3340297

Dependency Theory: A Critique
Author(s): Harriet Friedmann and Jack Wayne

Source: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 2, No. 4
(Autumn, 1977), pp. 399-416
Published by: Canadian Journal of Sociology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340297 .
Accessed: 28/08/2014 12:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 203.76.178.94 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:36:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dependency theory:
a
critique
Harriet Friedmann Jack
Wayne
University of
Western Ontario
University of
Toronto
Abstract.
Although dependency theory represents
an advance over
evolutionary
theories of
development
and
underdevelopment,
it has confronted serious difficulties in
attempting
to
analyze
social
relationships
based on
geographical
observations and in
attempting
to construct a model of
the world
capitalist system.
It is
argued
that these difficulties are rooted in four basic
aspects
of
dependency theory: (1)
the basic unit of the world
system
is seen as a
dyadic
relation between
nations; (2)
models of the world
system
are cumulations of these units into
hierarchically
ordered
sets of
roles; (3) geographical
and social
relationships
are
collapsed
in
description, preventing
independent analysis
of the
latter;
and
(4)
basic relations
among
units of the
system
are those of
exchange
instead of
production.
The
major
contribution of
dependency theory
-
the
powerful
description
of
consequences
within
dependent regions
of
dynamics
within the world
system
-
can
be
enhanced,
and the difficulties
resolved,
through
its careful
integration
with Marxian theories of
capitalism
and
imperialism.
Resume. Bien
que
la theorie de la
dependance
fait
figure
de
progres quand
on la
compare
aux
theories evolutionnaires du
d6veloppement
et du
sous-developpement,
elle s'est heurtee a de
serieuses difficultes en
essayant d'analyser
les
rapports
sociaux bas6s sur des observations
g6ographiques
et d'edifier un modele du
systeme capitaliste
mondial. II est
prouv6 que
ces
difficultes sont reli6es a
quatre aspects
fondamentaux de la th6orie de la
dependance
A savoir:
(1)
l'unite de base du
systeme
mondial est
percue
en
temps que
relation
compl6mentaire
entre les
nations; (2)
les modeles du
systeme
mondial sont des accumulations de ces unites dans des
ensembles de roles ordonnes de
faCon hierarchique; (3)
les
rapports g6ographiques
et sociaux sont
reduits a une
simple description empechant
toute
analyse independante
de cette
derniere; (4)
les
rapports
de base entre les unites du
systeme
sont ceux de
'echange
et non de la
production.
L'apport principal
de la theorie de la
dependance
-
soit une
description poussee
des
consequences
de la
dynamique
du
systeme
mondial au sein des
regions dependantes
-
peut
etre mise en
valeur,
et
les difficultes
aplanies, grice a
une
integration prudente
des theories marxistes
portant
sur le
capitalisme
et
l'imperialisme.
399
Canadian Journal of
Sociology/Cahiers
canadiens de
sociologie 2(4)1977
I. Introduction
Until the last decade
sociological
and other social scientific work on
development
and
underdevelopment
was carried out
largely
within a model
that
posited
a
sequence
of
evolutionary stages
for societies. These
stages
were
identified for the
economy (Rostow, 1960),
for the
polity (Almond
and
Coleman, 1960),
and for the structure of social
relationships
within the
society
(Parsons, 1966).
In this
body
of work the
"prime
mover" of social
change
was
sought
in the characteristics of the
society
itself. When
"underdeveloped"
societies were
examined,
the
underdevelopment
was seen as a
consequence
of
specified
attributes of the
population,
often at the level of cultural
practices
and
religious
beliefs
(McClelland, 1962; Banfield, 1958).
In recent
years
there has been a serious
questioning
of the
evolutionary
approach. Critiques
such as those
by
Frank
(1969b)
and Brett
(1974)
have led
to a search for a new theoretical framework for
interpreting
and
explaining
development
and
underdevelopment.
