The Peace of Westphalia The Thirty Years War was ended by the Peace of Westphalia which was referred

to as the "Peace of Exhaustion" by contemporaries. The Peace of Westphalia was not one specific treaty but rather a collection of treaties commonly linked by the fact that they brought the Thirty Years War to an end. France and Sweden had already agreed at the Treaty of Hamburg that there should be a European return to the status quo of 1618. Ferdinand III wanted to retain the gains made at Prague and he wanted 1627 to be his baseline on territorial negotiations. The German Electors favoured 1618 as their baseline. In September 1640, the Electors were summoned by Ferdinand III to Regensburg where the emperor attempted to get the Electors to agree to preserving the Peace of Prague. He failed. Frederick William of Brandenburg specifically rejected Prague as the basis of any settlement. In July 1641, Brandenburg and Sweden signed a truce. Many German princes followed this example of Brandenburg's to show their displeasure with Ferdinand III. However, Ferdinand III had already started separate negotiations with the French and Dutch at Munster and with the Swedes at Osnabruck. Peace negotiations continued at the same time as the military campaigns. In 1642, a Swedish army defeated an Imperial army at Breitenfeld at the same time as Swedish and Imperial diplomats were examining potential peace terms. Such occurrences happened as a show of strength to the opposition. In 1645, the Imperial army faced two defeats at Nordlingen (defeated by the French) and Jankau (defeated by Sweden). The Holy Roman Empire was clearly in no position to carry on but neither could the Swedes or the French deliver a knockout blow from a military point of view. In 1645, Sweden and Saxony signed a peace agreement. In 1646, Ferdinand III could no longer expect support from Saxony, Brandenburg or Spain. In 1647, Maximilian of Bavaria was forced by the Swedes and French to withdraw his support to Ferdinand. Maximilian reneged on this agreement in 1648, and Swedish and French forces devastated Bavaria leaving Maximilian in a position where he could not do anything else except sign a truce with Sweden and France. The French persuaded Ferdinand III to exclude Spain from the peace negotiations but the United Provinces and Spain did sign a peace settlement at Munster in 1648 thus bringing to an end 80 years of hostility between the Spanish government and the Dutch commonly known as the Revolt of the Netherlands. The whole package of settlements is known as the Peace of Westphalia. One of its provisos was that the practice of electing a King of the Romans in the emperor's lifetime was abolished. The title of the "Peace of Exhaustion" is probably a more apt title for this series of peace settlements that brought to an end the Thirty Years War. The terms: France gained the bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun; Breisach and Philippsburg; Alsace and part of Strasburg. Sweden gained West Pomerania, Wismar, Stettin, Mecklenburg; the bishoprics of Verden and Bremen which gave her control over the estuaries of the Elbe and Weser. Brandenburg gained East Pomerania; the archbishopric of Magdeburg and Halberstadt. Bavaria kept the Upper Palatinate and the Electoral title that went with it. The Lower Palatinate was restored to Charles Louis, the son of Frederick and an 8th Elector's title was made for him. Saxony kept Lusatia. Bohemia remained an hereditary domain. Upper Austria was restored to the Habsburgs - Bavaria had taken control of it. Spain recognised the United Provinces as a sovereign state. Marxism is the political practice and social theory based on the works of Karl Marx, a nineteenth-century philosopher, economist, journalist, and revolutionary, along with Friedrich Engels. Marx drew on Hegel's philosophy, the political economy of Adam Smith, Ricardian economics, and nineteenth-century French socialism to develop a critique of society which he claimed was both scientific and revolutionary. This critique achieved its most systematic (if unfinished) expression in his masterpiece, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Das Kapital). Political Realism in International Relations First published Mon Jul 26, 2010; substantive revision Tue Apr 2, 2013 In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power. The negative side of the realists' emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states. National politics is the realm of authority and law, whereas international politics, they sometimes claim, is a sphere without justice, characterized by active or potential conflict among states. Not all realists, however, deny the presence of ethics in international relations. The distinction should be drawn between classical realismrepresented by such twentieth-century theorists as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthauand radical or extreme realism. While classical realism emphasizes the concept of national interest, it is not the Machiavellian doctrine that anything is justified by reason of state (Bull 1995, 189). Nor does it involve the glorification of war or conflict. The classical realists do not reject the possibility of moral judgment in international politics. Rather, they are critical of moralismabstract moral discourse that does not take into account political realities. They assign supreme value to successful political action based on prudence: the ability to judge the rightness of a given action from among possible alternatives on the basis of its likely political consequences. Realism encompasses a variety of approaches and claims a long theoretical tradition. Among its founding fathers, Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes are the names most usually mentioned. Twentieth-century classical realism has today been largely replaced by neorealism, which is an attempt to construct a more scientific approach to the study of international relations. Both classical realism and neorealism have been subjected to criticism from IR theorists representing liberal, critical, and post-modern perspectives. Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations first outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics.[1] Alongside neoliberalism, neorealism is one of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations; the two perspectives have dominated international relations theory for the last decade. [2] Neorealism emerged from the North American discipline of political science, and reformulates the classical realist tradition of E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Realists in general argue that power is the most important factor in international relations.

