Relationship Between the Global North and South in the Political Economy

How does bringing the historical and contemporary relationship between North and South affect our understanding of the Global Political Economy?

Global
Political Economy can be understood by the merits and outcome of globalization,
a phenomenon that links people and technology to one another and intertwines
ideas across nations and borders. It is within globalization that we begin to
understand the engines of market power, the reach of economic might and global
development of individual states as well as the holistic lens when viewing the
relationship of each state in relation to one another. Globalization’s
contribution to Global Political Economy proves itself to be the masterpiece
that defines the global status quo of the world today, with capabilities of
ideas exported from one hemisphere to the other, transcending an assembly line
of productions in one continent then having parts assembled in another to be
sold in and to an entirely other country. A relationship building transaction
that is molded by the inner workings of parties spanning across the globe
dependent on one another from the initial stage of resources to accumulation of
capital and the labor behind the production. These linkages of globalization
stretch further beyond when globalization first took any shape or form and
today it has transformed the market and the global status quo into a
powerhouse. Rooted from the dependent relationship of the North and South, a
relationship that best describes a collection of developed and wealthy nation
states with its partners of developing and underdeveloped states. This marriage
of the North and South has been the epitome of relationships and the drive
behind Globalization and its contribution to Global Political Economy. To fully
understand the accomplishments or perhaps even missteps of Globalization
towards Global Political Economy is within the sum of its parts; the
relationship between the North and South.

The North and South, often referred to as the Global North and Global South, separating the collection of nation states above and below the equator with many exceptions but simply to group the developed and the developing countries. An aspect driven on the gap of a socio-economic and political divide. The North covering countries of North America, Western Europe, Australia, Brunei as well as the Asian Tigers, and the South as the rest of the world living in the Third World. In understanding the relationship between the countries in the Global North and Global South, would be to analyze the history of the relationship and its evolution into the one today, essentially the dynamics of how its historical past juxtaposed with its contemporary upbringing can affect and provide a clearer understanding of Global Political Economy.

What Citation Styles Can You Use for My Essay?

Students often ask, “Can you write my essay in APA or MLA?”—and the answer’s a big yes! Our writers are experts in every style imaginable: APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, you name it. Just tell us what you need, and we’ll deliver a perfectly formatted paper that matches your requirements, hassle-free.

The
historical aspect that will be examined will be one that predates post-colonialism
and prior to the de-colonialization after the Second World War. If it predates
post-colonialism then it’s the history and relationship stir of colonialism
itself, one that

“Given colonialism’s deep entrenchment in the power structures of the global political economy, however, the ‘abyssal global lines’ dividing metropolitan and peripheral societies keep on reproducing themselves (Santos 2014B).”

A dependent relationship fueled by Marxist capitalism and its merits on profit-making capabilities with Neoliberalist institutions and agency that entrap and perpetuate the mechanisms of the rooted structures of Immanuel Wallerstein’s World System’s Theory. The World System theory provides structures of the historical relationship between the North and South with motives towards Marxist’s capital accumulation in pursuits of profits. Neoliberalist institutions bound with the World System’s Theory and capital accumulation ensures that the process of exploitation and unequal exchange remain cyclical. Motivated by profits through capitalism, provided by the interconnectedness of the classes; the possessors of capital and that of the laborers, and within this structure, paints a relationship between the North and South as a union of capitalism and dependency.

Capitalism resulted in the possessors and the non-possessors; the capitalists and laborers which created a division in the classes. Understood by the wielders of economic might whom would employ those who would labor the work – wherever at the lowest cost. An ordain that soon exploited the working class into an unequal exchange; profits went to wielders of capital and marginalized amount for the workers. Production and profits meant eliminating costs by all means necessary, a feat that would have to begin at accumulation and production itself. A progress to keep accumulation of capital endless and almost perpetual, and the structure in place guaranteed the turning of spokes in this wheel of capitalism would be exploitation through the already placed structures of colonialism.

Is It Legal to Use Your Writing Service?

