Dependency Theory
Similar to Marxism, Dependency Theory was an activist project that did not just analyze. However, in becoming political actors and advisors, there was an irony that the best way for a country to be more like the developed city was to actually join the ranks of exploiting countries. I think the strategies of Dependency Theory jump from the approach of developing into a core country. This would result in experimenting with different kinds of cooperative trade groups, or like the socialists would, that is develop in an different world market, to simply making the imperialist system look favourable by talking about fantasies of fair north-south relations, mainly through the goodwill of or pressure on the imperialist powers (develop through reforming imperialism). The strategies change depending on the size and economic strength of the particular country. It was unfortunate that the latter strategy that was left for the majority of most third world countries.
By the Nineteenth Century, the central idea of the development theory of progress as it roots in Western capitalist control would be cast in stone. In Africa, the notion of development has only a relatively short history, with development programs only being set up late this century. The suggestions of the concept are still being realized however. It is only since the 1980s that Western thought has really given a critical eye over exactly what development has achieved and started to look at the other choices available. This reassessment has been encouraged by the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, which damaged faith in the power of the Capitalist model, since instead of producing a single model of capitalist democracy, it created a new world confusion. This acted as an example of how the world's economic system is not evolving as many people once thought it would - that is, slowly incorporating all underdeveloped countries into the capitalist mode of production that someone had suggested would be a big help to everyone. Many criticisms have now been made on the applicability of development ideology in the Third World context. Where colonialism left off, development took over. The negative attitudes engendered by the concept of 'development'; suggestions arose that it was the 'sociology of the non-existent'; while others suggest that it is the development process itself which is most damaging, calling it 'a universalizing tool of westernization'.
Dependency Theory is in large part a theory of development in the third world. One of its strengths is its recognition that from the beginning, capitalism developed as a multinational system, which industrialization in England, amongst other things was linked and in fact part of the same phenomenon. It recognized that development had different features in the core than in the periphery, where the disadvantages of the relationship were evident in both the economic and political realms. Dependency Theory therefore spends its time on the question, "how can we have a development in the periphery that more resembles the core?"
While industrialization for a small country may be difficult in certain conditions, development from redistribution of wealth and labor, such as health care and education, was certainly possible. However, this would require a good deal more limitation of the "rights" of the upper class than the Dependency Theory supporters were willing to accept. This kind of development is undervalued in the third world and doomed by its reliance on the national bourgeoisie.
My feeling in reading about the Dependency Theory was not that they characterize development in the third world as not "real" development. It was ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
While industrialization for a small country may be difficult in certain conditions, development from redistribution of wealth and labor, such as health care and education, was certainly possible. However, this would require a good deal more limitation of the "rights" of the upper class than the Dependency Theory supporters were willing to accept. This kind of development is undervalued in the third world and doomed by its reliance on the national bourgeoisie.
My feeling in reading about the Dependency Theory was not that they characterize development in the third world as not "real" development. It was rather that they analyze that development to point out that it builds a society that is structured differently from that at the core and that this building is a process that will continue, never leading to a society like that in the core. In that sense they point out to those who would call third world countries "developing" countries that it was not development as advertised, but the development of underdevelopment.
On this issue, up to the 80's, Dependency Theory agreed with Marxism. During the 60's and 70's we pointed several times over to the systemic inequalities in the north-south trade, to the continuing of the economic relations of colonialism in the newly independent countries. This was a large part of the content of our anti-imperialist work, that the U. S. was not aiding countries to develop, but changing their economies to suit the imperialist dominated world and giving them a disadvantaged position. In this sense, I think we saw the low raw material production costs, the sweatshop was born, and imperialism had every intention keeping it that way.
The recent growth trend may mean that core-periphery development no longer gives the whole picture. It may be having the same problems coping with the changes that we are having updating our theoretical grasp of imperialism in the 90's. It may also be true that the forces around to sort it out are depleted in both camps. To what extent has development evolved from the core-periphery model? Growth without development is an attempt to maintain that third world growth still fits within the peripheral framework. First, there are a lot of investment opportunities in overseas markets since the 70's. It has facilitated the fast movement of huge amounts of capital and changed the principal form of fund transfer. This switch from government to private investing has helped to increase the wealth and power of a bigger section of the local bourgeoisie in a group of developing countries creating more billionaires and millionaires allowing for greater internal development and a seemingly more internal involvement in the international market.
These changes in the capital markets create booms where big social changes happen. In Thailand, there was a major shift in the culture, due to the rise of two groups, an upper middle class and a large section of workers with some serious money to spend. It seemed that these groups reached a critical point that changed the country from rural into a place where a media based culture revolves around a middle class consciousness, and one not focused on the 'big city' image. Dependency Theory's main project is coming up with plans for a more core-like development. These plans have several common features. There is some kind of partial withdrawal from the international trade that favors imperialism. There is some kind of protection for local industry. There is an attempt at primitive accumulation of capital, using nationalism and voluntarism, most probably under democratic rule. The overall goal is some kind of independent development, which they either believe to exist at the core or at least believe to be possible in the third world
When we thought China was socialist, we also praised them for using many of the features of Dependency Theory's program. The industrialization scheme was quite similar and equally questionable for a small country like Albania. What kind of Stalinist group of classes and divisions actually led the Albanian experiment I have no idea. However, it certainly did not live up to the task of being less painful for the working class. I also do not know whether it was more successful as a development strategy, whether it gave rise to some pro-people development in health care and other basic need areas.
