Abstract

This dissertation examines and critiques various theories of exploitation. It shows that the recent attempt by Steiner to formulate a liberal theory of exploitation is quite problematic. It also shows that a series of other theories--Marx's classical theory, Emmanuel's "unequal exchange," Roemer's game theoretic approach and dependency theory--are not unconnected, distinct theories of exploitation, but that they constitute different significant moments in a general Marxian theory of exploitation. This dissertation demonstrates that these different moments have different ethical presuppositions and it examines how these presuppositions relate to each other. ;The latter part of this dissertation compares dependency theory with "developmentalism," the latter theory taken to be representative of the liberal tradition regarding the relationship between the First World and the Third World. These theories are evaluated in terms of several criteria: their internal consistencies, the plausibility of their ethical presuppositions, how best they explain the data under consideration and their usefulness in suggesting strategies or policies for development. ;It is concluded that dependency theory fares better than developmentalism. Dependency theory is not incoherent; its ethical presuppositions are reasonable and it seems to better explain why the world is in the way it is. The critical weakness of dependency theory is seen to be in the area of policy prescriptions. This conclusion is demonstrated concretely, in the last chapter, using as evidence the experience of Ghana, which, due to certain historical circumstances, serves as a good "test case."