for the observation was that of the Aliso Niguel High School Class Reunion, Class of 1999. The High School is located in Aliso Niguel CA. The reunion being observed took place in Irvine, CA. There were approximately 300 people present. The general patterns of behaviours amongst the people consisted of lots of mingling and idle chat. Some of the people were notably more reserved than others. It seemed as though the single people were working harder to start conversation and were far more approachable. In contrast, couples didn’t seem to portray the same type of inviting body language when on their own, but became more confident when with a spouse or friend. Approximately, 80% of the attendees held drinks in their hand as a norm and there were also presents and cards being exchanged from the outset. From overhearing the participant’s conversation it seemed as though many of them still lived in the Southern California area and this became a main source of conversation throughout. The interaction was generally based upon excitement, smiling and heightened voices at notably louder than normal volume. With regards to dress codes, there didn’t seem to be much evidence of diversity. This was particularly notable in the case of the females. The majority of them had light hair past their shoulders and the clothing style that was adopted by the attendees was strikingly similar. There were very few obese or overweight people that attended. These people perhaps did not attend as failed invites were not taken. There were clear indications of sub-groups at the gathering, although they seemed to carry conversation with the rest of the attendees in accordance with the larger group. Amongst the males there were indications of many stereotypes such as â€Å"meat head† or â€Å"gym jocks†, as I overheard one female state. Although as many of these people are now approx. 27-30 years old, it was harder to categorize them in such terms. There did seem to be a stronger merge between coupled groups and singled groups rather than any cross over. There appeared to be a symbol of people trying to meet a certain criteria throughout. For instance, there was a group of approximately 15 females. I overheard that all of them got married within the last 2 years and many of them either attended and/or where present at each other’s wedding. This could be indicative of a desire to follow patterns and trends in behaviour as though as everyone else is getting married then so must they, so that they aren’t left behind. Contrastingly, the males seemed to compare status in relation to possessions, such as career, cars, and houses paying particular attention to the location of the houses. There appeared to be a great deal of stereotypical role playing. This was perhaps due to the situation and the fact that earlier identities were known by other attendees. Expectation of success may have accentuated the desire for the attendees to exaggerate their status so as to appear successful. I felt that many of the attendees really liked re-living the past. They may have either really enjoyed their high school years, or were very curious as to what their classmates were doing now. However, this could also be a test of identity or serve as a self measuring experience on the basis of their peer’s behaviours and successes. Interviews The questions that I asked were qualitative, semi structured and thematic in nature focusing mainly upon stereotypes and reasoning. This was to see if the thoughts of the interviewees compared with what seemed apparent about the culture of the re-union gathered from the observation. That is to say, was this something of a self regulation exercise for the attendees or was it an exercise in cultural normality? On being asked for their reasoning in relation to the re-union, the male interviewee stated that: ‘No one takes it seriously. Certainly not me. ’ The second female interviewee stated in relation to the same question that: ‘You kinda get to know everyone personally again‘. These responses suggested two different rationales. In the case of the male, it appeared as though the reunion was something of a casual affair that could turn out to be fun as long as it wasn’t taken seriously or that anything was invested in the occasion. Whereas the female’s response indicated that there was a personal form of intimate gratification involved in seeing other people again. The latter response would suggest that there is some form of self regulation going on in relation to peers (Devine, 1989). Whether this was merely for the purposes of satisfying interest or to measure oneself against the progress of other peers was less clear (Tajfel, 1982). On being given and questioned about some of the stereotypes of others observed at the re-union, the male interviewee stated that: ‘The stereotypes you have mentioned are generally applied to people you haven’t interacted with. They’re based upon ignorance. They go away once you get talking’ This indicates a difference between known and unknown people, which is common in western individualistic society (Hofstede, 2001). It appeared that the male attendee was not willing to accept or perhaps did not realise the significance of stereotypical role playing and instead took everyone at face value once a conversation took place with another. This rejection of stereotypes was also found in the response of the female attendee who stated that: ‘I don‘t really know, I always talk to people at parties and they always seem friendly, bar one or two. Is that a stereotype? †¦ha ha! ’ This raised some interesting points. For instance, although the attendee may well have pre-conceived notions about certain stereotypes, the individuals may have felt that they were the only people that perceived them in that way (Devine, 1989). Due to the experience of the situation that reinforced certain social norms, this stereotype may diminish or grow regardless of the former social group. This was put forward by Gudykunst, who suggested that, â€Å"Some of our stereotypes are unique and based on our individual experiences, but some are shared with other members of our in-groups. The stereotypes we share with others are our social stereotypes. We may know what the social stereotype of a group is, but still hold a different view of the group. † (Gudykunst, 1997, p127) On asking about what they felt they had gained from the experience of the re-union and what others may have also gained, the male attendee stated that: ‘I found out all the different directions that people have taken. It’s not just about getting married, buying a house and having kids. Most people have branched right out since then’ The second female attendee stated in relation to the same question that: ‘I feel good that everyone seems to be doing so well. Everyone’s the same, but do their thing differently, if you know what I mean’ The notion of difference was clear in the responses of the interviewees. It would appear that although the roles and social norms were fairly similar and the content of the conversations were uniformly based upon success, the overview was based upon everyone’s success and happiness maintained through a degree of different life styles. This was again perhaps unsurprising given the individuality that is so common to western cultures (Hofstede, 2001). The emphasis on success and progression was also unsurprising for similar reasons. However, the amount of actual difference that was displayed at the re-union in terms of dress code and normative behaviour could be seen in contradiction of this difference (Tajfel, 1982). It would appear that such difference was only referred to in conversation rather than in actual behaviour. It would appear that sub-cultures were compromised at the re-union and stereotypes were overlooked as long as the attendees followed the correct social norms whilst at the re-union. Bibliography Devine, P, G. , (1989) Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18. Gudykunst, W. , & Bond, M, H. , (1997) Inter-group Relations Across Cultures. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds. ) Handbook of cross-cultural Psychology: Social Behaviour and Applications, 3, 119-161. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tajfel, H. , (Ed. ) (1982) Social Identity and Inter-group Relations London: Cambridge University Press.