Unequal exchange is used primarily in Marxist economics, but also in ecological economics (more specifically also as ecologically unequal exchange), to describe the systemic hidden transfer of labor and ecological value from poor countries in the imperial periphery (mainly in the Global South) to rich countries and monopolistic corporations in the imperial core (mainly in the Global North) due to structural inequalities in the global economy.
Due to biased terms of trade and the undervaluation of labor and goods from the global South compared to the North, poor countries are forced to export a much larger quantity of labor and resources than they import to maintain a monetary balance of trade. This enables the global North to achieve a net appropriation through trade, fostering development in the former while impoverishing the global South.[1]
The theory of unequal exchange is a rejection of the fundamental assumptions of Ricardian and neoclassical theories of comparative advantage, which claim that free trade based on comparative costs is beneficial to all parties and in turn represents the theoretical justification of neoliberal trade policies. More generally, the concept is a criticism of the idea that the operation of markets would have egalitarian effects, rather than accentuating the market position of the strong and disadvantaging the weak.[2]
Historical background
The concept of unequal exchange was first developed by dependency and world-systems theorists, who questioned the dominant assumption according to which nations’ economic performance is linked to internal conditions, like good governance, strong institutions and free markets and that lower-income countries failed to develop because of their lack of the latter.
Analyzing economic relations within the global economy, these critical perspectives show that historically, the wealth of rich countries has depended on the appropriation of resources of countries from the Global South. While this is recognized for the colonial period, Hickel et al. show that it is still very much true today. Quantifying the value of resources appropriated from the Global South through unequal exchange since 1960, they confirm that economic growth and high levels of consumptions in the Global North are only possible because of extraction from other parts of the world, especially since the 1980s.[3]
Theoretical framework
During the 1960s and 1970s, Marxist authors explored the notion of superprofit applied to global capitalism and the inequalities between core and peripheral economies.
Marxist authors like Arghiri Emmanuel, Charles Bettelheim, Christian Palloix, and Samir Amin showed how the distortions between the value and the prices of commodities circulating in the global economies had started a process of theft of socially necessary labor time (value transfer) from periphery to core countries, which was denominated global unequal exchange.[4] The argentinian economist Raúl Prebisch was among the first to refer to a process of unequal exchange between the peripheral and core countries, showing how the prices of raw materials exported by developing nations were lower than the goods manufactured in developed economies.[5]
Bettelheim and Palloix further argued that, because of the monopolistic control that rich countries have on the global economy, they are able to sell commodities in the global market at prices above their market value, while for peripheral economies the prices are often lower than the production prices. This creates a transfer of value from the developing economies in the periphery to the core economies, putting a structural mechanism of unequal exchange in place.[6]
Amin and Emmanuel’s understanding of unequal exchange somewhat differs from the other thinkers, as they focus on the differences between national wages as a key factor producing the conditions for unequal exchange. Amin underlined that unequal value transfers in global trade were not determined primarily by asymmetries in productivity, but by the profound wage differences between core and periphery.[7] Emmanuel defines unequal exchange as a consequence of the structure of international trade. As prices of production are given by the sum of cost of constant capital (value of materials and goods necessary to produce a commodity) and variable capital (wages paid for the production of a commodity), lower wages imply lower prices of production for the periphery, while the socially necessary labor is independent of wage rate. Low wages in the periphery and high wages in the center, therefore, result in a set of international prices whereby the periphery sells its product at less than its social value while the center benefits from higher prices than the value of its products. According to Emmanuel, unequal exchange is determined by the differences in rates of surplus values resulting from wage differentials: this mechanism determines the exploitation of the periphery by the center.[citation needed]
Classification/quantification of unequal exchange
Samir Amin used a system based on wage differences to calculate the unequal exchange with the assumptions of constant productivity and using Global Northern prices.[8] Gernot Köhler in turn used a method that also included price differentials into calculation, using differences between Purchasing Power Parity and Market Exchange rate to calculate the drain.[9]
Dorninger et al. relied on the environmentally-extended multi-regional input-output modeling (EEMRIO) to quantify the unequal exchange from a perspective based on the theory of ecologically unequal exchange. [10]Jason Hickel et al., using a similar method, calculated the amount that was drained from the Global South between the years 1990 to 2015 was equivalent to 242 trillion in 2010 US Dollars. In line with Samir Amin's original suggestion, Hickel et al. used Northern prices to quantify the physical resources that were drained from the Global South in financial terms.[11]
Structural factors
Various historical and political factors create the structural conditions that sustain unequal exchange.
