Colonial economic relations are structurally one-sided and uneven

Evidence

My point is that the relationship is a one-sided one, with the United States a selective customer of a very few products (oil and cheap manpower, mainly), the Arabs highly diversified consumers of a vast range of United States products, material and ideological. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 822

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the asymmetry of dependency: the metropole selectively buys raw inputs while the periphery consumes the full range of metropolitan goods, material and ideological.
• XREF: echoes dependency-theory and world-systems models of core-periphery relations. — connects to: Colonial violence shifts from physical extermination to economic relations as its costs rise — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 339; Colonialism and capitalism form two sides of one continuous dispossession process. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 280; Colonial economics assumed colonies should export raw materials, not industrialize — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1343 (+1 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 822