Comparative Politics

 Comparative Politics: Meaning, Nature and Scope.

 Distinction between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics.
 System Approach (David Easton) and Structural Functional (Gabriel Almond)
 Political Economy and Dependency Approach (A. G. Frank)
Comparative Politics
Introduction: As the word indicates comparative Politics is that branch of political science
which deals with study of different societies by comparing them. It involves conscious
comparison in studying political experiences, behaviour of political structure and process of the
government in a comprehensive manner. It also includes the study of extra constitutional
agencies such as NGOs, Pressure groups and political parties etc. which directly or indirectly
influence the functioning of the government.
As we know this world is diverse. Comparative Politics helps us to know about political diversity
of this world. Aristotle was the first scholar who studied 158 constitutions of Greek city states to
in order to know about the political diversity of Greece. On this basis he also gave his
classification of government. He is also known as father of comparative politics.
Before the 2nd world War, Western countries i.e. the developed world was the main focus of
study in comparative politics. As the third world countries (Asia and African) got independence,
this focus of comparative politics changed from developed Nations to developing Nations by the
American Political Thinkers.
Definitions:
According to M Curtis, “Comparative politics is concerned with significant regularities,
similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour.”
According to E.A Freeman, “Comparative Politics is comparative analysis of the various forms
of government and diverse political institutions”.
According to Jean Blondel, “Comparative Politics is the study of pattern of national
government in a contemporary world”.
According to G. M. Smith, “It is the study of the forms of political organization, their
properties, correlations, variations and modes of change”.
Evolution of Comparative Politics: Aristotle gave his classification of government by studying
158 different constitutions of Greek City states. He is supposed to be first thinker of comparative
politics and also its father. His concept of golden means is very important which he gave after
the comparative study of Greek city states. Polybius, a Greek historian taken as prisoner by
Romans was the first to concentrate on measuring the success of power sharing and
differentiation. In his work „Universal History‟ 146 BC he analysed the virtues of the Roman
system of the mixed constitution that combines the monarchical, aristocratic and democratic
system. He viewed Roman system as the manifestation and realization of Aristotle‟s theory. So
comparative politics starts from the time of Aristotle and after him Machiavelli, Tocqueville,
Bryce, Organski and Weber also contributed to this field. The study of comparative politics
become highly significant in 1950s when a good number of leading American political scientists
thought to transfer the field of politics. They transferred it from the study of government to the
study of political process. David Easton, Jean Blondel, Gabriel Almond and Robert Dhal also
contributed in this field.

