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

IntroductionOver the centurys, frugal exploitation theorist afford frame up forward various cases for explaining the under unquestion equal to(p)-ness of countries in the Third domain of a function. However, with sociological surmisal abide bys reflections and despite lasting a large(p) deal of time in the framework of the international sphere, classical dependance has been subdue mattered to a barrage of critical review on theoretical, empirical, methodological, and stylistic grounds. In this essay, it is my aim to analyse the criticism put forwards while at the same time determining whether or not the modification by new habituation theorists have overcome these flaws.Before doing so we must inaugur on the wholey acquaint ourselves with the origins of the habituation theory, first formulated in the late 1950s under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch. The second part of this essay testament pr ovide an analytic account of Paul Baran and Andre Gunder wieners classical studies of colony theory, touching at their gen sequencel linear perspectives and adaptation to Marxism.Once this has been achieve, the one-third and final part of this essay aims to draw out the criticism that have been put forward on classical colony studies while looking at new settlement theorist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Stephan M. Haggard and Thomas B. Gold perspectives. This will allow me to conclude how advanced new dependence studies ar in overcoming the flaws of the classical settlement studies. Origins of dependence Theories Given the m any interpretations given to habituation, how tail star capture the concept of dependency in a concise manner?Dos Santos, defines it as a historical condition that shapes a certain structure of the innovation economy such that it favours some countries to the suffering of another(prenominal)s, and limits the development possibilities of the subordin ate economies. (SO, A, Y. 1990 99) Whereas liberals (mainstream economists) define underdevelopment as a condition in which countries mother themselves in, depedentistas see it as a process in which less unquestionable nations are trapped because of the relation backship between the developed and develop countries in the foundation economy. (SANCHEZ, O.2003)However, it can be agreed that dependency theory is not a socio sparing relation that just occurs, it is developed historically with capitalisms power-relations between the first world and the third world. In order to understand dependency theory, we first need to place the model in historical context by examining its origins. Emerging in the late 1940s against the development theory of modernization which examined development from the point of view of the United States and other Western Countries, The settlement Theory took the go about of viewing development from a Third World perspective.According to Blomsorm and Hettn e, the dependency theory represents the voices from the periphery. (Blomsorm, M, Hettne, B. 1984) addiction theory arose out of central and south America in the 1960s and 1970s, but was part of a big movement that was asking a lot of questions about 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 authoritarian or corrupt.However, dependency theorists wanted to find out if that was all at that place was to it, which lead them to argue that countries were not developing around the world collectable to international division of labour, class distinction and global capitalism. The diagram above (Wikimedia commons, 2008) is a clear pillow slip of what dependency theorist meant when they argue that there are a number of different kinds of states in the world which all form a different funtion in the worlds economy. First you have the nub states are the most richest and powerful (e.g Europe and North America).These states dominate in basis of industry and engineering 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 business and providing cheap labour, serve the economic intrest of the richest countires. addiction theory became touristy as a criticism of modernization theory (also kn induce as development theory) which seemed to be failing out-of-pocket to the continued widespread poverty of large parts of the world.This whitethorn be because modernisation theory nevertheless offers an knowledgeable explanation of Third world development. For example, it assumes that there is something wrong inside Third world countries- such as traditional culture, overpopulation, little investment, or lack of achievement motivation- and this is why Third world countrie s are backrestward 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 western countries as mentors and follow western paths of development.However, dependency theorists argue that this is impossible to do so because of colonialism. The colonial bonk has totally restructured Third world countries and has drastically altered their paths of development (So, A, Y. 1990. 96) Looking back at liberal reformer Prebisch and the ECLA strategy of protectionism and industrialization, he believed, in order to put an end to all problems of development, poorer 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 unchanging sell their primary products on the world market, but their foreign exchange reserves would not be used to purchase their manufactures from abroad. (Larrain, J, 1989110) However, thi s 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 multitude force or economic sanctions.Developed nations actively keep developing nations in a subservient position, often by dint of economic force by instituting sanctions, or by proscribing free employment policies attached to loans granted by the World Bank or International M unitarytary Fund. (WiseGeek, 2003) Despite the failure of Prebisch international trade theory, it is undoubtable that it provided the dependency theory with the support that it needed, and showed some semblance of what dependence means in this type of economic formation. (Moses, D, 2012)In a nutshell, Development and Underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. Wealthy nations of the world need a circumferential group of poorer states in order to remain wealthy. Using a variety of political economic interventions as tumesce as media, educat ion systems and interventional sporting events wealthy nations control poorer nations, making them dependent. And it is in their best stake to keep the poorer nations poor by using Ha-Joon Chang metaphor kicking the developing ladder away so that they can continue to steal the poors natural wealth and exploit their workers.Latin America was asked to bewilder food, raw materials for the great industrial center, and in return, Latin America would receive industrial 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 abstract.