Sample on BUSINESS & SOCIETY | Dissertation Writing

Quick Order


testimonial avatar

I had very little time left to finish my dissertation and I realized that I will not be able to finish it on time. Thanks to DissertationWriting.Biz and its fast and reliable services my dissertation turned out to be outstanding and I managed to defend it successfully. Thank you for your assistance!

read all


Capitalism is still perceived as the set of economic dealings that arose during the industrial revolution but have evolved into present times. The era marked the beginning of technological advances which propelled economic growth through business ownership (Friedman, 2011). A number of issues have contributed to development of capitalism in present days which range from globalization, classical political economy, remuneration packages (wages and profits). The remuneration enclose has been paramount and could easily make one easily understand the capitalism interventions in society, for instance, whereby employees are paid wages or salary whereas the owners of the business who provide financial capital for businesses receive profits that comes from the factors of production. The provision of labor is sometimes demeaning to workers when they are poorly remunerated whereas the capitalists (individuals who own business) thrive in affluences obtained from factors of production. Such instances have contributed to exploitation in business and society where the lower class people have been sometimes forced to buy goods expensively to satisfy the ego of business people who are motivated with large sum of profits realized from their ventures.

In the current world, the revolution of the international structure is likely to be bigger, hence will need the assimilation of different cultural and political traditions. In this case, the highly populated Asia will seek to play even a greater role. Like Germany and Japan, the increasing powers are nationalistic, hence seeks to address the past grievances as well as claiming their place in their global world. The notion on development later changed with the dawning reality to many countries for need to industrialize and venture in the manufacture of finished goods as well as the attainment of independence by former protectorates of Europe nations. Sen (2000) argues that majority of countries in Asia and Africa continents came to independence poor and were keen on speeding up their development and improve the lives of their people. Similarly, they wanted to strengthen their independence and stabilize their countries socially, politically and economically, interventions that could earn them sense of recognition and dignity that they felt had been lost under colonialism.

The key feature of industrial capitalism was evident through development interventions, where capitalism was seen as conventional economic wisdom, besides having no direction to be approached from because of certain core assumptions held about it. Its driving force was that economies required more state involvement than they had been given before, for instance, in Latin America which had been engrossed by authoritarian regimes started utilizing statist development strategies. It was still at this time, the horrors of depression and postwar developments employed Keynesian economics. This influenced majority of growing economies of third-world countries and the just newly independent nations that were reinforced by this economics (Ohmae, 1999). Considering the imperfections that was being experienced at the market and the world economy because of capitalists’ interventions, and the confident of overcoming turbulent moments, development theorists suggested new models that could dispense the state with a primary role in the economy. According to Dumenil and Levy (2001, p.606), most governments that had just won independence adopted the models which seemed to be a quick voyage into the industrial age but incorporated some capitalism in the system which resulted into inequalities among citizens. Initially, the models delivered, leading to a boom in the postwar world economy as demand of goods and services from developing nations rose. This endowed the governments with capital they wanted to develop and streamline their industries and infrastructures.

The theory is not good for business as governments interferes with market regulation by natural economic laws by imposing some changes that sometimes impact negatively on society progress. A self-regulation of economic related activities poses a friendly business environment and a social wellbeing of the entire population (Friedman, 2011). The relinquishing of government stakes meant to increase state revenues have initiated monopolies to some crucial economic sectors which have been key drivers of the economy resulting to exploitation of citizens who have continued to wallow in poverty at expense of few individuals who manipulate the economy for their own selfish interests at cost of national development. There has been a long-running deliberation on the changing nature of businesses due to influence by states capitalism and markets. Taking a state model, “antagonism” has been advanced through strong opposition of some policies that are thought to boost economic growth. Such interventions have been inclined on political agendas of various governments. The dominant paradigm in such instance has been from developed nations like United States, UK and China. Each has had influence on market operation because of their international policy circles.