Page | 1
Nature of Comparative Politics:
Although the comparative politics use the comparative methods for studying the different
countries of the world but still it is not an independent discipline. This is due to the fact that the
subject matter of the comparative politics is democracy, parliament, political parties, pressure
group, political participation, political socialization and elite etc. and these are also the subject
matter of political science. In spite of being a very old field of study dating from the time of
Aristotle, it is still treated as an integral sub-field of political science.
Comparative politics analyses and compares political system operating in different societies. In
doing so it takes into account the three connotations of politics i.e. political activity, political
process and political power. Political activity means the actions taken by different political
institutions in the forms of decisions and policies. Political process includes the government as
well as non-governmental organisation which influence the decisions of the government.
Political power means to influence the behaviour of other with strong and bold decisions by the
political institution.
Scope of Comparative Politics: As comparative Politics is a sub field of Political science but its
scope is much more and it is expanding day by day since the time of Aristotle. Some of its scope
can be summed in following points.
a) Study of Constitution: It studies the constitution of different countries. By comparing it
we can correct the unsuccessful provision in our constitution, which will lead to
development of society. Constitution of India and China are its live examples.
b) Study of System of Government: By comparative politics we can study the system of
government of a particular country. By comparing President Type of governments,
parliament government etc. we can chose the successful one.
c) Study of Political Institution: Comparative politics studies the different political
institutions of different countries which lead to the choosing of correct successful
political institution i.e. planning commission was borrowed with inspiration from Russia
and NITI Ayog was established with inspiration from China.
d) Study of political Parties: Comparative politics studies the different political parties of
different countries. In USA we have two party systems, in communist countries we have
communist party only and in India we have multi-party system. By comparing them we
can conclude and suggest the successful system in a particular country.
e) Inter-disciplinary Focus: Comparative politics accepts the desire of inter-disciplinary
focus. It accepts the needs of the study of politics with the help of the knowledge of
psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and other social sciences.
f) Empirical study of Politics: Comparative political studies gave more stress on empirical
reach. It is no longer limited to descriptive study. It seeks to analyse, empirical and
analytically the actual activities of the government.
g) Emphasis on the study of infrastructure of politics: Comparative politics now seeks to
analyse the actual behaviour of individual, groups, structure and substructure. It is not
confined to the study of former structure of the government in terms of legal power and
function. It seeks to analyse their behaviour in the environment.
h) Political Culture: It studies the political culture of different countries. It makes a
difference between their cultures such as Japanese are peace loving people where as
Indians, Pakistanis as well as Bangladeshis are not as compared to Japanese as they
follow corrupt practices during elections.
Page | 2
 i) Political socialization: It studies how people get civilized for a particular political
system. Family, school as well as work place and surrounding atmosphere shapes their
political behaviour. After learning in these institutions they get civilized.
j) Political recruitment: Different countries follow different process for political
recruitment depending upon its ideology. Comparative Politics studies how people get
recruited in a particular system.
k) Human Nature: It is very important to study as war and peace both depends upon the
nature of involving parties. Comparative Politics studies this crucial matter of politics.
Yardstick for comparison: There are various parameters on which we do a comparative study.
Transparency International is a yardstick used to measures the corruption level among them
them. Human Right Watch gives ranking of countries based on human right issues. World
Happiness Report is issued on the basis of comparative study of all the countries.
Conclusion: It can be concluded from above discussion that the comparative politics is one of
the important branch of political science. It is contribution in the welfare of human governance
since the time of Aristotle. By comparing the system it is improving the political system with
time and space. Being one of the oldest sub-fields of political science it is still treated as an
important sub-discipline of political science. Its scope is increasing day by day with
improvement in modern means of communication. It is studying various factors comparatively
which are necessary to study in order to avoid war and made this world safe for the welfare of
humanity.
Differentiate between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics
Although the terms “comparative Politics and comparative government” are used closely and
interchangeably, there is a point of distinction between two. While the comparative government
covers a comparative study of different political system with special emphasis on their institution
and their function. The comparative politics has a broader scope as it cover all that comes within
the preview of the former and in additional to that all else that may be designated as the study of
non state politics.
The scope of comparative politics is wider than scope of comparative government. The concern
of comparative politics does not end with the study of rule making, rule implementing and rule
adjudicating department of the political system. It also studies various agencies as NGO,
pressure group, nature of human being and environment etc. which directly or indirectly
influence the political system.
From the above it is clear that comparative politics should be preferred our comparative
government as the former is a broader concept and also includes latter in it. Blondel mentioned
that the term “comparative government” has two aspects i.e. horizontal and vertical. Vertical
comparison is a comparative study of the state with other association and groups that have their
political character and costs their impact on functioning of a political system. Horizontal
comparison is a comparative study of the state with other national government.
Comparative government comprises the study of states, their institutions and functions. It does
not take into non-governmental institution and is also not concerned about their function but
comparative politics includes all it.
While making distinction between them Michael Curts points out that comparative politics is
convened with behaviour, institution, process, ideas, values present in more than one country.
While making distinction between these two, Ronald Chicote writes that comparative

