The explanation of global inequality is based on three theories. The claims have different viewpoints, which is why they have to be analysed. In an effort to examine their provisions, their strengths and limitations are discussed.
The theory of modernisation notes that nations are gradually transitioning from pre-modern to modern societies. The growth goals can be accomplished by conventional organizations with aid. A change in working attitudes and cultural values allows these countries to grow. It is Eurocratic because of its ethnocentric approach, as long as everyone can follow the same path towards growth. 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 developed nations. It is evident to the differences in child mortality rates and even life spans.
Dependency theorists attribute global inequity to the exploitation of peripheral nations by the core nations. Peripheral countries provide work to core nations, and not develop and establish. 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 development is the result of 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, and the economic crisis of the world was once attributed to it. Political turmoil is one of the risks in its implementation (VELTMEYER, 2008). Global inequality is best explained by the dependency theory. China, for example, has dramatically improved, but for a long time was still considered as one of the low-income nations despite its growth. The explanation for this is improper.
Conclusively, the three theories considered, all attempt to explain the development of nations. All 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 an explanation to the matter in question.
Boudon, R. (2011). Modernization, Rationalization and Globalization. Protosociology, 27, 21-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/protosociology2011272
BRAZINSKY, G. (2012). The Roots of Modernization Theory. Diplomatic History, 36(1), 223-226. http://dx.doi.org/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(0). http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/hjsa.v6i0.10732
Marsh, R. (2014). Modernization Theory, Then and Now. Comparative Sociology, 13(3), 261-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341311
Oliker, S. (2011). Sociology and Studies of Gender, Caregiving, and Inequality. Sociology Compass, 5(11), 968-983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00417.x
VELTMEYER, H. (2008). A central issue in dependency theory. Canadian Review Of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie, 17(3), 198-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618x.1980.tb00699.x