Neorealism is subdivided into defensive and offensive neorealism.

Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.[1] This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved like organisms. [2] This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole. [3] In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought.[4][5] The structural functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whole.[6] Idealism, more specifically, Wilsonianism or Wilsonian Idealism, refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II. It particularly emphasized the ideal of American exceptionalism. More generally, the Anglo-Australian scholar of international relations Hedley Bull wrote:[1] "By the 'idealists' we have in mind writers such as Sir Alfred Zimmern, S. H. Bailey, Philip Noel-Baker, and David Mitrany in the United Kingdom, and James T. Shotwell, Pitman Potter, and Parker T. Moon in the United States. ... The distinctive characteristic of these writers was their belief in progress: the belief, in particular, that the system of international relations that had given rise to the First World War was capable of being transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world order; that under the impact of the awakening of democracy, the growth of 'the international mind', the development of the League of Nations, the good works of men of peace or the enlightenment spread by their own teaching, it was in fact being transformed; and that their responsibility as students of international relations was to assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, the ill-will, and the sinister interests that stood in its way." Individual contributors to classical liberalism and political liberalism are associated with philosophers of the Enlightenment. Liberalism as a specifically named ideology begins in the late 18th century as a movement towards self-government and away from aristocracy. It included the ideas of self-determination, the primacy of the individual and the nation, as opposed to the state and religion, as being the fundamental units of law, politics and economy. Since then liberalism has broadened to include a wide range of approaches from Americans Ronald Dworkin, Richard Rorty, John Rawls and Francis Fukuyama as well as the Indian Amartya Sen and the Peruvian Hernando de Soto. Some of these people moved away from liberalism, while others espoused other ideologies before turning to liberalism. There are many different views of what constitutes liberalism, and some liberals would feel that some of the people on this list were not true liberals. It is intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. Theorists whose ideas were mainly typical for one country should be listed in that country's section of liberalism worldwide. Generally only thinkers are listed, politicians are only listed when they, beside their active political work, also made substantial contributions to liberal theory. Neoliberalism is a label for Economic liberalism who advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society. The term was introduced in the late 1930s by European liberal scholars to promote a new form of economic, political and societal liberalism. The lessons gained from the historical experiences of both failed economic liberalism in the early 1930s and the inhumane totalitarianism and fascism of National Socialism, and, in addition, the preoccupation with the social question since the late nineteenth century led to the discussion and eventual dev elopment of a new liberalism or neoliberalism as a so-called Third or Middle Way between the extremes of unbridled capitalism and collectivist central planning.[1] In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy. In the sixties, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the following decades, the meaning had shifted. The term neoliberal is now normally associated with laissez-faire economic policies, and is used mainly by those who are critical of legislative market reform Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations.[1][2][3][4][5] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[6][7] While anti-statism is central, some argue[8] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. [9][1][10][11][12][13][14] As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. [15] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[16] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[7] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[17][18] Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology,[19][20] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism,collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[21] Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[22] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[23] and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organizations.[24][25] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[26][27] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society

Development theory is a conglomeration of theories about how desirable change in society is best achieved. Such theories draw on a variety of social science disciplines and approaches.

