Dependency theory
Raúl Prebisch was a founder of the dependency theory school, who from 1935 to 1943 was Director-General of Banco Central in Argentina. His idea of the centre-periphery was implicit in all of his policy writings and works, which means that in the international system there is a two sets of states, the centre/dominant and the periphery/dependent. The dependency theory used the term underdevelopment which implied a specific process that led to underdevelopment. The causes of underdevelopment were thought of as being external causes, and Raúl Prebisch saw the system of the international free trade as the main cause. He came to the conclusion that the underdevelopment of Latin America was because of the continent’s strong reliance on export of primary products. Furthermore the long period of European colonialism had interfered with the underdeveloped societies’ development process and the underdeveloped societies were still to a great extent depended on the developed western societies. Dos Santos has argued that this uneven structure is upheld since transfer of surplus produced in dependent countries are being transferred to dominant countries, which means that development in advanced countries occurs at the expense of poor countries. Developed countries dominant control of the world market leads to uneven trade relations where developed countries will gain more control as the domestic surplus is increasing. As mention above, the core explanation for Latin America’s underdevelopment was its reliance on export of primary products and therefore the solution to the problem was industrialization and export of industrial goods.
Analysis
The main fault of modernization theory is its exclusive view to economic factors while it pay little or no attention to social and political explanations as populations, healthcare and education, attitudes and institutions. However the same criticism can be applied to dependency theory, but in this case it is its narrow view to external factors, the world system of capitalism. Others have argued that a single theory of development is unlikely to emerge and that is necessary to abandon the idea of a theory of development (Higgins, Bernstein, Salvatore Schiavo-Campo and Hans W Singer). I would argue the same to some extent, however I do believe that a general theory of development can serve a good purpose, although developing societies cannot simply imitate western societies since they have a completely different background and a development theory must acknowledge societies different history and look to both external and internal factors. A general theory that acknowledges these factors can serve as an “inspiration” for development but not as a development plan that has to be followed precisely. Cardoso offers a strong criticism of modernization theory where he attacks the concept”from traditional to modern” society, he argues that neither concept is broad enough or specific enough to characterize and examine the different structures that determine the lifestyles of societies. These kinds of concept also overlook various stages of economic development that are not characterized as either traditional or modern. Modernization theory tends to simplify the process of development and believes that if undeveloped countries simply follow the step of the richer western countries; they will also develop and reach the final stage of “high-mass consumption”, although there is no society that has ever followed Rostow’s five stages to growth exactly. It looks at symptoms of undevelopment rather than the reasons for lack of it and therefore does not see that an universal theory of development does not work since undeveloped countries have a different starting point than what western countries had and that undeveloped countries look very different from each other, there is no single treatment that will cure them all from their undevelopment. A theory must look at underdeveloped countries exclusively and work out a theory of development from that specific case. Countries that have followed a distinctive development theory and which has proven successful are e.g. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. The problem of modernization theory was that it thought it was only one original state of backwardness and only one process that will lead to development and therefore the theory examined the “barriers to modernization” and ” resistance to change”. It is as they almost assumed that undeveloped countries lacked the will to develop. That is one of the reasons for why dependency theorists use the term “underdeveloped” instead of “undeveloped” countries when to refer to the process that led to underdevelopment, i.e. a process that happened to them and not something they chose for themselves. As André Gunder Frank argues, while giving the example of British deindustrialization of India and the slave trade in Africa, underdevelopment was not an original stage it was a created condition. Frank also points to the issue of generalizing all countries’ history and argues that we have to study the poor countries’ history and not only the richer western’s because “the now developed countries were never underdeveloped, though they may have been undeveloped”. An exceptionally convincing argument about the myth of development is offered by Vincent Tucker, who argues that development is a western myth. The entire concept of development means that poorer countries should imitate the richer western ones in order to become developed and Vincent believes “the development discourse is part of an imperial process whereby other peoples are appropriated and turned into objects”. We assume that the poorer countries should do as the richer countries even though we do not share the same beliefs, values, cultures, traditions, lifestyles or hopes. Modernization theory has acknowledged the cultural dimension of development but they assumed that the cultural dimension has to be abolished and they have to adapt to American policies. The concept of the Third World and development was created in the west, and the Third World is said to be in need of development, as we in the west understands it and if they do not progress in the way that they should, the west and modernization theory blame the tradition of the society. In fact modernization theory ruled out the possibility that other societies might have something to offer the west. As I mention in the introduction and throughout the essay, there is not only flaws in modernization theory but also in dependency theory of development. Dependency theory also tends to focus too much on economic factors and therefore fails to see the culture dimension of domination. Dependency theory and modernization theory also have a very narrow definition of states, as either dependent or dominant and therefore it fails to acknowledge the states in between. However dependency theory does provide a more accurate picture of the existing world order and a coherent theory of development. Its strongest arguments are that underdeveloped states are not waiting to catch up but they are denied access to the process and that one has to understand the historical background in order to provide a rational development theory. Another element that makes dependency theory a lot more convincing is that they understand that resources are being used but these resources benefit the riches states which use these resources to produce and sell manufactured goods at a faster rate.
