Example of a First graded essay I wrote in Second Year; "Uneven development would not exist without both capitalism and globalisation"

1. Word Count: 2109
Uneven development would not exist without both capitalism and globalisation. Critically
evaluate this statement, drawing on geographical theory
Introduction
The Marxist law of uneven development should firstly be considered when critically
evaluating theories of uneven development. Pröbsting (2016: 381-382) describes the Marxist
law of uneven development as “different stages of development as well as different tempos of
development in a given society interact with one another and thereby result in different forms
or types of development”.
Smith (1982) and other academic geographers, such as Powers (2003) both agree that uneven
development is a specific process which is unique to capitalism and it is a capitalist economy
which promotes uneven development within a country. Powers (2003: 9) describes how
uneven development is in a ‘zero-sum’ game with capitalism whereby “for every place that
comes to share in global wealth another is pushed out of the equation”.
Globalisation is similar to that of capitalism as it is a global system which produces different
characteristics in different locales. Such characteristics would be information and capital
movements, modern technologies and greater institutions, for example (Kelly, 1999). It is
debated that uneven development is determined by which locale adopts which characteristics
of globalisation (Kelly, 1999).
Alternatively, Diamond (1997) writes about the ‘natural’ advantages of some locations over
others, which has subsequently aided greater development and McEwan (2008: 4) claims that
postcolonialism is the overriding influence of uneven development, stating that “the world we
live in today has been undeniably shaped by imperialism and colonialism”.
Considering the brief definitions and theories which have been put forward in the
introduction, this essay shall now begin to analyse each theory and develop an argument both
supporting and opposing the initial statement before coming to a sound conclusion on the
ultimate causation of uneven development.
Uneven development exists because of capitalism
Adam Smith was considered the first theorist of capitalism. Cantor (1999) writes about
Smith’s 1776 work, where he proposed the notion of an invisible hand. Cantor (1999: 96)

2. Word Count: 2109
interpreted the invisible hand theory as the market providing a way of “rationally ordering the
productive activities of human beings without the need for central direction”. This similarly
reflects that of Smith’s (2008 [1776]) theory which suggested that free markets would
regulate themselves through the self-interest of the workers. Smith (2008 [1776]) also offered
a theory of compensating wage gaps, which meant that undesirable jobs would pay higher
wages in order to attract interest in this type of work. Unfortunately, when analysing his
theory in the present day one could argue that this mutually beneficial economic system is no
longer apparent. It can be suggested that through the critiques of both Marx (1842) and
Harvey (2006) on the results of capitalism, one can begin to understand that it was the
evolution of commodity fetishism, which drove out Smith’s (2008 [1776]) self-regulating,
invisible hand theory and instead welcomed an ordeal of exploitation and fixation on surplus
value, which has resultantly led to uneven development
Karl Marx published the notion of commodity fetishism in the newspaper, Rheinische
Zeitung in 1842. Marx (1970) stated that the idea of people beginning to value products in
relation to their price rather than usefulness, promoted the development of commodities. It
also introduced the notion of economic relationships between people, who sold some of these
commodities at a profit. One could consider that capitalism drove uneven development as it
facilitated a labour market for commodities and therefore created social and economic
relations. These relations eventually developed into conflicts between the bourgeoisie, who
were in control of the labour market, and the proletariats. It was these conflicts, that
capitalism was responsible for, which welcomed mass exploitation of the blue-collar workers
(with the rise of desired commodities) and the accumulation of great wealth for the white-
collar workers, resulting in uneven economic development of a country (Das, 2011).
Langlois’s (2003) work corresponds to Das’s (2011) as Langlois (2003) cites that the
Industrial Revolution further assisted the founded capitalist system and brought about
industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism supported the development and centralisation of
manufacturing sectors and profoundly marked the division of labour within and between
manufacturing industries (Langlois, 2003). This division of labour, caused by industrial
capitalism, brought about uneven development through the process of centralisation, as the
vast majority of a population became a proletariat thus centralising capital into the hands of
the small owning class (Stephens, 1997).