Modernization theory[edit] Main article: Modernization theory Modernization theory is used to analyze in which way modernization processes in societies take place. The theory looks at which aspects of countries are beneficial and which constitute obstacles for economic development. The idea is that development assistance targeted at those particular aspects can lead to modernization of 'traditional' or 'backward' societies. Scientists from various research disciplines have contributed to modernization theory.

Sociological and anthropological modernization theory[edit] The earliest principles of modernization theory can be derived from the idea of progress, which stated that people can develop and change their society themselves. Marquis de Condorcet was involved in the origins of this theory. This theory also states that technological advancements and economic changes can lead to changes in moral and cultural values. The French sociologistmile Durkheim stressed the interdependence of institutions in a society and the way in which they interact with cultural and social unity. His work The Division of Labor in Society was very influential. It described how social order is maintained in society and ways in which primitive societies can make the transition to more advanced societies. [1] Other scientists who have contributed to the development of modernization theory are: David Apter, who did research on the political system and history of democracy; Seymour Martin Lipset, who argued that economic development leads to social changes which tend to lead to democracy; David McClelland, who approached modernization from the psychological side with his motivations theory; and Talcott Parsons who used his pattern variables to compare backwardness to modernity. Linear stages of growth model[edit] The linear stages of growth model is an economic model which is heavily inspired by the Marshall Plan which was used to revitalize Europes economy after World War II. It assumes thateconomic growth can only be achieved by industrialization. Growth can be restricted by local institutions and social attitudes, especially if these aspects influence the savings rate and investments. The constraints impeding economic growth are thus considered by this model to be internal to society.[2] According to the linear stages of growth model, a correctly designed massive injection of capital coupled with intervention by the public sector would ultimately lead to industrialization andeconomic development of a developing nation.[3] The Rostow's stages of growth model is the most well-known example of the linear stages of growth model.[3] Walt W. Rostow identified five stages through which developing countries had to pass to reach an advanced economy status: (1) Traditional society, (2) Preconditions for take-off, (3) Take-off, (4) Drive to maturity, (5) Age of high mass consumption. He argued that economic development could be led by certain strong sectors; this is in contrast to for instance Marxism which states that sectors should develop equally. According to Rostows model, a country needed to follow some rules of devel opment to reach the take-off: (1) The investment rate of a country needs to be increased to at least 10% of its GDP, (2) One or two manufacturing sectors with a high rate of growth need to be established, (3) An institutional, political and social framework has to exist or be created in order to promote the expansion of those sectors. [4] The Rostow model has serious flaws, of which the most serious are: (1) The model assumes that development can be achieved through a basic sequence of stages which are the same for all countries, a doubtful assumption; (2) The model measures development solely by means of the increase of GDP per capita; (3) The model focuses on characteristics of development, but does not identify the causal factors which lead development to occur. As such, it neglects the social structures that have to be present to foster development.[4] Economic modernisation theories such as Rostow's stages model have been heavily inspired by the Harrod-Domar model which explains in a mathematical way the growth rate of a country in terms of the savings rate and the productivity of capital. [5] Heavy state involvement has often been considered necessary for successful development in economic modernization theory; Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, Ragnar Nurkse and Kurt Mandelbaum argued that a big push model in infrastructure investment and planning was necessary for the stimulation of industrialization, and that the private sector would not be able to provide the resources for this on its own.[6] Another influential theory of modernization is the dual-sector model by Arthur Lewis. In this model Lewis explained how the traditional stagnant rural sector is gradually replaced by a growing modern and dynamic manufacturing and service economy.