Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:20:34.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Tony Smith
Tony Smith
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Get access

Abstract

As a vehicle for the growing association of southern nationalists and Marxists, dependency theory is an important part of the history of our times, something much more than a school of academic writing. Whatever the varieties of analysis existing within this school (and there are many), a major historiographie shortcoming is common to most of its literature: having grasped the Hegelian insight that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, dependencistas exaggerate the point, making the mistake of refusing any autonomy, any specificity to the parts (southern countries) independently of their membership in the whole (the imperialist system established by the North). A better approach to the study of the place of the South in the international system is to emphasize the variety of state structures present there with their different abilities to mobilize forces internally and translate this into international rank. Southern advances are more substantial than many realize; the essay concludes that southerners should pay more attention to the real room for initiative and maneuver they have, but which dependency theory systematically overlooks. Most of the illustrative examples concern India, the Ottoman Empire, and Latin America before World War I.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , January 1979 , pp. 247 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1979

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 See Kaufman, Robert and others, “A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency,” Comparative Politics, VII (April 1975)Google Scholar; Ray, David, “The Dependency Model and Latin America: Three Basic Fallacies,” Journal of Interamerican Affairs and World Studies, XV (February 1973)Google Scholar; McGowan, Patrick J., “Economic Dependency and Economic Performance in Black Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies, XIV (No. 1, 1976)Google Scholar; Berg, Elliot J., “Structural Transformation versus Gradualism: Recent Economic Development in Ghana and the Ivory Coast,” in Foster, Philip and Zolberg, Aristide R., Ghana and the Ivory Coast: Perspectives on Modernization (Berkeley: University of California Press 1971)Google Scholar; and McGowan, Patrick J. and Smith, Dale L., “Economic Dependency in Black Africa: An Analysis of Competing Theories,” International Organization, XXXII (Winter 1978).Google Scholar

2 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Stepan, Alfred, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future (New Haven: Yale University Press 1973)Google Scholar, and Cardoso, , “Dependent Capitalist Development in Latin America,” New Left Review, Vol. 74 (July-August 1972).Google Scholar

3 While the local economies as well as the international system are seen to change over time, in these analyses the dominant partner and therefore the shaper of the over all movement is always the world economy. The subordinate member develops as a “reflection” (Theotonio Dos Santos) or with a “reflex reaction” (Dieter Senghass) to these forces which it can neither escape nor control. Among others, see Santos, Theotonio Dos, “The Structure of Dependence,” American Economic Review, Vol. 60, (May 1970)Google Scholar; Senghass, Dieter, “Introduction” to a special number called “Overcoming Underdevelopment,” Journal of Peace Research, XII (No. 4, 1975)Google Scholar; Bodenheimer, Susanne, “Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American Underdevelopment,” in Fann, K. T. and Hodges, Donald C., eds., Readings in U. S. Imperialism (Boston: Porter Sargent 1971).Google Scholar

4 Immanuel Wallerstein does not foresee the end of the system for another century or two. See “Dependence in an Interdependent World: The Limited Possibilities of Transformation within the Capitalist World Order,” African Studies Review, XVII (April 1974), 2.

5 Amin, Samir, Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment, 1 (New York: Monthly Review Press 1974), 3.Google Scholar

6 Frank, André Gunder, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” in Cockcroft, James D. and others, Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy (New York: Anchor Books 1972), 9.Google Scholar

7 Rodney, Walter, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (London: Bogle-l'Ouverture 1973), 21–22Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

8 Moulder, Frances V., Japan, China, and the Modern World-Economy: Toward a Reinterpretation of East Asian Development (New York: Cambridge University Press 1977), vii–viii.Google Scholar

9 Stein, Stanley J. and Stein, Barbara H., The Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependency in Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press 1970), viii.Google Scholar

10 Grunwald, Kurt and Ronall, Joachim O., Industrialization in the Middle East (New York: Council for Middle Eastern Affairs Press 1960), 331.Google Scholar

11 Wallerstein's first book in a four-volume series has been published under the instructive title The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press 1974).

12 Lukacs, Georg, “Rosa Luxembourg, Marxiste,” in Histoire et conscience de classe (Paris: Editions de Minuit 1960), 47–48.Google Scholar

13 Wallerstein, , “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XVI (September 1974), 390.Google Scholar

14 Baran, Paul, The Political Economy of Growth (2d ed.; New York: Monthly Review Press 1962), 149.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., 150.

