Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:05:58.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependence and dependencia theory: notes toward precision of concept and argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Raymond D. Duvall
Raymond D. Duvall
Affiliation:
Raymond Duvall is a member of the Political Science Department at the University of Minnesota. This paper is an outgrowth of a project on the empirical evaluation of dependencia theory under the direction of Bruce M. Russett at Yale University. Duncan Snidal, Steven Jackson, Scott Ross, Hayward Alker, James Caporaso, Brian Job, Gary Wynia, Douglas Bennett and John Freeman offered helpful suggestions for developing the thoughts presented here. Portions of the paper were presented to the Committee on Conceptual and Terminological Analysis at the Tenth World Congress, International Political Science Association, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 1976.
Get access

Extract

The concept of dependence is used in several different scholarly traditions to refer to aspects of relational asymmetry in international and transnational relations. In three such traditions, dependence refers to three quite different kinds of concepts with the result that possibilities are restricted for fruitful dialogue about dependence across these scholarly traditions of dependencia theory, systematic empiricism, and formal, analytical theory. To aggravate this problem of multiple “languages,” there are two basic conceptual notions generally associated with the term dependence. These two meanings have clearly distinct implications for the nature of a theory of dependence, the character of entities dependent on one another, and the assessment or measurement of dependence. Thus, if the “language” gap is to be bridged and fruitful dialogue is to occur among different scholarly traditions, attention must be directed to the basic conceptual meaning of dependence in each tradition. Dialogue between systematic empiricism and dependencia theory is possible if empiricists recognize the fundamentally historical and historicist character of the particular substance of dependencia theory. These principles are exemplified here.

Type
Part I
Information
International Organization , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Winter 1978 , pp. 51 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lall, Sanjaya, “Is ‘Dependence’ a Useful Concept in Analyzing Underdevelopment?” World Development Vol. 3 (11 1975): 799–810.Google ScholarO'Brien, Philip, “Dependency: The New Nationalism?” Latin American Review of Books Vol. 1 (1973): 35–41.Google Scholar

2 The notion of “scripts” that I use here comes from contemporary traditions in psychology and linguistics in the analysis of natural language and knowledge and belief systems. “A script is an elaborate causal chain which provides world knowledge about an often experienced situation…. (Scripts are predetermined sequences of action that define a situation. Scripts have entering conditions (how you know you are in one), reasons (why you get into one), and crucial conceptualizations (without which the script would fall apart and no longer be that script).” Shank, Roger C., “The Structure of Episodes in Memory,” in Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, Bobrow, Daniel G. and Collins, Allan, eds. (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 264.Google Scholar “Script based knowledge is mundane information which tends to lie in the periphery of consciousness…. Scripts describe situations which are frequently encountered with negligible or predictable variations. People in situational scripts are seldom conscious of script related actions.” Lehnert, Wendy, “What Makes SAM Run? Script Based Techniques for Question Answering,” in Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing: An Interdisciplinary Workshop in Computational Linguistics, Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, Shank, Roger C. and Nash-Webber, Bonnie L., eds. (Cambridge, Mass.: 06 10–13, 1975), p. 59.Google Scholar “[T]he ‘consequence’ relation for weaving themes together [into scripts] is much more vague and potentially idiosyncratic than was the ‘causal’ relationship for linking A and S-atoms [i.e., defining concepts]. Therefore we expect a great deal of variation from one belief system to another in how themes are combined into scripts…. There is a great deal of room for idiosyncracy, and we doubt that there is any way … to generate ‘correct’ scripts by an automatic procedure.” Abelson, Robert P., “The Structure of Belief Systems,” in Computer Models of Thought and Language, Shank, Roger C. and Colby, Kenneth Mark, eds. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973), p. 333,Google Scholar emphasis in original. Thus, to say that the term dependence is a script is to say that it is an important organizing device for knowledge about social relations, but that as such it is not a precise analytical concept because its “meaning” is too complex, idiosyncratic, and unrefined.