[7] Because of the focus on the need for investments in capital, the Linear Stages of Growth Models are sometimes referred to as suffering from capital fundamentalism.[8] Critics of modernization theory[edit] Modernization theory observes traditions and pre-existing institutions of primitive societies as obstacles to modern economic growth. Modernization which is forced from outside upon a society might induce violent and radical change, but according to modernization theorists this is generally worth it. Critics point to traditional societies being destroyed and slipping away to a modern form of poverty without ever gaining the promised advantages of modernization. Structuralism[edit] Main article: Structuralist economics Structuralism is a development theory which focuses on structural aspects which impede the economic growth of developing countries. The unit of analysis is the transformation of a countrys economy from, mainly, a subsistence agriculture to a modern, urbanized manufacturing and service economy. Policy prescriptions resulting from structuralist thinking include major government intervention in the economy to fuel the industrial sector, known as Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI).[9] This structural transformation of the developing country is pursued in order to create an economy which in the end enjoys self-sustaining growth. This can only be reached by ending the reliance of the underdeveloped country on exports of primary goods (agricultural and mining products), and pursuing inward-oriented development by shielding the domestic economy from that of the developed economies. Trade with advanced economies is minimized through the erection of all kinds of trade barriers and an overvaluation of the domestic exchange rate; in this way the production of domestic substitutes of formerly imported industrial products is encouraged. The logic of the strategy rests on the Infant industry argument, which states that young industries initially do not have the economies of scale and experience to be able to compete with foreign competitors and thus need to be protected until they are able to compete in the free market.[10] The ISI strategy is supported by the Prebisch-Singer thesis, which states that over time, the terms of trade forcommodities deteriorate compared to manufactured goods.[11] This is because of the observation that the income elasticity of demand is greater for manufactured goods than that for primary products. Structuralists argue that the only way Third World countries can develop is through action by the state. Third world countries have to push industrialization and have to reduce their dependency on trade with the First World, and trade among themselves. The roots of structuralism lie in South America, and particularly Chile. In 1950, Raul Prebisch went to Chile to become the first director of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). In Chile, he cooperated with Celso Furtado, Anibal Pinto, Osvaldo Sunkel and Dudley Seers, which all became influential structuralists. Dependency theory[edit] Main article: Dependency theory Dependency theory is essentially a follow up to structuralist thinking, and shares many of its core ideas. Whereas structuralists did not consider that development would be possible at all unless a strategy of delinking and rigorous ISI was pursued, dependency thinking could allow development with external links with the developed parts of the globe. However, this kind of development is considered to be "dependent development", i.e., it does not have an internal domestic dynamic in the developing country and thus remains highly vulnerable to the economic vagaries of the world market. Dependency thinking starts from the notion that resources flow from the periphery of poor and underdeveloped states to a core of wealthy countries, which leads to accumulation of wealth in the rich states at the expense of the poor states. Contrary to modernization theory, dependency theory states that not all societies progress through similar stages of development. Primitive states have unique features, structures and institutions of their own and are the weaker with regard to the world market economy, while the developed nations have never been in this follower position in the past. Dependency theorists argue that underdeveloped countries remain economically vulnerable unless they reduce their connectedness to the world market. [12][13] Dependency theory states that poor nations provide natural resources and cheap labor for developed nations, without which the developed nations could not have the standard of living which they enjoy. Also, developed nations will try to maintain this situation and try to counter attempts by developing nations to reduce the