16 Morris, Morris D., “Towards a Reinterpretation of Nineteenth-Century Indian Economic History,” Indian Economic and Social History Review, V (March 1968), 6–7.Google Scholar

17 See Moore, Barrington Jr, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press 1966)Google Scholar, chap. 6; Maddison, Angus, Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan since the Moghuls (London: Allen and Unwin 1971)Google Scholar; Morris, (fn. 16), and “Trends and Tendencies in Indian Economic History,” Indian Economic and Social History Review, V (December 1968).Google Scholar

18 Dutt, Romesh, The Economic History of India: In the Victorian Age, 1837–1900 (2d ed.; Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India 1970)Google Scholar, Book II, chap. 12, and Book III, chap. 9; Buchanan, Daniel Houston, The Development of Capitalistic Enterprise in India (New York: Macmillan 1934), 465–67.Google Scholar

19 Moore, (fn. 17), 354–55.Google Scholar

20 Baran, (fn. 14), 158.Google Scholar

21 Frank, André Gunder, “Sociology of Underdevelopment and Underdevelopment of Sociology,” in Cockcroft (fn. 6)Google Scholar; Bodenheimer, Susanne J., The Ideology of Developmentalism: The American-ParadigmSurrogate for Latin American Studies (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics 1971).Google Scholar

22 Frank, André Gunder, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” and “Economic Dependence, Class Structure, and Underdevelopment Policy,” in Cockcroft (fn. 6)Google Scholar; Wallerstein (fn. 13). For criticism of Frank's view, see Laclau, Ernesto, “Imperialism in Latin America,” New Left Review, Vol. 67 (May-June 1971)Google Scholar; Brown, Michael Barratt, The Economics of Imperialism (New York: Penguin Books 1974)Google Scholar, chap. II.

23 Leys, Colin, Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism, 1964–1971 (Berkeley: University of California Press 1974), 198–99.Google Scholar

24 Baran, (fn. 14), XXXVI.Google Scholar

25 Sartre, , Critique de la raison dialectique (Paris: Gallimard 1960), 44.Google Scholar For a criticism of Sartre on precisely the grounds that he also rides roughshod over the individual case on occasion, see Smith, Tony, “Idealism and People's War: Sartre on Algeria,” Political Theory, I (November 1973).Google Scholar

26 See Smith, Tony, “A Comparative Study of French and British Decolonization,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XX (January 1978).Google Scholar

27 Nkrumah, Kwame, Neo-Colonialism: The Last State of Imperialism (New York: International Publishers 1966), ix.Google Scholar

28 Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press 1966), 122.Google Scholar

29 Wallerstein, (fn. II), 355.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., 15–16.

31 Wallerstein (fn. 13), 412, 415; Wallerstein, “Class Formation in the Capitalist World-Economy,” Politics and Society, v (No. 3, 1975), 375.Google Scholar

32 Skocpol, Theda, “Wallerstein's World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82 (March 1977), 1083ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective,” in Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1963).Google Scholar

34 Schmitter, , “Still the Century of Corporatism?” Review of Politics, XXXVI (January 1974), 108.Google Scholar Also see fn. 35.

35 See Kaufman, , “Mexico and Latin American Authoritarianism,” in Reyna, José Luis and Weinert, Richard S., eds., Authoritarianism in Mexico (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues 1977), 195Google Scholar, and the chart derived from O'Donnell, 197. Nevertheless, neither Kaufman nor Schmitter should be classified as dependency the orists: see Kaufman (fn. I), and Schmitter, , “Desarrollo retrasado, dependencia externa y cambio politico en America Latina,” Foro International, XII (December 1971).Google Scholar

36 O'Donnell, Guillermo, “Corporatism and the Question of the State,” in Malloy, James M. ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press 1977), 54.Google Scholar For similar observations in the same volume, see Silvio Duncan Baretta and Helen E. Douglass, “Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: A Review Essay.”

37 Meyer, , “Historical Roots of the Authoritarian State in Mexico,” in Reyna and Weinert (fn. 35).Google Scholar Meyer speaks of Diaz's “inability to transform an authoritarian situation into an authoritarian system” and states that “the Mexican Revolution did not destroy the authoritarian nature of Mexican political life, it modernized it” (pp. 9, 4); Hansen, Roger, The Politics of Mexican Development (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1971), 149.Google Scholar

38 Dike, Kenneth Onwuka, Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta, 1830–1885 (New York: Oxford University Press 1956)Google Scholar; Newbury, C. W. and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., “French Policy and the Origins of the Scramble for West Africa,” Journal of African History, X (No. 2, 1969)Google Scholar; Hopkins, A. G., An Economic History of West Africa (London: Longman 1973)Google Scholar, chap. 4.

