In explaning global inequality, three theories are regarded as important. There are different views in the claims and they must also be examined. In an attempt to examine their provisions, their strengths and limitations are discussed (Boudon, 2011).
The theory of modernisation notes that the nations are changing from premodern cultures to modern ones. The growth goals can be accomplished by conventional organizations with aid. Adjusting attitudes towards working and shifting cultural values allows these nations to grow (Marsh, 2014). Given its ethnocentric approach, it is Eurocratic to assume that all the countries can follow the same path to the development. It allows no room for the chance of industrialization and technology not being the best ultimate best goals for any nation (Luintel, 2014). It is relevant to the extent that developing countries experience different challenges from those of the developed nations. It is evident to then observe the differences in child mortality rates and even life spans.
The dependency theorists attribute global inequity to the exploitation of peripheral nations by the core nations. Peripheral countries provide work to core nations. The dependency theory is biased since the World Bank chooses which countries they give loans and the purposes for which they provide the loans, hence segmented markets, which ultimately benefit the core nations (Brazinsky, 2012). It ignores the formerly low-income countries that have progressed, citing the need to be useful to these countries for a long time, despite any developmental changes achieved.
The globalization theory holds that the development is the result of the increased interactions among people through the international flow of money. It thrives on the advances in transport and telecommunication sectors. It is however blamed for the internal unrests in many nations. Further, the economic crisis of the world was once attributed to it. The political turmoil is one of the risks while its implementation (Veltmeyer, 2008). Global inequality is best explained by the dependency theory. China, for example, has dramatically improved. Though, it was still considered as one of the low-income nations despite its growth. The explanation for the fact is being improper.
To sum up, the three theories considered all attempt to explain the development of nations (Oliker, 2011). They have various strengths and weaknesses. Considering their individual opinions is right regarding the global stratification. In this manner, it becomes possible to find and adopt the explanation to the matter in question.
Boudon, R. (2011). Modernization, rationalization and globalization. Protosociology, 27, 21-36. Retrieved from https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=protosociology&id=protosociology_2011_0027_0021_0036
Brazinsky, G. (2012). The roots of modernization theory. Diplomatic History, 36(1), 223-226. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/dh/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2011.01019.x
Luintel, Y. (2014). Modernity and gender: A critique of modernization theory. Himalayan Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 6, 221-235. Retrieved from https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HJSA/article/view/10732
Marsh, R.M. (2014). Modernization theory, then and now. Comparative Sociology, 13(3), 261-283. Retrieved from http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15691330-12341311
Oliker, S. (2011). Sociology and studies of gender, care giving, and inequality. Sociology Compass, 5(11), 968-983. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00417.x/abstract
Veltmeyer, H. (2008). A central issue in dependency theory. Canadian Review of Sociology, 17(3), 198-213. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1980.tb00699.x/abstract