Absolutely, it’s 100% legal! Our service provides sample essays and papers to guide your own work—think of it as a study tool. Used responsibly, it’s a legit way to improve your skills, understand tough topics, and boost your grades, all while staying within academic rules.

“Smith’s elaboration of the labor theory of value allowed him to understand accumulation as a global process, including colonialism and imperialism as constitutive. This theory this laid the premises for conceptualizing historical inter-connectedness, contradicting the assumptions of the stadial theory Smith himself elaborated: a theory that was closely linked to Smith’s free trade doctrine and the interests of the British bourgeoisie at the dawn of the industrial revolution.” (Pradella)

Pradella
asserts that Smith’s labor theory understood accumulated on a global scale
taking into account colonialism and imperialism as the establishers of
accumulation that reflected the interests of the British during the industrial
revolution.

A colonial power that relished its dominance
over others that can be put under focus in examining a historical and
contemporary relationship would be the British Empire. Beginning in the late 17^th
and 18^th century, the Empire’s conquest for power sought riches
through trade rather than military conquest. Power that led the British Empire
to house many colonies under its rule, colonizing countries that even today
live on its colonial legacy of once being under the British Empire. The country
to focus in this historical relationship is that of India under the British
Empire. India was colonized by the Empire from 1858 until its eventual
independence in 1947, the rule over the Indian subcontinent was ushered in by
the industrial revolution which intertwined the economies of India and Great
Britain. It is within this colonial rule of India by the British Empire that
will be examined for both the historical and contemporary relationship, from
colonial and imperialism to post-colonial legacy. The
divide grew from just a distinction in the classes within a society to a
transnational class divide between nations, this transitioned from lower wages
and exploitation of workers across borders. A ‘ready’ group of laborers were
available as colonization took place, the Indian population were taken to be
laborers on cotton fields, built railways and bridges, dug canals and operated
telegraph links all to facilitate the British power’s efficiency in transport
and trade. The transnational class divide through colonialization allotted
societies of other nation as laborers. The evolution of the holders of capital
from being the elite class over another to that of an elite nation over a
lesser,

How Much Does It Cost to Get a Paper Written?

Our pricing starts at $10 per page for undergrad work, $16 for bachelor-level, and $21 for advanced stuff. Urgency and extras like top writers or plagiarism reports tweak the cost—deadlines range from 14 days to 3 hours. Order early for the best rates, and enjoy discounts on big orders: 5% off over $500, 10% over $1,000!

“capitalism thus seemed to favor one class against another, and the more competitive nation against the less.” (Marx)

Essentially slavery took over as the laboring
class of manufacture and reinforced the unequal exchange of transactions but
instead of within a society, the scale grew to that of a nation over another.
This highlighted the interlinkages between the developments in Europe and the
rest of the world, with the cyclical progression of colonialism and capitalism
as the mechanism to keep this in motion, a relationship had been forged between
the colonizers and the colonized.

Colonialism
may have begun as a tool to assert dominance over a lesser state, assimilating
societies, accumulating resources but with imperialism; instilling political
and societal power, it grew to become a placed structure of exploitation and
unequal exchange. The exchange would be of a developed wealthy nation investing
capital in a lesser state for the means of production through the use of
resources of both materials and human capital – slavery, a traffic in human
flesh.

“Marx’s articles on China, show accumulation constantly generates a hierarchy of forms of labor exploitation within the highly integrated British colonial system. Traffic in human flesh, a new form of slave trade,” (Pradella, [1976:378-370])

Will My Use of This Service Stay Private?

Yes, totally! We lock down your info with top-notch encryption—your school, friends, no one will know. Every paper’s custom-made to blend with your style, and we check it for originality, so it’s all yours, all discreet.

Colonialism
bred slavery and with this instrument drew human capital like never before, no
longer was it simply the exploitation of raw materials and resources for
production but also of people. The relationship between capitalism and
colonialism is that in cutting cost meant using people to the extreme, an
instrument of production and an essential cog in machinery to propel the
capitalist states into industrial grandeur. It is within this scope that,

 “Marx’s close attention to the relationship between capitalism and colonialism is that direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery, you have no cotton, without cotton, no industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value, it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large scale-industry. This slavery is an economic category of the great importance.” (Pradella on Marx, 1976, [1847]:167)

The
period before post-colonialism, one that thrived on its predecessor; colonialism
and imperialism, was driven by capitalism. The need to accumulate capital and
investment to maximize profit making. This interconnectedness branched out globally, with
Wallerstein’s World System’s Theory as the

“crucial contribution to understanding global interconnectedness”

Do You Use AI to Write Papers?