39 Pailey, Frank Edgar, British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement: A Study in Anglo-Turkish Relations, 1826–1853 (New York: Howard Festig 1970)Google Scholar; Hershlag, Z. Y., Introduction to the Modern Economic History of the Middle East (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1964)Google Scholar; Issawi, Charles, ed., The Economic History of the Middle East, 1800–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1966)Google Scholar; Shaw, Stanford J., “The Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Tax Reforms and Revenue System,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, VI (October 1975)Google Scholar; Clark, Edward C., “The Ottoman Industrial Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, V (January 1974)Google Scholar; Z. Y.

Hershlag, , Turkey: The Challenge of Growth (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1968)Google Scholar; Trimberger, Ellen Kay, Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Developments in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and-Peru (Edison, N.J.: Transaction Books 1977).Google Scholar

40 Issawi, Charles, Egypt in Revolution: An Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press 1963)Google Scholar, chaps. 1 and 2; Crouchley, A. E., The Economic Development of Modern Egypt (London: Longmans, Green 1938)Google Scholar, chap. 2; Encyclopaedia Britannica, IIth ed., XVIII, s.v. “Mehemet Ali.” The figures for industrial workers may be found by comparing Hershlag, Introduction…(fn. 39), 86, with Issawi, 43.

41 Owen, E.R.J., “Lord Cromer and the Development of Egyptian Industry, 1883–1907,” Middle Eastern Studies, II (July 1966).Google Scholar

42 Tignor, Robert L., “Bank Misr and Foreign Capitalism,” International journal of Middle East Studies, VII (April 1977)Google Scholar; Issawi, Charles, “Shifts in Economic Power,” in Issawi (fn. 39), 505ff.Google Scholar

43 Moore (fn. 17), chap. 5; Trimberger (fn. 39); Maddison, Angus, Economic Growth in Japan and the USSR (London: George Allen & Unwin 1969)Google Scholar; Allen, G. C., A Short Economic History of Modern Japan: 1867–1937 (New York: Praeger 1962)Google Scholar; Rosovsky, Henry, “Japan's Transition to Modern Economic Growth, 1868–1885,” in Rosovsky, , ed., Industrialization in Two Systems: Essays in Honor of Alexander Gerschenkron (New York: Wiley 1966).Google Scholar

44 Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism (New York: Doubleday 1968), 3–4.Google Scholar

45 Platt, D. C. M., Latin America and British Trade, 1806–1914 (New York: Harper & Row 1973).Google Scholar

46 Graham, , Britain and the Onset of Modernization in Brazil, 1850–1914 (New York: Cambridge University Press 1968), 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Platt, (fn. 45), 78Google Scholar, 84.

48 On Egypt, see Owen (fn. 41); on India, see Dutt (fn. 18), Book II, chap. 12, and Book III, chap. 9.

49 Diaz Alejandro, Carlos F., Essays on the Economic History of the Argentine Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press 1970), 138Google Scholar; for his comparisons with Canada and Australia, see 110–14.

50 Villarreal, , “The Policy of Import-Substitution Industrialization, 1929–1975,” in Reyna and Weinert (fn. 35).Google Scholar

51 Burns, , Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall 1972), 130–31.Google Scholar

52 Díaz, (fn. 49), 2Google Scholar, 11. For a similar argument on Brazil, see Peláez, Carlos Manuel, ”The Theory and Reality of Imperialism in the Coffee Economy of Nineteenth-Century Brazil,” Economic History Review, XXIX (May 1976).Google Scholar

53 For trade figures, see Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire (London: Pelican 1969), 139Google Scholar, and Forbes Munro, J., Africa and the International Economy, 1800–1960 (London: Rowman and Littlefield 1976). 40Google Scholar; for investment figures, see Barrett-Brown, Michael, After Imperialism (New York: Humanities Press 1970), 93.Google Scholar

54 Skocpol, Theda, “France, Russia, China: A Structural Theory of Social Revolution,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, XVIII (No. 2, 1976), 185.Google Scholar