It started with dispossession and destruction of local mode of living in colonized countries (e.g. destruction of subsistence economies), that created surplus of unemployed labor.[12] Suwandi et al. also describe the “depeasantization of a large portion of the global periphery through the spread of agribusiness” as “central to the creation of a reserve army of unemployed."[13][14] They refer to the concept of global labor arbitrage, to indicate the replacement of high-wage workers in the US and other rich economies with workers in the Global South that perform the same tasks at lower wages.[15][16]
Unequal exchange shows the continuation of a pattern of appropriation that characterized the colonial period, which has expanded in the post-colonial era and characterizes the structure of today’s world economy. Among the factors that enable the continuation of these patterns of appropriation, Hickel et al. identify price inequalities and power. In terms of prices, they underline that the dramatic differences in prices of manufactured goods exported by Southern and Northern countries does not match a significant qualitative difference between the labor performed respectively in the North and in the South. Contrarily to what is commonly perceived, global commodity chains in the South involve labor ranging from manual work to managerial and engineering, logistics and IT tasks, similarly to labor performed at the end of the chain in the Global North. They underline the paradox by which, due to wage disparities, highly skilled labor performed in the South might even be paid less than “unskilled” labor performed in the North.[11]
A common critique is that wage inequalities between the South and the North can be explained by the higher productivity of northern workers in comparison to southern workers. However, productivity in conventional economics is determined by prices, not by actual productivity.[17] Northern states and firms leverage their power within the global commodity chains to depress prices of final products, thus their productivity seems to improve as compared to their counterparts in the South, even though the production process is unchanged.[18] Therefore, differences in wages between the Global South and the Global North can be explained by the exploitation of Southern workers, who are paid less for the same work as compared to their northern counterparts.
Looking into how price inequalities are maintained, making possible the process of exploitation just outlined, Hickel et al. point to the unequal distribution of power among countries. One central element to consider is that through patents, northern firms set prices artificially high. As 97% of all patents are held by corporations in high-income countries, this skews the equilibrium disproportionally in favor of the latter.[11]
Another crucial factor is the geo-political imbalances in the world economy, maintained through the institutions of international economic governance: Northern countries hold the majority (despite representing the minority of the world population) within the main institutions, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO, where bargaining power is determined by market size and the United States holds effective veto power).[19]
Moreover, structural adjustments programs (SAPs) brought about massive cuts in public expenditure in the Global South, decreasing salaries, weakening labor rights and curtailing unions.[20]Free trade agreements (FTAs) and SAPs forced global South governments to remove tariffs and subsidies and protect new industries, preventing import substitution that would have contributed to driving prices down.
Other important factors that perpetuate price inequalities are the problem of tax evasion and illicit financial flows that drive massive amounts of economic resources from Southern to Northern countries, and the structural dependence on foreign investors and access to Northern markets that forces Southern firms and countries to compete with each other, in a race to the bottom.[21]
As clearly put by Hickel et al: “Structural power imbalances in the world economy ensure that labor and resources in the South remain cheap and accessible to international capital, while Northern exports enjoy comparatively higher prices. These price differentials enable a significant drain of labor and resources from the South.”[11]
In Marxian economics
Karl Marx aimed to go beyond moral discussion, in order to establish what, objectively speaking, real values are, how they are established, and what the objective regulating principles of trade are, basing himself principally on the insights of Adam Smith and David Ricardo (but many other classical political economists as well). He was no longer immediately concerned with what a "morally justified price" is, but rather with what "objective economic value" is, such as is established in real market activity and real trading practices.
Marx's answer is that "real value" is essentially the normal labour cost involved in producing it, its real production cost, measured in units of labour time or in cost-prices. Marx argues that the "real values" in a capitalist economy take the form of prices of production, defined as the sum of the average cost price (goods used up + labour costs + operating expenses) and the average profit reaped by the producing enterprises.
