Transnational and International Exploitation
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Author | Avner De-Shalit |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00162 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Transnational and International Exploitation
AVNER DE-SHALIT1
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
There are four types of exploitation in the international arena: exploitation between
states; exploitation within state A, the bene®ciaries of which are mainly people in
state B; exploitation of individuals from one country by another state in which they
work; exploitation of individuals from one country by individuals in another state, in
which they work. The Marxian and the liberal theories of exploitation are inadequate
to discuss these cases. After exploring the diculties of applying these theories to
international and transnational exploitation, it is suggested that the theories could be
reconstructed: exploitation is when the exploiter bene®ts from treating the exploitee
not as equal in circumstances of bargaining. It is ®nally shown how this interpretation
helps us in the discussion of all four types of international and transnational
exploitation.
Although there is a tradition of work on international and transnational
exploitation, from Lenin to Wallerstein, many writers are reluctant to use the
term `exploitation' to discuss transnational and international exploitation.2
Rather they write about `Colonialism', `structural hegemony' and, mainly,
`dependency'.3 One reason may be the concept itself. It is not quite clear whether
we can take the concept of exploitation, which is currently used to describe
exploitation within the state and with speci®c reference to the labour market,4
and apply it to exploitation in the international domain. Nevertheless, people do
talk about international exploitation, and therefore I shall try to make it clear
when it is reasonable to talk about it and when it is not.
1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Freedom and Trade conference,
Manchester, March 1996. I have bene®tted a lot from comments by Jonathan Wol, Daniel Attas
and the two referees. I would also like to thank Simon Caney, Jerry Cohen, Peter Jones, Peter
Ingram, William Lucy, David Milman, Geraint Parry, Hillel Steiner, and Bhaskar Vira. While
writing this paper I enjoyed the hospitality of Mans®eld College, Oxford, and the Oxford Centre for
Environment, Ethics and Society, where I was a Visiting Research Fellow.
2 By `transnational exploitation' I mean exploitative exchange that takes place between bodies
and individuals in dierent societies; by `international exploitation' I mean exploitative exchange
that takes place between states.
3 For some very interesting works see J. Galtung, The True Worlds (New York, Free, 1980);
I. Wallerstein, Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1991), especially chapter 6 (`Marx, Marxism±Leninism and Socialist
Experience in the Modern World-System', pp. 65±84); I. Wallerstein, The Capitalist World Economy
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979); T. Hopkins, `Notes in Class Analysis and the
World System', in T. Hopkins and I. Wallerstein (eds), World-Systems Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage,
1982), pp. 83±91; and R. Barnet, Global Reach: the Power of Multinational Corporations (New York,
Simon and Schuster, 1974), especially chapter 6 in which he discusses the global corporations and
the `underdeveloped' world.
4 See A. Reeve, Modern Theories of Exploitation (London, Sage, 1987), p. 6.
# Political Studies Association 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
694
Transnational and International Exploitation
Another reason for the use of concepts such as `dependency' rather than
`exploitation' in the international context is that the main two theories of
exploitation, the Marxian and the liberal,5 may be inadequate to discuss trans-
national and international exploitation. The Marxists tend to ignore it because
they concentrate on the state and on class, the liberals because they do not
necessarily believe that there is exploitation in the international domain. But
beyond these social reasons, there may be conceptual diculties which I explore
below. I do not, however, depart from the current theories of exploitation,
because I ®nd them valid. Consequently, I reconstruct the theory of exploitation
so that it applies to the international domain. I do not assert that since the
theory cannot be applied to transnational and international cases, there is no
`exploitation' in its philosophical meaning in the international arena. Rather, I
try to revise the theory so that it suits the very broad intuition that exploitation
does exist in the international arena.
Exploitation in the International Domain
Although the formal philosophical works on exploitation have so far been
related to exploitation between classes or individuals within the state, in
common speech it is quite common to refer to exploitation in the international
arena. So while it is true that exploitation usually implies reference to classes in a
single market or economic system (often the national economic system), people
do talk about `the North exploiting the South', `the industrialized world exploit-
ing the developing countries', as well as about more speci®c cases such as
`America exploiting Mexico', `Israel exploiting the Palestinians'. If we re¯ect on
it more constantly, we may realize that in fact there are four types of exploit-
ation within the international arena, or with international aspects:6
(i) exploitation between states;
(ii) exploitation within state A, the bene®ciaries of which are mainly people
in state B;
(iii) exploitation of individuals from one country by another state in which
they work;
(iv) exploitation of individuals from one country by individuals in another
state, in which they work.
(i) Exploitation Between States
Exploitation between states is perhaps the commonest type of exploitation in
the international domain. These are cases in which one state bene®ts from
another state's production without a proper return. Here we already see that
there may be a problem with the more traditional way of de®ning exploitation,
because this bene®ciary's advantage is not always purely economic, and does
not necessarily derive from enjoying surplus value. I shall come to this later.
5 By Marxian I mean within the tradition of Marxian thought, rather than Marx's own works.
6 This is all within the common, non-philosophical use of the term. I shall now discuss the
varieties of exploitation as they are discussed in everyday life, and later on refer to the philosophical
de®nition of the term, and how it should change to suit the basic intuition that there is exploitation
within the international arena.
# Political Studies Association, 1998
AVNER DE-SHALIT
695
This sort of exploitation includes cases of occupation, in which exploitation
occurs between two or more nations rather than states. In general, it is argued
that exploitation happens when the exploiter takes advantage of the fact that the
exploited party has been deprived of all property. In relations that involve
occupation the ownership of land may not be taken away by law, but access to it
is eectively limited or prohibited, with the eect that the occupied in practice
lose the most basic property of all, namely land. This implies that relations of
occupation are relations of exploitation.
But there is a more complicated set of relationships between two or more
states, which are intuitively described as exploitative. In this case, the exploiter
®nds ways to keep the exploited party poor, so that it has no purchasing power.
The exploited then becomes dependent on the richer party to buy whatever it
produces, and has no other choice but to produce what the exploiter needs or
wants. I shall later argue that the intuition that these relationships are exploit-
ative is justi®ed on the grounds that the exploiter bene®ts by deliberately treating
the exploited as a means (disregarding the exploited side's tastes, needs) in order
for the exploiter to bene®t.
Exploitation between states is achieved with the help of either military or
economic superiority. In either case there is an explicit or an implicit threat to
intervene, deprive bene®ts, or harm the other state's autonomy. For example, in
1973 Israel was attacked by its neighbouring countries and was taken by
surprise. It had to replenish urgently its arsenal, and asked the USA to transfer
within a week arms worth the annual national income. The result was a huge
national debt. A few years later when it was time to repay the debt, the USA
used its dominant position to force the Israeli government to reform its
economy from a basically socialist one to a market-oriented one, in return for
which Israel received another low-interest loan. In addition there were several
other `deals' which bene®ted the USA. For example, Israeli scientists who had
previously received substantial economic support from the government were
now encouraged to sign agreements of cooperation with American scientists and
apply for grants in the USA (while the Israeli government's assistance was
reduced drastically), which meant that much knowledge that was created in
Israel became common property of Israel and the USA.
This is an example of exploitation using economic superiority, but there is
also exploitation based on military superiority. During the Gulf War in 1991,
Iraq forced Jordan to cooperate and allow goods to be transported through
...
To continue reading
Request your trial