3. Word Count: 2109
It is through these examples where one can identify how uneven development is brought
about by the manifestation of the production of space, under capitalism. These theories
further support Hobson’s (1938) accumulation theory, which suggested that with rise of
monopoly capitalism and centralisation of wealth encouraged a misdistribution of purchasing
power.
Concerning the present day, Harvey (2006: 72) put forward a notion that the West is an
“engine of capitalism”, which comes to no surprise considering the published evidence.
Harvey (2006: 72) continues to cite that this “engine of capitalism” promotes modernisation
through a spreading process, from the core to the periphery, known as diffusion. It is the
resistance or the inability to keep up with this “western-centred capitalism” which essentially
leads to unequal areas of development within and between countries.
Wallerstein (1994: 7) contends that in spite of whether an area refuses to adapt to modernity,
which is promoted through capitalism, the diffusion process will constantly cause uneven
development. This is because the periphery zones will always lose out “in the distribution of
surplus to ‘core’ zones”, suggesting that economic wealth will remain “concentrated to a
disproportionate degree in some zones rather than in others”, merely due to the way a
capitalist society functions.
Harvey (2006) and Wallerstein (1994) both contribute credible arguments suggesting that
with or without the influence of modernity, the notion of capitalism will always be the over-
arching factor as to why countries experience such uneven development.
It should be noted that the notion of modernisation through capitalism correlates to that of
globalisation. In both cases, locales are progressing into a more connected and efficient
system thus facilitating a globalised society, where people, flows of goods, information and
money are in greater proximity to one another (Sorrells, 2013). One could assume that greater
interconnected global societies encourage greater economic diffusion from the core to the
periphery and less concentrated zones of wealth, due to the ease of movement and
communication across space. The following section of this essay shall discuss this statement
in terms of how globalisation has influenced uneven development.

4. Word Count: 2109
Uneven development exists because of globalisation
Cox (2008: 4) cites that “globalisation is an inherently uneven process and in virtue of the
way it intensifies competition, magnifies the tendency to unevenness”.
Mackinnon and Cumbers (2007) write that since the 1960s, “a new set of transport and
communication technologies have emerged”, leading to an expansion in the capacity of
“spatial movement and interaction”. This has inevitably brought some areas of the world
closer together both economically and socially, however the emphasis here is on some. Many
regions of the world are often left behind because they are known as countries which provide
either the supplies or the labour to their business partners, in the ‘Global North’ (Mackinnon
and Cumbers, 2007). Mackinnon and Cumbers (2007) cite that the implications of
globalisation can be seen at three scales: global, regional and local. Globally, Mackinnon and
Cumbers (2007) argue that it is from the result of colonialism which has entrenched these
views that typically the ‘Global South’ are the labour and supply providers, which are readily
available for the ‘Global North’ to exploit. Regionally, economic and development disparities
are beginning to emerge between the coastal and core regions of a country, such as China,
due to the ease of transportation and trade near the coastal regions and locally, Mackinnon
and Cumbers (2007: 8) claim that “uneven development is present in the form of social
polarisation” between the affluent neighbourhoods and the poorer, inner-city
neighbourhoods.
The argument put forward by these academics presents a strong case for globalisation
contributing to uneven development across the world. In the introduction, it was mentioned
that uneven development is created through the zero-sum theory and Mackinnon and
Cumbers (2007) agree with this theory as they explain that, through the movement of capital,
mentioned on all scales, regions of greater growth emerge which subsequently cause
established and long-standing areas of growth to stagnate or decline.
Furthermore, globalisation causes uneven development as it establishes areas of product
specialisation (Peck, 1996). Such as Silicon Valley, which is known for advanced electronics
(Saxenian, 1991) and Sialkot in Pakistan, for its sporting goods manufacturers (Nadvi, 2008).
Massey (1995) explains the implications of distinctive forms of production being associated
with certain places. She suggests that these places become a sort of economic unit and so
interactions and communications within these specific locations become more frequent and
established than less specialised areas, which in turn shapes the economic landscape and