influence of developed nations. This means that poverty of developing nations is not the result of the disintegration of these countries in the world system, but because of the way in which they are integrated into this system. In addition to its structuralist roots, dependency theory has much overlap with Neo-Marxism and World Systems Theory, which is also reflected in the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, a famous dependency theorist. Wallerstein rejects the notion of a Third World, claiming that there is only one world which is connected by economic relations (World Systems Theory). He argues that this system inherently leads to a division of the world in core, semi-periphery and periphery. One of the results of expansion of the world-system is the commodification of things, like natural resources, labor and human relationships.[14][15] Basic needs[edit] Main article: Basic needs The basic needs approach was introduced by the International Labour Organization in 1976, mainly in reaction to prevalent modernisation- and structuralisminspired development approaches, which were not achieving satisfactory results in terms of poverty alleviation and combating inequality in developing countries. It tried to define an absolute minimum of resources necessary for long-term physical well-being. The poverty line which follows from this, is the amount of income needed to satisfy those basic needs. The approach has been applied in the sphere of development assistance, to determine what a society needs for subsistence, and for poor population groups to rise above the poverty line. Basic needs theory does not focus on investing in economically productive activities. Basic needs can be used as an absolute measure of poverty.[16][17] Proponents of basic needs have argued that elimination of absolute poverty is a good way to make people active in society so that they can provide labor more easily and act as consumers and savers.[18] There have been also many critics of the basic needs approach. It would lack theoretical rigour, practical precision, be in conflict with growth promotion policies, and run the risk of leaving developing countries in permanent backwardness.[19] Neo-liberalist theory[edit] Neoclassical development theory has it origins in its predecessor: classical economics. Classical economics was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries and dealt with the value of products and on which production factors it depends. Early contributors to this theory are Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Classical economists argued - as do the neoclassical ones - in favor of the free market, and against government intervention in those markets. The 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith makes sure that free trade will ultimately benefit all of society. John Maynard Keynes was a very influential classical economist as well, having written his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936. Neoclassical development theory became influential towards the end of the 1970s, fired by the election of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA. Also, the World Bankshifted from its Basic Needs approach to a neoclassical approach in 1980. From the beginning of the 1980s, neoclassical development theory really began to roll out. Structural adjustment[edit] One of the implications of the neoclassical development theory for developing countries were the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wanted them to adapt. Important aspects of those SAPs include:

Fiscal austerity (reduction in government spending) Privatization (which should both raise money for governments and improve efficiency and financial performance of the firms involved) Trade liberalization, currency devaluation and the abolition of marketing boards (to maximize the static comparative advantage the developing country has on the global market) Retrenchment of the government and deregulation (in order to stimulate the free market)

These measures are more or less reflected by the themes which were identified by the Institute of International Economics which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of Latin Americafrom the economic and financial crises of the 1980s. These themes are known as the Washington consensus, a termed coined in 1989 by the economist John Williamson. Recent trends[edit] Postdevelopment theory[edit] Main article: Postdevelopment theory Postdevelopment theory is a school of thought which questions the idea of national economic development altogether. According to postdevelopment scholars, the goal of improving living standards leans on arbitrary claims as to the desirability and possibility of that goal. Postdevelopment theory arose in the 1980s and 1990s. According to postdevelopment theorists, the idea of development is just a 'mental structure' (Wolfgang Sachs) which has resulted in an hierarchy of developed and underdeveloped nations, of which the underdeveloped nations desire to be like developed nations. [20] Development thinking has been dominated by the West and is very ethnocentric, according to Sachs. The Western lifestyle may neither be a realistic nor a desirable goal for the world's population, postdevelopment theorists argue. Development is being seen as a loss of a country's own culture, people's perception of themselves and modes of life. According to Majid Rahnema, another leading postdevelopment scholar, things like notions of poverty are very culturally embedded and can differ a lot among cultures. The institutes which voice the concern over underdevelopment are very Western-oriented, and postdevelopment calls for a broader cultural involvement in development thinking. Postdevelopment proposes a vision of society which removes itself from the ideas which currently dominate it. According to Arturo Escobar, postdevelopment is interested instead in local culture and knowledge, a critical view against established sciences and the promotion of local grassroots movements. Also, postdevelopment argues for structural change in order to reach solidarity,reciprocity, and a larger involvement of traditional knowledge. Sustainable development[edit] Main article: Sustainable development Sustainable development is economic development in such a way that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Brundtland Commission) There exist more definitions of sustainable development, but they have in common that they all have to do with the carrying capacity of the earth and its natural systemsand the challenges faced by humanity. Sustainable development can be broken up into environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability. The book 'Limits to Growth', commissioned by the Club of Rome, gave huge momentum to the thinking about sustainability.[21] Global warming issues are also problems which are emphasized by the sustainable development movement. This led to the 1997 Kyoto Accord, with the plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions. Opponents of the implications of sustainable development often point to the environmental Kuznets curve. The idea behind this curve is that, as an economy grows, it shifts towards more capital and knowledge-intensive production. This means that as an economy grows, its pollution output increases, but only until it reaches a particular threshold where production becomes less resource-intensive and more sustainable. This means that a pro-growth, not an anti-growth policy is needed to solve the environmental problem. But the evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve is quite weak. Also, empirically spoken, people tend to consume more products when their income increases. Maybe those products have been produced in a more environmentally friendly way, but on the whole the