3 The term “data containers” is taken from Giovanni Sartori, “The Tower of Babel,” paper presented at the Ninth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Montreal, Canada, August 1973. Sartori argues that rather than developing a useful language with which to construct knowledge claims, social scientists are creating tumult because very little attention is paid to the extent to which terms have a shared or common meaning. For Sartori, terms become concepts useful for empirical science when they become precise “data containers” upon whose contents there is widespread professional agreement. That position is in opposition to one which recognizes the importance to knowledge, even scientific knowledge, of conceptual scripts as per the previous footnote.

4 Bath, C. Richard and James, Dilmus D., “Dependency Analysis of Latin America: Some Criticisms, Some Suggestions,” Latin American Research Review, Vol. 11, No. 3. (Fall 1976): 3–54.Google ScholarChilcote, Ronald H., “Dependency: A Critical Synthesis of the Literature,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1974): 4–29.Google ScholarDuvall, Raymond D. and Russett, Bruce M., “Some Proposals to Guide Empirical Research on Contemporary Imperialism,” The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Fall 1976): 1–27.Google Scholar

5 In a recent piece by a leader in the development of integration theory, it is claimed that that theory is now obsolescent because some major assumptions on which it was based are no longer empirically valid. See Haas, Ernst B., “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” International Organization, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring 1976): 173–212.Google Scholar Haas' interpretation is much too generous, I believe. Integration theory is obsolescent because international relations scholarship is faddish—intellectual problems are defined as much in response to current events as to gaps and anomalies in established bodies of knowledge. The reason for this is well known; “established bodies of knowledge,” systematized as theories capable of revealing important gaps and anomalies, are largely lacking. Integration theory, concerned with phenomena that are still important today, failed ever to become an established body of knowledge (i.e., a systematic body of theory) in large part because there never developed a substantial scholarly agreement about the precise conceptual properties of integration, nor a clear specification of the arguments which constituted integration theory. An important but insufficient effort was made by Alker, Hayward R. Jr, in “Integration Logics: A Review, Extension, and Critique,” International Organization, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Autumn 1970): 869–913.Google Scholar

6 The notion of “frames” is related to the notion of “scripts” presented in footnote 2 above. “Here is the essence of the frame theory: When one encounters a new situation (or makes substantial changes in one's view of a problem), one selects from memory a structure called a frame. This is a remembered framework to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary…. We can think of a frame as a network of needs and relations. The ‘top levels’ of a frame are fixed, and represent things that are always true about the supposed situation. The lower levels have many terminals—‘slots’ that may be filled by specific instances or data.” Minsky, Marvin, “A Framework for Representing Knowledge,” in Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing: An Interdisciplinary Workshop in Computational Linguistics, Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, Shank, Roger C. and Nash-Webber, Bonnie L., eds. (Cambridge, Mass.: 06 10–13, 1975), p. 118.Google Scholar “Underlying the organization is a belief that meanings cannot be reduced to any set of pure ‘elements’ or components from which everything else is built. Rather, a person categorizes his experience along lines which are relevant to the thought processes he will use, and his categorization is generally neither consistent, nor parsimonious, nor complete. A person may categorize a set of objects in his experience into, for example ‘chair,’ ‘stool,’ ‘bench,’ etc. If pushed, he cannot give an exact definition for any of these, and in naming some objects he will not be certain how to make the choice between them. This is even clearer if we consider words like ‘truth,’ ‘virtue,’ or ‘democracy.’” Winograd, Terry, “A Procedural Model of Language Understanding,” in Computer Models of Thought and Language, Shank, Roger C. and Colby, Kenneth Mark, eds. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973), p. 168.Google Scholar My point is that dependence is just such a “frame.”

