Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:58:58.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction to the special issue of International Organization on dependence and dependency in the global system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

James A. Caporaso
Affiliation:
James A. Caporaso is a professor of Political Science at Northwestern University. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Rockefeller Foundation's Conflict in International Relations Program for support during the early part of this project. In addition, many members of the Editorial Board of International Organization played an active role in shaping this special issue. In particular, I want to thank Ernst Haas, Harold Jacobson, Peter Katzenstein, and Robert O. Keohane. This does not imply their agreement with either views expressed or approaches taken in all of the articles.
Get access

Extract

When the idea for this special number of International Organization first took shape, the theme was a rather general one, “asymmetric international relations.” I had hoped to encourage contributions from the areas of small state and client state behavior, dominance and dependence, imperialism, and great power—small power behavior. While all of these phenomena are tied together by a shared asymmetric property, this is a “bland common denominator” on which to launch a collection of articles. As the enterprise evolved, we decided to develop a clearer focus on dependence and dependency. It became clear that there were two different sets of theoretical concerns before us which were sometimes labeled identically and often treated indiscriminately for analytical purposes. We drew the distinction between dependence as external reliance on other actors and dependency as the process of incorporation of less developed countries (LDCs) into the global capitalist system and the “structural distortions” resulting therefrom. There are similarities between these two approaches. Both have a predominant focus on relational inequalities among actors and both are equally interested in the vulnerabilities of members of the global system resulting from these unequal relations. However, there are important differences too. In addition to basic theoretical differences, there are equally fundamental gaps in the supportive methodologies. The dependence orientation seeks to probe and explore the symmetries and asymmetries among nation-states. This approach most often proceeds from a liberal paradigm which focuses on individual actors and their goals and which sees power in decisional terms. The individual actors are usually internally unified states which confront the external environment as homogeneous units. With the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis, analysis of dependent relations can be carried out on any combination of states, from dyads up to larger groupings. The fact that dependence is a term which can be meaningfully discussed at the dyadic level allows one the luxury of dealing with large numbers of observations. Thus, dependence theory is easily linked to statistical modes of analysis.

Type
Part I
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 I use the label “liberal” in the absence of a more informative term, to connote a host of assumptions, hypotheses, and methodological positions that covary. It is used in roughly the same way by Cotler, Julio and Fagen, Richard R. in “Introduction: Political Relations Between Latin America and the United States,” in Cotler, Julio and Fagen, Richard R., eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 120.Google Scholar

2 Galtung, Johan, “Appendix” to World Social Goals (mimeo, n.d.), p. 10.Google Scholar

3 See Baumgartner, Tom, Buckley, Walter, and Burns, Tom, “Meta-Power and Relational Control in Social Life,” (University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, 1974), mimeo, pp. 174.Google Scholar

4 Hirschman, Albert O., National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945).Google Scholar

5 Albert O. Hirschman, “Beyond Asymmetry: Critical Notes on Myself as a Young Man and on Some Other Old Friends,” this volume.

6 This project is being carried out by Bruce Russett of Yale University and Raymond Duvall of the University of Minnesota. The major lines of the project are described in Duvall, Raymond, Jackson, Steven et al., “A Formal Model of ‘Dependencia’ Theory: Structure, Measurement and Some Preliminary Data,” paper prepared for delivery at the International Political Science Association Congress, (Edinburgh, Scotland, 162108 1976), pp. 1–45.Google Scholar

7 Campbell, Donald T., “Objectivity and the Social Locus of Scientific Knowledge,” Presidential Address to the Division of Social and Personality Psychology of the American Psychological Association, (Washington, D.C., 1969), mimeo, p. 2.Google Scholar

8 For example, see Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Stepan, Alfred, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Futures (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 142–78.Google Scholar