The most
consequential
result of this
search has been the
emergence
of a new
model, generally
called
dependency
theory. Special
issues of
journals (Latin
American
Perspectives
1, 1;
Bulletin
of
the Institute
of Development
Studies
3, 4;
and Social and Economic Studies
22,
1)
have been devoted to the examination of
dependency theory,
and this
perspective
has
generated
a
great
deal of comment in
scholarly
and academic
circles.
The attractiveness of the
dependency approach,
in our
view,
stems from the
fact that it
represents
an advance over the earlier model in four
major ways:
1. Unlike the
evolutionary model, dependency theory
does not assume the
"society"
or "nation" to be a self-contained unit. Rather it
recognizes
the fact
that there are
political
and economic
relationships among
social formations
and that these
relationships
have different
consequences
for each of those
formations.
2.
Dependency theory attempts
to be holistic. Whereas in the
earlier,
evolutionary
model there was a division of labor
among economists, political
scientists,
and
sociologists,
each
looking
at different characteristics of the
unit,
dependency
theorists have been
arguing forcefully (Frank, 1969b; Amin, 1974)
for an
integration
of the social sciences and their
subject
matter.
3. While
evolutionary theory
was idealist in its
attempts
to
explain
social
change (cf. Parsons, 1966), dependency theory
has looked
closely
at the
material bases of
organized
social
life,
in
particular
at the
growth
and extension
of the world
capitalist system.
4. At its
best, dependency theory
has been
historically specific, replacing
the
earlier
evolutionary stages (which
have
clearly
never been
experienced by
most
of the social formations in the
world)
with concrete
analyses
of historical
material.
These characteristics of
analysis may
be found in the work of Andre Gunder
Frank,
the most influential of the
dependency
theorists. Frank has
argued
that
there has been a
"development
of
underdevelopment"
outside of Western
Europe,
North
America,
and
Japan
as a
consequence
of
emerging relationships
among political-economic
formations which were
brought
into
being
as
capitalism expanded. Thus,
according
to
Frank,
400
.. the
expansion
of the
capitalist system
over the
past
centuries
effectively
and
entirely penetrated
even the
apparently
most isolated sectors of the
underdeveloped
world. Therefore the economic,
political,
social,
and cultural institutions and relations we now observe there are the
products
of the
historical
development
of the
capitalist system
no less than are the
seemingly
more modern or
capitalist
features of the national
metropoles
of these
underdeveloped
countries.
(1969b:5)
In other
words,
for the
period
of time that
capitalism
has formed the dominant
mode of
production
and distribution in the
world,
the most
important
fact
about
any
nation has been its relations with other nations. The modern
history
of
any given country,
Frank
asserts,
makes sense
only
as
part
of the
history
of
the
organized
world
system
that
capitalism historically
has created. As a
result,
any
observations of
contemporary
societies must be
explained
in terms of their
historical relations to other societies. If
they appear
backward
now,
their
relationships
are the
cause, just
as these same
relationships
are the cause of
what has been labelled
"development"
in other societies.
Frank's unit of
analysis
is not the individual
society,
but the relations
between societies. The set of all such
relationships
forms a world
system,
and
the holistic
study
of this
system
is the
place
to
begin
in
studying
its
consequences
for individual countries. If the
relationship
between two societies
results in
inequalities,
it makes sense to
study
the nature of the
relationship
in
order to understand both wealth and
poverty;
neither can be understood
alone,
in its own
terms, apart
from the one
relationship
which
simultaneously brought
both about. This is what Frank
(1968:32-39)
means
by
structuralism as a
measure of theoretical
adequacy.
Further,
Frank and other
dependency
theorists have
argued
that the main
relatonship
between societies has been an
exploitative one,
simultaneously
creating
wealth at one of its
poles,
the
metropolis (Frank),
or the centre
(Galtung, 1972; Amin, 1974),
and
poverty
at the other
pole,
the satellite
(Frank),
or the
periphery (Galtung, 1972; Amin, 1971; Wallerstein, 1973).
Furthermore,
according
to Frank and
Amin,
such
developing-
underdeveloping,
or
exploitative,
relations also exist at levels other than the
nation
state,
such as sub-national or cross-national
regions.
