Development theories are a conglobation of theories concerning the way attractive modification in society is best attained. This paper seeks to give details, carry out a comparison as well as analyze the fundamental theoretical presumptions of interdependence, world system as well as realist theories.
Realism is a global theory of relations that states that politics of the world is impelled by competitive opportunism (Rourke, 2010). This theory has four assumptions concerning global relations. These include the assumption that the nation is the most crucial player in the global relations meaning that individuals such as the pope or interest groups such as Amnesty International do not impact the way countries relate with one another. The theory also assumes that the nation is a rational and unitary player. Unitary entails the nation that talks with a single voice even though members of a country might have a number of different views on the best plan of attack to a situation, just a single plan can be endorsed. Rational, on the other hand, entails that a nation has the capability to key out objectives, as well as predilections, and to determine their elative necessity. This is at times referred to as a black box assumption since it states that domestic players such as Congress do not impact on the way a country carries out its global matters. Leaders just act in what they trust to be their national concern, and they do not get amused by games of politics.
Realist theory also assumes that global relations are necessary conflictual due to lawlessness. In this event, anarchy does not entail chaos rather it means the lack of a higher power to stop violence or mediate disagreements. Just like people may run berserk and assault each other with the government having not to chastise them, countries will assault each other as long as they trust it in their best concern. Lawlessness also obliges nations to arm themselves so as to feel safe. The arms stockpiling, as well as the military building, though, are confrontational actions that actuate bordering nations to feel unsafe and construction up their own arms. When many nations get involved in this conduct all simultaneously, the outcome is a powder barrel that may easily explode into aggression just as in the period prior to World War II in Europe. When, however, two consistently matched authorities establish an arms race the outcome is an anxious but more steady state of affairs where every side, although hostile, has the motivation to maintain peace since a war would result in a dead end or common damage. For instance, during the cold war this was evident between Soviet Union and the US each of which was keen to acquire dominance but the two drew back from the war brink since neither thought that it could be victorious.
The other realist theory’s assumption is that strategic, as well as security matters, referred to as high politics, control the global agenda. This entails that the paramount objective of nations is to maximize their control in the global population and that they are basically interested in military control. North Korea is an example of a nation that was functioning according to this principle in the early 1990s. The Soviet Union’s downfall left them with no Communist friends, thus they started a development program for nuclear weapons and expelled United Nation’s observers. They trusted that if their government acquired nuclear authority, it would endure in the global population since other nations would fear them. Just as a February 1996 version of Economist put it, when one is alone and with no friends, training his or her image as a wild gun-tugging maniac is not the most horrible thing one can do for himself or herself. Other matters such as human rights or the surroundings are not of basic essence. A number of realists, though, trust that economics is also significant. They reason that nations ought to grow dominant, asymmetrical associations with others and influence them to their benefit. For instance, one nation may make another country reliant on its exportation. This doctrine was exercised by the imperialists prior to World War I where their colonies got few sovereign production means, and they intentionally left the locals illiterate, therefore, coercing the colonies to purchase their independent country's commodities.
In summary, believers in realism believe that humanity is not intrinsically kind but rather competitive and egocentric. They also believe that Independent countries are the key players in the global system, and unique attention is given to big authorities as they possess the majority control on the global stage. Global institutions, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, individuals, as well as other trans-state or sub-state players, are regarded as possessing little autonomous control. Nations are intrinsically belligerent and preoccupied with safety, and that expansion of the territory is just restrained by disputing authority. This belligerent build-up, though, results in a quandary of security whereby raising one's security might convey even greater unsteadiness as a disputing power builds up its own weapons system in reaction. Therefore, security turns out to be a zero-sum match where just relative benefits might be made. Realists trust that there are no general rules with which all nations can steer their activities. Rather, a nation always has to be cognizant of the activities of the nations surrounding it and has to apply a practical approach to settle troubles as they come up.
Interdependence theory, on the other hand, is a component of a bigger scale of theories of social exchange. The social exchange theories consider the way individuals exchange costs and rewards in a relationship. Theory of interdependence takes it another stage further and shows the way these costs, as well as rewards, cooperate with peoples’ anticipations of a relationship that is interpersonal. This theory originates from the view that intimacy is the fundamental to every relationship. This means that individuals communicate in order to get closer to one another. The theory of interdependence posits that there are costs and rewards to every relationship and that individuals attempt to maximize the rewards as they minimize the costs (Sprecher, 1998).
World-systems theory, which is also referred to as the world-systems perspective or world-systems analysis (Wallerstein, 2004) is a multidisciplinary, large-scale plan to the history of the world as well as social modification that emphasizes that the world-system ought to be the basic component of social analysis. World-system is the transnational and inter-regional labor division that splits the world into semi-periphery nations, periphery nations, as well as the core nations (Thomas, 1997). Core nations center on capital-intensive production, higher skill. The other part of the world, on the other hand, centers on labor-intensive production, low-skill as well as raw materials’ extraction. This continually strengthens the core countries’ control. However, the system is energetic, partly due to transport technology revolutions, as well as individual nations, might lose or gain the core status with time. For a time, a number of nations turn to be the global hegemon. All through the past few centuries in which the world system has heightened economically and broadened geographically, this position has moved from the Netherlands, to the UK and lately, to the US (Frank, 2001).
