Rate this
5 (1 votes)
“Developed nations have a competitive edge”
5 out of 5 based on 1 user ratings

“Developed nations have a competitive edge”

phpaIz7ivAMAid to developing countries may have originated as supportive gesture, but Swapnil Mishra, 21, a Correspondent from India, currently studying in the U.S., argues that cash donations led to structural weaknesses that eventually put those nations at a disadvantage.

In the postwar world, the funds from First World nations lowered the needs of leaders in Third World countries to seek funding from the local populations. However, a negative repercussion of this was that it stalled the development of “homegrown” democracy.

As newly-established governments start to take most of the cash inflow through foreign aid into the economy for granted, they tended tend to lose their incentive to be able to continue with efforts to establish the economic and political structure of the country on its own.

Moreover, in the postwar era and environment, economic and political development became an international rather than a domestic activity. Likewise, governments did not have to grow their economies in order to protect their domestic political positions. When it comes to development in post-colonial states, unlike core countries, they did not have other core or periphery countries to fall back on for resources. They had to start from scratch and utilise leftover resources that were not extracted and taken away from them during the period of colonisation.

Furthermore, as core countries were supported in terms of labour and resources to build their economies from periphery states, up until a few years of independence, none of the post-colonial states received the same kind of support in terms of manpower or research and development from their colonial masters. The thought of giving back came only in terms of money.

Later, economic policies of developing nations, thus rendered them structurally dependent upon foreign capital, which further weakened their standing in global markets and destroyed their domestic markets, to a certain degree, as well.

When it comes to linking violence and prosperity, differences in the structure of power at the global level have come from the use of violence at the national level. Lacking the spur of the risk of survival, in most developing economies, those with the most power deploy means of coercion in an economically productive manner.

Throughout, the incentives unleashed by international warfare reduced states, not only destructive but also developmental. In conflicts with states, the political prizes were often taken away by those who had the most legitimate economic foundations of the military establishment.

In today’s times, conflicts within states, due to a wide variety of reasons, have become more rampant. They not only destroy the economic but the political structure of the country as well, leaving the country in shambles. This results in the collapse of social and public institutions and the services they offer.

photo credit: i_spec Купюры_004 via photopin (license)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

About me: My name is Swapnil Mishra and I am an undergraduate student pursuing a major in Economics with minors in Business (Environmental Management) & International Relations at Knox College, Illinois, U.S.

My ambition is to work in the field of International Development and my interests are cricket and travelling.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth Youth Programme. Articles are published in a spirit of dialogue, respect and understanding. If you disagree, why not submit a response?
To learn more about becoming a Commonwealth Correspondent please visit: http://www.yourcommonwealth.org/submit-articles/

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments