How do modernization and dependency theories differ on the main causes of global inequality?

The Theory of Dependence, which emerged in Latin America in the 1960s, tried to explain the new characteristics of the region's socioeconomic development, which actually started in 1930-45. Since the 1930s, Latin American economies, under the impact of the world economic crisis that began in 1929, had moved in the direction of industrialization, characterized by the replacement of industrial products imported from the central economic powers by national production. Then, after the long depressive cycle (characterized by 2 world wars, a global crisis in 1929 and the exacerbation of protectionism and nationalism), after the Second World War, the integration of the economy was restored worldwide. Capital, then concentrated in the USA, expanded to the rest of the world, in search of investment opportunities that were oriented towards the industrial sector.

Modernization theories emerged in the 1950s, with theorists from the developed western world trying to explain the inequality and backwardness of some nations. They concluded that the differences between the wealth of nations are due, in the first instance, to the difference in natural wealth (such as climate, soil productivity and natural resources); secondly, the level of investment in education and technology is considered; third, the division of labor is seen as a way to develop and boost the economy and technological and industrial development, in addition to improving production. These theorists believe that it is only possible to modernize with democracy. Achieving these aspects, society would evolve, as transport and communication would develop naturally.

The concept of modernization is sometimes confused with that of capitalism and globalization. Driven by high industrialization, "modern" countries export their model to the world, preaching, and sometimes imposing, characteristics such as democracy and Western customs (sometimes constraining other civilizations).

1190

step-by-step explanation:

1400 - 15% to get the answer.

hope this !

this statement is true.

forests are public goods, available for everybody. when usage of such a good becomes interesting for consumers and its usage increases, there can be a risk of overexploitation. it is a non rival good therefore, if one person consumes the good it does not reduce the availability for subsequent consumers.

these caracteristics require the establishment of measures in order to prevent the destruction of a commonly owned space, for example, to restrict the amount of people that have access to the same time.