The major world-systems theory assumptions include that there is a firm connection between social sciences particularly among economics, political and sociology fields. This theory acknowledges that more concentration is normally granted to the single growth of all of these fields instead of the relations among them as well as the way these relations affect in actual terms the state conditions of a particular society. The theory also assumes that instead of dealing with the analysis of every of these variables, it is of the essence to learn the social systems’ reality (Daniel & Thomas, 1982). It is essential to acknowledge the capitalist system’s fresh character. For instance, the approach adopted by the perspective of classical political economy is on the basis of the capitalist system’s conditions in the United Kingdom, throughout the industrial revolution. There was tangible proof to back open rivalry, more dynamic models in the industrial division, as well as broad population groups that offered labor for the new set up a manufacturing plant (Wallerstein I., 1977).
The simple, as well as fundamental pertinence to the majority of traditional global activities, the politics, power and war may render realism very attractive, particularly to students searching a comparatively theory that is easy to apply War (John, Gun, & Gary, 2004). Furthermore, realism is most excellent when getting involved with influential countries particularly major power, such as the Soviet Union and the United States, on their own conditions, given that the world from their viewpoint and centering on the battles as well as crises that was likely to occupy the concentration of the majority of their security analysts together with the diplomats all through the Cold.
However, realism has a lot of gaps. There is almost no concentration given to the way the internal composition of different nations causes them to possess dissimilar overseas policies. For instance, these communist absolutism as well as a liberal democratic system are presumed to effectively possess similar global conduct. Realists cannot explicate the turn down of nations in the face of global organizations as well as multinational firms in the sphere of economy. Possibly most significantly, realism possess, on its face, less to state concerning the war on terror that engages countries on a single side but non-nation groups of terrorist on another side. A number of realists may oppose that the war against terrorism is just a cover of ideology and that the actual disputes go on to be between the United States and other governments, such as those of Iran as well as formerly of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The theory of interdependence is well explicated. A theory is said to be well explicated when it sums up multifaceted inspections in theory logically linked to suggestions that explicate causal associations in the subject issue. This theory lays out collaboration as well as rivalry as relationship, not entity, variables. There exists interdependence among people, not inside people even though it is likely to conceive two distinguishable components of a person that are in a cooperative or spirited relationship with one another. Firstly, the fundamental assumption has not been disputed. There is significant proof that positive mutuality results in encouraging actions, as well as negative mutuality results in contrient or oppositional actions (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). There is also substantial proof that positive mutuality results in greater accomplishment as well as efficiency, more positive associations, and greater mental health than negative interdependence does.
There is also inadequate theoretical precision as well as information concerning the way the theory’s central psychological procedures such as cathexis, substitutability, inducibility, among others, affect reliant variables like trust, communication, psychological health, productivity, power sharing, as well as self-pride. There have been a small number of trials to elucidate how the nature of commutability, charge, and inducibility define the circumstances in which they increase or reduce the efficiency of collaboration, or reassert them as mental processes of collaboration. Researchers have also centered basically on collaboration, and comparatively ignored individualistic and competitive attempts. Even though, comparing collaboration with rivalry has brought forth information concerning competition, competition has not been subjected to a similar theoretical analysis as well as vital scrutiny as collaboration.
Theorists of the interdependence theory have utilized little theoretical attempt to understand individualistic attempts as well as the self-interest nature. Although people presumptively play on self-interest without considering the other people’s interests in individualistic states of affairs, there is less proof that this really is the situation (Gordon, Welch, Offringa, & Katz, 2000).
Among the basic theoretical troubles of the theory of the world system is that the premises that specify its real theoretical components are societal systems. The presumptions that describe these require to be analyzed as well as the way they are linked to one another and the way one converts into another. The necessary world system theory’s argument is that, in the sixteenth century, a world economy of a capitalist grew that could be depicted as a world system.
Reference Lists
Balaam, D., & Michael, V. (2001). Laissez-Faire, Laissez-Passer: The Liberal IPE Perspective. In D. Balaam, & V. Michael, Introduction to International Political Economy (pp. 67-86). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Christopher, C.-D., & Richard, R. (1977). Toward a structural perspective on the world-system. Politics and Society, 7(4), 453-76.
Daniel, C., & Thomas, D. H. (1982). World-System Theory. Ann. Rev. Sociol., 8, 81-106.
David, N. B., & Michael, V. (2000). wealth and power: mercantilism economic nationalism. In Introduction to International Political Economy (p. 486). United Kingdom.
Frank, L. (2001). Globalization theories: World-System Theory,. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://www.sociology.emory.edu/globalization/theories01.html
Gordon, F., Welch, K. R., Offringa, G., & Katz, N. (2000). The comple-xity of social outcomes from cooperative, competitive and individua-listic reward systems. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 237-269.
Halliday, F. (1992). A singular collapse: the Soviet Union, market pressure and inter-state competition. Contention: debates in society, culture, and science, 2, 121-141.
John, T. C., Gun, R. S., & Gary, G. B. (2004). Realism, Instrumentalism, and Scientific Symbiosis Psychological Theory as a Search for Truth and the Discovery of Solutions. American Psychologist, 59(1), 214 –223.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. :. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Rourke, J. (2010). International Politics On The World Stage. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32–43.
Theotonio, D. S. (1970). The Structure of Dependence. The American Economic Review, 60(2), 231-236.
Thomas, B. (1997). The dictionary of anthropology. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wallerstein, I. (1977). Africa: The Politics of Unity. New York: Random House.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems Analysis. Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO. Oxford, UK: Eolss Publishers.