The value of the
dependency approach, then,
lies in its
recognition
that
development
and
underdevelopment
have taken
place
in the context of the
growth
of
capitalism
as a world
system.
The
approach usefully analyzes
relationships
between nations and sees both
development
and
underdevelopment
as
historically
observable
consequences
of those
relationships,
and it
attempts
to be holistic in its
perspective.
The
particular
success of the
approach
lies in its view of
underdevelopment
as a
product
of the
domination of one national
economy by
another. A
primary
mechanism in all
cases of
underdevelopment,
we learn in this
literature,
has been the
emergence
of a dominant social class within the
dependent underdeveloping nation,
which
participates
in the
exploitation
of the nation but is itself
dependent
on the
metropolis
or centre. It is in the tension between the
concepts
of inter-class and
international relations that
problems
first arise.
II. The
critique
of
dependency theory
While
dependency theory provides
a useful
starting point
for
analyzing
the
structural
changes, particularly
the
changing
class
structure,
created within an
underdeveloping
nation or
region (Wayne, 1975; Amin, 1971),
its difficulties
become
apparent
once one moves
beyond
these
historically
observable
401
consequences
of the
dependency
relation within individual satellites or
dependencies.
Frank (and
many
of the other
theorists)
set themselves the task
of
analyzing
the world
system
of relations in order to understand the causes and
structures of
underdevelopment.
As Frank
argues, only
a
complete,
holistic
analysis
will be an effective
guide
to the
understanding
of
exploitative,
underdeveloping
relations
among
national economies
(Frank, 1969b:32-39).
Having
set these standards for
itself, however,
the
dependency
literature has
not lived
up
to them.
Beginning
with
assumptions
and data based on
dyadic
relationships
between
nations,
dependency
theorists have come
up against
formidable obstacles in their
attempts
to
produce
an
adequate
model of the
world social and economic structure. In the
dependency perspective,
the world
system
is seen as
(1)
a cumulation of bilateral
relationships
between
nations, (2)
a
hierarchically
ordered set of
roles, (3)
a confused
product
of
relationships
which are in
part geographical
and in
part
social,
and
(4)
a
product
of
exchange
relations rather than relations of
production.
Let us take each of these
points
in
turn.
(1)
Bilateral relations. Frank
(1969a:67-73)
describes Chile's
change
from
being
a satellite of
Spain
to
being
a satellite of
England
when the
English
allied
themselves with the Chilean
landowning
class. This
change
was
predicated
on
Spain's
own transformation from world
metropolis
to satellite. How did this
transformation in
Spain's
structural
position
come about? Frank leaves this
transformation
unanalyzed.
Samir Amin
(1971:109)
finds West Africa
underdevelopment
affected
by
"the shift of centre of
gravity
of trade in Africa from the Savannah hinterland
to the coast" which was itself "a direct
consequence
of the
change
of centre of
gravity
in
Europe,
from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic." At the same time
there was a shift to mercantile
capitalism. Why
did the centre of
gravity
shift
within
Europe?
How did mercantile
capitalism
become the most
prominent
way
of
doing
business? These
questions
are unanswered in Amin's account.
The work of the
dependency
theorists
provides compelling
evidence of the
descriptive power
of the
underdevelopment
and
dependence
framework: it
leads to
questions
about the historical transformation of class relations within
dependent
societies as
they
are
incorporated
into a
changing
world
capitalist
system (Frank, 1972:30), questions
which cannot be asked within the
functionalist, evolutionary
framework and whose answers lead to much
greater
insight
into
contemporary
forms of
underdevelopment.
Yet this
dependent
incorporation
into a world
system
has been treated in these
empirical
studies as
a
given,
itself
unanalyzed.
Each satellite had a series of bilateral relations of
dependency,
and unexamined
changes
from one
dependent relationship
to
another are seen as causal in
analyzing changes
in its internal
organization.
But
this set of bilateral relations
poses
two
overriding
theoretical and
methodological problems.
First,
how are these bilateral relations structured at
the level of the world
capitalist system?
