| So, Alvin Y. 1990. Social Change and Development: modernization, dependency, and world-systems theories. Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA.
Dependency Theory:
Chapter 5: The Dependency School
*Dependency theory emerged in LA in the 1960’s, it was a response to modernization theory from a Third World perspective that “challenged the intellectual hegemony of the American modernization school.” (91)
*Three things triggered its formulation:
The bankruptcy of ECLA and resulting disillusionment with modernization
Crisis of orthodox Marxism in Latin America
Questioning of modernization theory within the US (91-93)
*ECLA: in the early 1960’s ISI had clearly failed in LA, needed a new model to explain development/underdevelopment (91)
ISI was a rejection of the international division of labor and attempt to industrialize developing countries through protectionism (93), it assumed “industrialization would put an end to all problems of development.” (94)
*Neo-Marxism: Success of the Chinese and Cuban revolutions fomented the spread of neo-Marxism in LA. How it’s different from orthodox Marxism:
It approached imperialism from a “peripheral” perspective instead of a “central” one (the Third World perspective) and emphasized how it has hurt the Third World.
Didn’t want to wait around for 2 revolutions, the first being started by the bourgeoisie , they wanted revolution now. Looked down on the bourgeoisie as a product of imperialism.
Saw revolutionary potential of the peasantry. (95)
*American disillusionment: LA dependency theory hit the US scene when a new generation was questioning everything about the US, so they were more open to it. (92)
*Frank (an American) was influential in spreading depency theory in the US. His critique of modernization theory:
Assumes there’s an “internal” problem with the developing world that needs fixing through development.
Ignores the unique history of the developing world. It can’t follow the same path as the Euro-American states because it has a different experience to build off of.
*Frank’s alternative theory, it’s an “external” explanation:
“the historical experience of colonialism and foreign domination have reversed the development of many ‘advanced’ Third World countries and forced them to move along the path of backwardness.” (96)
“underdevelopment is not a natural condition but an artifact created by the long history of domination in Third World countries.”
Also came up with the “metropolis-satellite” model, which says that colonial powers used major cities in the colonies as satellites of their Western metropolis to access resrouces, etc. In turn, these satellites had their own smaller satellites… “A whole chain of constellations of metropolises and satellites is established to extract economic surplus.” So that development of the Western world was dependent on exploitation of the Third World and underdevelopment in the Third World was linked to Western development. (97)
*Dos Santos’ contribution: He defines dependence as when two or more countries have a relationship where one is dominant and can “expand and be self-starting” while the other can only be a “reflection of that expansion.” (98-99)
*Dos Santos identifies three forms of dependency:
Colonial
Financial-industrial: emerged in the end of the 19tth Century, where European powers still dominated the market and the underdeveloped country was dependent on the exports of raw materials and agriculture to the dominant country. (99)
Technological-industrial: post WWII era, depended on revenue from export sector to import money and technology to industrialize. (99-100)
*“Dos Santos concludes that the economic backwardness if underdeveloped countries is not due to a lack of integration with capitalism. Those studies that say so are ‘nothing more than ideology disguised as science.’ Instead, it is the monopolistic control of foreign capital, foreign finance, and foreign technology at national and international levels that prevents underdeveloped countries from reaching an advantageous position, resulting in the reproduction of backwardness, misery, and social marginalization within their borders.” (102)
*Amin’s contribution (1976): “theory of transitions to peripheral capitalism” says…
Transition from peripheral capitalism is fundamentally different from that to central capitalism.
It’s characterized by extraversion (“the distortion toward export activities), resulting from the superior productivity of foreign markets _ wages in the periphery are lower. (102)
Hypertrophy, a form of distortion in the tertiary sector (???), so that capital accumulation is inhibited. (102-103).
The multiplier effect of investment doesn’t work in the periphery, it is “nullified” by the export of foreign capital so that the profit is transferred away from the periphery.
Don’t confuse underdeveloped countries with early-stage-industrialized countries because they have distinct structural differences.
These structural differences _ block growth of the peripheral countries.
The form of undervdeleopment in a country depends on: “1) the nature of the precapitalist formation that was there previously, and (2) the forms and the periods in which the peripheries were integrated into the capitalist world-system.” (103)
*”Like the modernization school, the dependency school is highly heterogenous.” But members of the dependency school tend to share these basic assumptions:
“First, dependency is a very general process, applicable to all Third World countries…national variations and historical complexity are downplayed in order to present the ‘ideal type’ construct of dependency.”
It’s an external condition, the “historical heritage of colonialism and the perpetuation of the unequal international division of labor are the greatest obstructions to the national development of Third World countries.”
It’s mostly an economic condition.
“Fourth, dependency is treated as a component of regional polarization of the global economy…Thus underdevelopment in the periphery and development in the core are two aspects of a single process of capital accumulation”. (104)
Dependency and development are incompatible, so that development is not possible in the periphery.
*Implications of dependency theory:
Must redefine development to include stuff about improving standard of living for all people and should not just focus on the elite and urban dwellers. “Any development program that benefits only a small sector at the expense of the suffering majority is no good at all.”
Periphery should sever ties with core countries and adopt a self-reliance model. (105)
“The should trade with other peripheral countries on equal and mutually beneficial terms.”
Might need a revolution to make it happen since the old elites wouldn’t like these ideas.
*Similarities between modernization and dependency theory:
Same research focus on Third World development and its factors. (106)
Similar methodologies: “anchor their discussion at a highly abstract level, with an eye toward explaining the very general process of development applicable to all nations.”
Both have a polarization model: modern -traditional vs. core (metropolis)-periphery (satellite). (107)
*Differences between modernization and dependency theory:
Different theoretical backgrounds: classical modernization is influenced by European evolutionary theories and American functionalist theories vs. classical dependency influenced by liberal ECLA program and radical neo-Marxist theories.
Disagree on causes of underdevelopment: modernization says internal factors (traditional culture, lack of motivation, little industry) vs. dependency says external factors (colonialism, neocolonialism).
Modernization sees linkages between Third World and Western countries as beneficial, dependency sees them as harmful and exploitive.
Modernization is optimistic about the future (eventually the Third World will catch up) vs. dependency is pessimistic (if nothing changes soon dependency will become stringer further encouraging underdevelopment and bankruptcy). (108)
Solutions: modernization says more linkages (aid, technology transfer) vs. dependency says less linkages to promote autonomy and independent development (may require socialist revolution). (108-109).
Chapter 6: The Classical Dependency Studies
*Critique of dependency theory:
*Modernization theorists responded to dependency by calling it “propaganda fragment of Marxist revolutionary ideology. Dependency studies are seen by them as more like exercises in pamphleteering than as products of scholarly work. It has been argued that the dependency school gave up the battle for science after it lapsed into rhetoric. Consequently, instead of proving a scientific analysis of what has actually happened in Third World countries, the concept of dependency has become an all-purpose explanation for everything that is wrong with Third World countries.”
*Very abstract and make generalizations about all Third World countries. (131)
*Overemphasizes the role of external conditions and ignores internal factors.
*Political struggle has been neglected. (132)
“Due to their negligence of internal dynamics and domestic political struggles, the dependency school is accused of presenting an inaccurate picture of passive peripheries with a very small ‘degree of freedom.’”
Hasn’t offered many “concrete details” on what to do about it.
Chapter 7: The New Dependency Studies
*Cardoso is the big theorist in new dependency studies. He wants to reincorporate history into the analysis, “he employs the term dependency not as a theory to generalize the universal pattern of underdevelopment, but as a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations in Third World development.” (135)
|