7 Several Europeans and students of Africa, at least, have made substantial contributions to the literature on “peripheral capitalism” with exactly the same concerns as the Latin American scholars who are universally recognized as the dependentistas. See, for example, Senghaas, Dieter, “Multinational Corporations and the Third World: On the Problem of the Further Integration of Peripheries into the Given Structure of the International Economic System,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1975): 257–74Google Scholar; Senghaas-Knobloch, Eva, “The Internationalization of Capital and the Process of Underdevelopment: The Case of Black Africa,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1975): 275–92Google Scholar; Amin, Samir, Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment, 2 vols., (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Mandel, Ernest, Late Capitalism (London: NLB, 1975)Google Scholar; Rodney, Walter, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (London: Bogle L'Ouverture, 1972).Google Scholar

8 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Faletto, Enzo, “Preface to the American Edition,” Dependency and Development in Latin America. (Berkeley: The University of California Press, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The quotation is from p. 18 of the typewritten manuscript.

9 Ibid, pp. 22–23 of the typewritten manuscript.

10 Ibid, p. 23 of the typewritten manuscript.

11 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “‘Teoria de la Dependencia’ o Analisis de Situaciones Concretas de Dependencia?” Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencia Politico, Vol. 1 (December 1970): 414,Google Scholar emphasis in original. The translation is with the help of Bruce M. Russett.

12 Santos, Theotonio Dos, “The Structure of Dependence,” American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2 (05 1970): 231, emphasis added.Google Scholar

13 Cardoso, p. 406.

14 Senghaas, Dieter, “Introduction,” to a special issue, “Overcoming Underdevelopment,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1975): 249–50,CrossRefGoogle Scholar emphasis in original.

15 Cardoso, p. 405 and p. 414, emphasis added.

16 There are exceptions of some importance. One reads in dependencia theory of the cultural dependence of the Ivory Coast on France, or of the technological dependence of Brazil and Mexico. In such instances, the term dependence is a variable property of countries and is a concept in the theory. I ignore such usages at this point because I want here to emphasize the primary implication of the distinct “language” tradition of dependencia theory, namely that in an orientation to knowledge that is wholistic and particularistic, the clear determination of general referential context is very meaningful. In fact it is of primary importance, because otherwise any knowledge of particular wholes is entirely arbitrary and unique. A primary importance of dependence, then, is to refer to the general context that is delimited. Other uses of the term in the dependencia tradition are discussed in the second section of this paper.

17 I speak of dependencia theory as being “currently constituted” because I believe that the basic perspective, the orientation to knowledge, and even the set of questions that have marked it persist as very important, especially, but increasingly less so, among Third World social scientists. There is some sentiment today that dependencia theory is dead, at least among Latin Americans. That position is tenable only by defining very restrictively the set of questions that characterize dependencia theory. Because somewhat different questions (e.g., the role and character of the peripheral capitalist state) attract more attention today is not to say that dependencia theory has been abandoned and another developed. Rather, it is to recognize that the purview of dependencia theory has been increased.

18 Such a representation is offered or implied in Robert R. Kaufman, Chernotsky, Harry I., and Geller, Daniel S., “A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3 (04 1975): 303–30Google Scholar; Ray, David, “The Dependency Model of Latin American Underdevelopment: Three Basic Fallacies,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 15 (02 1973): 4–20Google Scholar; Chase-Dunn, Christopher, “The Effects of International Economic Dependency on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 40 (December 1975): 720–38Google Scholar; McGowan, Patrick J., “Economic Dependence and Economic Performance in Black Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 14 (03 1976): 25–40.Google Scholar

19 This tradition is well represented by Caporaso, James, “Methodological Issues in the Measurement of Inequality, Dependence, and Exploitation,” in Testing Theories of Economic Imperialism, Rosen, Steven and Kurth, James, eds. (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974) pp. 87–114.Google Scholar It is also represented by Duvall and Russett, who presented an empiricist position that I now reject in some part.

20 Again I use a modifier, this time “primary,” to make it clear that I recognize the periodic secondary usage in dependencia theory of dependence as a variable property concept in theory. This secondary usage creates a real ambiguity, and justifies a desire to increase precision through the development of explicit measurement criteria. It does not justify the position that the measured dependence is central to dependencia theory. It is not!