Formally, the exchange between Capital and Labour is equal in the marketplace, because, assuming everybody has free access to the market, and an adequate legal-security framework exists protecting people against robbery, then all contractual relations are established through free and voluntary consent, on the basis of juridical equality of all citizens before the law. If that equality breaks down, it can only be, because of immoral behaviour by citizens.
But Marx argues that, substantively, the transaction between Capital and Labour is unequal, because:
Some economic agents enter the market with large assets they own, as private property, while other enter the market owning very little at all, except their capacity to do work of various kinds. That is to say, the bargaining power and bargaining positions of economic agents are differentially distributed, and this means, that private accumulation of capital occurs on the basis of appropriating surplus labour, either the surplus labour of the workers whom the owner of capital assets hires, or the surplus labour of workers hired by another owner of capital assets.
External to the market, goods are produced by workers with a value in excess of labor-compensation, appropriated by the owners of productive capital assets. Marx's reference to unequal exchange refers therefore both to unequal exchange in production, and unequal exchange in trade.
Another type of unequal exchange is a corollary of the tendency of the rate of profit to equalize under competitive conditions, insofar as producers obtain the ruling market prices for their output, irrespective of the different unit labor-costs of different producers of the same product.
In Capital, however, Marx does not discuss unequal exchange in trade in detail, only unequal exchange in the sphere of production. His argument is that unequal exchange implied by labour contracts, is the basis for unequal exchange in trade, and without that basis, unequal exchange in trade could not exist, or would collapse. His aim was to show that exploitation could occur even on the basis of formally equal exchange.
Marx however also notes that unequal exchange occurs through production differentials as between different nations. Capitalists utilized this differential in several ways:
By buying a product produced more cheaply in another nation, and selling it at home or elsewhere for a much higher price;
By relocating the site of production to another nation where production costs are lower, because of lower input costs (wage costs and materials/equipment supply costs). That way, they pocketed an extra profit.
By campaigning for protective tariffs shielding local industry from foreign competition.
That, Marxian economists argue, is essentially why the international dynamic of capital accumulation and market expansion takes the form of imperialism, i.e., an aggressive international competition process aimed at lowering costs, and increasing sales and profits.
As Marx put it,
"From the possibility that profit may be less than surplus value, hence that capital [may] exchange profitably without realizing itself in the strict sense, it follows that not only individual capitalists, but also nations may continually exchange with one another, may even continually repeat the exchange on an ever-expanding scale, without for that reason necessarily gaining in equal degrees. One of the nations may continually appropriate for itself a part of the surplus labour of the other, giving back nothing for it in the exchange, except that the measure here [is] not as in the exchange between capitalist and worker."[22]
To counteract unequal exchange between socialist countries that were members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), members countries like Cuba which were deemed underdeveloped received subsidies.[23]:76
The terms of trade. This refers to the relative prices of goods and services traded on international markets, specifically the weighted average of a nation's exports relative to its import prices, as indicated by the ratio of the export price index to the import price index, measured relative to a base year.
Accounting analysis of product unit values, i.e., the composition of the various costs included in the final market price of a commodity (the price to the final consumer who uses or consumes the product). If for example it is found that an increasing fraction of that sale price represents costs other than direct production and transport costs, but instead profit, interest and rent income, then unequal exchange in trade has probably increased. But because of the "creative" gross and net income & expenditure accounting that is done, this is often not easy, since various incomes and expenditures are included under headings which make it difficult to understand what the costs were actually for, or what activity gave rise to the incomes.
The change in the shares of net income between social classes and groups. If the discrepancy between the gross and net incomes of one social class, relative to another social class, increases, then a transfer of claims to wealth is occurring. This could be due to less income generated in production, or to income transferred in exchange (trading), or to taxation. We can compare also the actual average labour hours put in by one social class, to the net income accruing to that social class.
The trend in the cost structure of production of a country as a whole, or particular sectors, which refers to the amount of capital expenditures not directly related to the actual production of a product, i.e. financial costs incurred in addition to materials, equipment and labour (interest payments, incidental expenses, insurance, taxes, rents and the like).