higher consumption negates this effect. There are people like Julian Simon however who argue that future technological developments will resolve future problems. Human development theory[edit] Main article: Human development theory Human development theory is a theory which uses ideas from different origins, such as ecology, sustainable development, feminism and welfare economics. It wants to avoid normative politicsand is focused on how social capital and instructional capital can be deployed to optimize the overall value of human capital in an economy. Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq are the most well-known human development theorists. The work of Sen is focused on capabilities: what people can do, and be. It is these capabilities, rather than the income or goods that they receive (as in the Basic Needs approach), that determine their well being. This core idea also underlies the construction of the Human Development Index, a human-focused measure of development pioneered by the UNDP in its Human Development Reports. The economic side of Sen's work can best be categorized under welfare economics, which evaluates the effects of economic policies on the well-being of peoples. Sen wrote the influential book 'Development as freedom' which added an important ethical side to development economics

Alvin Toffler (born October 4, 1928) is an American writer and futurist, known for his works discussing the digital revolution, communication revolutionand technological singularity. Toffler is a former associate editor of Fortune magazine. In his early works he focused on technology and its impact through effects like information overload. He moved on to examining the reaction to changes in society. His later focus has been on the increasing power of 21st-century military hardware, the proliferation of new technologies, and capitalism. He founded Toffler Associates, a management consulting company, and was a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, visiting professor atCornell University, faculty member of the New School for Social Research, a White House correspondent, an editor of Fortune magazine, and a business consultant. [3] Toffler is married to Heidi Toffler, also a writer and futurist. They live in the Bel Air section of Los Angeles, California, just north of Sunset Boulevard. The couples only child, Karen Toffler, (19542000), died at the age of 46 after more than a decade suffering from Guillain Barre Syndrome[4][5] Early life and career[edit] Alvin Toffler was born in New York city in 1928. He met his future wife, Heidi, at New York University where he was an English major and she was starting a graduate course in linguistics. Being radical students, they decided against further graduate work, moved to the Midwestern United States, and married, spending the next five years as blue-collar workers on assembly lines while studying industrial mass production in their daily work. Heidi became a union shop steward in the aluminum foundry where she worked. Alvin became a millwright and welder. [6] Their hands-on practical labor experience got Toffler a position on a union-backed newspaper, a transfer to its Washington bureau, then three years as a White House Correspondent covering Congress and the White House for a Pennsylvania daily. Meanwhile his wife worked at a specialized library for business and behavioral science.[6] They returned to New York City when Fortune magazine invited Alvin to become its labor columnist, later having him write about business and management.[6] After leaving Fortune magazine, Alvin Toffler was hired by IBM to do research and write a paper on the social and organizational impact of computers, leading to his contact with the earliest computer gurus and artificial intelligence researchers and proponents. Xerox invited him to write about its research laboratory and AT&T consulted him for strategic advice. This AT&T work led to a study of telecommunications which advised its top management for the company to break up more than a decade before the government forced AT&T to break up.[6] In the mid-60s the Tofflers began work on what would later become Future Shock.[6] In 1996, with Tom Johnson, an American business consultant, they co-founded Toffler Associates, an advisory firm designed to implement many of the ideas the Tofflers have written on. The firm worked with businesses, NGOs, and governments in the U.S., South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Singapore, Australia and other countries.[6] His ideas[edit] Toffler explains, Society needs people who take care of the elderly and who know how to be compassionate and honest. Society needs people who work in hospitals. Society needs all kinds of skills that are not just cognitive; theyre emotional, theyre affectional. You cant run the society on data and co mputers alone.[7] Toffler is also frequently cited as stating: "Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn." The words came from Herbert Gerjuoy, whom Toffler cites in full as follows: "The new education must teach the individual how to classify and reclassify information, how to evaluate its veracity, how to change categories when necessary, how to move from the concrete to the abstract and back, how to look at problems from a new direction how to teach himself. In his book The Third Wave Toffler describes three types of societies, based on the concept of waveseach wave pushes the older societies and cultures aside.

