NUR AIN BT ABU KASSIM (BA14110445)

NUR AIN BINTI ABU KASSIM (BA14110445)

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS OF AMERICA LATIN : What do you understand

about dependency theory?

Dependency (or dependencia) theory emerges in the late 1940s against

the development theory of modernization. Modernization theory as originally
formulated, was couched in arrogant, condescending language almost designed
to invite attack. Some of the more right-wing literature on Latin America in
relation to modernization theory portrayed the continent as similar to the
uncouth Neanderthals of the Stone Age. The theory stems from classical
(Darwinian) evolutionary theory and is based off of the premise that developed
nations are developed because of their undergoing of socio-political and
economic evolution (e.g. industrialization). Dependency theory, on the other
hand, develops by looking at historical trends to explain the current state of
developing nations, and is premised on the neo-Marxist ideology that the
process of world capitalist integration under the control of monopoly capital is
to blame for the economic backwardness of third world nations.

Hans Singer and Raul Prebisch developed international trade theories

(independently of each other) based off of empirical research done on
developingcountries terms of trade from the 19th century until World War II, and
then again into the 1950s (the findings of which came to be known as the
Prebisch-Singer Hypothesis). According to their conclusions, specialization in
primary commodities, combined with a relatively slow rate of technical progress
in the primary sector and an adverse trend in the commodity terms of trade, had
caused developing economies to lag behind the industrialized world. This
critical evaluation of historical international trade trends gave dependency
theory the support it needed, and it shows some semblance of what dependence
means in this type of economic system. It provides added credence to the notion
that states were not undeveloped because of their perceived economic
backwardness or inability (even unwillingness) to modernize, but instead
because of the way they are forced to interact within the world capitalist
structure.

The next question I then have is: what, in fact, leads to dependence? In
order to further develop a theoretic-historical framework, this question is
important to answer. Dependency is not a socioeconomic relation that just
NUR AIN BT ABU KASSIM (BA14110445)

occurs, it is developed historically through capitalisms power-relations

between the first world and the third world. It is:

[A] situation in which a certain group of countries have their economy

conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to
which the former is subject.... In all cases, the basic situation of
dependence leads to a global situation in dependent countries that
situates them in backwardness and under the exploitation of the dominant
countries.

Colonialism is always a clear route to making the colonized state

dependent on the colonizing state. When the state in power has control over
what laws are enforced, what social institutions are conducive to maintaining its
rule, and what economic functions the colonized state must perform, this forces
dependency onto that colonized country, and in turn removes its autonomy. In a
sense, this is what capitalism did in the 19 th century. Nations such as Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia and perhaps even Mexico are examples of countries
that were at one point in their history (late 18 th and early 19th centuries) trekking
along the path of industrialization. However these states had their development
halted because of their integration into the capitalist economy, due in part to the
declining terms of trade, as previously mentioned. The dependency that is
experienced by developing nations moves to be extremely detrimental to the
development of socio-political and economic relations within these countries and
abroad: 1) because of social disparity and civil unrest within countries and 2)
because of the lack of political capital they can expend internationally due the
weakness of their economies.

Where there is theory, there will always be criticisms of it, and this is no
less true for dependency theory. Radicals amongst dependency theory (mostly
neo-Marxists) are often criticized for their grandiose views of development.
Gunder Frank wrote, the economic and social development for the majority of
the Latin American people [will not change] until they destroy the capitalist class
structure through revolution and replace it with socialist development. A radical
view like this is not the best way to accrue a mass of followers behind your
cause. It is also known that the theory began to lose steam with the rise of the
economies of both Taiwan and South Korea after they were both predicted to be
similar to that of Cuba before its revolution.
NUR AIN BT ABU KASSIM (BA14110445)

Proponents of free-market economics also criticize dependency theory. A

major claim against the theory is that it fails to account for the endogenous
factors involved in a countrys development and places blame entirely on
external factors. Tony Smith, in his piece, The Underdevelopment of
Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory, writes dependency
theory represents a historically concrete attempt of Marxism to absorb southern
nationalism into a kind of ideological united front. This is not an uncommon
claim, specifically because in order to move towards the next mode of
production, in Marxist theory, it is necessary for the proletarianized people (or
satellites in this case) to mobilize against the current mode in order to achieve
socioeconomic change. Neo-Marxists, understanding this concept full well, might
likely be attempting to incorporate Latin Americans into a struggle against the
current economic elite to elicit change.

Finally, a last criticism comes from traditional Marxists and their claim that
dependency theory is Neo-Marxism without Marxism. It removes the idea of
class struggle and makes the struggle one of national, regional, and
international affairs. Marxists also claim that while unequal exchange may be a
key element in the underdevelopment of nations, it is not the impetus for them.
According to Marxists and Marxist theory, at the end of it all, the capitalist mode
of production is the reason for which why countries become underdeveloped.

The world is changing, and we can see that through historical shifts and
trends in culture, politics, and the economy. How we understand international
affairs is also changing and melding together as it were. However, we still face
some of the same issues of inequality and socioeconomic disparity; and these
problems are becoming ever more prevalent in the globalized economy. This is
why understanding dependency theory is so important, because in order to fix a
situation and move towards change, one needs to know the issue. The fact of
the matter is, the theory itself is not outdated, but what is outdated are the ways
in which we assess the application of the theory. In this case, dependency is the
issue, not only in Latin America, but in other satellites around the world that
have economies linked to core countries and are not themselves self-
perpetuating or self-generating. The Asian Tigers and Indian economies have
developed because of their weak (to non-existent) identities as satellite states,
and therefore their economies were allowed to flourish once they developed
products that were profitable on the global market.
NUR AIN BT ABU KASSIM (BA14110445)