The proportion of net profits, net rents, net interest payments and net property income transferred to other nations or obtained from other nations, such as is shown for example by the discrepancy between GDP and GNI and by Balance of Payments data, and the difference between imports and exports of goods and services.
The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the exchange value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it. The contrasting system is typically known as the subjective theory of value.
In political economy and especially Marxian economics, exchange value refers to one of the four major attributes of a commodity, i.e., an item or service produced for, and sold on the market, the other three attributes being use value, economic value, and price. Thus, a commodity has the following:
Capital accumulation is the dynamic that motivates the pursuit of profit, involving the investment of money or any financial asset with the goal of increasing the initial monetary value of said asset as a financial return whether in the form of profit, rent, interest, royalties or capital gains. The aim of capital accumulation is to create new fixed and working capitals, broaden and modernize the existing ones, grow the material basis of social-cultural activities, as well as constituting the necessary resource for reserve and insurance. The process of capital accumulation forms the basis of capitalism, and is one of the defining characteristics of a capitalist economic system.
Labour power is the capacity to do work, a key concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of capitalist political economy. Marx distinguished between the capacity to do work, i.e. labour power, and the physical act of working, i.e. labour. Labour power exists in any kind of society, but on what terms it is traded or combined with means of production to produce goods and services has historically varied greatly.
Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker. The "surplus" in this context means the additional labour a worker has to do in their job, beyond earning their own keep. According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually uncompensated (unpaid) labour. Marx's first analysis of what surplus labour means appeared in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), a polemic against the philosophy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. A much more detailed analysis is presented in the volumes of Theories of Surplus Value and Das Kapital.
The law of the value of commodities, known simply as the law of value, is a central concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy first expounded in his polemic The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon with reference to David Ricardo's economics. Most generally, it refers to a regulative principle of the economic exchange of the products of human work, namely that the relative exchange-values of those products in trade, usually expressed by money-prices, are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them within the capitalist mode of production.
Prices of production is a concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, defined as "cost-price + average profit". A production price can be thought of as a type of supply price for products; it refers to the price levels at which newly produced goods and services would have to be sold by the producers, in order to reach a normal, average profit rate on the capital invested to produce the products.
Productive and unproductive labour are concepts that were used in classical political economy mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries, which survive today to some extent in modern management discussions, economic sociology and Marxist or Marxian economic analysis. The concepts strongly influenced the construction of national accounts in the Soviet Union and other Soviet-type societies.
Fictitious capital is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It is introduced in chapter 25 of the third volume of Capital. Fictitious capital contrasts with what Marx calls "real capital", which is capital actually invested in physical means of production and workers, and "money capital", which is actual funds being held. The market value of fictitious capital assets varies according to the expected return or yield of those assets in the future, which Marx felt was only indirectly related to the growth of real production. Effectively, fictitious capital represents "accumulated claims, legal titles, to future production" and more specifically claims to the income generated by that production.
Abstract labour and concrete labour refer to a distinction made by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It refers to the difference between human labour in general as economically valuable worktime versus human labour as a particular activity that has a specific useful effect within the (capitalist) mode of production.
Criticism of capitalism is a critique of political economy that involves the rejection of, or dissatisfaction with the economic system of capitalism and its outcomes. Criticisms typically range from expressing disagreement with particular aspects or outcomes of capitalism to rejecting the principles of the capitalist system in its entirety.
In classical political economy and especially Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even though they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods. This problem was extensively debated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow, among others. Value and price are not equivalent terms in economics, and theorising the specific relationship of value to market price has been a challenge for both liberal and Marxist economists.
Criticisms of the labor theory of value affect the historical concept of labor theory of value (LTV) which spans classical economics, liberal economics, Marxian economics, neo-Marxian economics, and anarchist economics. As an economic theory of value, LTV is widely attributed to Marx and Marxian economics despite Marx himself pointing out the contradictions of the theory, because Marx drew ideas from LTV and related them to the concepts of labour exploitation and surplus value; the theory itself was developed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. LTV criticisms therefore often appear in the context of economic criticism, not only for the microeconomic theory of Marx but also for Marxism, according to which the working class is exploited under capitalism, while little to no focus is placed on those responsible for developing the theory.
