Question

What might be a Marxist or dependency theory account of the causes of poverty? Do you agree or disagree with this perspective? Discuss with at least 5 journal articles and textbook references.

Answer 1

Marxist Theory Perspective:

Marxist theory sees poverty as a result of capitalist exploitation and class struggle. It argues that the ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class leads to the systematic exploitation of the working class, resulting in poverty. Here are some references that support this view:

Karl Marx's "Capital, Volume I": Marx's foundational work explores how the capitalist mode of production leads to the extraction of surplus value from labor, contributing to income inequality and poverty.

David Harvey's "A Companion to Marx's Capital": Harvey's contemporary interpretation of Marx's work provides insights into the role of capital in perpetuating poverty and inequality.

Erik Olin Wright's "Envisioning Real Utopias": Wright discusses the structural causes of poverty within a Marxist framework and proposes alternative economic systems that aim to reduce poverty.

Dependency Theory Perspective:

Dependency theory argues that global poverty is a result of the unequal relationship between developed and underdeveloped nations. It suggests that the global economic system, driven by imperialism and unequal trade, perpetuates poverty in the Global South. Here are references supporting this perspective:

Raúl Prebisch's "The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems": Prebisch's seminal work laid the foundation for dependency theory, emphasizing the unequal terms of trade between developed and underdeveloped nations.

Andre Gunder Frank's "Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America": Frank's work expands on dependency theory, examining how global economic systems perpetuate poverty in developing nations.

Fernando Cardoso and Enzo Faletto's "Dependency and Development in Latin America": This book delves into the structural causes of poverty in Latin America and how they are related to dependency on developed nations.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

A Marxist perspective on poverty focuses on class struggle and exploitation by capital owners, while dependency theory views global poverty as an outcome of exploitative relationships between wealthy and poor nations. Agreement with these theories would depend on an in-depth analysis of scholarly literature and personal reflections.

A Marxist perspective on poverty would emphasize the class struggles and the exploitation of labor by those who own the means of production. According to Marxism, poverty arises from a capitalist system that benefits the ruling class (bourgeoisie) at the expense of the working class (proletariat). This viewpoint argues that the only way to overcome poverty is through societal change that redistributes control to the workers. Dependency theory, which draws on Marxist thought, asserts that global poverty is a consequence of the exploitative relationships between core and peripheral nations, where wealthier countries dominate and profit from the resources and labor of poorer nations, perpetuating a cycle of dependence.

Discussing this topic with reference to at least five journal articles and textbooks could provide a multifaceted analysis of poverty within these theories. For instance, Dependency Theory and Trade Policy challenges the conventional economic theory of free trade by suggesting that such trade often benefits high-income nations at the expense of developing countries, thereby contributing to their poverty. Another angle to explore could be the role of multinational corporations and their influence on global stratification as discussed in modernization theory and dependency theory literature.

Your position on whether you agree or disagree with the Marxist or dependency theory perspective on poverty would depend on your analysis of these sources and your reflections on issues such as executive compensation, as highlighted by the AFL-CIO Paywatch report, and the subjective experience of poverty.