The Principal Legacies of Imperialism for the Contemporary World Economy

AbstractThis study explores the principal legacies of imperialism for the modern-day creative activity rescue. The findings indicate that although colonialism ended galore(postnominal) years ago, its shed light on and policies still hang in in the global economy and it is existence instigateed by globalization. The authentic economies expenditure orthogonal aid and multi dry landals to control the economies of the ontogenesis countries.Introduction The modern earthly concern economy has been influenced by both imperialism and the experience of colonialism. occidental imperialism dominated the global history in the last 200 years and it change both the third adult male and westerly nations in terms of culture, economy, politics and enculturation (Dutt, 2006). The term imperialism was derived from a Latin articulate imperator meaning autocratic power and primaevalized g all overnment (Smith & Dawson Books, 2008). As much(prenominal) imperialism involves wizard ki ngdom dominating anformer(a) country or different countries in ship canal that benefit it and not the latter. The impact of atomic number 63 on the cosmea economy is important because it has shaped the sparing sphere. The legacy of imperialism exists in the form of communication networks, stinting structures and ties to metropolitan economies typifying former colonies.Principal Legacies of Imperialism on the contemporaneous World Economy Imperialism was the precursor of globalization that characterises the contemporary world economy (Chattopadhyaya & Das, 2007). This legacy is not entirely benign and the effects of the restructuring of economies of the former colonies pee-pee take to dependance on the metropoles economies. Colonialism had to be halt because it was exploitative, displaced plenty from their innate(p) status and transferred wealthinessiness from superstar country to the other. notwithstanding, globalisation came up to switch imperialism by achieving the same results tho this time legitimately and in a manner that is politically correct (Ramana & observer Research Foundation, 2008). The World interchange make-up and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade legitimised this legacy of imperialism through putting in place cunning agreements to eliminate trade barriers. This ensures that countries participate in their avow oppression and in the surgical operation transform themselves into neo-colonial states (Hont, 2005). globalisation has not led to economic equating and interdependence as it is oft claimed. It has sooner made the littleer unquestionable countries helpless on the develop countries (Dunning & Lundan, 2008). In rise to power to this, it has also led to indebtedness to the foreign Financial Institutions owned by the west. In some cases it has also led to partial controversy, greater debt and increased penury. Although globalisation has created wealth for some countries, it has also increased pove rty for others. Dutt (2006) adds that it is a much than efficient air of exploiting other nations with the help of established world-wide institutions and mechanisms designed to entrap the lesser veritable countries through creating economic colony, debt, and increasing poverty. provided unlike colonialism these countries cannot revolt against the loss of their sovereignty. This is because whatever attempts to revolt could make them lose economic aid that would result in economic and human crisis. This is a bulky adventure that these countries be never willing to risk. completely these are consequences of the structuring of the economies of the former colonies making them myrmecophilous on exports, monoculture and fluctuations in the global grocery store.Imperialism created a political economic reality of dependence and ontogenesis because most of the lesser create economies do not permit unspoiled control of their economic affairs (Hont, 2005). in that respect ar e counterarguments that political economies have lives of their own which make them not fully governable or that globalisation has taken external such control from all countries. However this perception does not take into pecker the fact that there is a large difference in the extent of control. The Union nation states have a relatively strong position because of the financial institutions and transnationals which cast them higher control over their political economies (Tester, 2010). The southern nation states on the other hand are impoverished, indebted and parasitical on foreign investment and foreign aid. thereof neo-colonialism steps in because these nation states have reduced control.The contemporary world economy is organised around peachyist imperialism characterised by transcriptionatic accumulation of jacket through organised motor exploitation and penetrating abroad markets. The capital imperialists make investments in the other countries, transforms and the n dominates their economies. Additionally, they conflate their productive and financial structures into the international system of capital accumulation (Chattopadhyaya & Das, 2007). Expansion is the central imperative of capitalism because investors further employ business ventures when they see opportunities for extr playacting more than they invest. These firms entirely increase their earnings when their enterprises grow. As such the capitalists clench searching for ways of generating more money. They have to invest in aver to generate get and gather strengths to be able to beat off arguing and unpredictable markets. Owing to its expansionary nature, capitalism has to keep exploring other opportunities off from family unit(a). It is this expansion that ends up destroying whole societies as people are forced to transform into disfranchised salary employees (Smith & Dawson Books, 2008). Consumer societies, mass market and mass media counterchange folk cultures and indi genous societies. Agribusiness mill farms annul cooperative lands, centralised autocracies supplant autonomous regions and desolate shanty towns replace villages. European and North the Statesn corporations have acquired and now control over 75% of mineral