Talk:Dependency theory/Archive 1

Implicit POV in dependecy theory article and other comments
I have a few points of critique that I may correct when I get around to it.

1) I'm not sure if considering Prebisch within the tradition of Dependency theory is correct -- What I have read indicates he was a forerunner or antecedent of dependency theory, but not a part of it. Dependency theory emerged in the mid-late 1960s as far as I know. He deserves to be in the article and to have his relevance fleshed out, but it should be clarified that "dependency theory" had not been invented as a category when he gained prominance in 1959.

2) I dont know if saying Dependency theory has three camps makes sense - at the time were there in fact defined camps? Perhaps that sentence should be removed and we should write sections for the main intellectual currents that emerged under the banner of the "dependency theory."

3) We should include a section talking about how Dependency theory challanged and debunked many of the principles of Modernization theory.

4) The section entitled "Practical Failure" seems to me to contain an implicit anti-dependency POV. I think its fair to say that Dependency didnt stimulate practical policy choices, but that doesnt negate its importance. Also, Prebisch's claims about declining terms of trade, and other insights made by the Dependency theorists have been borne out.

overall I feel like the article needs a ton of work for such an important theory

-- In response to 4: It is very important to note in an intellectual record if a theory has failed to live up to it's empirical predictions.

-- In that case you should also note that it was quite openly and systematically discredited for political not scientific reasons in the 1980s (this is well documented, e.g. in Preston, Herman & Schiller's (1989) Hope and Folly, U of Minnesota Press; and in Cees Hamelink's and Kalle Nordenstreng's research). (Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Originalexplorer 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Popularity of the Theory of Dependency
Whether the theory is acurate or not, it is widely believed as true in the third world. I lived in Argentina for a long time, and it is an article of faith that the reason Argentina is poor is because it is being exploited by the US. Dullfig 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Supported: "We stopped saying that 'the United States is rich while Latin America is poor,' and instead began thinking that 'the United States is rich BECAUSE Latin America is poor.'" Rodriguez and Murphy in Journal of Communication 4:2 Dec. 1997,p. 27 Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about adding in refrence to absolute advantage
I'm not quite sure what the protocol is for editing an article like this where there appears to me to be an error in analysis regarding comparative advantage. The article reads:

''This is countered, however, by the argument that the conditions of globalization makes comparative advantage all the more sound. The two assumptions that the theory makes a leap on, zero transportation and communication cost, looks more like reality in the global marketplace.''

First, this and the preceeding paragraph are not attributed, i.e. who is making the argument and counter argument?

Second, the difference between absoute advantage and comparitive advantange is not at all pointed out, i.e, as a banker friend of mine wrote regarding comparitive advantage: "free flow of capital across national boundaries, seeking profit maximization without any context of national interest or community is totally at odds with what both Ricardo and Adam Smith experienced and presumed," because it leads to Absolute Advantage not comparative advantage. Here's a quote from Ricardo regarding this:

 "Experience, however, shows, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations"  - David Ricardo, "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation".

All this being said, anybody have any suggestions on the proper way to introduce these arguments into the actual article?

Great that you provided a quote from Ricardo, though it is rather lengthy and could be condensed while maintaining the integrity (of course with a citation still). If you are going to write about comparative advantage, it is better to glean a neutral view from a known source rather than a friend, banker he might be. Madavis9 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Atha Davis

Eric Harris-Braun 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

i believe Import Substitution Industrialisation is also a related concept? Alveolate 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

dependency theory influence on policy
this article should be linked to the NIEO and NWICO articles. dependency theory was a major influence in UN politics from the mid 1960s-mid 80s. Research (e.g. Vincent et al. 1999), suggests that the US, UK and Singapore left the UNESCO at least partly in response to the NAM movement's relative success in pushing the dependency perspective at the UN. (Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)).

dependency theory in communication studies
- (notes/work in progress)

dependency theory has been very influential in the field of communication studies, especially the areas of in the political economy of communications and development communication. influential thinkers here include Antonio Pascali, Beltran, Armand Matellart, and Paulo Freire. latin american proponents of the dependency theory were called dependistas. is also the origin of the cultural imperialism theory (should link to that article)

there is also a christian (catholic) strand in dependency thinking - liberation theology.

there's also a cultural dimension: "oppression we found is not only economical oppression..." Rodriguez and Murphy in Journal of Communication 4:2 Dec. 1997 218.123.95.58 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, overall this article makes it sound like white men from Europe invented dependency theory. agree with comment above that it needs a lot of work, including slimming fluff and better sources. (Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)).

sources to cite on influence of dependency theory on communication studies
- Sources to cite include texts online by beltran, including a recent interview by alfonso gumucio dagron, macbride update (ed. by Kalle Nordenstreng) (will add proper citations when I get around to it. 218.123.95.58 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I just read correctly? "Discredited"?
I noticed that the third word of this article is "discredited". Is this on purpose? If it is, then I guess I'm going to have to throw stuff from my Third World Politics course out of my brain. If not, then please fix it. --TcDohl 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