No way—our papers are 100% human-crafted. Our writers are real pros with degrees, bringing creativity and expertise AI can’t match. Every piece is original, checked for plagiarism, and tailored to your needs by a skilled human, not a machine.

(Dussel and Yanez, 1980, 69)

 The theory postulates a political superstructure,
intertwined in sets of sovereign states defined as well as constrained by their
membership in an interstate network system. A system that, given a single
state, doesn’t allow for the capability to transform the single world empire or
breakage from the interconnectedness. The interconnectedness meant a dependent
relationship between the capitalist and the laborers; investment of capital for
lost-cost labor and raw materials with the intent for a high value-added
element after production. This unequal exchange left laboring nations no choice
due to gaps in development and capital, and the perpetual exchange only widen
the divide. Food grains transported from the agricultural markets in India to
markets as flour increased usability and created a higher value-added essence
to the raw material, this unequal exchange left Indians to suffer major famine
by the tens of millions during British occupation as colonial administers moved
large amounts of food grains for trade.  

Wallerstein, understood the expansion of this
Europe-centered World System in terms of market relations and doesn’t stray far
from Marxist’s capital accumulation and Adam Smith’s value on labor.

“In the Wealth of Nations, Smith, to respond to the crisis of the First British Empire, proposed a new project of empire expanding in the populous and fertile countries of Asia.” (1961[1776], II:484)

Why Choose You for Research Papers?

We’re the best because our writers are degree-holding experts—Bachelor’s to Ph.D.—who nail any topic. We obsess over quality, using tools to ensure perfection, and offer free revisions to guarantee you’re thrilled with the result, even on tight deadlines.

The response
to the crisis with a new project of empire sought out countries in Asia
as the peripheries and a place to increase production with cost cuttings means,
which began this transition to a network of interconnectedness.

The historical relationship between the North and South was built upon the foundations of colonialism driven by capital. It forged a relationship that structured a dependency between the core, the North, with the peripheries, the South, one based on unequal exchange and exploitation for profits. Exploitation of human capital and raw materials for the exchange of development in the South sewn through imperialism. The relationship created a superstructure that allowed for no restructuring and no breakage from the system. This historical aspect explains one half in understanding how the relationship of the North and South affects the Global Political Economy, its counterpart, the contemporary relationship may shed further light.

The contemporary relationship is examined through the postcolonial condition is the flipside of the colonial ensuing coin of the historical past between the North and South. The aftermath of de-colonialization and transformation of the world system to rid of colonialism and its legacy. Colonialism and its legacy created disturbance in the socio-economic and political sphere separating the arbitrary hemispheres in two, the post-colonial condition seeks to stabilize this relationship. In stabilizing the relationship would be to restore inequalities, rid the legacies of colonialism, counter balance power between the North and South beginning with the decolonization after the Second World War. This relationship, juxtaposed to the forged relationship of the historical mold of the dependency between the North and South considerably affects our understanding of the Global Political Economy.

The post-colonialist condition are the particular states of the many colonies that were freed from colonial rule during the second half of the twentieth century and are now living on the legacy of colonialism. The condition itself pertains further to not just simply living in retrospective nostalgia of once being under colonial rule but rather its longevity in instilled culture, structures, societal practices and norms as well as identity. The culture and societal practices of language, music and sports reinforces the legacy of post-colonialism much like of the British rule over India even after gaining independence in 1974.  Structures of institutions like schools and churches reinforces the legacy through religion and instilled beliefs. The reinforcement of legacy through practices, language, music and sports may seem to be mediocre in a globalized world system where everything is accessible through technology, but remains to be predominantly instilled within colonized states. Trades and market power on the other hand asserts itself to be another reinforcement of the legacy left behind by the relationship of the North and South. This legacy of market power translates to core-like activities and dominance over the periphery and semi-periphery evident in the value added profiteering mechanisms that exploit low wages and raw materials from the latter nodes of the world systems still present today.