resources in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Dunning & Lundan, 2008). However, the pursuit for natural resources is not the only reason for expanding operations overseas. They also motive to lower the cost of achievement and exploit profits through investing in economies with cheaper labour markets. They make over 50% profits in the lesser create countries compared to their home countries because of factors like low wages, faint-hearted labour unions, low assesses, weak or non-existent environmental and occupational protections and non-existent work benefits (Guo & Guo, 2010). For lesson Citibank which is one of the largest US firms makes about near 75% of its profits from its operations overseas (Ramana & observer Rese arch Foundation, 2008).Imperialism has made it workable for the multinational firms to continue growing tear down at a time when their home markets are sluggish because of the dramatic growing in the foreign markets which still roost unexploited. Currently some 400 transnational companies control approximately 80% capital assets in the free global market (Hobson, 2005). These companies have developed global drudgery lines across the lesser developed countries. bigeminal sourcing allows these transnational companies to overcome strikes in one country by increasing production in the other countries. By contend the workers of different countries against each other, they discourage them from making demands on wage and benefit increments which dampen the strategies of labour unions. These firms find cheap labour, natural resources and other profitable conditions in the less developed countries. This is what enables them to generate huge profits which they then repatriate back to their home countries.Both national and topical anesthetic anesthetic governments often compete in attracting multinational companies with huge expectations in terms of employment provision, tax revenues and economic activity (Sharp, 2009). These governments offer the companies incentives in terms of lax labour or environmental regulations, pledges of government assistance, tax breaks and other subsidies. Other than offering these governments a visit of economic growth, these companies exert power over government through their technical and mind property. For instance Microsoft has software patents and Adidas has patents on garment designs. The patents allow these corporations to exercise their monopolistic powers in the topical anesthetic economy and in the process inhibit the growth of the local enterprises. Additionally, this monopoly helps them throw low costs of labour and at measure even exploitative. Owing to the coat of these corporations, they often influence governm ent policies utilise threats of withdrawal from the market (Louis, 2006). This forces the governments of the lesser developed states to make polices that benefit the corporations rather than defend the rights of the citizens. Therefore these corporations exploit the local labour force and funnel the important resources away from these countries into their home countries. In this way globalisation has made the lesser developed economies to be dependent on the developed countries.The multinational companies also cause uneven diffusion of benefits because the resources are diverted from the local people into foreign markets (Louis, 2006). For instance land that could have been used to produce food for the local populations is used by these corporations to grow hard currency crops for their operations. This leads to high costs of food for the local populations as they are at times forced to import what they could produce topically if their natural resources were effectively utilise d. In admission to this, fresh produce are encase for the international markets where they will fetch more money rather than feeding the local populations. This is the reason why foreign dependency has led to widespread malnutrition in some(prenominal) lesser developed economies (Tester, 2010).Conclusion In conclusion, this study has explored the principles legacies of imperialism on the contemporary world economy. The findings indicate that the developed economies still fare the economies of former colonies and the developing economies using different mechanisms like aid and multinational companies with the aid of globalisation. Economic globalisation has also led to unequal economic relations betwixt the developed and the developing economies. The governments of the lesser developed economies act more in the interests of the multinationals and other economies that provide them with aid instead of acting independently on behalf of the citizens. This creates a printing of econ omic connection with the lesser developed economies feeling that they cannot survive on their own. Therefore the dependent relations that were established downstairs colonialism still continue to dominate the world economy through economic imperialism or neo-colonialism.ReferencesChattopadhyaya, D. P., & Das, G. J. B. (2007) Science, technology, imperialism and war. recent Delhi Pearson Longman.Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2008) Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar.Dutt, S. (2006). India in a Globalized World. Manchester Manchester University Press.Guo, S., & Guo, B. (2010). Greater China in an era of globalization. Lanham, Md Rowman & Littlefield.Hobson, J. A. (2005). Imperialism A study. bare-ass York Cosimo.Hont, I. (2005). Jealousy of trade International competition and the nation state in diachronic perspective. Cambridge, Mass Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Louis, W. R. (2006). Ends of British imperialism The move f or empire, Suez and decolonization collected essays. London I.B. Tauris.Ramana, P. V., & Observer Research Foundation. (2008). The Naxal challenge Causes, linkages, and policy options. New Delhi Pearson Education.Sharp, J. P. (2009). Geographies of post-colonialism. London SAGE.Smith, D., & Dawson Books. (2008). The dragon and the elephant China, India and the new world order. London Profile.Tester, K. (2010). Humanitarianism and modern culture. University Park, Pa The Pennsylvania State University Press.