India Cited as a disproving example
India is citied as a reason for disproving depnedency theory, on the basis that once its economy was opened it experienced growth, however avoids the issue of whether it was a result of the previous policies that made it so attractive once its economy was opened, one of the reasons often cited for India's economic rise is the skilled pool of labor, but the factors that led to that pool arose during the period where the economy was less open, perhaps an examination of that needs to be added to the critique of dependency theory, since that would support the idea that early in its life a nation is better off mainataining a closed structure, and only opening once it can adequately compete on the global market (somewhat like Hamilton's idea that the US needed to build up its own industrial base, rather than relying on the industry of europe).

Moving article
If everyone is okay with it, I would like to move this article to Dependency Theory, with the second word capitilized. --Justpassin (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Africa and Asia not Countries
"Countries as far apart as Africa and Asia, just as Poland from 1795 - 1918, did not constitute national states during the formative Industrial Revolution."

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.106.222 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not saying that Africa and Asia are countries. It's referring to the countries in Africa and Asia. It could be reread as "Countries as far apart as those in Africa and those in Asia..." 128.208.150.188 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Most of this article contains substantial copies of papers by Arno Tausch. Is there permission to use the copied text? Name: Dependency theory and Dependency theory-- Squids ' n ' Chips  23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a problem. Moreover, I think many of Tausch's claims are incorrect. Polanyi as a source of world-systems theory? Similar problems in other genealogical claims. Academic38 (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

who wrote this
I hope it was some PhD candidate in sociology or political science because dependency theory has been long dead among most self respecting academics...especially within economics. This whole article lacks substantial citations...let alone supporting sourced facts. The whole article needs major re-work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltwaternord (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Self respecting academics and critical political economy
Answer from Franz Weber: I learn that self-respecting academics never thought about a major economic crisis in 1928; I learn that self-respecting academics thought until some weeks ago that free financial markets produce an optimum outcome everywhere and at any time; and I also learn that government intervention in the economy is intrinsically bad and always produces bad outcomes. I learn that there are no longer economic cycles, Kuznets cycles, let alone Kondratievs, and that the free American economy is the city on the hill among nations of interventionism. I also accept, as a self-respecting academic, that non-intervention and economic freedom on all fronts are the light-house in a sea of darkness.

Dear colleague Meltwaternord - I respect you for having learnt your 2007 textbooks very well, and most probably your excellent standard econonmics knowledge would have qualified you to become by 2007 a market analyst for Lehmann brothers etc. But colleague Meltwaternord, we live in fall 2008, and the abyss of the economic crisis facing the United States needs some thorough perestroika and glasnost in the economics profession. I am an elderly person by now, and in my life I tried to learn the lessons of the 1930s, the destruction of democracy on the European continent by the blindfolded application of monetarist economics in the 1920s and what have you. Among the political scientists whom I respect most is the late Karl Wolfgang Deutsch from Harvard, who, as you perhaps know, finished his doctorate in Prague in 1938 and became scientific director of the Office of Strategic Services in America during World War II. Karl Deutsch always respected dependency theory and "critical political economy" because the world, my dear younger colleague, is NOT in equilibrium, and globalization HAS its discontents. So try to learn from the real world of economics, from authors like David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes, Gunnar Myrdal, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, Bela Balassa, Raúl Prebisch, Andre Gunder Frank, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Immanuel Wallerstein, Johan Galtung, Francois Perroux, Kurt Rothschild, Kunibert Raffer, Paul Israel Singer, Osvaldo Sunkel. Not to talk about people like Paul Stiglitz ... PS: the British were always more open to this kind of thought than the Americans; and their major Universities, especially Cambridge, were always a safe haven of refuge for critical political economy

Wow is this insane. And his name is Joe Stiglitz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.1.90 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Every market has its protocols. Indeed, you could define "market" as a set of exchange protocols. Wikipedia cannot handle controversy. The emblem at the top of the article ("this article needs the attention of an expert"), while seeming to condemn, is a badge of honor. Wikipedia's "regulatory capture" by a technologically advanced minority is a good example of dependency theory. The lynchpin of economic theory is the idea that people do better when they encounter each other as equals. Some institutions allow that, some discourage it. That thought should guide mention of a term like "political revolution" as a cure for dependency and its ills. What kind of political order would allow periphery territories to bargain on an equal footing with the core? It seems that core powers can "cherry-pick" if not actually manufacture the regimes of periphery zones that will sell their populations down the river. The solution would be laws in the core forbidding such interference. Obviously the periphery zones do not have the muscle to defend their own interests. Equally obviously, such laws themselves could become the vehicle of exploitation. If there is a prediction to be made about the eventual victory of liberal politics--doctrines of liberty--it would consider the "closing of the frontier" internationally, whereby no longer can exploiters in the core can rest assured that the externalities they visit upon the periphery will not come back to haunt them.Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea
Is it appropriate to use such as an extreme examples as North Korea, especially in the introduction? I don't think dependency theorists would use that as an example of economic development, but rather some of the more succesful South American and Asian countries that followed 'protectionist' policies with tarrifs etc. against U.S pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.96.8 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section
Along with some fairly minor changes, I have put back the following section on criticisms which was deleted some years ago. It could use some work (such as more references), but I think the article needs a section like this on debate about the ideas.