Page | 3
government usually refers to the study of countries or national state in Europe and focus of the
study is on the institution of these countries such as executive, legislative, judiciary and their
functioning.
Comparative politics in contrast studies a broader range of political activities including
governments and their institution as well as other form of organisation not directly related to the
national governments e.g. tribal communities, institutions, association and union etc. A brief and
sharp comparison between comparative government and comparative politics is given below;
Comparative Government Comparative Politics
It is older than comparative politics. It is younger than comparative government.
It depends upon classical approaches i.e. It depends upon modern approaches, i.e.
Philosophical, Historical, and Lgal Scientific empirical and behavioural methods,
approaches. structural functional approach.
It has been oriented toward European It is oriented towards all including developed
politics. and developing countries.
It focuses theory building on the basis of Scientific theory building was its main motive.
idealism.
It ignores inter-disciplinary approach. It focuses on inter-disciplinary approach.
Its scope is narrow. Its scope is wider.
It focuses directly on Government. It also focuses on environment effecting
Government.
Its goal is description. Its goal is explanation.
It is a basic concept. It is an improvement in the concept of
comparative government.
Conclusion: It can be concluded from the above discussion that comparative government and
comparative politics both deals with comparative study of the Nations. Various thinkers have
treated them same. Comparative politics is an updated version of comparative government. This
update is same as we see in political science i.e. from idealism to realism. Comparative
government was biased toward European politics but comparative politics treats all the regions
developed, developing and under-developed equally.

System Approach: During the the time of Plato and there was no special compartmentalization
of the discipline. This is the reason Aristotle contributed in both subjects i.e. biology as well
politics and became the father of political science and father of Biology. Much later the time of
Aristotle there was a specific compartmentalisation of the discipline. This led to loss of the value
of the subjects. Various thinkers advocated that there were a number of common things in each
subjects. If these common things were given an abstract form, a general theory could emerge,
which might help each discipline to understand its own problems. This initiative for inter-
disciplinary approach resulted into General system Theory also known as system approach.
Before the system approach the institutional approach was in vague. System approach was an
initiative to study all other aspects in addition to institutions which effect the functioning of a
political system.
The system theory had its origin in the Natural sciences. It was first of all given by German
biologist Ludwing Von Bertalanffy in 1920s. After its development through Anthropology and

Page | 4
sociology it was applied to political science by David Easton. This approach became dominating
only after Second World War.
According to Ludwing Von Bertalanffy, “A system is a set of elements standing in
interaction”.
Political System: It is simply the study of politics with the help of system approach. Various
thinkers have defined it according to their own view. Some of the important definitions are given
below.
David Easton, “Political system is that behaviour or set of interaction through which
authoritative allocation of values are made and implemented for society.”
Hall and Fagen, “A political system is a set of objects together with relation between the objects
and between their attitudes”.
Colin Chery, “A system is a whole which is composed of many parts an ensemble of attitudes”.
Max Weber “Political system is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of
the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”.
The system approach favours an interdisciplinary approach. According to it in order to
understand a system we must have to understand the functioning of its each unit which
contribute in the functioning of system. After the introduction of this approach in Political
science by David Easton, it was further developed by various thinkers such as Gabriel Almond,
Karl Deutsch etc. through their structural functional approach and communication model
respectively.
David Easton had introduced the concept of Political system in his work „The Analysis of
Political System‟ published in „world politics‟ in 1957.
The political system approach as given by David Easton is shown below.
Easton’s Diagram of political system
Environment
Feedback

Demand Decision
The Political
Inputs System
(Output)
Support (Conversion) Policies

Feedback
Components of diagram are explained below;
a) Input: A political system takes input in the form of support and demands. It is very
important because on its basis a political system gives its demand. Demands can be of
four types i.e. Demands for allocation of goods, Demands for regulation of behaviour,
Demands for participation of political system, Demand for communication and
information. Demands have their origin either in environment of the system or within
system. David Easton calls them external and internal demands respectively. Demands
from social environment, cultural environment, ecological environment etc are external
demands. Internal demands emerge from the internal of a system may be to change a
system. Supports are those structures or processes which give the political system the
capacity to cope with demands made upon it. Support means giving obedience and
showing loyalty to a political system. Supports are classified into two types. Overt

