Do new dependency theories overcome the weaknesses of classical dependency theories?

IntroductionOver the centurys, sparing development theoretician pretend put advancing various models for explaining the at a lower place real-ness of countries in the trio innovation. However, with sociological speculation comes blames and despite lasting a capacious deal of time in the frame defecate of the realismwide sphere, sheer colony has been subjected to a barrage of criticism on theoretical, empirical, methodological, and stylistic grounds. In this essay, it is my aim to analyse the criticism put forwards maculation simultaneously determining whether or non the accommodation by instinctive dependence theorists bring on overcome these flaws.Before doing so we must first basely give ourselves with the origins of the dependence hypothesis, first formulated in the late 1950s under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch. The wink map of this essay will provide an analytic account of capit al of Minnesota Baran and Andre Gunder vocals Greco-Roman studies of colony theory, looking at their normal perspectives and adaptation to Marxism.Once this has been achieve, the 3rd gear and final part of this essay aims to draw pop discover the criticism that fool been put forward on neoclassical addiction studies while looking at sassy addiction theorist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Stephan M. nasal and Thomas B. prosperous perspectives. This will entirelyow me to conclude how sophisticated sunrise(prenominal) settlement studies ar in overcoming the flaws of the classical habituation studies. Origins of colony Theories given up the umpteen interpretations given to dependency, how can matchless capture the impression of dependency in a concise manner?Dos Santos, defines it as a diachronic condition that shapes a certain structure of the cosmea providence such that it favours some countries to the detriment of others, and limits the development possibiliti es of the subordinate economies. (SO, A, Y. 1990 99) Whereas liberals (mainstream economists) define underdevelopment as a condition in which countries find themselves in, depedentistas see it as a process in which less certain nations argon trapped because of the kin between the developed and underdeveloped countries in the realness parsimony. (SANCHEZ, O.2003)However, it can be agreed that dependency theory is not a socioeconomic relation that just occurs, it is developed historic onlyy through capitalisms power- dealings between the first world and the third world. In influence to understand dependency theory, we first need to place the model in historical background by examining its origins. Emerging in the late 1940s against the development theory of modernization which heard development from the point of view of the United States and other westerly Countries, The Dependency Theory took the approach of viewing development from a terzetto human race perspective.Accor ding to Blomsorm and Hettne, the dependency theory represents the voices from the periphery. (Blomsorm, M, Hettne, B. 1984) Dependency theory arose issue of central and south America in the 1960s and 1970s, save was part of a larger movement that was asking a lot of questions active international relations at the time. One of those questions was why are so many countries not developing? The traditional answer to this question was that these countries are not perusing the right economic policies or the governments are despotic or corrupt.However, dependency theorists wanted to find out if that was all on that point was to it, which lead them to argue that countries were not developing around the world callable to international variance of labour, class distinction and worldwide capitalism. The diagram preceding(prenominal) (Wikimedia commons, 2008) is a clear example of what dependency theorist meant when they argue that at that place are a number of different kinds of a rouses in the world which all form a different funtion in the worlds economy. jump you have the core states are the about richest and powerful (e.g Europe and marriage America).These states dominate in terms of industry and technology and as a result the semi-periphey and periphery states (e. g Latin America and South Africa), who are characterised by resource extr execution economy, argiculture production and providing punk labour, serve the economic intrest of the richest countires. Dependency theory became popular as a criticism of modernization theory (also known as development theory) which seemed to be failing repayable to the continued widespread poverty of large parts of the world.This whitethorn be because modernisation theory only offers an internal explanation of third base world development. For example, it assumes that there is something victimize inside trinity world countries- such as traditional culture, overpopulation, little investment, or lack of achieveme nt motivation- and this is why Third world countries are backward and stagnant. (So, A, Y. 1990 92) The theory believes in order for third world countries to reach modernity they need to look up to westerly countries as mentors and follow western paths of development.However, dependency theorists argue that this is im affirmable to do so because of compoundism. The colonial experience has totally restructured Third world countries and has drastically altered their paths of development (So, A, Y. 1990. 