And
second, given
a commitment to
holism,
what are the
dynamics
in the world
system
which determine "shifts at
the centre" with their dramatic
consequences
for the
peripheries
of the world?
(2) Hierarchy.
Frank and other
dependency
theorists have had difficulties in
developing
a coherent
picture
of a world
system
for which the
analytical
starting point
is bilateral
relationships among
nations. If the
analyst
takes a set
of two nations in which one nation
exploits
the
other,
then adds to that a
402
second such
set,
then a third such
set,
and so on until all nations are
included,
the
picture
is an
unorganized aggregate
of
sets,
not a coherent structure.
Thus,
attempts
are
being
made in the
dependency
literature to cumulate these
bilateral
relationships using
different
strategies
for
linking
the sets of nations.
Frank's
strategy
is to build on the observation that in each bilateral
relationship
one or both of the nations can be linked to another nation in a
comparable relationship
of
exploitation
and
surplus appropriation.
Nation A
may exploit
nation
B,
but B in turn
may exploit
C while A is
being exploited by
Q. Thus,
when
talking
about the
relationships among France, Spain, Chile,
and
Peru,
and about
relationships
within Chile
itself,
Frank steers our attention to
"the
capitalist
structure of chain-linked
metropolis-satellite
constellations"
(1969a:38-39).
This
chain,
we are told
elsewhere,
"extends from the
macrometropolitan
centre of the world
capitalist system
'down' to the most
supposedly
isolated
agricultural
workers . ."
(1969a:16).
This chain of
relationships
is a chain of
exploitation
and of
surplus appropriation; surpluses
which
originate
in the mines and
agricultural
areas are transferred
along
a
chain until
they
come to the
macrometropolis where, presumably, they
are
recycled
into new investments.
This formulation leads to some
insights
into the
dynamics
of
capitalism
within the
satellite;
for
example, portions
of the
surplus
are retained
by
the
dependent capitalist
class in the satellite nation.
However,
the formulation is
less
satisfactory
if one follows the chain
through
to its
macrometropolitan
end.
There are
many
chains of
dependency corresponding
to each micro-satellite.
Either all chains are connected at the
top
to one ultimate
macrometropolis,
forming
one world
hierarchy;
or several chains are
joined
to one of several
macrometropoles, forming
several
hierarchies;
or a series of
independent
chains
exist. If there is a series of
independent chains,
either there is not a world
system,
in which all
parts
are
connected,
or we are unable to determine in
any
logically
consistent fashion what the
relationship
is between
Q
(in
the chain
Q,
A, B, C)
and each link in
any
other chain. If there are several
hierarchies,
each
composed
of several chains
culminating
in
macrometropoles,
we are unable to
derive
consistently
the
relationship
between the
macrometropoles.
If there is a
single
world
hierarchy, culminating
in one ultmate
macrometropolis,
then
problems
of structural
dynamics
become
acute;
as we shall see when we
examine the work of
Wallerstein,
it becomes
impossible
to
explain
the
changing
of world
macrometropoles except
within a static overall structure.
Thus, questions concerning anything
but direct vertical relations between
two national economies cannot be
provided
without
weakening,
or
abandoning
altogether,
the notion of chains of
exploitation.
One
solution, therefore,
is to
abandon
relationships
as the unit of
analysis
and to focus on the nation. Then
questions
about the
degree
to which the nation
exploits
others and is itself
exploited
can be asked.
Subsequently,
one can rank nations
according
to the
degree
that
they exploit/are exploited.
These
rankings
do
not,
of
course, point
to
any
structured set of relations
among
nations but
merely
refer to
characteristics of nations taken individually.
1. A second and related solution is to make the
"metropolis"
the term
applied
to the
"environment" which causes
changes
in the
particular
satellite
being
studied. The
"metropolis"
then becomes an
increasingly
diffuse and
non-analytical term,
referring
to the universal
"exploiter"
which benefits from the
"surplus"
somehow extracted from the
dependency.
