Alexander Simmons | Originally Published: 18 October 2026
Unequal exchange is among the premier topics in International Relations today. Through it, the Global North strategically extracts wealth from the Global South, using its monopoly power and norm-setting ability to create a structure in which this trade is deemed legitimate. Essentially, the North appropriates wealth from the South, with an estimated 242 trillion dollars being extracted between 1990-2015 (Hickel et al. 2022, 6). For example, Hickel estimates 21 exajoules worth of energy, used in the manufacturing of goods in the South are not compensated equivalently to their price. These 21 exajoules of energy, transferred without compensation would be enough to cover the energy to build necessary infrastructure for 6.5 billion people (Hickel et al. 2022, 5). Scholars can use Marxism and constructivism jointly to help analyse the problem and formulate possible solutions to the issue.
A Marxist evaluation would look at the Global South as being peripheral states; the wealth of these states is being exploited by the North. A Marxist lens, or more specifically World-Systems Theory, would posit this as exploitative, with the value produced in these peripheral states being extracted purely for the purpose of keeping resources in the North as cheap as possible (Hobden & Jones 2020, 120-121). The Global North then uses the excuse of it being value-added, essentially, that the goods coming out of the South are not worth anything until they are put on a shelf, at which moment all the final value of that item is added (Hickel et al. 2022, 9). A lot of this is executed under the Northern monopoly of trade (Hickel et al. 2022, 4), meaning they set the markets and market pricing. This raises the question as to why this is considered acceptable by the international community, and an answer can be found in constructivist theory.
Social constructivism is a social theory stating that the action of international organizations is determined by the opinions of rulers and of broader society; norms and unspoken guidelines are key to shaping the actions states take (Barnett 2020, 196). This concept is known as the logic of appropriateness (Barnett 2020, 198), which dictates whether actors are legitimate based on the norms within that society; this leads to the idea that it is acceptable to exploit the South for its resources and labour because it is the norm. A norm that is diffused by the wealthy North, who have the resources to effectively spread favourable norms through the use of monopoly power and prominent positions on international forums (Hickel et al. 2022, 9); the North, in this case, would be a norm entrepreneur (Barnett 2020, 203). These norms then get socialized through the international institutions, becoming ingrained as an unspoken rule of society (Barnett 2020, 201). These values have been socialized constantly for two centuries, starting with the extraction of wealth during the colonial period (Hickel et al. 2022, 2) to modern-day global trade, so much so that they seem as if they are a natural part of global society. As long as those norms persist, plundering resources from the South in an unequal exchange will persist.
These two theories complement each other in useful ways.The global South is being repressed and exploited for the sake of its resources, as described in the Marxist work of Immanuel Wallerstein and his formulation of World Systems Theory. Such exploitation requires legitimisation through norm-setting, or risk consumer backlash in the Global North against unequal exchange, a phenomenon better described in constructivist theory. The complement between these two theories is captured best by the Gramscian concept of hegemony, adapted for international relations by Robert Cox. Cox’s take on Gramscian hegemony describes the aforementioned hegemony as an economic and political structure that allows the hegemonic power the ability to exploit (Cox 1983, 171-172). Gramscian hegemony shows how the hegemonic power uses their resources to form the international organizations that end up shaping the norms for nations under their power (Cox 1983, 171). In turn, the norm of unequal exchange is reinforced over time by the material extraction, by making it seem as if this is simply the order of the world.
A solution to unequal exchange can be found through more refined Marxist theories, such as Gramscian (Hobden & Jones 2020, 122), World-Systems (Hobden & Jones 2020, 120-121), and Dependency Theory (Hobden & Jones 2020, 120). To escape unequal exchange, nations must reject the trap described by Dependency Theory, where reliance on Northern tools prevents the South from developing the infrastructure themselves, thereby continuing to leave them vulnerable to the North. A South-South alliance would attack the material structure posited by Marxist theory, thereby ending one of the means through which the South is exploited. Greater South-South cooperation is already occurring; BRICS is a truly relevant and modern example of a South-South economic alliance, which aims to reduce the world’s dependency on the United States dollar (Ferragamo 2025, section 4), and by expanding such organizations further, it would open up more trading opportunities among the South. There is one major drawback: with the expansion of South-South alliances, there is a risk that some nations will lose access to the Northern markets. Northern markets, which, even if unequal, are still supplying an important flow of money that some nations cannot afford to lose.
Alternatively, by using the norm-setting of constructivism, supporters can attempt to sway the opinion of the global society, both North and South, and change the norms to deem unequal exchange as an illegitimate form of trade. This strategy attacks the ideological and social structure, as governed by constructivist theory; once the logic of appropriateness falls (Barnett 2020, 198), the system will be open to change. Similar concepts of norm-changing have seen some success, such as Fairtrade, which, albeit imperfect, shows proof that norm-setting has significant power in Northern Markets (Baland et al. 2026, 1). However, this assumes one major limitation: it implies that the leaders and society at large will actually follow these norms. For example, if a leader tends to have more realist qualities, or a society does not wish to pay the premium, they may not necessarily care about the norms being set.
Another possible solution would be that the global North increase aid payments even further, in order to attempt to offset the unequal balance. This solution has the particular strength of being quick and easy to do, along with not causing a major shock to the international order. However, aid does not directly affect the material or ideological structure that allows for unequal exchange to persist. So, while easy and potentially helpful, it would be ineffective in solving the problem at its root (Doucouliagos & Paldam 2011, 403).
To summarize, unequal exchange is a major problem, stemming from both economic and social biases. By examining it through different lenses, explanations for why and how it occurs begin to present themselves. Nonetheless, solutions remain difficult, as all are nuanced and require immense trade-offs to succeed. Regardless of what the solution may end up being, it will have to come from long-run changes in the structures and norms of the global political economy.
References
1. Baland, Jean-Marie, Cédric Duprez, Wouter Gelade, and Francois Woitrin. “‘Made in Dignity’: The Redistributive Impact of Fair Trade.” Journal of Development Economics 181 (April 2026): 103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2026.103746.
2. Barnett, Michael. “Social Constructivism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 8th ed., edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, 193–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
3. Cox, Robert W. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12, no. 2 (1983): 162–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298830120020701.
4. Ferragamo, Mariel. “What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?” Council on Foreign Relations. Updated June 26, 2025. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/what-brics-group-and-why-it-expanding.
5. Hickel, Jason, Christian Dorninger, Hanspeter Wieland, and Intan Suwandi. “Imperialist Appropriation in the World Economy: Drain from the Global South through Unequal Exchange, 1990–2015.” Global Environmental Change (Oxford) 73 (March 2022): 102467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102467.
6. Hobden, Stephen, and Richard Wyn Jones. “Marxist Theories of International Relations.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 8th ed., edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, 116–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
7. Hristos Doucouliagos and Martin Paldam, “The Ineffectiveness of Development Aid on Growth: An Update,” European Journal of Political Economy 27, no. 2 (2011): 399–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.11.004.