96) Looking back at liberal crusader Prebisch and the ECLA strategy of protectionism and industrial enterprise, he believed, in order to put an end to all problems of development, sader countries should embark on programs of import substitution so that they need not purchase the manufactured products from the richer countries.The poorer countries would still betray their primary products on the world grocery store, besides their foreign exchange reserves would not be employ to purchase their manufactures from ab track. (Larrain, J, 1989110) However, this was not as straight forward as anticipated, because if a poorer nation makes any attempt to resist against the power of the rich nations they may have to face military force or economic sanctions. essential nations actively keep developing nations in a subservient position, often through economic force by instituting sanctions, or by proscribing shift condescension policies attached to loans granted by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. (WiseGeek, 2003) Despite the failure of Prebisch international trade theory, it is un discreditable that it provided the dependency theory with the support that it needed, and showed some semblance of what dependence style in this type of economic administration. (Moses, D, 2012)In a nutshell, Development and Underdevelopment are deuce sides of the same coin. Wealthy nations of the world need a computer peripheral class of poorer states in order to rema in pixilated. Using a variety of semipolitical economic interventions as well as media, education systems and interventional sporting correctts wealthy nations control poorer nations, making them dependent. And it is in their best interest to keep the poorer nations poor by using Ha-Joon Chang metaphor kicking the developing ladder away(predicate) so that they can continue to steal the poors natural wealth and exploit their workers.Latin America was asked to produce food, raw substantials for the great industrial meaning, and in return, Latin America would receive industrial trade goods from these centers. (So, A, Y. 199093) Classical Dependency Theory In this next section we will examine Neo-Marxist theorists Paul Baran (19101964) and Andre Gunder candids (19292005) who developed dependency theory from Marxian synopsis.The dependency theory is rooted in a Marxism analysis of the global economy and as a direct challenge to the free market economic policies of the post-War e ra (Ferraro, V, 2008) In The Communist Manifesto, Marx argued within the capitalist economy the bourgeoisie mercilessly exploited the p sharetariat. He recognised that the work carried out by the proletariat created great wealth for the capitalist. The products created in the factory (the material outcome of the workers labour) were sold for more than the value of the labour itself i. e. more than the workers wages.Like Karl Marx (18181883), Baran and Frank argued a similar exploitative system of stratification between countries. work of Marxist ideology can be seen as strength of the dependency theory as led the way to other neo-Marxist investigations of the linkage and possible reconciliation between Dependency Theory and Marxism. Paul A Baran Baran is the first author within the theory of imperialism who studies the class structures and economic processes of underdeveloped countries, and more importantly, he was the first Marxist author who puts in doubt the homogeneous concept ion of world capitalism.(Larrain, J, 198980)Baran believed imperialism had penetrated underdeveloped countries, destroying earlier social formations and distorting their later(prenominal) development, creating lasting conditions of dependency. Underdeveloped countries were systematically subordinated to the developed countries in the international division of labour. However, Baran was not the first to make such arguments. Traces of such views of imperialism can be found in Marxism.if it were not for the distorting effects of imperialism, the kingdom that is more developed industrially would have shown to the less developed the image of its own futurity (Foster, J, 2007) Barans Political Economy of Growth argued that Third world countries were characterized by small industrial sectors and large agricultural sectors, which was not immensely remunerative on world a scale. He emphasized class relations and their impact on utilization of economic surplus, as well as the distribution of power as primary barriers which prevented development.He espoused that internal conditions were the source of the paper problems in underdeveloped countries, and recommended state intervention to erect nationally controlled industrialization as a precondition for evolution of other industrial sectors. (TheDevelopmentStudent, 2010) Barans uses his study of India as an example of a country which would have developed much better had it not been for the surplus torn from it by Britain. In his study he traced how British colonialism contributed to the underdevelopment of India through plundering, deindustrialisation, and the uprooting of the local society.(So, A, Y. 1990111)Although, Baran agrees with Marx that one should not idealise Indias pre-Britain past, he maintains that at the same time, I should not be overlooked that India, if left to herself, might have found in the course of time a shorter and surely less tortuous road towards a better and richer society (Larrain, J, 19 8986) This study can be highlighted as a powerful in bus of the classical dependency theories which has directed researchers to examine the process by which foreign supremacy had shaped the development of Third World countries.