First Wave is the society after agrarian revolution and replaced the first hunter-gatherer cultures. Second Wave is the society during the Industrial Revolution (ca. late 17th century through the mid-20th century). The main components of the Second Wave society are nuclear family, factory-type education system and the corporation. Toffler writes: The Second Wave Society is industrial and based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, and weapons of mass destruction. You combine those things with standardization, centralization, concentration, and synchronization, and you wind up with a style of organization we call bureaucracy. Third Wave is the post-industrial society. According to Toffler, since the late 1950s most nations have been moving away from a Second Wave Society into what he would call a Third Wave Society, one based on actionable knowledge as a primary resource. His description of this (super-industrial society) dovetails into other writers' concepts (like the Information Age, Space Age,Electronic Era, Global Village, technetronic age, scientific-technological revolution), which to various degrees predicted demassification, diversity, knowledge-based production, and the acceleration of change (one of Tofflers key maxims is change is non-linear and can go backwards, forwards and sideways).

In this post-industrial society, there is a wide diversity of lifestyles (subcultures). Adhocracies (fluid organizations) adapt quickly to changes. Information can substitute most of the material resources (see ersatz) and becomes the main material for workers (cognitarians instead of proletarians), who are loosely affiliated. Mass customization offers the possibility of cheap, personalized, production catering to small niches (see just-in-time production). The gap between producer and consumer is bridged by technology using a so-called configuration system. Prosumers can fill their own needs (see open source, assembly kit, freelance work). This was the notion that new technologies are enabling the radical fusion of the producer and consumer into the prosumer. In some cases prosuming entails a third job where the corporation outsources its labor not to other countries, but to the unpaid consumer, such a s when we do our own banking through an ATM instead of a teller that the bank must employ, or trace our own postal packages on the internet instead of relying on a paid clerk.

Since the 1960s, people have been trying to make sense out of the impact of new technologies and social change. Tofflers wri tings have been influential beyond the confines of scientific, economic and public policy discussions. Techno music pioneer Juan Atkins cites Tofflers phrase techno rebels in The Third Wave as inspiring him to use the word techno to describe themusical style he helped to create[8] Tofflers works and ideas have been subject to various criticisms, usually with the same argumentation used against futurology: that foreseeing the future is nigh impossible. In the 1990s, his ideas were publicly lauded by Newt Gingrich. The development Toffler believes may go down as this eras greatest turning point is the creation of wealth in outer space. Wealth today, he argues, is created everywhere (globalisation), nowhere (cyberspace), and out there (outer space). Global positioning satellites are key to synchronising precision time and data streams for everything from cellphone calls to ATM withdrawals. They allow just-in-time (JIT) productivity because of precise tracking. GPS is also becoming central to air traffic control. And satellites increase agricultural productivity through tracking weather, enabling more accurate forecasts. Critical acclaim[edit] Accenture, the management consultancy firm, has dubbed him the third most influential voice among business leaders, after Bill Gates and Peter Drucker. He has also been described in theFinancial Times as the worlds most famous futurologist. People's Daily classes him among the 50 foreigners that shaped modern China.[9] One author characterizes him as an important early influence on radical centrist political thought.[10] Selected awards[edit] He is the recipient of several prestigious prizes, including the McKinsey Foundation Book Award for Contributions to Management Literature, Officier de LOrdre des Arts et Lettres, and appointments, including Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.[3] In late 2006, the Tofflers were recipients of Brown Universitys Independent Award.[11]