21 Examples are the works cited in footnotes 18 and 19 above. The problem is the now common logical error that because dependencia theory is concerned with the notion of dependence, whenever one talks about, measures, or analyzes some particular aspect, form, or dimension of dependence, one is thereby reflecting on dependencia theory. That is simply not true.

22 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the U.S.,” Latin American Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1977).Google Scholar

23 Examples in this tradition are Charvát, Františsek, Kučera, Jaroslav, and Soukup, Miroslav, “Toward the System Theory of Dependence: Further General Theoretical Remarks,” in Mathematical Approaches to Politics, Alker, Hayward R. Jr, Deutsch, Karl, and Stoetzel, Antoine H., eds. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973): 263–86Google Scholar; Alker, Hayward R. Jr, “On Political Capabilities in a Schedule Sense: Measuring Power, Integration and Development,” in Mathematical Approaches to Politics, Alker, Hayward R. Jr, Deutsch, Karl, and Stoetzel, Antoine H., eds. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973), pp. 307–73Google Scholar; Emerson, Richard M., “Power-Dependence Relations,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (02 1962), pp. 31–41Google Scholar; Baumgartner, Thomas, Buckley, Walter, and Burns, Tom R., “Relational Control: The Human Structuring of Cooperation and Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 19 (1975): 417–40.Google Scholar

24 František Charvát, Jaroslav Kučera, and Miroslav Soukup, p. 270.

25 Dos Santos, p. 232.

26 Alker makes this conceptual linkage explicit. He focuses his attention on the Dahl-Harsanyi conceptions of power, and in doing so introduces the concept of dependence as the direct opposite of power, equivalent to powerlessness. Alker, pp. 308, 311.

27 Dos Santos, p. 231.

28 Cardoso, , “‘Teoria de la Dependencia’ o Analisis de Situaciones Concretas de Dependencia?”, p. 406.Google Scholar

29 Senghaas, , “Introduction,” pp. 249–50.Google Scholar

30 František Charvát, Jaroslav Kučera, and Miroslav Soukup, p. 270. These authors go on to make the linkage to supportive relationships explicit—“The dependence relation is not determined by what has happened, but by what might have happened if the behavior of another system would not, in certain respects, have corresponded to the selective demands of the first system…. The compatibility of two systems depends on their capability of mutually satisfying the system needs, on their complementarity and on their similarity as to the extent of required exchange with other systems in all the areas of need,” p. 270.

31 Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “World Politics and the International Economic System,” in The Future of the International Economic Order: An Agenda for Research, Bergsten, C. Fred, ed. (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1973), p. 124.Google Scholar Others have offered enumerations of types of interdependence, but these typically are based more on forms and manifestations than on fundamental conceptual distinctions. Because my concern is with the implications of the latter, I do not pursue the former. That is, I do not pretend in this paper to be offering the only important types of dependence, and hence, do not develop comprehensive typologies. Interesting and useful typologies are provided in Morse, Edward L., “Interdependence in World Affairs,” in World Politics: An Introduction, Rosenau, James N., Thompson, Kenneth W., and Boyd, Gavin, eds. (New York: The Free Press, 1976), pp. 660–81Google Scholar; Alker, Hayward R. Jr and Choucri, Nazli, “Methodological Conclusions and Recommendations,” Chapter IV of Methodological Perspectives and Research Implications, Vol. III of Analyzing Global Interdependence (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, MIT, 1974), pp. 57–72.Google Scholar The types that these and other scholars offer are easily analyzable as forms of the two basic conceptual meanings developed here.