Great section to add, though the lack of citations is troublesome. Perhaps this should be deleted until it can be backed up with reliable sources? Madavis9 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism and rebuttals
Dependency theory has been criticized by free-market economists such as Peter Bauer and Martin Wolf, who believe that the promulgation of the theory leads to:


 * Corruption. Free-market economists hold that state-owned companies have higher rates of corruption than privately owned companies.


 * Lack of competition. By subsidizing in-country industries and preventing outside imports, these companies may have less incentive to improve their products, to try to become more efficient in their processes, to please customers, or to research new innovations.


 * Sustainability. Reliance of industries on government support may not be sustainable for very long, particularly in poorer countries and countries which largely budget out of foreign aid.


 * Domestic opportunity costs. Subsidies on domestic industries come out of state coffers and therefore represent money not spent in other ways, like development of domestic infrastructure, seed capital or need-based social welfare programs. At the same time, the higher prices caused by tariffs and restrictions on imports require the people either to forgo these goods altogether or buy them at higher prices, forgoing other goods.

Proponents of dependency theory claim that the theory of comparative advantage breaks down when capital (including both physical capital, like machines, as well as financial capital) is highly mobile, as it is under the conditions of globalization. For this reason, it is claimed that dependency theory can offer new insights into a world of highly mobile multinational corporations.

This has been countered by the argument that the conditions of globalization actually make comparative advantage more sound. Two of the key assumptions of comparative advantage - zero transportation costs and zero communication cost - are arguably more realistic in the contemporary global marketplace than in earlier times. While zero communication costs are supported by the internet, it would appear, however, that the theory of the tendency to zero transport costs is dependent on the costs of energy. Furthermore, the assumptions of free trade models only includes two factors of production - namely the globalisation of capital and resources, but not labour. Currently the free movement of labour is being restricted world-wide with various forms of immigration control.

Market economists cite a number of examples in their arguments against dependency theory. The improvement of India's economy after it moved from state-controlled business to open trade is one of the most often cited (see also economy of India, Commanding Heights). India's example seems to contradict dependency theorists' claims concerning comparative advantage and mobility, as much as its economic growth originated from movements such as outsourcing - one of the most mobile forms of capital transfer. However, South Korea was able to rise out of poverty while using many tenets which Dependency theory advises.

Free market theorists see dependency theorists' complaints as legitimate, but their policy prescriptions as self-fulfilling prophecies, in that the policies only aggravate the disparity between the developed nations and the underdeveloped countries. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions with Portuguese version
This may be worth a look - google translator may help, if needed; the portuguese version of the article includes some definitions in very basic contradiction with this version https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoria_da_depend%C3%AAncia. The criticism of the ECLAC (CEPAL) point of view is an important point of departure to distinguish dependency theory from older Latin American developmentalism, and it's a rupture with that tradition. YOu guys seem to throw it all in the same basket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decolonial (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor suggestions
Hello,

First of all, I think it's important to cite the claim how dependency theory arise as a reaction to modernization theory. Furthermore, a more specific evidence would solidify this claim too, like how Argentina could not come out of poverty and became engulfed in debt. It would be helpful to create a table of comparison between dependency and modernization theory too as it would provide good juxtaposition. The article itself is reasonably neutral with both pro and against dependency. Finally, I think this article require more citation because there are several claims that are not yet backed up including this sentence "With the economic growth of India and some East Asian economies, dependency theory has lost some of its former influence."

Billy SaputraBillysaputra (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dependency theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714063027/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/schools/develop.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/schools/develop.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812085123/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/prebisch.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/prebisch.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227102020/http://www.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/research/dp/2005/2005cf318.pdf to http://www.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/research/dp/2005/2005cf318.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217071234/http://www.caei.com.ar/en/home.htm to http://www.caei.com.ar/en/home.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329141844/http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/en.index.php to http://www.eumed.net/entelequia/en.index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dependency theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160827004744/http://alternativesjournal.net/article/view/5000159492/5000143927 to http://alternativesjournal.net/article/view/5000159492/5000143927

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete clause "no longer has proponents"
This was identified as a claim in need of citation. Can it be removed?Tlamarre (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)