Module Detail Subject Name Political Science Paper Name International
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Module Detail Subject Name Political Science Paper Name International Relations Theory and Politics Module Name/Title Dependency Theory Pre-requisites Significance of dependency theory in International Objectives Politics Understanding of Dependency theory in comparative analysis of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America Assessment of the contributions of dependency theory in the field of IR Critical assessment of dependency theory in context of IR • Dependency Keywords • Dependere • New Dependency • Dependencia • Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA) • Core • Periphery • Peripheral Capitalism • Poles of Development • Growth Pole Structure of Module / Syllabus of a module (Define Topic / Sub-topic of module) Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Professor Department of Political Science Panjab University Chandigarh. Prof. Shibashis Chatterjee Department of Paper Coordinator International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. School of International Studiess, Dr. Jayati Srivastava JNU, New Delhi Content Writer/Author (CW) Prof. Gautam Kumar Basu Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. Content Reviewer (CR) Late Prof. Sekhar Ghosh Ex-Professor of the Dept. of Political Science, Burdwan University, West Bengal. Prof. Shibashis Chatterjee Language Editor (LE) Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. Dependency Theory Gautam Kumar Basu Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata – 700032. Dependency theory is popularly used in comparative analysis of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Although its origin can be traced back immediately after the end of the World War II, the theory becomes very popular in Latin America during the 1960s and later finds huge support among several scholars in Asia and Africa. Both radical and liberal scholars have assimilated dependency theory into their interpretations of development and underdevelopment, with considerable challenges and counterchallenges to one another. The result is utter confusion and intellectual chaos. Origin of the Term Dependency: The origin of the term ‘dependency’ can be traced back to the conjuncture of two sources: the Latin dependere – and/or the old French dependre – and the Latin suffix entia. Besides, this term has to be distinguished from ‘dependence’. ‘Dependence’ originally refers to a state which originally owes its allegiance directly to a dominant sovereign power. It implies external reliance of any state on another powerful state either politically or economically. Dependency, on the other hand, proceeds from a very different perspective – it focuses on economic class structure, international capital and the role of the state in managing and shaping local, foreign and class forces that propels development or underdevelopment within a specific country. In this sense, as Raymond Duvall (1978) argues, dependency may be defined as a process of integration of the peripheral countries into the international capitalist system and generation of structural distortions in those societies. In fact, dependency theorists tend to emphasise development or underdevelopment of developing countries as reflection of expansion of developed capitalist countries. Dos Santos (1970), a Brazilian economist, has offered a brilliant definition of dependency. To him it is a ‘situation’ in which economies of certain countries are ‘conditioned by the development and expansion’ of other economies to which the former economies are subjected. To him, ‘the relation of inter-dependence between two or more economies, and between these and world trade, assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can do this only as a reflection of that expansion, which can have either a positive or negative effect on their immediate development’. In fact, foreign penetration and its effects on political, financial economic as well as technical and cultural life of a developing country appear to be intrinsic to in dependency situation. As Osvaldo Sunkel (1972) has argued that dependencia tends to produce a situation where access to the means and benefits of development becomes selective; and, secondly, it tends to ‘ensure a self-reinforcing accumulation of privilege for special groups as well as the continued existence of a marginal class’. Thus, broadly speaking, one can identify the following features of dependency: First, dependency is a historic phenomenon closely linked with the origin of capitalism and the emergence of international division of labour. Secondly, dependency is a syndrome of related characteristics of a transnational alliance between local and foreign capital and technology, restricted developmental choices and domestic distortions that are caused by the incorporation of peripheral countries into the orbit of international capitalist system. Typology of Dependency Theory: It is difficult either to identify a typology of dependency theory or to recognize a common approach towards dependency. Ronald Chilcote (1981) has identified four different types. To him, if Cardoso has identified three different tendencies in the vast literature on dependency, C.S. Bacha finds not less than five different versions. Similarly, if Philip O’Brien describes three different versions of this theory, Chilcote himself has described four types of dependencia. Cardoso describes three different types: First, Heilo Jaguaribe argues that underdeveloped nations confront three alternatives – dependency, autonomy and revolution. Based mainly on analysis of Brazilian situation, he argues that dependency can be overcome through autonomy and incremental changes rather than relying on the export of commodities and foreign investment. A second tendency, championed by Baran and Sweezy (1966), describes dependency as a reflection of expansion of monopoly capitalism on a world scale. The third tendency can be seen in Cardoso’s own writings -- to him, capitalist development in developing countries can be explained through evolution of class relations in such societies and through interaction of international politics and economics. Bacha identifies five different trends: First, following Tomas Vasconi (1969), he argues that development and underdevelopment can be studied by looking into the interdependent relations between centre and periphery. Secondly, he identifies Lenin’ theory of imperialism as viable explanation of dependencia as this tends to establish linkages between internal and external forces of an underdeveloped nation. The third, fourth and fifth versions reflect Frank’s thesis on ‘development of underdevelopment’, Dos Santos’ notion of ‘new dependency’ and Cardoso’s description of ‘dependent development, respectively. O’Brien identifies three different trends – it includes model developed by Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA) in the 1950s, Marxist model, as developed by Frank, and Marxist structuralist model, as described by Cardoso. Finally, Chilcote identifies four major tendencies in dependencia literature: ‘development of underdevelopment’ thesis, as propounded by Frank, ‘dependent development’ thesis, as formulated by Cardoso, ‘New Dependency’ thesis, as elaborated by Dos Santos and linkages between imperialism and dependency, as described by Baran and Sweezy. A look at this typology of literature on dependency theory compels us to argue that broadly speaking understanding of dependencia may follow two different approaches: non-Marxist and Marxist. The former has been reflected in the writings of ECLA school of thought, which includes scholars like Raul Prebish, Osvaldo Sunkel, Celso Furtado, internal colonial school of Casanova and poles of development approach of Andrade. The Marxist tradition has been adopted by scholars like Frank, Marini, who develops the theory of sub-imperialism, Cardoso as well as Dos Santos. Perspectives of Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA): If Marxist influence in dependencia literature can be traced back to Lenin’s theory of imperialism, non-Marxist tradition owes its origin to the establishment of Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) under the auspices of the United Nations in the early 1950s. It has been argued that historically speaking, Latin America continues to depend on exports of agricultural products and raw material for its internal development. However, the economic depression, which engulfed almost the whole of Europe during 1930s, resulted in the decline of export earnings of Latin American countries. The result was devastating for its overall development. As far back as 1937, Raul Prebish (1901 – 1986) argued that “manufacturing industries, and therefore industrial nations, can efficaciously control production, thereby maintain the value of their products at desired levels. This is not the case with agricultural and livestock countries” (cited in Chilcote [1984] p.24). In fact, in his analysis of terms of trade in Latin America, he argues that from the late nineteenth century through the end of World War II, prices have favoured exporters of industrial products in industrial products over exporters of agricultural products as well as raw materials in underdeveloped countries. It is, in this context, Prebisch introduced the terms ‘core’ and ‘periphery’, probably for the first time in 1944 – while the ‘core’ refers to developed countries, and the ‘periphery’ refers to developing countries. The ECLA School was very much critical of unfavourable terms of trade