32 Simply consider the use of the term dependent variable in the scientific tradition.

33 This is the entitivity of systemic interdependence in which “events occurring in any given part or within any given component unit of a … system affect … events taking place in … the other parts or component units of the system.” Young, Oran R., “Interdependencies in World Politics,” International Journal, Vol. 24 (Autumn 1969): 726.Google Scholar A crowd, an audience can be an entity in this sense although it is clearly not an entity in the sense of a unitary actor. See Campbell, Donald T., “Common Fate, Similarity, and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Persons as Social Entities,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 1 (01 1958): 14–25.Google Scholar

34 I am not saying that a concern for relational control, for asymmetric bargaining, the structuring of choice alternatives, etc., is uninteresting. On the contrary, these are very important and interesting problems. They just should not be mistaken as the same concerns as those of dependencia theory at a higher level of abstraction. They are fundamentally different, not simply different in level of abstraction. Thus, I am not disparaging, only differentiating.

35 The term comes from Cardoso. “By way of a hypothesis, I would ask if we should not speak of the formation of a new social category that could be designated as a ‘state bourgeoisie’ in some Latin American countries, especially Brazil and Mexico…. This expression, which is formally contradictory, becomes relevant when one sees that the expansion of the public sector (which constitutes almost a national response to the imperialist challenge) in those Latin American countries that have taken the path of internationalization of the market takes place in such a way that the form of ownership of state enterprises is public, but their control is through a group which I have called bureaucratic, but which begins to show characteristics which are not explained by the phenomenon of bureaucracy.” Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Some New Mistaken Theses on Latin American Development and Dependency,” unpublished manuscript, n.d., p. 21.Google Scholar

36 It should be noted that I am not alone in being dissatisfied with these measurement strategies. “The measurement of transactions is a particularly inappropriate means of measuring sensitivity…. Few of the transactional flow models specify any relationship at all between relative level of flow and national economic or political sensitivity. This is not to say that the measurement of sensitivity is impossible, or even difficult.” Morse, p. 676. See also Tollison, Robert D. and Willett, Thomas D., “International Integration and the Interdependence of Economic Variables,” International Organization, Vol. 27 (Spring 1973): 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Dos Santos, p. 232.

38 This is evidenced by the several articles in Bonilla, Frank and Girling, Robert, eds., Structures of Dependency (Stanford, Calif.: Institute of Political Studies, 1973).Google Scholar These articles deal with various forms and aspects of dependence.

39 Measurement models are offered in Alker, and in Charvat, et al.

40 Meaningful dialogue will not occur if dependencia theorists are adamantly opposed to rigorous empiricism in principle, as there is indication that some of them may be. See, for example, Cardoso and Faletto. All that can be done is to provide the possibility of dialogue.

41 This point is made nicely by Fagen, Richard R., “Studying Latin American Politics: Some Implications of a Dependencia Approach,” Latin American Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Spring 1977): 3–26,Google Scholar an article which corresponds with this present paper in several respects. The point is also made in Cardoso and Faletto, and in Cardoso, “Teoria de la Dependencia o Analisis de Situaciones Concretas de Dependencia?”

42 Duvall, Raymond D., Jackson, Steven, Russett, Bruce, Snidal, Duncan, and Sylvan, David, “A Formal Model of ‘Dependencia’ Theory: Structure and Measurement,” (New Haven, Conn., 1977).Google Scholar

43 The historical development of the export enclave syndrome is revealed in Stein, Stanley and Stein, Barbara, The Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Furtado, Celso, Economic Development of Latin America: A Survey from Colonial Times to the Cuban Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar A concern for the “new dependence” of multinational corporation investment in industrial sectors is a concern for the shift away from the dominance of the export enclave syndrome. See Santos, Dos, and Sunkel, Osvaldo, “Big Business and ‘Dependencia’: A Latin American View,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 3 (1972): 517–31,Google Scholar for enlightening summaries of the current concern for the “new dependence.”