55 Trimberger (fn. 39); Trimberger, and Horowitz, Irving Louis, “State Power and Military Nationalism in Latin America,” Comparative Politics, VIII (January 1976).Google Scholar

56 Warren, , “Imperialism and Capitalist Industrialization,” New Left Review, Vol. 81 (September-October 1973), 42–43.Google Scholar

57 Gerschenkron, , Europe in the Russian Mirror: Four Lectures in Economic History (New York: Cambridge University Press 1970), 99, 102–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Cameron, Rondo, ed., Banking and Economic Development: Some Lessons of History (New York: Oxford University Press 1972).Google Scholar

58 Moore, (fn. 17), 113–14.Google Scholar See also Collier, David, “Timing of Economic Growths and Regime Characteristics in Latin America,” Comparative Politics, VII (April 1975);Google ScholarGourevitch, Peter A., “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics,” paper for the American Political Science Association, Annual Meeting 1977.Google Scholar

59 Hirsthman, , “The Political Economy of Import-Substituting Industrializing in Latin America,” in A Bias for Hope: Essays on Development and Latin America (New Haven: Yale University Press 1971).Google Scholar

60 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press 1968)Google Scholar; Riggs, Fred W., Administrative Reform and Political Responsiveness (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1970).Google Scholar

61 Peemans, J. P., “The Social and Economic Development of Zaire since Independence,” African Affairs, Vol. 74 (April 1975), 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Smith, Tony, “The Political and Economic Ambitions of Algerian Land Reform, 1962–1974,” Middle East journal, XXIX (Summer 1975).Google Scholar

63 Huntington (fn. 60), chap. 2.

64 Liska, , Imperial America: The International Politics of Primacy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press 1967)Google Scholar, Preface (unpaginated), and 180.

65 United Nations, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, June 1976.Google Scholar

66 United Nations, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, August 1977.Google Scholar

67 For a fuller discussion, see Smith, Tony, “Changing Configurations of Power in North-South Relations since 1945,” International Organization, XXXI (Winter 1977).Google Scholar

68 Glade, , “Revolution and Economic Development: A Mexican Reprise,” in Glade, William and Anderson, Charles W., eds., The Political Economy of Mexico (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 1963).Google Scholar

69 Smith, (fn. 67), 21ff.Google Scholar

70 Johnson, , “Dependence and the International System,” in Cockroft (fn. 6), 75nGoogle Scholar; repeated with other dates, 94n.

71 See Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, “U. S. Direct Investment Abroad in 1976” (August 1977)Google Scholar, for all figures except those on sales; for sales, see ibid., “Sales by Majority-Owned Foreign Affiliates of U. S. Companies, 1974” (May 1976). Other years could be cited where American profits were far less.

72 Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, “Sources and Uses of Funds for a Sample of Majority-Owned Foreign Affiliates of U. S. Companies, 1966–1972” (July 1975).Google Scholar

73 Barnet, and Miiller, , Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations (New York: Simon and Schuster 1974), 154–55.Google Scholar

74 Vaupel, James W. and Curhan, Joan P., The Making of Multinational Enterprise (Cambridge: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University 1969), 240–41Google Scholar for expansion; 376–77, 505 for losses.

75 Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, “U. S. Direct Investment Abroad in 1976” (August 1977), Table 4, p. 35 and Table 5, pp. 36–37.

76 For a particularly strong essay stressing the growing role of the South relative to the North, see Moran, Theodore H., “Multinational Corporations and Dependency: A Dialogue for Dependentistas and Non-Dependentistas,” International Organization, XXXII (Winter 1978)Google Scholar; on Nigeria, see editorial notes in African Development, X (December 1975); on Mexico, Weinert, Richard, “The State and Foreign Capital,” in Reyna and Weinert (fn. 35)Google Scholar; and on Southeast Asia, Weinstein, Franklin, “Multinational Corporations and the Third World: The Case of Japan and Southeast Asia,” International Organization, XXX (Summer 1976).Google Scholar

77 World Bank, Annual Report (1977), Table 5, p. IIIGoogle Scholar; Department of Commerce, Overseas Business Report, “World Trade Outlook for Near East and North Africa,” OBR 77–45 (September 1977); Department of State, Foreign Economic Trends and their Implications for the U. S., “Algeria,” 77–033 (March 1977).

78 Galtung, Johan, “The Lomé Convention and Neo-Capitalism,” African Review, VI (No. I, 1976).Google Scholar