User:Caya.pstcc/sandbox

Dependency theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search This article is about an international relations theory. For dependency theory in linguistics, see Dependency grammar. For the database theory, see Dependency theory (database theory). For dependency theory in media, see Media system dependency theory.

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system". This theory was officially developed in the late 1960s following World War II, as scholars searched for the root issue in the lack of development in Latin America[1].Dependency theory emerged as a counterbalance to modernization theory as the debates over development and modernization were taking shape in the midst of the decolonization struggles in Africa and Latin America

The theory arose as a reaction to modernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task of helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Instead of viewing the inevitable capitalist transformation as a purveyor of prosperity, dependency theorists saw the extension of the capitalist economy to developing regions as one of the causes of poverty and cultural degradation Dependency theory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy.[2] '''Underdevelopment was more than an early stage of capitalist progress.Impoverished regions in the Third World were not just lagging behind theindustrialized West. Borrowing from Latin American critics of dependency theory and incorporating the core-periphery concept, Andre Gunder Frank argued that capitalist development and underdevelopment were part of the same process. Coining the phrase “development of underdevelopment,” he called for a global analysis of the historical development of capitalism, suggest-ing that capitalism’s success hinged on the underdevelopment of peripheral countries.'''

Dependency theory originates with two papers published in 1949 – one by Hans Singer, one by Raúl Prebisch – in which the authors observe that the terms of trade for underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports. This idea is known as the Prebisch–Singer thesis. Prebisch, an Argentine economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin America (UNCLA), went on to conclude that the underdeveloped nations must employ some degree of protectionism in trade if they were to enter a self-sustaining development path. He argued that import-substitution industrialisation (ISI), not a trade-and-export orientation, was the best strategy for underdeveloped countries.[5] The theory was developed from a Marxian perspective by Paul A. Baran in 1957 with the publication of his The Political Economy of Growth.[6] Dependency theory shares many points with earlier, Marxist, theories of imperialism by Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin, and has attracted continued interest from Marxists. '''Feudal relationships in Latin America were a product of capitalist expansion, not a “backward” stage of economic development. Capitalist world markets had determined Latin American class relations ever since the Spanish arrived on American shores in the late fifteenth century.''' Some authors identify two main streams in dependency theory: the Latin American Structuralist, typified by the work of Prebisch, Celso Furtado, and Aníbal Pinto at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC, or, in Spanish, CEPAL); and the American Marxist, developed by Paul A. Baran, Paul Sweezy, and Andre Gunder Frank.

Using the Latin American dependency model, the Guyanese Marxist historian Walter Rodney, in his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, described in 1972 an Africa that had been consciously exploited by European imperialists, leading directly to the modern underdevelopment of most of the continent.[7] The use of dependency theory to explain Native American history in theUnited States has had extraordinary staying power for American scholars, ac-tivists, and officials.18 Drawing on the work of Latin Americanists and African scholars, dependency theory offered intellectuals, policy experts, and commu-nity activists an explanatory model for understanding why Native Americans suffered such extreme poverty on Indian reservations in the United States

Quote 1: Theory emerged as a counterbalance to modernization theory as the debates over development and modernization were taking shape in the midst of the decolonization struggles in Africa and Latin America.

Quote 2: Instead of viewing the inevitable capitalist transformation as a purveyor of prosperity, dependency theorists saw the extension of the capitalist economy to developing regions as one of the causes of poverty and cultural degradation.

Quote 3: Underdevelopment was more than an early stage of capitalist progress.Impoverished regions in the Third World were not just lagging behind the industrialized West. Borrowing from Latin American critics of dependency theory and incorporating the core-periphery concept, Andre Gunder Frank argued that capitalist development and underdevelopment were part of the same process. Coining the phrase “development of underdevelopment,” he called for a global analysis of the historical development of capitalism, suggest-ing that capitalism’s success hinged on the underdevelopment of peripheral countries.

Quote 4: Feudal relationships in Latin America were a product of capitalist expansion, not a “backward” stage of economic development. Capitalist world markets had determined Latin American class relations ever since the Spanish arrived on American shores in the late fifteenth century.

Quote 5: The use of dependency theory to explain Native American history in theUnited States has had extraordinary staying power for American scholars, activists, and officials.18 Drawing on the work of Latin Americanists and African scholars, dependency theory offered intellectuals, policy experts, and community activists an explanatory model for understanding why Native Americans suffered such extreme poverty on Indian reservations in the United States.