Exploitation is a concept defined as, in its broadest sense, one agent taking unfair advantage of another agent. When applying this to labour, it denotes an unjust social relationship based on an asymmetry of power or unequal exchange of value between workers and their employers. When speaking about exploitation, there is a direct affiliation with consumption in social theory and traditionally this would label exploitation as unfairly taking advantage of another person because of their vulnerable position, giving the exploiter the power.
In Karl Marx's critique of political economy and subsequent Marxian analyses, the capitalist mode of production refers to the systems of organizing production and distribution within capitalist societies. Private money-making in various forms preceded the development of the capitalist mode of production as such. The capitalist mode of production proper, based on wage-labour and private ownership of the means of production and on industrial technology, began to grow rapidly in Western Europe from the Industrial Revolution, later extending to most of the world.
Socially necessary labour time in Marx's critique of political economy is what regulates the exchange value of commodities in trade. In short, socially necessary labour time refers to the average quantity of labour time that must be performed under currently prevailing conditions to produce a commodity.
In Marxian economics, surplus value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power. The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx. Marx's formulation is the standard sense and the primary basis for further developments, though how much of Marx's concept is original and distinct from the Ricardian concept is disputed. Marx's term is the German word "Mehrwert", which simply means value added, and is cognate to English "more worth".
Marxian economics, or the Marxian school of economics, is a heterodox school of political economic thought. Its foundations can be traced back to Karl Marx's critique of political economy. However, unlike critics of political economy, Marxian economists tend to accept the concept of the economy prima facie. Marxian economics comprises several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought, which are sometimes opposed to each other; in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement, or to supplement, other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage, rather than being synonymous: They share a semantic field, while also allowing both connotative and denotative differences. An example of this can be found in the works of Soviet economists like Lev Gatovsky, who sought to apply Marxist economic theory to the objectives, needs, and political conditions of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union, contributing to the development of Soviet Political Economy.
Theories of imperialism are a range of theoretical approaches to understanding the expansion of capitalism into new areas, the unequal development of different countries, and economic systems that may lead to the dominance of some countries over others. These theories are considered distinct from other uses of the word imperialism which refer to the general tendency for empires throughout history to seek power and territorial expansion. The theory of imperialism is often associated with Marxist economics, but many theories were developed by non-Marxists. Most theories of imperialism, with the notable exception of ultra-imperialism, hold that imperialist exploitation leads to warfare, colonization, and international inequality.
Ecologically or ecological unequal exchange is a concept from ecological economics that builds from the notion of unequal exchange. It considers the inequities hidden in the monetary value of trade flows not only in terms of wages, and quantities of labor but also regarding materials, energy and environmental degradation. As labor is also a form of energy, unequal exchange of embodied labor can even be considered a subset of the wider phenomenon of ecologically unequal exchange. There is an uneven utilization of the environment at the global level not only due to the uneven distribution of resources, but also to shift the environmental burden. The consumption and capital accumulation of core countries are based on environmental degradation and extraction in periphery countries. Sustainability analysis and solutions with a production-based perspective in core countries may thus keep increase unsustainability at the global level. The current configuration of global production networks that leads to this asymmetric trade patterns has evolved historically with colonialism. Whereas ecological unequal exchange is a concept developed in academia, the concept of ecological debt is used in an activism context of environmental justice. The latter defines the accumulation of this unequal exchange through history.
↑ Dunaway, Wilma A. (2010). "Nonwaged peasants in the modern world-system: African households as dialectical units of capitalist exploitation and indigenous resistance, 1890-1930". The Journal of Philosophical Economics. 4 (1): 19–57.
↑ Chang, Ha-Joon (2008). Bad Samaritans: The guilty secrets of rich nations and the threat to global prosperity. Random House. ISBN978-1-90521-137-1.
↑ Utting, P., ed. (1995). States of disarray: The social effects of globalization. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. ISBN978-1-85383-318-2.
