1) Explain the meaning of dualism and dual societies.

Do you think that the concept of dualism

adequately portrays the development picture in most developing countries? Explain your answer.

The definition of dualism shows desirable and undesirable situations or phenomena mutually
exclusive to different groups in society, and dual societies are societies in which two other sectors
coexist. Different levels of development, technology, and demand patterns divide these sectors. I
think that the concept of dualism can adequately portray the development picture in most developing
countries. There are two different life circumstances, one is better than others, and others are more
desired than another.

2) Some people claim that international dualism and domestic dualism are merely different
manifestations of the same phenomenon. What do you think they mean by this, and is it a valid
conceptualization? Explain your answer.

People's claims that international and domestic dualism are simply different manifestations of the
same phenomenon are, in my opinion, a valid conceptualization. The distinction between developed
and developing countries, wealthy and impoverished countries, exemplifies this duality of affluent
versus poor, privileged versus underprivileged, educated versus uneducated, and those with an agency
versus those without agency on a global scale. On a domestic level, there is a duality between the
capital class, the wealthy, who have more privileges, and the poor, or the working class, who are
disadvantaged. In both cases, as the rich accumulate wealth and power, the exploited poor do not
enjoy the same benefits and advantages.

3) What is meant by the term neoclassical counterrevolution? What are its principal arguments, and how
valid do you think they are? Explain your answer.

The term neoclassical counterrevolution referred to the importance of a free-market economy in

addressing economic development and policy issues. In developed countries, it emphasizes
corporation privatization, while in developing countries, it emphasizes government deregulation of
economic activities and public ownership. The principal arguments of the neoclassical
counterrevolution were on the concept of underdevelopment when it emerged against others,
emphasizing poor resource allocation because of too much intervention from the government and its
weak pricing policy. Neoclassical Counterrevolutionist believe that for the economy to develop, we
need to promote a free-market policy and let the market setting the price for itself without much
intervention. The arguments are deemed to be valid because free-market economy has been practiced
since then and today’s world still take up the model. This model has brought many developing
countries to open up and receive investment which result in the growth of their economy and
exposure to the world, thus, this model is valid in a sense it does really bring growth and certain
degree of economic development to a country.

4) Is the neoclassical, free-market theory necessarily incompatible with dependence theory? How might
these two approaches work together?

Neoclassical, free-market theory is not necessarily incompatible with dependence theory but they are
undeniably different. Both theories have different grounds of belief but it does not mean they
contradict with each other. Dependency theory argues that achieving economic survival through
relying on the other rich nations in all aspects, simply means, making all aspects beset by other rich
nations. On the other hand, developing countries are practicing it, allowing free market investment
and trading, strengthening free market policies, and also still accepting as well as seeking support and
assistance from other nations.
5) Explain the essential distinctions among the stages-of-growth theory of development, the structural-
change models of Lewis and Chenery, and the theory of international dependence in both its neo-
Marxist and false-paradigm conceptualizations. Which model do you think provides the best
explanation of the situation in most developing nations? Explain your answer.

The essential distinctions between the stages-of-growth theory of development, Lewis and Chenery's
structural-change models, and the theory of international dependence in both its neo-Marxist and
false-paradigm conceptualizations are that the stages-of-growth theory of development states that a
developing country passes through five stages of development, namely traditional society, the pre-
conditions for development, the pre-conditions for development, the pre-conditions for development,
and the pre-conditions for development. The structural-change models of Lewis and Chenery, on the
other hand, emphasize on the need for countries to restructure their structures away from agriculture,
which has low labor productivity, and toward industrial activity, which has high labor productivity. It
also defines economic development as a set of interrelated structural changes in an underdeveloped
economy that are required for its transformation from an agricultural to an industrial economy, as
well as the accumulation of both human and physical capital, for continued growth. According to the
Neo Marxist theory of international dependence, underdevelopment is perceived in diverse countries
as a result of the continued existence of a highly unequal international capitalism system. These
people are separated into rich and poor classes as a result of mass labor exploitation and enslavement,
as well as the provision of education to a small elite class of individuals. The false-paradigm
conceptualizations claim that the country is underdeveloped because it has blindly adopted the route
of development recommended by industrialized countries without taking into account the country's
needs. I believe that the false-paradigm conceptualization of international dependence best explains
the situation in most developing countries, such as the Philippines, because it states that it blindly
accepted the path of development suggested by developed countries, which is exactly what is
happening in developing countries. The developing countries are pursuing development that does not
serve the requirements of their own countries, which is why they are not progressing and some are
getting worse.