(So, A, Y. 1990129)Overall, the work of Paul Baran can be considered a very(prenominal) important landmark in the refurbishing of the theory of imperialism after the Second World War. He introduced such crucial changes to it that it is possible to argue that his contribution is the hinge which joins or articulate the theory of imperialism with, and marks the beginning of dependency theory. (Larrain, J, 1989115) Andre Gunder Frank Andre Gunder Frank was one of the key figures under the Dependency Theory as well as the first to write in English.In his most potent writings The Development of Underdevelopment (1969) Frank drew inspiration from Paul Baran, rivet upon the dependent character of peripheral Latin American economies, and was able to have a bun in the oven Barans notions in terms of a capitalist world system of metropolitan and satellite areas. Metropolitans are countries that are considered as the colonizers or developed countries and the satellites on the other hand are the colonies and considered underdeveloped countries.Satellites supply cheap primary commodities to the rich countries that then use the raw materials to produce change good, and then send them back to the satellites for profit. Frank argues that this metropolished-satellite relationship is only in existence to serve the interests of the metropoles which take advantage of this global, national, and local structure to promote their own development and the enrichment of their ruling classes (Moses, D, 2012.)He argues that the reason why LDCs are get poorer is because the exploitation it experiences from the DCs such as extracting raw materials from the LDCs while the DCs manufacture, deliver and sell the final product to LDCs with a price hitting the ceiling . In his known writing entitled as Dependency theory claims that the relation of imperialism and domination trapped poor nations at the bottom of the global economy.(Larrain, J, 1989115)Frank purposed four hypotheses, one being the satellites experience their greatest economic development and especially their most classically capitalist industrial development if and when their ties to their metropolis are weakest (So, A, Y. 199098) Therefore, his ascendent to the problem was that Third world countries de-link themselves from the world market, allowing them the opportunity to develop sooner of distributing their own resources to the metropoles.However, as stated previous, due to military force or economic sanctions this may not be possible. By escalating Barans views and adapting them to the analysis of the Latin American daub, Franks idea that capitalism expand from Europe and managed to incorporate the whole world in a single international system, quickly became well known all over the civilizeman world and gave intellectual currency to dependency theory.Critique of classical dependency studies and modification by bran- spic-and-span dependency theorist The dependency perspective seems to have been particularly popular during the 1960s, but based on the classical dependency theories draw above, it has since lost some of its attraction and has been the subject of a great deal of criticism since the 1970s. Firstly, it can be claimed that dependency theory itself was betrayed by the very formulation of its name. Many critics argue that it is not a theory, but can more accurately be conceived of as an approach to the study of underdevelopment.In fact, new dependency theorists such as Cardoso objected to the term theory to describe it. He believed it is an overarching framework within which one might formulate specific hypotheses/theories, a methodological analysis for the analysis of concrete situations of dependency. It did not predict determinate, dis crete outcomes. Rather, it desire to provide a new perspective from which to examine the problematique of economic backwardness. (Cardoso, F, H. 197715) For many social scientists the methodological faults of the approach were too obvious to ignore.As stated earlier, the dependency theory arose as a critique of the modernisation theory. However, the modernisation school fought back, characterising the dependency perspective as a propaganda fragment of Marxist revolutionary ideology. Instead of providing a scientific analysis of what has actually happened in third world countries, the concept of dependency has become an all-purpose explanation for everything that is wrong with third world countries (So, A, Y. 1990131) Another methodological criticism was that classical theorist Baran and Frank committed a major error of treating all peripheral areas as if they were the same.Fernando, H, Cardoso is usually singled out as the key figure of the new dependency studies. Unlike the gener al analysis of the classical dependency school, Cardosos methodology is historical-structural. (So, A, Y. 1990135) Therefore, he paid more attention to historically specific situations of dependency than classical theorist Baran and Frank. In this work, Cardoso pointed out that the shift from the Brazilian democrat regime to military regime was represented as the pursuing of a new model of associated-dependent development in Brazil.He added that there were many new activities, which has been done by military regime in Brazil. Goertzel (1999) suggests that Cardosos mastery has come not because he has had a better theory but because he has al slipway kept one question at the center of his thinking What will happen if society selects