403
This
ranking
of individual nations does not fit with the notion of a
system
of
relationships
and the
problem
is to reintroduce
relationships
in such a
way
that
the observer can
regain
a sense of
systematic
connection
among
nations in the
world. Immanuel Wallerstein
(1973, 1974) attempts
to solve the
problem by
introducing
a world
"system
of stratification" which is
composed
of
core,
semi-
peripheral,
and
peripheral
countries
(1973:1-2, 1974:403-5).
All of these
countries are
capitalist,
because all
participate
in the world
capitalist
market.
Under certain circumstances
(such
as a
fight
over markets in times of
contraction),
there are
"possibilities
of
semi-peripheral
countries
moving
towards core status and
peripheral
ones
moving
towards
semi-peripheral
status"
(1973:16).
Advancement is made at the
expense
of
(other) peripheral
countries,
so that movement
up (or down)
the status ladder is made within the
existing system.
Wallerstein's
approach
to
introducing systematic
connections
among
nations
is, then,
to create the
ladder,
or status
hierarchy,
in which all
nations have a
place (1974:404).
Sociologists
are accustomed to
finding
such hierarchies in
descriptions
of
the formal
organization
of
corporations
and
government
bureaucracies.
Wallerstein's world of nations is
similarly
divided into three
levels,
in which
terms like "staff' and "cadre" reinforce the
implicit analogy
with formal
organizations (1974:404). "Core,"
"periphery,"
and
"semi-periphery"
are
analogous
to
"top management," "workers,"
and "middle
management."
Moreover,
there is "constant and
patterned
movement between
groups
of
economic actors as to who shall
occupy
various
positions
in the
hierarchy"
(1973:1).
This formulation
is,
in our
view, highly problematic.
It is difficult to
conceive of nations as conscious actors
jockeying
for
positions;
at a
minimum,
capitalist
nations must have a class structure in which there is
anything
but a
coherence of interests. If it is
really
the
capitalist
class within the nation that is
jockeying
for a new
position
relative to other national
capitalist classes,
then we
need some sense of the
relationships
between
capitalists
in different nations and
the intersection between these and the class relations within each nation.
At
bottom,
the
conception
of the
contemporary
world
economy
as a
single
corporate hierarchy
writ
large
raises more
questions
than it answers. How does
the
corporation change
its structure? In the
sociological
literature
corporations
change
in
response
to the "environment." But the environment for the whole
world
cannot, by definition, exist;
where could it be? Thus we are left with the
belief that the world structure cannot
change.
Wallerstein,
as we have
seen, argues
that all countries are
capitalist
because
they participate
in a unified world
capitalist
market. Wallerstein's
argument
rests on an
analogy
between the national
economy
and the individual firm: all
competitors
in the world market are
by
definition
comparable
social
actors,
whatever the differences in their success. But this definition
begs
the
question
of
the class structure of the "socialist" countries who trade on the markets
and,
hence,
of the
possibilities
for other countries to
reorganize
their social
structures in order to minimize
exploitative
relations within national
economies. If the class structure of socialist countries is a
priori capitalist
because
they
trade in world
markets,
does trade in such markets lead to
capitalist
class formation or stem from it? To avoid circular
reasoning,
we must
have an
independent
definition of class
relations,
and this must be the basis for
conceiving
of national economies as
capitalist
or socialist.
Moreover,
the
struggle
for
independence
from
exploitative capitalist
relations, through
404
reorganization
of internal class
relations,
must not be cast off
lightly.
Such
struggles
are a
potential
source of
change
in the world
capitalist system
as a
whole,
not
simply
in the relative status of nations.
Johann
Galtung (1972)
has
attempted
to introduce
systematic
connections
among
nations
by pointing
to divisions within
nations,
and
by pointing
to
competing empires composed
of relations between the divisions of several such
nations. These divisions within nations are not classes
(despite
his bow to Lenin
in a
footnote, 1972:97n)
but social
groupings
identified
by spatial metaphor:
centre and
periphery.
Given that each nation can also be central or
peripheral,
the outcome is a four-fold table with a centre in the
centre,
a centre in the
periphery,
a
periphery
in the
centre,
and a
periphery
in the
periphery.