Who’s Writing My College Essays?

Our writers are top-tier—university grads, many with Master’s degrees, who’ve passed tough tests to join us. They’re ready for any essay, working with you to hit your deadlines and grading standards with ease and professionalism.

“Competitive accumulation produces uneven and combined development as it tends to concentrate high value-added production” (Pradella, 2014)

Pradella argues
that competitive accumulation or capital accumulation, with Marx’s primitive
accumulation, but taken to a global scale results in ‘uneven and combined
development’ through high value-added production. The means in having
production and manufacture in a periphery or semi-periphery state, then having value-added
upon distribution is the unequal exchange resulting from core-like activities
through exploitation of the peripheries and the profits spoiled by the core. The
argument that the exploitation ensues development for the peripheries and the
South is yet another unequal demise. The development in the South is simply to
maintain or make efficient of the systems in place must like the British rule
over India did spark major infrastructure and development for the Indian
subcontinent, but these developments can be accounted on the basis that it was
necessary for the British to provide such infrastructure to usher in this
economic flourishment. Railways, roads, canals, bridges and even telegraph
links were built and established in India to transport cotton to ports in
Bombay for shipments to the Empire. The British, “alone can set the East on the
path of capitalist development,” this uneven and combined development paints
the narrative of colonized India that the developments and infrastructure were
simply to further economic gain by the British and the spillovers of capitalism
by the British were enjoyed by the colonized. This colonial power’s spillovers
weren’t all positive, even after 60 years of occupation, skilled laborers were
lacking and superior posts held by Indians accounted for a mere ten percent of
the workforce. Human capital was utilized to its full capacity but positions of
superiority weren’t taught or relayed to the locals.  

The
idealistic pursuit to rid of the legacies of colonialism and instilled
structures of imperialism and the reinforced hierarchy of the dependency of
World Systems through core-to-periphery activities would be to reset the
economic market and history of the world status quo. Such pursuit is limited by
the historical relationship embedded between the North and South into one that
to restructure the system would be an implausible feat to simply reset and wipe
the slate clean. The limitations of the historically forged relationship
between the North and South would be the legacy of colonialism itself, and the
structures already in place would be an impossibility to rid of when capitalism
and accumulation is deeply rooted in society and hierarchical structures of
dependency.

“But limits of de-colonialization and modernist/nationalist projects in the South with deep economic inequalities that marked colonial era continued into the present. Post-colonialism highlights continuing legacy of colonialism and imperialism; de-colonialization changed, did not eliminate, this relationship (Loomba 2005).”  

Are Your Papers Original?

Always! We start from scratch—no copying, no AI—just pure, human-written work with solid research and citations. You can even get a plagiarism report to confirm it’s 95%+ unique, ready for worry-free submission.

Loomba argues that even with decolonization, the relationship rooted with colonialism, imperialism and the ensuing legacy of both changes nothing and Loomba takes it further in that it cements the relationship built to the one today. One of cyclical processes that ensures that unequal exchange within the Global Political Economy. The legacy of the British Empire in India is evident in aspects of instilled culture such as the English language’s grasp in India as one of the central government’s official languages, spoken by 400 million speakers as well as English taught in schools. As for sports, cricket was introduced during the British rule and remains dominantly played and enjoyed in the country. In terms of trade, India and the UK share a strategic partnership, India stands as the third largest investor in the UK and the historical relationship exhibits the UK as beneficiaries of reversed colonialism where non-Western countries impact the West where the UK considers India as one of the fastest growing economics. The brokerage of a free trade agreement post-Brexit estimates a 50% increase in exports from UK to India and 12% increase in reciprocity. The legacy of colonialism is apparent upon brokerage an FTA between the partners when India insists on an unnegotiable leverage for the UK to welcome higher levels of immigrants. Decolonization issued half a century ago but its legacy remains adamant.

