Modernisation is essentially a growth model and does not address the issue of development in the wider context. The centralisation of this growth theory does not allow for, or acknowledge development at a local scale. Certain areas, cities or locations within so-called ‘underdeveloped’ countries may be considered ‘developed’ by ‘western’ standards, however if the country is still lacking a high economic status it would remain labelled as ‘underdeveloped’. Broader economic growth is the key to the stages of development under Rostow and until such time that localised values are recognised it will always remain centralised.
There is another body of development theory of more recent origin, dominated by the profession of economics. It is a more complex model as the theories are not simply an invention of western economics or political economy but have been shaped and profoundly contributed to by various third world intellectual traditions (Johnston et al., 2000). There are four broad conventional streams to these theories of development. The first being the Growth Theory which is broadly based on Keynesian or neo-Keynesian models; the second Neo-Liberalism which draws upon neo-classical economics; the third is the Transaction Cost approaches which draws upon institutional models; and finally the Radical Dependency Theory.
Radical Dependency Theory emerged as a critique of Modernisation and economic dualism. It is a multifaceted body of theory with structuralist, Marxist and Latin American roots (Johnston et al., 2000). Radical Dependency Theory explains the blocked or ‘distorted’ character of third world development through external powers. It is expressed in a binary spatial pattern of core and periphery that is linked directly to colonialism, and suggests that the world is dominated by a hegemonic economy with all people integrated within a sphere of capitalist production (Waitt et.al., 2000). The rich ‘western’ nations, who were also the colonisers, are considered to be the core, whilst the peripheries are the ‘underdeveloped’ nations who were also generally the product of colonisation. It is believed that colonised countries suffered anti-development due to colonialism, thereby creating Third World poverty.
Radical Dependency Theory suggests that the low levels of development in the periphery, or ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries, are caused by their reliance upon the core, or ‘More Economically Developed’ countries. It claims that the core takes on the dominant role and exploits the periphery. This occurs by the core providing high technology and high value-added goods to the periphery in exchange for primary products and low technology manufacturing thereby directly linking both via flows of trade, capital and labour (Waitt et.al., 2000). There is also the assertion that the ‘More Economically Developed’ countries attained their position of economic dominance through the appropriation of surplus value from the ‘Less Economically Dependent’ countries. The result being the core accumulates economic growth whilst the profit of the periphery repays debt leaving no profit for reinvestment and development (Johnston et al., 2000).
Radical Dependency Theory therefore states that underdevelopment is not due to some ‘natural’ state of affairs as argued by Rostow, but rather the result of an unequal exchange operating through an economic process whereby ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries are underdeveloped due to their reliance on ‘More Economically Developed’ countries (Rimmer and Forbes, 1982). This reliance is further enhanced by the fact that the ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries borrow capital from the ‘More Economically Developed’ countries. Repaying these debts leave the ‘underdeveloped’ countries unable to develop their own industry and thus becomes a self-perpetuating problem (Waitt et.al., 2000).
Dependence is also maintained by core investment within the periphery, with mining operations involving the extraction of natural resources being a prime example. In many ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries the best land is still owned by foreign corporations who can extract the benefits from it in the form of minerals and cash crops, whilst the locals continue to suffer chronic shortages of the most basic commodities (Blomstrom and Hettne, 1984).
This approach of the Radical Dependency Theory to human progress has been critiqued since its inception, with the main criticisms being that the approach is too general, neo-colonialist, and does not explain the apparent growth realised by certain countries through their dependency.
Neo-colonialism is the economic and political control of ‘More Economically Developed’ countries over ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries. Although the ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries are no longer colonies and are seemingly politically independent, their economies and political systems are still closely controlled from the outside (Johnston et al., 2000). This control may be exerted in a number of ways and although neo-colonialism is obviously present it has been deemed to be ‘invisible’ and masked by apparent aid and economic agreements such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Agreement (Waitt et al., 2000). It was argued by Amin (1977) that relationships established under the Bretton Woods Agreement would always benefit the United States, that is, a ‘More Economically Developed’ country and observers would be naive to think otherwise.