44 Prebisch, Raul, Towards a Dynamic Development Policy for Latin America. (New York: United Nations, 1963).Google ScholarEconomic Commission for Latin America, Development Problems in Latin America (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1970).Google Scholar

45 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Imperialism and Dependency in Latin America,” in Structures of Dependency, Bonilla, Frank and Girling, Robert, eds. (Stanford, Calif.: Institute of Political Studies, 1973): pp. 7–16Google Scholar; Obregon, Anibal Quijano, “Imperialism and International Relations in Latin America,” in Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities, Cotler, Julio and Fagen, Richard R., eds. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974) pp. 67–91Google Scholar; Furtado, Celso, “The Concept of External Dependence in the Study of Underdevelopment,” in The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, Wilbur, Charles K., ed. (New York: Random House, 1973): 118–23Google Scholar; Sunkel, Osvaldo, “Transnational Capitalism and National Disintegration in Latin America,” Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1 (03 1973): 132–76Google Scholar; Bodenheimer, Susanne, “Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American Underdevelopment,” Politics and Society, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1971): 327–59Google Scholar; Weisskopf, Thomas E., “Capitalism, Underdevelopment and the Future of the Poor Countries,” Review of Radical Political Economy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1972): 1–35Google Scholar; Evans, Peter, “Continuities and Contradictions in the Evolution of Brazilian Dependence,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 1976): 30–54,Google Scholar are English-language examples of this tradition.

46 Frank, Andre Gunder, Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969).Google ScholarFrank, Andre Gunder, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967).Google ScholarFrank, Andre Gunder, Lumpenbourgeoisie/Lumpendevelopment: Dependence, Class and Politics in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972).Google ScholarCockcroft, James D., Frank, Andre Gunder, and Johnson, Dale L., Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy (New York: Doubleday, 1972).Google Scholar

47 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Authoritarian Brazil, Stepan, Alfred, ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 142–76Google Scholar; Obregan, Anibal Quijano, Nationalism and Capitalism in Peru: A Study in Neo lmperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Sunkel, Osvaldo, “The Crisis of the Nation-State in Latin America: Challenge and Response,” paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association Meeting, Austin, Texas, December 1971Google Scholar; Dore, Elizabeth and Weeks, John, “The Intensification of the Assault against the Working Class in ‘Revolutionary” Peru,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 1976): 55–83Google Scholar; Santos, Theotonio Dos, “The Crisis of Contemporary Capitalism,” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 1976): 84–99, are English-language examples.Google Scholar

48 Moran, Theodore, Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Cardoso, “Some New Mistaken Theses on Latin American Development and Dependency.” The concern might be referred to as one for the possibilities of dependency reversal.

49 Koyck, Leendert M., Distributed Lags and Investment Analysis (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1954).Google Scholar What I present here is a standard formulation for what are called distributed-lag models. These are nicely summarized in Griliches, Zvi, “Distributed Lags: A Survey,” Econometrica, Vol. 35, No. 1 (01 1967): 16–49.Google Scholar

50 Model [1] can be written as Y = α*[W0Xt + W1 Xt-1 + W2Xt-2 + … + W∞Xt-∞] + μt where Σi∞Wi = 1. The α* term appears in subsequent formulations in this paper; it is used in the fashion consistent with this rewriting of Model [1]. For subsequent formulations, 1 assume that W0 = 0. That is, I assume that there are no instantaneous impacts of X on Y.

51 Cardoso, “ ‘Teoria de la Dependencia’ o Analisis de Situaciones Concretas de Dependencia?”

52 Duvall, et al.

53 The need for such explanations is stated well by Cardoso in “Some New Mistaken Theses on Latin American Development and Dependency.”

54 A number of works provide important arguments to be modeled, however. In particular, see O'Donnell, Guillermo A., Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1973)Google Scholar; Cotler, Julio, “The New Mode of Political Domination in Peru,” in The Peruvian Experiment, Lowenthal, Abraham, ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Obregon, Quijano, “Imperialism and International Relations in Latin America”; Cardoso, “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications”; and, Abraham Lowenthal, “Armies and Politics in Latin America,” World Politics, Vol. 27, No. 1 (October 1974): 107–30.Google Scholar

55 We cannot extimate α* and ø separately, and thus, we cannot speak of the precise form by which governmental involvement acts as a relevant context for the impact of conflict on coercive authoritarianism.