Bollen identifies a cross-national evidence of countries acting under the world system dependency theory in which he informs that during the mid to late 1960s, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, South Korea, Argentina, and Haiti were in the semi-periphery or a periphery country category which had a non-democratic system of politics. In addition, in the same time period, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, and Barbados were considered to be in the dependent position but they had a democratic system of politics. Thus Bollen argues that analysing countries according to the world system theory could give inaccurate results as these political factors affecting the country’s growth is a major concern and may provide mixed analysis results. This is in fact correct as some countries in similar position to another one could have the same economic position but have completely different traits which will take them in two different ways ahead and disprove the theoretical results obtained from the world system analysis theory. Apart from these parameters, it is also to be noticed that a core country would be more than willing to give aid than to receive after it becomes a developed country. The core and developed countries would also have more say in the international organizations governing the flow of funds and international aid to developing and poor countries, and this makes the analysis more biased and one-sided without taking these factors as reference points. Bollen further identifies that South Africa was a semi-peripheral country in the early mid 60’s but its white population had a much higher quality of lifestyle compared to the blacks. The white population were educated and had substantial wealth but the black population were living as if living in a poor or a dependent country and had little or no education, no primary healthcare services, and low quality of life. These factors are internal to country which indicates the inappropriate allocation of fund infusion into social building infrastructure. These differences in the same country existed because of South Africa’s internal policies and it represented the country into a non-core status in the world system theory. Thus, the internal differences also tend to deviate the analysis results of the world system theory and should be considered as a factor that may cause the analysis to have variable perspective.