Page | 5
 Support and Covert Support. Overt refers to the actions that are clearly and manifestly
supportive. Such as supporting a political party by slogans. Covert Support refers to
supportive attitude or sentiments. Such as supporting a political party by voting as
followed by govt. employees in India. Some of the demands and support are shown
below in table
Demands Support
 Allocation of Goods and Services  Material Support for (Payment of
 Regulation of Behaviour Authority and taxes etc.)
 Political Participation  Obedience support (obedience to
 Communication and Information law, rule etc)
 Participation support (voting in
election etc)

b) Regulatory Mechanism: Every political system possesses regulatory mechanisms of its

own to prevent the demands from entering into the system. Regulatory mechanisms are
Structural Mechanisms (gate keepers), Cultural Mechanism, Communication Channels
and Reduction Processes. Structural Mechanisms are also known as gatekeepers such as
Pressure groups, political parties etc. Cultural Mechanism is the demands against culture
remain unaccepted and are not articulated. Communication Channels are Demands gets
scattered widely with a number of communication channels and hence get diluted.
Reduction Processes includes Legislators, executive and administrative bodies to filter
the demands according to their importance.
c) Output: An output of a Political system is a political decision or policy. Decision is on a
particular issue and policy is a long time effect. Output is also important for the survival
of the system because it has its direct effect on the public i.e. its supporters. It is
dependent on the input received by system.
d) Feedback: Easton describes it as feedback loop. An output has its effect on the public
and the public supports the political system based on its output. This attitude of public
toward the political system after analyzing its output is called feedback. It is very
important because it changes the system according to the need of the people.
Some of the Characteristics of Political System as given by David Easton:
a) Political System implies a set of interactions through which values are authoritatively
allocated. This makes clear that decisions of those who are in power are binding.
b) Political system is a system of regularised persistent pattern of relationship among people
and institution within it.
c) Political systems likes any other natural system, has its self regulating system by which it
is able to change, correct and adjust its process and structure.
d) Political system is dynamic in the sense that it can maintain itself through the feedback
mechanism. It help the system to persist through every else associated it may change even
radically.
e) Political system is different from other system and a boundary line separates them.
f) Input through demands and support put the political system at work while output through
policies and decision enables the system to adjust it selves.

Page | 6
 g) Conversion process is constituted by those institutions, processes and interactions by
which the political system converts input into output.
h) Output flow out of the political system in the form of binding and authoritative decisions,
laws and policies.
i) Feedback is the process by which reactions to the output of the system travel back to the
levels of inputs and give rise to activity demanding necessary outputs.
Criticism
Aristotle wanted to avoid the revolution and Karl Mark wanted to appreciate the revolution for
development of state. Easton ignores the revolution which occurs in every political system. He
gives more importance to input as well as output but no more to the conversion process and
treats it as a black box. He can also criticise his by saying that he made rules more important than
game.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that there was an inter-disciplinary approach during the time of
Aristotle and the system approach also tries to take the political science to its original purity. The
institutional approach ignored other factors by not studying their influence and the system
approach corrects this mistake by studying majority of factors which directly as well as indirectly
influencing the political system. Easton along with other contributes a lot to understand properly
the political system. This approach is also treated as one of the important approach of studying a
political system.

Structural Functional Approach: Structural functional approach is the derivation of system

