Diversity in scope of argument about the factors yielding international inequality stands to exist. At one level, some people argue that environmental factors are the benchmark source of this inequality. On the other hand, it is argued that this inequality is reasoned by institutions. However, both are fundamental in the same analysis though provide a different scope of eligibility. At one point of view of the argument by those behind environmental factors, the global inequality is brought out by various environmental factors that consequently provide diversity into resource distribution. To them, different international zones are described by factors that favor or disfavor their international status. These include climatic situations, geographical placements, landscapes and others. Those arguing on institutional framework promulgate that different institutions such as political, economic, social and international relations are the basic root cause towards the source of international inequality. However, environmental factors lack logical rigidity since various global zones and states share almost equal environmental characteristics though entrenched by a diverse scope of inequalities. (Andrew, 2000)

            Perhaps however, institutions play a more coherent role in describing the source and scope of the international inequality. By and large, the global society is described and demarcated in terms of various institutions that range from political, economic and social variables above others. This is through economic integrations such as the European Union, the Asian Pacific Economic Union, Arabs Association Movement, Federal legal structures, and United Nations above others. Generally, different social, economic and political institutions have brought a bias into zonal advantages and disadvantages in places where these institutions actively apply. For example, the European Union has brought economic advantages and benefits to its member states through well monitored and controlled trade regulations. Its members have been at an advantage towards international business exchange programs such as tariffs, quotas, trade embargoes and others. Member states are therefore at an advantage of trade relations that give trade disadvantage to the non-members. (Andrew, 2000)

            Elsewhere, the legal and social institutions across different global zones also promulgate diversity in the scope of social benefits than the other zones. For example, the western countries have more founded social institutions that cater for different persons within their states. A stronger scope of social institutions provide competition for resources, employment, basic and social needs, a stronger background of the family and societal structures, conservation towards social values, morals, ethics and others. However, the Latin American, African and Asian regions have less developed social, political and economic institutions that do not provide an adequate capacity of advantages like the western world regions. Consequently, the western world regions have promulgated a diverse scope into state resources and a stronger essence of social structures than the other global regions. (Mustapha, Craig, 2002)

            Basically therefore, it would be logically motivating to argue that institutions are what provide a stronger essence of international inequality than environmental factors. This is provided by the provision that different global zones provide a different set of societal institutions which are developed on a wide scope of variables to benefit their people. Elsewhere, the development of such social institutions is also governed by the difference in scope of resources as a variable that regulate the nature of the society. Hence therefore, institutions are what shape different world zones at a greater scope and individualize people and groups than environmental factors.

Reference

Andrew, L (2000) International relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Taylor and Francis

Mustapha, K & Craig, M (2002) International Relations and the New Inequality. New York, Blackwell Publishers.