The large countries China and the Soviet Union have to be considered the big success stories for Dependency Theory. Both countries de-linked, built their economies to serve the internal needs, and accumulated enough to become fully industrialized. During the recent discussions around the 50th anniversary of Indian independence, comparisons were being made between India and China.
The development issue has become a full-scale argument in recent years. Dependency Theory, as one branch of the development ideas and beliefs, has been one of the main elements of this. Dependency theory emerged from research done by looking at the Latin American experience. It was the reaction to the many theories and models, which were based on the fact that the development process is an evolutionary one, with the implication that the developing world would grow out of this phase and change their views, as a whole, on the issue. The fact that Africa is disadvantaged by the present world market was deemed if little to not important, as it was assumed that this would be a temporary situation, which could be fixed by the development process.
Dependency theory contradicted this idea. The incorporation of Africa into the world market and as colonialism advanced and improved had not had the effect it had set out to accomplish, of improving living standards in Africa. Instead, it had simply undermined Africa's independence, guaranteeing that Africa could no longer survive without the world market. Dependency Theory explained this situation by suggesting that development and underdevelopment are not stages of the development process, but are instead opposite sides of the same coin. Underdevelopment in the Third World is important if the advantages of the developed world are to stay the way they are now. It was often asserted that Latin America will not develop as long as it stays within the capitalist system of the world, but instead will only experience the development of underdevelopment. The same thing could equally be said about Africa.
Since Independence, there has been a common perception that Africa has been going downhill. The capitalist emphasis on the negative aspects of Africa continues. Post-capitalism states are constantly being portrayed as violent, poverty-stricken, mismanaged and crooked. However, many of the problems facing the post-capitalist state have their roots in imperialism. For instance, some people have argued that the uprisings of African states can be seen as a response to the violence used to conceive and maintain colonial states; while the frequently mentioned theme of imposed and unsuitable boundaries, can also be used to defend of political disturbances. The fact that the reality of Africa may have been influenced by colonialism does not however mean that perceptions of Africa also have colonial roots.
Even if it is only subconsciously, many of the old images of Africa and the African people have proved very hard to change however. It has been claimed that many of the old, colonial perceptions of Africa still come into and influence Western society, even amongst people that are studying Africa. Without a doubt, many African authors have suggested that Western researchers are frequently most guilty of being responsible for starting many of the existing myths in a form of intellectual new version of colonialism.
The drive to control the working class to force a de-linking gives way. New issues such as dealing with a new active proletariat during the bust cycles create conditions for a restatement of the role of the bourgeoisie in the newly developing countries. The questions of development Dependency Theory sought to answer in the 60's and 70's have changed for the newly developing countries and potential newly developing countries. Even the so-called least developed countries are asking different questions as they negotiate with many regional and international players for a piece of the capital flow. For middle and small countries, the whole issue of Nicaragua is an important example. The choice seems to be one of the following: attract capital by accepting an International Monetary Fund strict program, literally pledging the continued impoverishment of the people. Create an anti-union and anti-human rights situation. In addition, they will compete with other countries to attain some industrial development and the significant by-products that come with it. Get some growth in the proletariat side of the equation, at the expense of further weakening of this type of survival economy and the culture. If these situations are the case, then you can remain a poor country. Or, you can set back the upper class, with great difficulty, meet basic needs to educate and care for the health of the people involved, support and build on this economic states and see what capital you can obtain by doing so. It is more likely you will face financial abandonment, restriction, criticism, and years of extreme cultural pressure to give in. Prepare to be a very poor and extremely disadvantaged country, but one with a shot at a rich quality of life.
Bibliography
. Goldstein, Joshua, International Relations, Addison Wesley Longman, 2001
2. R.F.Betts, Uncertain Dimensions: Western Overseas Empires in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985.
3. B.Davidson, Africa in Modern History. Allen Lane, England, 1978.
4. B.Davidson, Modern Africa: A Social and Political History (Third Edition). Longman Group Ltd., England, 1994.
5. Bairoch, Paul. The Economic Development of the Third World since1900. Methuen. 1989.
6. Chandra, Rajesh. Industrialization and Development in the Third World. Routledge. 1992.
7. Dasgupta, Ajit Kumar. Economic Theory and the Developing Countries. Macmillan. 1974.
8. Reitsma, H A, & Kleinpenning, J M G. The Third World in Perspective. Van Gorcum. 1985
9. Simpson, E S. The Developing World: An Introduction. Wiley, 1987
0. Swindell, Kenneth & Mortimore, M J. 1989. Inequality and Development: Case Studies from the Third World. Macmillan.
1. McLean, Iain, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford University Press, 1996