De-colonialization
took place in this contemporary state but the relationship between the North
and South did not eliminate, the merits and outcomes of such restructuring is
the resulting shift in the lens that capitalism and how colonialism is viewed
from. No longer is it viewed from the “capitalist narrative” but rather from
the economically-ill and inequality driven societies of the South.

The “‘narrative of capital’, turns the violence of mercantile trade, war, genocide, conquest and colonialism into a story of universal progress, development, modernization and freedom,” (Chatterjee, 1993, 235). Chatterjee argues that decolonization did nothing to restructure placed systems of colonialization and imperialism that produced unequal exchange, this narrative of capital remains seamlessly intact. However, the narrative shifts from the North exploiting the South through colonial rule by unfair trade deals, and mismanagement of human capital through slavery into a narrative of development; an opportune moment for the helping hand of the North to aid and provide development and infrastructure for the South. Chatterjee solidifies that the relationship is no different to the one that existed prior to the restructuring and indefinitely exhibits the same relationship of unequal exchange, simply a veil in its place to shroud its true nature. Chatterjee shares Marx’s perception that “the colonial world in his eyes, was a privileged vantage point from which to analyze capitalist society” (Pradella).

The restructure shifted the lens of which capitalism is viewed, no longer is it from the perspective of the North but rather through the South’s, but even with a shift in perspective, the limitations of restructuring a firmly forged relationship is that it eliminates nothing. With nothing changed means the status quo of the Global Political Economic relationship between the North and South remains untarnished by decolonization. Untarnished and in full motion, as Karl Kautsky alludes to a stage-setting transition for imperialism and legacies of colonialism. Colonial domination reflects the relationship of the North and South to be one of total domination, but with this placed structure and de-colonialization and shift in perception Karl Kautsky argues that this domination isn’t dead. Kautsky asserts that imperialism serves as a stage for something more grandeur, ultra-imperialism, based on the hierarchical fixtures of the historical relationship of the North and South driven on capitalism and exploitation, the shift is towards transnationalism.

Can You Match Any Citation Style?

You bet! From APA to IEEE, our writers nail every style with precision. Give us your guidelines, and we’ll craft a paper that fits your academic standards perfectly, no sweat.

Leading capitalists, corporations and cartels
coming together on a transnational basis to keep fixtures of the World System
in place rendering war obsolete as the dependency of the weaker states on the
wealthy is stronger than ever. Stronger on the notion of the historically built
gap of development and inequality that fueled profit for the capitalist elite
and maintained inequality for the labor states. History proves to be the
mechanism that maintains this cyclical relationship. This ‘ultra-imperialism’ termed
by Kautsky denotes that with the legacies of colonialism, and the instruments
of imperialism mounted on the relationship of dependency; a transnational
dependency through globalism is the status quo of the Global Political Economy.
War may no longer ensue as every nation remains to be dependent on one another,
save for an anomalistic country like North Korea.

Another limitation of de-colonialization and
the post-colonial condition would be the underestimation of the role of agency.
The agency’s crucial role in maintaining the hegemonic power’s, the core node
of the world system, and pursuit to reinforce the longevity of the activities
of the core to the peripheries in this ironclad relationship. The facilitation
of cooperation between bureaucracy, corporations, entrepreneurial sectors and
the working class maintains the world system and evolves into the Modern World
System of the dependency between nations based on trades and economic
interdependence. The agencies the ensure a cyclical relationship would be
through free trade agreements, contracts that maintains that trade be
prioritized between parties. A prioritization that through the shifted lens,
provides trade outlets for developing nations, but through the capitalist
narrative, perpetual exchange between core and peripheries. The insistent by
the Indian government to accept higher levels of immigrants to birth a free
trade agreement post-Brexit is an attempt balance the exchange, one that
exhibits aspects of reversed colonialism rooted by the legacy of colonialism.
Marx would agree that a push for the movement of immigrants is the importance
given to the Labor Value Theory, but rather than the value deemed by the labor
put into a good or service, it is the potential of value of labor that is
leveraged by India – the exploited periphery to the United Kingdom. The role of
the agency alludes faintly to Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism” in the sense that
an interconnectedness of sectors within a society with colonial legacies fuels
the transnational dependency between the North and South, clearing a painted
grandeur setting Kautsky suggests with “ultra-imperialism” in this transitioned
status quo.