approach. The structural functional approach originated in the biological and mechanical
sciences. It was first developed in Anthropology by Radcliffe Brown and B. Malinowski. From
Anthropology it was applied to sociology by Talcott Pearson and Marion Levy. This approach
came to the field of political science through Gabriel Almond and others.
This concept is basically concerned with the phenomenon of system maintains and regulation. It
was hailed by some important member of the discipline as the best possible approach to the
development of the theory in the field of Political Science.
It is a means which explains which political structure performance what basic function in the
political system and it a tool of investigation. This method of structural functional approach was
adopted in political science by leading American writers who realized that while studying
political phenomenon, they should also be concerns of other things and their function in the
political phenomenon.
In 1960, Gabriel Almond and Coleman applied the structural approach to non-western political
system in their work „Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach‟. In 1961 Gabriel
Almond and Bingham Powell developed the structural functional approach in their work
„Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach‟ and classified various political systems in
terms of the levels of their political development.
Gabriel Almond gives a systematic definition of political system within the frame work of
structural functionalism. He defined political system as an analysis which looks at political
system as coherent whole which influences and in turn is influenced by environment. Almond
and Coleman in 1960 used this approach in their work „The Politics of Developing Area’ to the
non-western political systems.
According to Gabriel almond every political system has four common properties as given below;
i) All political system have their own structure
Page | 7
 ii) All political system perform same function but in different frequency and degree
iii) All political structure are multifunctional in different degree
iv) All political system are mixed in culture i.e. traditional as well as modern
He also gives three elements of political system
i) Comprehensiveness: A political system includes all the interactions including input as
well as output i.e. political parties, religion, caste, kinship etc.
ii) Inter-dependence: Change in one unit of system will result in change in other system
iii) Boundaries: It is the point where one system ends and another begins.
Functions of Political system by Gabriel Almond
Almond gave four input functions and three output functions as given below
a) Input functions
 Political Socialisation and recruitment: It is the process in which we learn about our
society and become a civilized citizen. Every society have different rules and and the
native people follow them. An individual passes through various stages which socializes
him. These stages are family, school, church, temple, mosque, voluntary associations,
work place, political parties and government institutions etc. Political recruitment is also
an important part of every political system e.g. we elect our representatives MLA, MP for
making indirect political decisions on our behalf.
 Interest Articulation: It is the process in which individual as well as groups make
demands upon political decision makers. Demand can have its origin from individual. It
can be a collective demand by interest groups. Based on nature and structure of interest
groups he divides them into four type i.e. institutional interest groups, non-associational
interest groups, Anomic interest groups and associational interest groups. Institutional
interest group includes the institutions directly linked and recognised by government e.g.
executive, judiciary, army and police etc. non-associational group includes religion, class,
caste, kinship etc. Anomic interest group includes those which mostly go to riots and
demonstration for their demands. Associational interest group includes trade union,
professional and business etc.
 Interest Aggregation: It is a process in which the individual or group political demands
are combined into policy programmes. In democracy it is usually done by Political
Parties. Based on the structure of the political parties he divides them into four type i.e.
authoritative system, dominant non-authoritative system, competitive two party and
competitive multi party. Based on the aggregation function he divides them into three
types (secular, pragmatic and bargaining), (absolute, value free/ideological parties) and
(particularistic or traditional).
 Political Communication: It is simply the communication of demands in the shape of
information to the political system as input, from system as output and its feedback to
input. A free media is an ideal medium of communication in a political system. Almond
gives crucial importance to it as he compares it with blood circulation in the human body.
b) Output functions
 Rule Making: In the democracy Rule making function is performed by the legislative
organ. It is very crucial as it makes the things which other organs are going to apply. It
makes the authoritative and binding rules.

Page | 8
  Rule Application: This function is performed by the executive organ of the government.
 Rule Adjudication: This function is performed by the Judiciary organ of the
government. It must be free from the clutches of legislative as well as executive organ of
the government for proper development of the state.
Criticism
Various thinkers criticise this approach for its focus primarily on the static function and not on
dynamic. It fails to clarify that which functions are more important than others. This approach
explains all things by empirical methods and hence fails to study the values as there is no
perimeter to study the value i.e. good or bad. Like David Easton‟s approach it also fails to study
revolution which is dangerous for the survival of political system. Various thinkers criticise this
approach by blaming it that it is a European as well as developed countries approach not suitable
for the third world or so called developing and under-developed world.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that Gabriel Almond did a great job to study the functioning of
the political system. It studies various important units such as political socialisation, recruitment,
interest articulation, interest aggregation, communication, rule making, rule application and rule
adjudication. Majority of its units are seen in all countries irrespective of their ideological
differences i.e. capitalist or communist. In comparison to David Easton he studies the political
system in detail. He did a great job by applying the political system approach to non-western
countries.