5. Word Count: 2109
causes regions of uneven development. This further supports Kelly’s (1999) work, which was
cited in the introduction, on how locales adopt different characteristics of globalisation and
that in turn determines the development of that place.
Nonetheless, one should consider an critical approach when analysing the impacts of
globalisation on uneven development and recognise the neoliberal economic theory of
globalisation. Wade (2004: 567) notes that with greater interaction and connectivity “the
North–South, core-periphery, rich country-poor country divide is being eroded away” and so
the processes of globalisation are essentially discouraging uneven development by
encouraging development in all corners of the global rather than in specific locales.
Uneven development exists because of historical factors
Capitalism and globalisation have not always been thought of as the core drivers of uneven
development. Take Diamond’s (1997: 14) theory for example, he wrote a book called Guns,
Germs and Steel A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years, where he states that
whilst conducting research in New Guinea, a man called Yali asked him the simple question,
“Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but
we black people had little cargo of our own?”. It is from this question where Diamond (1997)
began to query why history and human development unfolded so differently on different
continents and why wealth and power was distributed the way it is, rather than another way.
Through the analysis of Diamond’s (1997) book, one can understand that uneven
development was firstly brought about from the growth and spread of food production in
some areas of the world relative to others, as well as the availability of plant and animal
domestication. These factors consequently supported a denser population, which developed
into economically complex and literate societies.
Although I would argue that Diamond (1997) puts forward a sound case for the historical
roots of uneven development, one should consider the critiques of Diamond’s (1997) theory
before coming to a legitimate conclusion.
Tomlinson (1997) debates on Reviews in History that Diamond (1997) uses “very broad
brush-stokes to fill in his argument”, stating that Diamond dismisses the spread of technology
and economic changes, which have occurred throughout the past thousand years, as a
“historical accident”.

6. Word Count: 2109
Moreover, regarding Diamond’s thoughts on capitalism, there is only one brief mention of it
in his book [p. 250] and it does not concern capitalism’s influence on global uneven
development. Instead it listed as one of ten probable yet not confirmed explanations for the
technical progress in Europe (Tomlinson, 1997). In my opinion, a book which seeks to
answer such a largely debated topic would dedicate more attention towards the history and
influence of political thought instead of simply acknowledging it within a paragraph.
Conclusion
This essay has sought to develop a detailed argument both for uneven development existing
because of capitalism and globalisation and against it. As cited in the introduction, McEwan
(2008) backs the theory of postcolonialism as an overriding influence of uneven development
and to some extent I would agree that the impacts of colonialism should be held responsible
for the uneven development our world experiences today. However, I have also come to the
understanding that colonialism is a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social
change, therefore it would seem fair to conclude that uneven development does in fact exist
because of capitalism. Concerning globalisation, it would appear unjust to critique capitalism
as a driver of uneven development without agreeing that globalisation has also contributed to
this phenomenon. Globalisation compliments a capitalist society and I would argue that
globalisation has overtaken capitalism as the main driver of global uneven development.
Lastly, concerning Diamond’s (1997) theory, it is a satisfying read however I have come
across too much evidence going against and questioning his work for it to stand as a
legitimate reason for the causation of the vast uneven development our world experiences.