Many people have perceived that a state and market antagonism is obscure as it may result into political underpinnings of developments. Although, the state-market interactions have gained some mileage as far as development is concerned, there is still much to be realized for the betterment of nations and success of business. The state-market condominium advance within a state set up on industrial policy operation and financial markets governance may limit some business progress at expense of pursuing other economic agendas. Most states will formulate policies deemed beneficial to the well-being of their economy not factoring in the free-market conditions, where there is self regulation. Such states will strongly oppose the interventions of other mechanisms that could like impose some changes in the economy by introducing sanctions to curb them. Economists have supported some of its general ideals, for example the call a decentralized and participatory approach in any development interventions. A move that is closely equivalent to the neoclassical for the same, as both advocate the halt to embrace the centralized governments over their peoples’ lives.

The principle of national development, mostly termed as state sovereignty has dominated many debates in a global age, but has questionably had a rough ride in the minds of many economists who view capitalists interventions as a key hindrance.  Post development concept had suspected its purpose, whereas neoclassical theory had celebrated its alleged fall in a borderless world. But the dawning reality on sovereignty of nations has progressively come to be advocated by many because of its perceived powers. Sovereignty campaigns have been attributed by the inequitable gains in the free markets and the argument that world trading system was in favour of developed nations. Many developing nations have opposed the interventions by World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) and termed them as a capitalism threat to marginalize them (Friedman, 1981). This has forced developed nations to put into consideration the agenda of third world countries to rescue the trade talks on equitable developments.

The sort for participatory development has been a welcoming idea by post development theorists. This coalescence is of the opinion about the needs of citizens and poor nations, a move that is seen to be far from programmatic pledges to more or lesser government and later to pragmatic pledges to better government. This was in the wake of power balance between developing and developed nations which changed in important ways. The main issue that bolstered this new development was the rise of China, India and, more lately, Brazil. The steady entry of China into the global economy during the height of Maoist phase and of late, the resurgence of India and Brazil growth rates in surplus have two significant impacts on the global economy. Firstly, they have opened up a beneficial window to developing nations, and secondly, driven up demand for primary products. China’s swelling manufacturing sector has spectacularly stretched the world’s manufacturing capacity and helped to curb some capitalism interventions.

Taking all happenings around, ranging from formation of trade blocs, and the rising of economy of China, India and Brazil into account, it’s not out of doubt that a new development age has dawned. As it was the two decades that came after the Second World War, the 21st century world prices are in favour of third world nations with majority of multinational agencies showing plight of investing in poor nations. Capital flows have started moving in the favour of third world countries, same to development theory that has become more of people-focused, or without doubt people-sensitive, than it was before. The poor nations have minimized the borrowing from World Bank and IMF, thus reducing their influence of capitalism on development interventions (Blecker, 1999). Cheap labour that is progressively more skilled has become a major asset for them as they also continue to benefit from trade agreements. The ultimate implementation of development theory lies in the hands of political leaders, and it remain to be seen whether the 21st century will produce the long awaited leaders who will truly end the kind of poverty and oppression that is perceived to have existed in the 20th century.



Blecker, R. A. (1999). Taming Global Finance: A Better Architecture for Growth and Equity.

Economic Policy Institute, Washington D.C.

Dumenil, G. & Levy, D. (2001). Costs and benefits of Neoliberalism: A Class Analysis. Review

of International Political Economy, Vol. 8, no.4, 578-607.

Evans, P. (2004). Development as Institutional Change: The Pitfalls of Monocropping and the

Potentials of Deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development 38, 4: 302

Floro, M. & Dymski, G. (2000). Financial Crisis, Gender, and Power: An Analytical Framework.

World Development, Vol. 28, No.7.

Friedman, M. (2011). Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Fulcher, J. (2004), Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ginsberg, M. (2009). Globalization and its Effect on Developing Economies, Journal of Social Sciences, vol.13, no.4, pp.197-211.

Grown, C., Elson, D. & Cagatay, N. (2000). Introduction, World Development, Vol. 28, No.7.

Haggard, S. (2004). Institutions and Growth in East Asia, Studies in Comparative International

Development, 38, 4 (2004): 53–81.

Moran, M. (2009), Business, Politics and Society: An Anglo-American comparison, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ohmae, K. (1999). The Borderless World, rev. Ed. New York: Harper Business.

Rapley, J. (2004). Globalization and Inequality, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor.

Order Now