Dependency theory is a body of social science theories predicated on the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system." The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy

Complex interdependence in international relations is the idea put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye that states and their fortunes are inextricably tied together. The concept of economic interdependence was popularized through the work of Richard N. Cooper. With the analytical construct of complex interdependence in their critique of political realism, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye go a step further and analyze how international politics is transformed by interdependence (Crane & Amawi 1997: 107-109). The theorists recognized that the various and complex transnational connections and interdependencies between states and societies were increasing, while the use of military force and power balancing are decreasing but remain important. In making use of the concept of interdependence, Keohane and Nye (1997: 122-132) also importantly differentiated between interdependence and dependence in analyzing the role of power in politics and the relations between international actors. From the analysis, complex interdependence is characterized by three characteristics, involving (1) the use of multiple channels of action between societies in interstate, transgovernmental, andtransnational relations, (2) the absence of a hierarchy of issues with changing agendas and linkages between issues prioritized and the objective of (3) bringing about a decline in the use of military force and coercive power in international relations. Nye and Keohane thus argue that the decline of military force as a policy tool and the increase in economic and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperationamong states. The work of the theorists surfaced in the 1970s to become a significant challenge to political realist theory in international politics and became foundational to current theories that have been categorized as liberalism, neoliberalism and liberal institutionalism. Traditional critiques of liberalism are often defined alongside critiques of political realism, mainly that they both ignore the social nature of relations between states and the social fabric of international society. With the rise of neoliberal economics, debates, and the need to clarify international relations theory, Keohane (2002: 2-19) has most recently described himself as simply an institutionalist, nothing purpose for developing sociological perspectives in contemporary international relations theory. Liberal, neoliberal and neoliberal institutional theories continue to influence international politics and have become closely intertwined with political realism.[citation
needed]

The term complex interdependence was claimed by Raymond Leslie Buell in 1925 to describe the new ordering among economies, cultures and races

Hegemony (UK /hmni/, US /hdmoni/, US /hdmni/; Greek: hgemona, leadership and rule) is an indirect form of government, and ofimperial dominance in which the hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically subordinate states by the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force.[1] In Ancient Greece (8th c. BC AD 6th c.), hegemony denoted the politicomilitary dominance of a city-state over other city-states.[2] In the 19th century, hegemony denoted the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country upon others; from which derived hegemonism, the Great Power politics meant to establish European hegemony upon continental Asia and Africa.[3] In the 20th century, Antonio Gramsci (18911937) developed the philosophy and the sociology of geopolitical hegemony into the theory of Cultural Hegemony, whereby one social class can manipulate the system of valuesand mores of a society, in order to create and establish a ruling-class Weltanschauung, a worldview that justifies the status quo of bourgeois domination of the other social classes of the society. In the praxis of hegemony, imperial dominance is established by means of cultural imperialism, whereby the leader state (hegemon) dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government. The imposition of the hegemons way of life an imperial lingua franca and bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing) transforms the concrete imperialism of direct military domination into the abstract power of the status quo, indirect imperial domination.[1] Under hegemony, rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated either by co-optation of the rebels or by suppression (police and military), without direct intervention by the hegemon; examples are the latter-stage Spanish and British empires, the 19th- and 20th-century reichs of unified Germany (18711945),[7] and currently, the United States of America