7. Word Count: 2109
References
Cantor, P. (1999). The Invisible Man and the Invisible Hand. The American Scholar, [online]
68(3), p.89. Available at:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=4f20140f-36c9-46e1-
9284-1c9cd6cb6ff9%40sessionmgr101&hid=119 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2017].
Cox, K. (2008). Globalization, uneven development and capital: reflections on reading
Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society, [online] 1(3), pp.389-410. Available at: http://utopia.sbs.ohio-
state.edu/faculty/kcox/GLOBALIZATION.UNEVEN.DEVELOPMENT.pdf [Accessed
14 Apr. 2017].
Das, R. (2011). Reconceptualizing Capitalism: Forms of Subsumption of Labor, Class
Struggle, and Uneven Development. Review of Radical Political Economics, [online]
44(2), pp.178-200. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com.ueaezproxy.uea.ac.uk:2048/doi/pdf/10.1177/048661341142
3895 [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs And Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last
13,000 Years. 1st ed. London: Random House.
Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism. 1st ed. London: Verso.
Hobson, J. (1938). Imperialism: A Study. 1st ed. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kelly, P. (1999). The geographies and politics of globalization. Progress in Human
Geography, [online] 23(3), pp.379-400. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030913259902300303 [Accessed 6 Apr.
2017].
Langlois, R. (2003). The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.
Industrial and Corporate Change, [online] 12(2). Available at:
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=econ_wpap
ers [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

8. Word Count: 2109
Mackinnon, D. and Cumbers, A. (2007). An Introduction to Economic Geography:
Globalization, Uneven Development and Place. 1st ed. London: Pearson Education
Limited.
Marx, K. (1842). Debates on the Law on the Thefts of Wood. Rheinische Zeitung. [online]
Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010309234010/http://marxists.org:80/archive/marx/works
/1842/10/25.htm [Accessed 7 Apr. 2017].
Marx, K. (1970). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 1st ed. New York:
International Publishers.
Massey, D. (1995). Spatial divisions of labor. 1st ed. London: Macmillan.
McEwan, C. (2009). Postcolonialism and Development. 1st ed. [ebook] London; New York:
Routledge. Available at: http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/978-0-415-43364-8
[Accessed 14 Apr. 2017].
Nadvi, K. (2008). Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value
chains. Journal of Economic Geography, [online] 8(3), pp.323-343. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Khalid_Nadvi/publication/46513311_Global_Stand
ards_Global_Governance_and_the_Organization_of_Global_Value_Chains/links/0deec5
26e445395895000000/Global-Standards-Global-Governance-and-the-Organization-of-
Global-Value-Chains.pdf [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].
Peck, J. (1996). Work-place: The social regulation of labor markets. 1st ed. New York:
Guilford Press.
Powers, M. (2003). Rethinking Development Geographies. 1st ed. [ebook] London:
Routledge. Available at:
http://www.tandfebooks.com/doi/view/10.4324/9780203006184 [Accessed 6 Apr.
2017].
Pröbsting, M. (2016). Capitalism Today and the Law of Uneven Development: The Marxist
Tradition and its Application in the Present Historic Period. Critique, [online] 44(4),

9. Word Count: 2109
pp.381-418. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03017605.2016.1236483?needAccess=true
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2017].
Saxenian, A. (1991). The origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley.
Research Policy, [online] 20(5), pp.423-437. Available at:
http://sjbae.pbworks.com/f/saxenian_1991.pdf [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].
Smith, A. (2008). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 1st ed.
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, N. (1982). Gentrification and Uneven Development. Economic Geography, [online]
58(2), p.139. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org.ueaezproxy.uea.ac.uk:2048/stable/143793?origin=crossref&seq=1#
page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 6 Apr. 2017].
Sorrells, K. (2013). Intercultural communication: Globalization and Social Justice. 1st ed.
Los Angeles: Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications.
Stephens, J. (1979). The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. 1st ed. London:
Macmillan.
Tomlinson, T. (1998). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies | Reviews in
History. [online] History.ac.uk. Available at:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/51 [Accessed 13 Apr. 2017].
Wade, R. (2004). Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?. World Development,
[online] 32(4), pp.567-589. Available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0305750X04000075/1-
s2.0-S0305750X04000075-main.pdf?_tid=9709949a-2a7c-11e7-b88e-
00000aab0f27&acdnat=1493210205_ce571fe5c08165bfd906071b3981b090 [Accessed
13 Apr. 2017].
Wallerstein, I. (1994). Capitalism and Development. 1st ed. London: Routledge.