Political Economy: Matters related to the production and distribution of the goods has an
economic character. In order to do a fair production and distribution in the society the state
makes some restriction on the process of production and distribution. For the proper
development of a country it is necessary to makes its economy strong. This inter-dependence of
the polity and economy is called political economy.
It is a branch of social science which studies the relationship between individual and society and
between market and state, using a diverse set of tools and methods drawn largely from
economics, political science and sociology.
The term ‘Political Economy‟ is a combination of two words i.e. Political and economy. The
word Political is derived from Greek word “Polis” meaning city state. The word „economy‟ is
derived from Greek word ‘Oikosnomos‟ which means house hold management. Thus political
economy means how a country i.e. public house hold is managed or governed taking both
political and economic factors into account.
During ancient time economy was also treated as an important activity of the states by king. It is
necessary to have more wealth to bear the loss of war and maintain a large standing army for
defence of the state. They use to collect revenue as tax from agriculture income of the citizens.
The invention of the agriculture forced the human being to settle at a fixed place. The production
of surplus agriculture products lead to the invention of barter system. Still further development in
this field lead to money in form of coins. During this stage in order to make exchange fair and
equal these economic activities was put under the control of the state. In the field of political
economy the discussion on the control of state on economic matter led to the emergency of
school of liberalism, Socialism and communism. A large number of thinkers such as J. S. Mill,
Karl Marks, Mitchell, Schumpeter and Freedman etc. contributed in this field.
Weber defines it as social science which deals with interconnection of economic and political
processes. Only the Marx writers such as Paul Baran, Ander Gunder Frank and Charles
Page | 9
Bettelheim have introduced the political economy approach while analysing the politics of Asia,
Africa and Latin American system.
Paul Baran‟s „Political economy of growth‟ and A. G. Frank‟s „Capitalism and under
development in Latin America‟ are some of the notable works on the application of the Marxist
political economy paradigm to social and political change in developing countries. Gunnar
Myrdal (Asian Drama) and John H. Kautsky have studied the impact of economic factor on the
political process of the developing countries from a non Marxist i.e. liberal point of view.
Liberal believes that private property should be protected and that of the production of wealth
based on the incentive to worker and the right to property to instilled in the individual.
They suggested that individual initiative must be free from merchant constraints. Adam Smith
consolidated these ideas into classical political economy. In his inquiry into the nature and the
causes of the wealth of nations, he discusses the main theme of commodity and capital and
values, simple and complex labour
He was the first to formulate the labour theory of value which reduces the values of commodities
to the amount of labour contain in them.
Ricardo in his principle of political economy and taxation criticises the Adam Smith and
advocate the accumulation of capital as the bases of economic expansion. He thought that
restriction on private investment should be abolished and the governments should not intervene
in the economy.
The utopian socialists like Robert Owen, Sanit Simmon and Charles Fourier critics the liberals
for defending the system of capitalism by giving a twist to Ricardo‟s theory of labour.
Marxist and Neo-Marxist writers like Hilfarding, Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg and others
continued the radical tradition of political economy. Lenin‟s „Imperialism: the last phase of
capitalism‟ was a good example of application of political economy approach to the analysis of
imperialism as a world system. Paul Baran, Leo Habberman and Paul Sweezy made a great
contribution the development of political economy since about 1960.
Political economy fundamentally addresses the broad historical sweep of capitalism, especially
over the past hundred years.
The classical liberal thinkers supported that there should not be the control of state in economic
fields. The supported a laissez fair policies, they treated state as necessary evil, they believe that
should provide only security. The modern liberal thinkers believe in welfare state, they favoured
interventions of state in the economic activities to do welfare of the people.
Karl Marx favoured that production and distribution should be under the control of worker class.
In the contemporary world political economy is an integral part of every political system. In
democratic countries every economic activities is under the control of government. Government
levies taxes on import, export, selling and buying etc and these activities are a source of income
for the state. Democratic countries also favour privatization in order to develop the large sectors.
In communist countries the government also control the economic sectors but private players are
not welcomed as seen in democratic countries. More over communist countries are also getting
attracted toward mixed economy and are performing better. People Republic of China is its live
example.
Conclusion: It can be concluded from the above discussion that political economy is treated as
an important term since the Aristotle when he criticises the Plato for interfere in house hold
management. Its origin can even be traced from the time when human being was dependent on
barter system. If handled properly it can grow the country and reduce the poverty. It is even
Page | 10
today treated as an important activity of a nation and its mishandling can result in crashing of the
economic system as we saw in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Dependency Approach: It is an attempt to explain the root causes of underdevelopment of third