one course of action over another? To answer this question, he has concentrate oned on the sociology of the historical conjuncture rather than on general theory (Goertzel, T.1999182)However, Cardoso work too real much criticism for his esoteric style of writing. One scholar, assessing Cardoso and Falettos Dependency and Development, decries the authors ornately Hegelian style which is held to be partly responsible for the confusing and even contradictory message of dependency theory (Staniland, M. 1985134). However, Cardoso himself admitted that if there have been so many distortions in the consumption of dependency theory, it is because the original production was not clear regarding several points (Cardoso, F, H.1977, 17).Dependency theorist overemphasised the factor of external conditions, and neglected the role of internal dynamics such as class conflicts and the state. Petras (1982) indicated that to expect the issues of the Third World in terms of dependency is to lose sight of the most decisive processes class formation and social relations which bewilder change and the particular configurations of social forces which emerge on a world scale. (Petras, J.1982148)New dependency theorist Cardoso overcame this weakness by focusing on the internal structures of dependency. According to Alvin Y. So Cardoso is more interested in analysing the socio-political tone of dependency, especially class struggles, group conflict, and political movements (So, A, Y. 1990136) Classical dependency theorists have become subject to criticised on policy implication. The dependency perspective emphasizes the stabbing effects of colonialism and international division of labor.But in fact, the success of countries such as India, south Korea and chinaware have proven this idea wrong, especially Barans study on colonialism who once believed India moved backwards, from a relatively right industrial nation to a backward agricultural nation with the picture that it would never escape the British rule and develop again. Dependency may not lead to underdevelopment and as such periphery countries move from underdevelopment to befitting serious economic heavyweights it can be used to argue against the theory.Unlike classical dependency theorist (e. g.Landberg) who portray the miracle of East Asian development as manufacturing imperialism New dependency theorist Thomas B Gold (1986) uses the concept of dynamic dependency in his study of Taiwans development. Taiwans starting point of development was in most ways very similar of that of Latin American countries. Like other colonial governments, the Japanese implanted a structure of dependent capitalism in Taiwan and skewed the economy to the production of two primary good (rice and sugar). Gold believed that Taiwan was undeniably restructured by Japan, it was not underdeveloped.Soon after World War 2 Taiwan broke free from the Japanese colonial rule and have attained rapid economic development. (So, A, Y. 1990158) Therefore this rejects classical dependent theorists assumption that this is impossible for a country to develop if it has experienced colonialism. Furthermore, determinism also burdens dependency with what Stephan Haggard has called the structu ralist paradox. The model was outlined to help identify the international constraints associated with certain development paths in order to overcome them.However, dependency does not allow for the possibility that particular state strategies may act to reduce those international constraints. (Haggard, S. 1990 21) In response to this new dependency theorist such as Cardoso view dependency as an open-ended process. Unlike classical predictions of unidirectional trend of underdevelopment in Third World countries He argues that there can be development and dependency and that there exist more dynamic forms of dependence than those characterising enclave or quasi-colonial situations (So, A, Y.1990137)Even though the new dependency perspective has modified some of the classical dependency perspective, they still share the same concept such as focus research is Third world countries, national level of analysis, and center periphery dependency. According to Larrain Dependency analyses shar e similar interests in studying the situation of peripheral capitalist countries from the point of view of the conditioning effects which external forces and structures produce on the internal structures of these countries (Larrain, J. 1989 112) ConclusionIn conclusion this essay has demonstrated an boilersuit understanding of dependency theory, by originating back into the 1940s where it all began, followers up to its relevance in today world. As well as the strengths of the theory, the essay has discussed the ways in which dependency has been subjected to a barrage of criticism on theoretical, empirical, methodological, and stylistic grounds. Furthermore it has researched and demonstrated how new dependency theorists have modified classical dependency studies in order to overcome their weaknesses.Overall I feel that Cardosos analysis in more sophisticated than the classical dependency studies. His work has added the lack of explanation in the classical work it has improved on man y of its criticisms and emphasizes broader explanation on what happen in the third world. I also believe that Cardosos research, along with Golds study of Taiwans, has shaped the direction of empirical studies in the dependency school and started a whole new investigation on dependent development in the third world.