The historical and contemporary relationship
of the North and South, forged through instruments of colonialism and
imperialism created a mechanism for a cyclical relationship based on capitalistic
profit for the North at the expense of an economical and societal exploitation of
the South. Structured around an iron-clad fixture of an interstate world system
that leaves no room for breakage of the core and periphery status quo leading
to a unified but unequal global society.

“The social devastation in countries like India and China was the organic concentration on a world scale, but ‘cosmopolitan exploitation’ not just a class but an entire nation could grow rich at the expense of another.” (Pradella)

Can I Update Instructions Mid-Order?

Yep! Use our chat feature to tweak instructions or add details anytime—even after your writer’s started. They’ll adjust on the fly to keep your essay on point.

The cosmopolitan
exploitation is no longer the exploitation of a class structure within a
society but rather an entire society within the network of the global market,
fueled into the World System Theory of the core exploiting the peripheries and
the inability to break-free from the dependency.

The historical relationship exhibited through
colonialism and imperialism structures an exploitative relationship between the
North and South; a transaction of human capital and high value-added to induce
profits in production spanning across nations categorizing nations as either
wealthy capitalist state or a weaker exploited one. The contemporary seeks to
stabilize the manufactured inequality between the two, deemed a failure in
stabilization and resulted in a shift in perspective of once a violent means
for mercantile trade to one that sought development and prosperity for the exploited.
The lens shifted but the relationship remained potent for unequal exchange and
exploitation, its inability to restructure this dependency and superstructure
is evident that the historical foundations of the relationship influences the
contemporary considerably. An influence that sought to right wrongs but instead
solidify the pre-existing relationship of unequal exchange. The union between
capitalism and dependency of the historical relationship juxtaposed with a perspective
lens shift and distancing from colonial legacy understands the Global Political
Economy as one that, through Globalization and its instruments of
transnationalism, is unified but unequal. The lens examines the relationship
between the North and South as one that no longer glorifies slavery but feeds
on the dependent behavior that the North provides stability, infrastructure and
development for the South in these fair transactions. The Global
Political Economy may be headed towards an “ultra-imperialistic” nature of
transnationalism where all sectors are engulfed in one single ordeal to
maintain this cyclical relationship of dependency for profit from the building
blocks of the historical past and mirroring of the contemporary relationship
between the North and South plays a crucial role in understanding the Global
Political Economy and the Global status quo of today.

Bibliography

• Chatterjee, Partha. The nation and its fragments: colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2007.

• Pradella, Lucia
  “Globalization and the Critique of Political Economy: New Insights from Marx’s
  Writings.” Political Economy. (2014) King’s College London, UK

• Loomba, Ania “Colonialism/Postcolonialism, A
  Critical Idiom” (2005) Routledge

• Wallerstein, I. (1983), ‘The Instances of
  Hegemony in the History of the World Economy’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, XXIV:1-2, pp.
  100-08

• Pradella
  L (2017), Marx and the Global South: Connecting History and Value Theory’, Sociology, 51(1) 146 –161

• Amin, S. (1996), ‘The Challenge of
  Globalization’, Review of International
  Political Economy, 3:2, pp. 216-259

• Callinicos, A. (2007), ‘Globalization,
  Imperialism, and the Capitalist World System’, in D. Held and A. McGrew, eds, Globalization Theory: Approaches and
  Controversies (Cambridge: Polity) (KEATS)

• Callinicos,
  A. (2016), ‘Marxism and the Very Idea of Critical Political Economy’, in
  Cafruny, Talani, and Pozo, pp. 49-65

• Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations       (Oxford: OUP, 1976; Chapter 2-3)

• Pradella, L. (2015), Globalization and the Critique of Political Economy, Chapter 2: ‘Globalisation: Between Economics and Politics’, pp. 13–42