Dependency Theory


Published on

Presentation on Dependency Theory for PS 212 Culture and Politics in the Third World at the University of Kentucky, Summer 2007. Dr. Christopher S. Rice, Instructor.

Published in: Business, Technology
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dependency Theory

  1. 1. Dependency Theory Dr. Christopher S. Rice
  2. 2. “ Voices from the Periphery”
  3. 3. Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)
  4. 5. The American debacle in Vietnam and the eruption of major racial troubles in the mid-1960s, followed by chronic inflation, the devaluation of the American dollar and the general loss of America’s self-confidence in the early 1970s ended the moral conviction on which modernization theory had come to base itself…
  5. 6. … A new type of theory became popular among younger sociologists, one that reversed all the old axioms. America became the very model of evil, and capitalism, which had been seen as the cause of social progress, became a sinister exploiter and the main agent of poverty in most of the world. Imperialism, not backwardness and lack of modernity, was the new enemy.” Daniel Chirot (1981)
  6. 8. Industrial Centers US, UK, France Peripheral Nations Latin America Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  7. 9. Prebisch’s Industrialization Strategy (ECLA Amnifesto) <ul><li>One-sided international division of labor to be stopped, Latin America to undergo industrialization </li></ul><ul><li>Industrialization to be sped up by substitution of a large part of current imports by domestic production </li></ul><ul><li>Income from raw materials would pay for imported capital goods </li></ul><ul><li>Governments should be active participants (as coordinators) of the industrialization program </li></ul>
  8. 10. Failure of the ECLA
  9. 11. “ The purchasing power was limited to certain social strata, and the domestic market showed no tendency to expand after its needs had been fulfilled. The import dependency had simply shifted from consumption goods to capital goods. The conventional export goods had been neglected in the general frenzy of industrialization, the result was acute balance-of-payment problems in one country after another. The optimism of growth changed into deep depression.” Blomstrom and Hettne (1984)
  10. 12. Neo-Marxism
  11. 13. Neo-Marxism vs. Orthodox Marxism <ul><li>Orthodox Marxists see imperialism from the “center’s” perspective, Neo-Marxists see imperialism from the “peripheral” point of view. </li></ul><ul><li>Orthodox Marxists advocate a strategy of a two-stage revolution, Neo-Marxists believe the time is ripe for a socialist revolution NOW. </li></ul><ul><li>Urban vs. Rural nature of the Revolution. </li></ul>
  12. 14. The “Development of Underdevelopment” (Andre Frank)
  13. 15. CORE (“Metropolis”) PERIPHERY (“Satellites”) Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  14. 16. Hypotheses based on the Metropolis-Satellite Model
  15. 17. Hypothesis #1 <ul><li>In contrast to the development of the world metropolis, which is no one’s satellite, the development of national and other subordinate metropolises is limited by their satellite statuses. </li></ul>CORE (“Metropolis”) PERIPHERY (“Satellites”) Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  16. 18. Hypothesis #2 <ul><li>Satellites experience their greatest economic development when their ties to the metropolis are weakest. </li></ul>CORE (“Metropolis”) PERIPHERY (“Satellites”) Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  17. 19. Hypothesis #3 <ul><li>When the Metropolis recovers from its crisis and reestablishes the satellite system, then the previous industrialization of these countries is choked off. </li></ul>CORE (“Metropolis”) PERIPHERY (“Satellites”) Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  18. 20. Hypothesis #4 <ul><li>Regions that are the most feudal and under-developed today are those that had the closest ties to the metropolises in the past. </li></ul>CORE (“Metropolis”) PERIPHERY (“Satellites”) Industrial Goods Food, Raw Materials
  19. 21. The Structure of Dependence
  20. 22. The relationship between two or more countries “assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can expand and be self-starting, while other countries (the dependent ones) can do this only as a reflection of that expansion.” Theotonio Dos Santos
  21. 23. 3
  22. 24. Colonial Dependence
  23. 25. Financial-Industrial Dependence
  24. 26. Technological-Industrial Dependence
  25. 27. Policy Implications
  26. 28. #1: Redefining “Development”
  27. 29. #2: Politics of Self-Reliance
  28. 30. #3: “Talkin ‘Bout a Revolution”
  29. 31. Critique of Dependency Theory
  30. 32. #1: Ideology vs. Methodology
  31. 33. #2: The Concept of “Dependency”
  32. 34. #3: Policy Implications