Of Economic Growth, A Non-Communist Manifesto, By Appelbaum And Robinson

Scholars today recognize that societies across the globe suffer from various inequities, but the theories behind the reasons for these inequities are highly contentious. Appelbaum and Robinson try to provide an overall guide to the various theories that have risen in popularity over time, many of which focus on the concept of globalization. Globalization is the increased interconnectedness of the world, however it is viewed differently by scholars as a positive, negative, or neutral force in the field of global justice and development (Appelbaum & Robinson 2005). This piece demonstrates a more holistic, modern view of Globalization studies in which Globalization exists as a living term -constantly in flux. It introduces the field of Global

He argues that the modernization of countries follows a specific pathway created by capitalism and competition. Thus, in order to solve world issues of poverty and inequity it becomes necessary to “speed up” the process in underdeveloped countries (Rostow 1960). Rostow’s line of thought represents one of the earliest stages in globalization and development theory. He is novel in his creation of a guidebook or “steps” that an undeveloped country must pass for advancement. This said, a great deal of later scholars (especially Gunder Frank and Wallerstein) would write theories that directly opposed the proposed paradigms of

According to Wallerstein the capitalist world economy has set up a specific social system that legitimizes the right of some countries (Core) to exploit others (Periphery). This creates a division of labor that is spatial, not just occupational. As a more recent theory, Wallerstein still holds a great deal of pull in Globalization Studies, however, as Appelbaum and Robinson point out, with the development of global studies, even Wallerstein’s theory has drawn certain critique in the academic discourse. Wallerstein’s theory is very much focused on the idea of the state as the main actor (2006). In doing so, he privileges all the actions of the state over other potential actors and social movements, a fault that can give theorists an inaccurate perception of global inequity