world countries. It makes the developed countries directly responsible for the under development
of third world countries. This model is advocated by Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel
Wallerstein and Celso Furtado etc.
The concept of dependency is widely used in comparative analysis of third world political
system in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It evolved in Latin America in the 1960‟s and was
later discussed in some writing about Asia and Africa as well. Both liberal and Marxist writer
have propounded their own versions of the phenomena of development and underdevelopment
resulting in considerable theoretical confusion about the nature of dependency and its conceptual
implications.
Lenin was the first to refer to the concept of dependency as a part of his general theory of
imperialism. He understood capitalist imperialism as a manifestation of the struggle among the
colonial powers for the economic and political division of the world.
Lenin provides the division of this world divided into two parts i.e. core and periphery. Core
includes the western developed countries including the Japan and periphery includes the
developing countries of the third world. There is transfer of wealth and resources from the
periphery to the core countries. Its result is rich countries getting richer and poor getting poor.
Immanuel Wallenstein in his work world system theory added one more grouping called „semi-
periphery‟ between core and periphery and he placed Soviet Union in it.
Several Marxist thinkers explain under development of dependent countries by referring to
dominants of the third world countries by monopoly capitalism. These writers argued that today
corporate capitalism has replaced financial capital as the instrument of dominance in the
dependent countries.
Ruy Mauro Marini has propounded the theory of sub-imperialism regarding capitalist
development in Brazil. He characterised Brazilian capitalism as super-exploitive, with a rapid
accumulation benefiting to the owner of means of production and absolute poverty securing to
masses. His approach combined a dependency perspective with a Marxist anti imperialist
framework.
Andre Gunder Frank was a left-wing economist and political activist who wrote widely in the
fields of economics, social and political history, development studies and international relations.
A German national, he is best known today for his work on what he called „the development of
underdevelopment‟ or „dependency theory‟
A. G. Frank rejects the theories of modernization that they don‟t provide the understanding of
societal development and under-development. In order to explain the development and under-
development he provides another frame work for dependency theory. He highlights that
existence of antiquated, economic, cultural, social and political internal arrangements is not the
root cause of under-development but it is the result of the historical process of the capitalist
mode of production.
He gave this theory in his work Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. He selected
Brazil and Chile for field work of his study. He used the term metropole as centre for the western
developed countries and satellite as periphery for the third world. Metropole and satellite divided
the world and in this division the metropole exploited and underdeveloped the satellites. Thus
Page | 11
capitalism on world scale promotes developing metropolises at the expenses of under
development and dependents satellites.
Conclusion: It can be concluded from the above discussion that underdeveloped countries are
busy in their internal disputes such as religious diversity, past war revenge, class and poverty
disputes. This provides a golden opportunity to the developed countries to exploit the under
developed countries. This inter-dependence is so dangerous that it has handicapped the countries
such as India, Pakistan and paralysed the whole Middle East oil producing countries. This
dependence is not good for security and development for the third world countries. China has
done a lot in freeing itself from the clutches of this dependency and countries like India has also
made a little bit progress in this direction.

Page | 12