It is important to state that dependency theory is seen more as a school of thought rather than a single theory. Cristóbal Kay expresses the view that “many participants in the dependency debate have made the point that studies of dependency cannot yet be considered to constitute a theory as no coherent or generally accepted set of propositions has emerged from them”.
However, the majority of dependency theorists fall into two main camps, Marxist and reformist. Both view international capitalism as the driving force behind dependency relationships. Andre Gunder Frank, one of the earliest and widely recognised Marxist theorists, demonstrates this point clearly in saying:
“...historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the now developed metropolitan countries. Furthermore, these relations are an essential part of the capitalist system on a world scale as a whole.”
The main difference between these two types of theorist is that whereas Marxist authors say “only a socialist revolution can resolve the problems of dependence and underdevelopment” and see underdevelopment as a stage along the way to a socialist revolution, reformist thinkers “maintain that it is possible to resolve the problem of dependence by reforming the capitalist system”. Even though these two schools of thought fail to agree on the intricacies and solutions of dependency theory, the formal definitions given by both sides are surprisingly similar. If you compare Sunkel’s definition in his book ‘Transnational capitalism and national disintegration in Latin America’ for the reformist approach and Dos Santos’s definition in his book ‘The crisis of development theory and the problem of dependence in Latin America’ for the Marxist approach you can see some striking similarities. That is to say, they “both emphasize interdependence and the absence of autonomous or self sustained capacity for growth in dependent countries” as the major reasons for underdevelopment.
The policy implications of dependency theory follow from its main arguments. Dependency theory repudiates the neo-classical model of economic growth which assumes that the market will allocate the rewards of efficient production in an unbiased manner. This assumption may be valid for a well integrated economy where consumption patterns are not distorted by non economic forces such as racial, ethnic or gender bias. It is not valid for developing economies. For these structural reasons, dependency theorists argue that the market alone is not a sufficient distributive mechanism. There is also greater concern within the dependency framework about whether economic activity is actually benefiting the nation as a whole. So dependency theorists emphasise social factors (such as life expectancy, literacy and infant mortality etc) more than economic ones. Dependent states should therefore seek to follow strategies of self reliance. This is not to endorse a policy of autarky, but rather a policy which endorses controlled interactions with the world economy.
Dependency theorists make a clear distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment. Undevelopment “refers to a condition in which resources are not being used, for example European colonists viewed the North American continent as an undeveloped area: the land was not actively cultivated on a scale consistent with its potential”. Whereas “underdevelopment refers to a situation in which resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found”. This distinction places the poorer countries of the world in a profoundly different historical context. “They are poor because they were coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor”. Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are preferable to the resource usage patterns imposed by dominant states. For example, many dependency theorists would argue that agricultural land should primarily be used for domestic food production to reduce the rates of malnutrition and not for export. They also say that there is a clear national economic interest for each country and that this can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor in the society rather than through the satisfaction of corporate or governmental needs. They also say that dependency is maintained not only by the power of dominant states but also by the power of elites in dependent states. These elites it is argued maintain their dependent relationship because it serves their interests.
The criticisms of dependency theory stem broadly from its “interdisciplinary approach and its orientation towards long-term strategic policy issues”. The interdisciplinary nature of the theory “invites oversimplification while the concern with strategic policy creates intense pressures to draw broad conclusions”. While critiques have lead some theorists to “take issue with particular aspects of dependency analysis, a majority reject the approach all together”.
Beyond this broad criticism, dependency theory has generated many more debates and controversies. One of these is that it does not take into account the different historical contexts of developing countries. This “ignorance of the underdeveloped countries’ history leads us to assume that their past and indeed their present resembles earlier stages of the history of now developed countries”. This raises another point that comparison of developed and underdeveloped countries is in a way redundant because “developed countries were never underdeveloped, though they may have been undeveloped”. Dependency theory suggests that the success of the richer countries was a highly contingent and specific episode in global economic history, one dominated by the highly exploitative colonial relationships of the European powers. A repeat of those relationships is not now highly likely for the poor countries of the world.
Another criticism of dependency is that it places too great an importance on external forces and does not take enough account of internal factors that can determine a country’s development, such as its socio-political, religious and ethnic profile.
A further criticism of the theory is that it commonly ignores the model of development adopted by socialist countries such as China, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba which do not base their society and their power on the expansion of consumption as is the case with the capitalist system. As a result they are more able to resist external economic pressures and therefore to avoid the dependent relationships that afflict many former colonies.
There are also independent economies such as Japan which has managed to avoid dependency. It is interesting to compare for example Japan and Java which were both agrarian societies in the late 19th century more or less at the same stage of development. Japan through adopting policies of exclusion and isolation from the global capitalist system managed to develop without ever becoming dependent. Java on the other hand was colonised by the Dutch and never effected the transition. Dos Santos refers to this where he maintains it is possible to overcome economic dependence if “dependent economies can obtain a high degree of productive autonomy and develop an important sector [of machines and industrialized raw materials]”.
In conclusion if we look at the example of socialist countries such as China and Cuba we see that developed nations need not play a part in the development of another country. It is possible to develop a strong economy as in the case of Japan by practicing policies of regulation, exclusion and isolation. However the colonial legacy is such that former colonies have a much more difficult task in developing and maintaining their autonomy. It is also possible to escape dependency by subscribing to another political system outside capitalism such as was the case with socialist states. However, “whatever the deficiencies of dependency theory, the dependency of the Third World is certainly a reality and one which has much to answer for its predicament”.
Bibliography:
Ferraro, V. (1996). ‘Dependency Theory: An Introduction’. Available from: . [Accessed 8th May 2007].
Frank, A.G. (1966). ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’. Monthly Review. 18(4):17-31.
Oxfam Website. (2005). ‘Make Poverty History: A Review of 2005’. Available from: . [Accessed 11th May 2007].
Geertz, C. ‘Java and Japan Compared’ in Bernstein, H. (1978). ‘Underdevelopment and Development’. London: Penguin Books.
Grosfoquel, R. (2000). ‘Developmentalism, Modernity and Dependency Theory in Latin America’. Available from: . [Accessed 12th May 2007].
Kay, C. (1989). ‘Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment’. London: Routledge.
Other Works Consulted:
Desai, V. & Potter, R.B. (2002). ‘The Companion to Development Studies’. London: Arnold.
Bienefield, M. in Kay, C. (1989), pg 163.
Frank, A, G. (1972), pg 3.
Bienefield, M. in Kay, C. (1989), pp 163.
Bienefield, M. in Kay, C. (1989), pp 163.
Frank, A. G. (1966), pp 17.
Frank, A. G. (1966), pp 18.
Geertz, C. in Bernstein, H. (1978) pg 48.
Dos Santos, T. in Kay, C. (1989), pp 151.