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 era (Ferraro, V, 2008) In The Communist Manifesto, Marx argued within the capitalist economy the bourgeoisie mercilessly explo ited the proletariat. He recognised that the work carried out by the proletariat created great wealth for the capitalist. The products created in the factory (the material ending 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. Usage 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 underdevelop countries, but more importantly, he was the first Marxist author who puts in doubt the homogeneous world of world capitalism.(Larrain, J, 198980)Baran believed imperialism had penetrated underdevelop countries, destroying earlier soc ial formations and distorting their subsequent 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 nominate in Marxism.if it were not for the distorting effects of imperialism, the country that is more developed industrially would have shown to the less developed the image of its own future (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 profitable on world a scale. He emphasized class relations and their impact on utilization of economic surplus, as advantageously as the distribution of power as primary barriers which prevented development.He espoused that internal conditions were the source of the major problems i n underdeveloped countries, and recommended state intervention to promote nationally controlled industrialization as a precondition for evolution of other industrial sectors. (TheDevelopmentStudent, 2010) Barans uses his take away of India as an example of a country which would have developed such(prenominal) 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, 198986) This study can be highlighted as a powerful insight of the classical dependency theories which has directed res earchers to examine the process by which foreign domination had shaped the development of Third World countries.(So, A, Y. 1990129)Overall, the work of Paul Baran can be considered a real 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 attach 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 influential writings The Development of Underdevelopment (1969) Frank drew inspiration from Paul Baran, focusing upon the dependent character of encircling(prenominal) Latin American economies, and was able to conceptualise Barans notions in terms of a capitalist world system of metropolitan and orbiter areas. Metropolitans are c ountries 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 and so use the raw materials to produce specialized 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 emolument 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 getting 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 famous writing entitled as Dependency theory claims that the relation of imperialism and dominati on 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 solution to the problem was that Third world countries de-link themselves from the world market, allowing them the opportunity to develop instead 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 situation, Franks idea that capitalism grow from Europe and managed to incorporate the whole world in a single international system, quickly became well known all over the academic world and gave intellectual currency to dependency theory.Critique of classical depende ncy studies and modification by new dependency theorist The dependency perspective seems to have been particularly popular during the 1960s, but based on the classical dependency theories outlined 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 proper(postnominal) hypotheses/theories, a methodology for the analysis of cover situations of dependency. It did not predict determinate, discrete outcomes. Rather, it sought to provide a new perspective from which to examine the problematique of economic retrograden ess. (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 dissolve 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 oecumenic analysis of the classical dependency school, Cardosos methodology is historical-structural. (So, A, Y. 1990135) Therefo re, 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 populist 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 succeeder has come not because he has had a better theory but because he has always 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 focused on the sociology of the historical conjuncture rather than on command theory (Goertzel, T.1999182)However, Cardoso work too received much criticism for his esoteric style of writing. One scholar, assessing Cardoso and Falettos Dependency and Development, decries the authors ornately Hegelian style wh ich is held to be partly responsible for the confusing and even contradictory contentedness 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 pilot 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 conceptualise 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 go 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 aspect 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 harmful effects of colonialism and international division of labor.But in fact, the success of countries such as India, south Korea and Taiwan have proven this idea wrong, especially Barans study on colonialism who once believed India moved backwards, from a relatively advanced industrial nation to a backward agricultural nation with the belief 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 becoming 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 th eorist 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 Nipponese 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 deliver the goods 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 structuralist paradox. The model was outlined to help hear the international constraints associated with certain development pa ths in order to overcome them.However, dependency does not allow for the hypothesis 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 simplex 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 share similar interests in studying the situation of peripheral capitalist countries from the point of view of the teach effects whic h external forces and structures produce on the internal structures of these countries (Larrain, J. 1989 112) ConclusionIn conclusion this essay has demonstrated an overall spirit of dependency theory, by originating back into the 1940s where it all began, following up to its relevance in like a shot 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 many 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.