↑ Cederlöf, Gustav (2023). The Low-Carbon Contradiction: Energy Transition, Geopolitics, and the Infrastructural State in Cuba. Critical environments: nature, science, and politics. Oakland, California: University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-39313-4.
Raffer, Kunibert (1987). Unequal exchange and the evolution of the world system: Reconsidering the impact of trade on North-South relations. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Raffer, Kunibert (1989). "Global Structural Adjustment, Dependence and Unequal Exchange: Bleak Prospects for the Periphery". In Wohlmuth, Karl (ed.). Structural adjustment in the world economy and East West South economic cooperation. Bremen, W. Germany: University of Bremen Institute for World Economics and International Management. pp.283–317.
Watson, Hilbourne A. (1989). "Surplus Labor, Unequal Exchange, and Merchant Capital: Rethinking Caribbean Migration Theory". In Martin, Michael T.; Kandal, Terry R. (eds.). Studies of development and change in the modern world. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.242–266.
Devine, James N. (1990). "The Utility of Value: The "New Solution," Unequal Exchange, and Crisis". In Zarembka, Paul (ed.). Research in Political Economy, Volume 12. Greenwich, Conn. and London: JAI Press. pp.21–39.
Harris, Nigel (1991). "Theories of Unequal Exchange". City, Class and Trade: Social and Economic Change in the Third World. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp.173–183.
Journal articles
Palloix, Christian (1970). "Inégalité des échanges mondiaux ou inégalité du développement des forces productives à l'échelle mondiale?". La Pensée (150).
Palloix, Christian (Spring 1972). "The question of unequal exchange". Conference of Socialist Economists Bulletin (2).
Pilling, Geoffrey (1973). "Imperialism, Trade and 'Unequal Exchange': The work of Arghiri Emmanuel". Economy and Society. 2. doi:10.1080/03085147300000008.
Love, Joseph L. (1980). "Raúl Prebisch and the origins of the doctrine of unequal exchange". Latin American Research Review. 15 (3): 45–72. doi:10.1017/S0023879100033100.
Bernal, Richard L. (December 1980). "Emmanuel's Unequal Exchange as a Theory of Underdevelopment". Social and Economic Studies. 29 (4): 152–174.
Stein, Leslie (February 1983). "Emmanuel's Unequal Exchange Thesis: A Critique". Economia Internazionale. 36 (1): 70–88.
Houston, David; Paus, Eva (Spring 1987). "The Theory of Unequal Exchange: An Indictment". Review of Radical Political Economics. 19 (1): 90–97. doi:10.1177/048661348701900105.
Agarwala, N. (1989). "The Unequal Exchange Thesis--A Critical Evaluation". Indian Economic Review. 24 (1): 67–81.
Floto, Edgardo (December 1989). "The Centre-Periphery System and Unequal Exchange". CEPAL Review (39): 135–154. doi:10.18356/5ac82999-en.
Joseph, George Gheverghese; Tomlinson, Mark (1991). "Testing the Existence and Measuring the Magnitude of Unequal Exchange Resulting from International Trade: A Marxian Approach". Indian Economic Review. 26 (2): 123–148.
Barrientos, Stephanie (February 1991). "The Classical Foundations of Unequal Exchange: A Critical Analysis". British Review of Economic Issues. 13 (29): 61–86.
Sarkar, Prabirjit; Singer, H. W. (April 1991). "Manufactured Exports of Developing Countries and Their Terms of Trade since 1965". World Development. 19 (4): 333–340. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(91)90180-P.
Schweickart, David (April 1991). "The Politics and Morality of Unequal Exchange: Emmanuel and Roemer, Analysis and Synthesis". Economics and Philosophy. 7 (1): 13–36. doi:10.1017/S0266267100000894.
Persky, Joseph. (Spring 1992). "Unequal Exchange and Dependency Theory in George Fitzhugh". History of Political Economy. 24 (1): 117–128. doi:10.1215/00182702-24-1-117.
Nakajima, Akiko; Izumi, Hiroshi (September 1995). "Economic Development and Unequal Exchange among Nations: Analysis of the U.S., Japan, and South Korea". Review of Radical Political Economics. 27 (3): 86–94. doi:10.1177/048661349502700309.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