Conclusion
Modernization theory, as described by W.W Rostow have several flaws and it received a lot of criticism from the Latin American School of dependency theory, where Raúl Prebish was one of the main contributors. Modernization theory’s main criticism was that it thought that “one model would fit them all” and that it looked at the symptoms of underdevelopment and not the reasons. Modernization theory had a very one-dimensional view of development but so had the competing theory, dependency theory, as well. It mainly looked to external factors such as the uneven structure of the world economy, and failed to address the cultural dimensions of domination. What this essay has tried to prove is that both modernization theory and dependency theory are not alone adequate to explain underdevelopment/undevelopment and the process of development, however if the two theories work together they can create a much more valuable and helpful theory of development.
A lot of time has been spent on explaining and evaluating on the two theories of development although another very important aspect of development is the desirability of becoming like western richer societies and to reach Rostow’s final stage of a “high-mass consumption” society and what that would mean for the world and the environment. Developed countries have to understand that we have a lot to learn about lifestyle, values and culture from the underdeveloped countries and the world has to recognize that if the underdeveloped countries reach our level of consumption the world will face terrible environmental problems. However, we shall not deny underdeveloped countries their development process, we in the western world must help the countries in need and it is important that we as individual think over our decision of living as high-mass consumers and its consequences.
Bibliography
Abe, M, 2006 „The Developmental State and Educational Advance in East Asia‟ Educate~ Vol.6, No.1, pp. 6-12 [Available: http://www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/article/download/87/85] Accessed: 10.11.2012
Baylis, J.,Smith S. and P. Owens The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction To International Relations (Oxford University Press, 2011) pp. 463-470.
Blomström, M. and B. Hettne, Development Theory In Transition: The Dependency Debate & Beyond; Third World Responses (London: Zed Books Ltd, 1984).
Dos Santos, T.,”The Structure of Dependence‟ in Seligson, Mitchell A., and John T. Smith 3rd ed., Development and underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality (Rienner Publishers, 2003) pp. 260-277.
Gunder Frank, A.,”The Development of Underdevelopment‟, in C.K. Wilber, ed., The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment (New York: Random House, 1966) pp. 109-119.
Kuznets, S., “Economic Growth and Income Inequality” in Seligson, Mitchell A., and John T. Smith 3rd ed., Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality (Rienner Publishers, 2003) pp. 42-61.
Leys, C., The Rise and Fall of Development Theory (London: Villiers Publications, 1996).
Prebisch, R., Raul Prebisch and Development Strategy (New Delhi: Research and Information System for the Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries, 1987).
Seers, D.,”The Meaning of Development, With a Postscript” in Lehmann D., Development Theory:Four Critical Studies (London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, 1979) pp. 9-32.
Tucker, V., “The Myth of Development: A Critique of a Eurocentric Discourse Ronaldo” In M. and D. O´Hearn, Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm (London, Zed Bookts Ltd, 1999).
W.W. Rostow,” The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto‟ In Roberts, J. Timmons, and Amy Hite ed., The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change. (Malden, Mass: Blackwell Pub, 2007) pp. 47.
Dos Santos, T., 2003 p.278-279
Gunder Frank, A., 1988 p.2
by
adriana123 (student)