Although ‘free trade’ agreements were drawn up after the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trades (GATT) in 1947 to help ‘developing’ countries gain an economic advantage, these were later seen to be a mechanism whereby the United States could impart an economic hegemony over the ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries through the linkages of GATT to the Inter- Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Waitt et.al., 2000), thereby further enhancing the theory of dependency. Despite this however some so-called ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries have enjoyed rapid economic growth from their dependency on ‘More Economically Developed’ countries. The Radical Dependency Theory does not explain the adoption of certain economic strategies, for example Import Substitution Industrialisation in some Latin American countries; and the Export Led Growth in ‘developing’ East Asian countries (Meisenhelder, 1997). These has been widely viewed by critics of the Radical Dependency Theory to disprove its claim that ‘Less Economically Developed’ countries need to cut all ties with ‘More Economically Developed’ countries so they themselves can become independent and develop economically.
Overall critics of radical dependency theory have continually maintained their stance that it overemphasises the role that international systems play in constraining development, whilst underemphasising the impact that policies implemented in ‘developing’ states have on their economic development.
There has been the suggestion that the only way to overcome the inequality of the global economy would be to replace the current capitalist system with a socialist system (Waitt et.al., 2000), however, as this is highly implausible, further challenges to economic theories began.
The 1980s brought the discussion of epistemology in response to the earlier debates revolving around the development theories (Johnston et al., 2000). The structuralist theories of modernisation and radical dependency were questioned at this time for their tendencies towards over-simplification. As a result of this, many geographers returned their focus to specific case studies with fewer publications standing out as theoretical investigations or contributions to the debates. This has been considered as the ‘cultural turn’, which has brought the question of culture to the forefront of contemporary debates (Johnston et al., 2000). The discipline of geography is now attempting to look at the larger picture of localities and take into account not only dependencies, but also local and cultural features. These new location studies use a ‘bottom-up’ approach rather than the ‘top-down’ approach of the Radical Dependency Theory, and allow individual economic and social climates to remain, as such, individual.
This essay discussed Modernisation as an orthodox model of development and the Radical Dependency Theory. The main critiques of the Modernisation and Radical Dependency Theories were outlined and both seem to be too economical in their classification of the interaction within and between modern societies. The current response of the abandonment of ‘theories’ in general was also discussed with localised studies now becoming the more idealised way of analysing the structure of modern societies and the interactions within and between countries.
REFERENCES
Amin, S. (1977), Imperialism and Unequal Development, Hassocks, Harvester.
Blomstrom, M., and Hettne, B., (1984), Development Theory in Transition: The
Dependency Debate and Beyond, Zed Books, London
Hobsbawm, E.J., (1979), The development of the world economy, Cambridge Journal
of Economics, 3: 305-318
Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G., Watts, M., (Eds) (2000), The Dictionary of
Human Geography Fourth Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Carlton, Victoria
Lewis, W.A., (1955), The Theory of Economic Growth, Allen and Unwin, London
Meisenhelder, T., (1997), The Development State in Mauritius, The Journal of Modern
African Studies, 35 (2): 279-297
Rimmer, P.J. and Forbes, D.K., (1982) ‘Underdevelopment theory: a geographical
review’, Australian Geographer, 14 (4): 197-211
Rostow, W.W., (1960), The Stages Of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rostow, W.W., (1978), The World Economy: History and Prospect, Macmillan,
London.
Turner, K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I., (1994), Environmental Economics: An
Elementary Introduction, Prentice Hall, Sydney
Waitt, G., McGuirk, P., Dunn, K., Hartig, K., Burnley, I. (2000). Introducing Human
Geography: Globalisation, Difference and Inequality, Longman, Sydney.