Imperialism
is defined as that
type
of bilateral
relationship
between a central
nation and a
peripheral
one that features a
particular harmony
of interest
(between
the two
centres)
and
particular
disharmonies of interest
(between
each
centre and its
periphery
and between the two
peripheries).
The bilateral
relations thus cumulate into a series of hierarchies of nations
("feudal
interaction
structures"),
and there
are, apparently, competing empires.
There are
perhaps
more
possibilities
for
change
in
Galtung's model,
as
harmonies and disharmonies of
acting
units become redefined and as
empires
compete
with one another. But
Galtung's
formulation has the effect of
separating imperialism
and
underdevelopment
from
capitalism,
thus
moving
away
from the
concept
of a
capitalist
world
system altogether
and toward a
simple
Great Power
conception. Galtung's
centre and
periphery
within each
nation,
groupings
identified in terms of a
spatial metaphor,
do not lead to a
concrete view of class
dynamics. Imperialism
becomes a
separate concept
which
supplants capitalism
as a
description
of the
dynamics
of the world
system,
rather than
being
its historical
outcome,
and the materialist basis of the
analysis
is lost. With
independently defined,
ahistorical
categories,
the whole
analysis
becomes an abstract formalist exercise in
logical possibilities:
Two
capitalistic empires may
be in
competition,
but
they may
also sub-divide the world between
them into
spheres
of interest so that
periphery
relations become more neutral. In this first
phase
one
empire may fight
to
protect
itself in the
competition
with another
capitalistic empire,
but in a
second
phase they may join
forces and more or less
merge
to
protect
not this or that
particular
capitalist empire,
but the
system
of
capitalism
as such. And we could also
easily imagine
a third
phase
where
non-capitalist empires join
with
capitalist empires
in the
pattern
of 'united
imperialism,'
for the
protection
of
imperialism
as such.
(1972:130)
In
sum,
the
attempt
to reintroduce
systematic
connections
among
nations after
they
have been
categorized
and ranked has not been successful. Frank's chains
cannot be maintained if one
contemplates
the
necessity
of
understanding
relationships among
links in different hierarchies or
among
different chains
connected at the
top
into the same
hierarchy;
Wallerstein's
corporate analogy
leaves us without the
possibilities
of structural
change
in the
system
as a whole
as well as within
any
of its
parts;
and
Galtung
makes
explicit
what Wallerstein
has left
implicit, namely,
that
capitalism
and
imperialism
are
separate
phenomena
and that a
priori
tendencies to
predation
on the
part
of dominant
groups
in centre countries can
replace
class structure based on material
relations of
production
as the
starting point
of the
analysis. Thus,
universal
exploitation
of nations
by
other nations is taken as a
given,
and relations
among
states becomes the focus of
analysis
of a
purportedly
economic relation.
Any
reference to
"capitalism"
is
simply
a label attached to the
existing system
and
plays
no
part
in the
analysis.2
405
But
why
do
imperialism
and
underdevelopment
take
place? Surely
if there is
imperialism
in a "world
capitalist system,"
it must have
something
to do with
capitalist
relations of
production.
If all forms of
organization
of the labor
process, including slavery
and feudal
obligations,
are
"capitalist" by
virtue of
the existence of a world
market,
as Frank and Wallerstein argue, then the
examination of these different forms is
secondary
at best. Unless the
dynamics
of
capitalist production
are
examined,
it is difficult to understand
why
-
as
opposed
to how
-
dependency
relations are
generated.
To conceive of
nations,
or even
groups
within
nations,
as social
actors,
motivated
by
self-interest to
achieve
higher positions
in a status
hierarchy,
is to fall short of
constructing
an
adequate explanation
of the world
capitalist system.
(3)Class
and
region.
While it is useful to describe the
spatial relationships
among cities, towns,
and
regions,
these
descriptions
of
spatial relationships
do
not
explain
the nature of the interaction between and
among
social units. We
have seen in
Galtung's analysis
that a
spatial metaphor
can be taken
quite
seriously,
and
ultimately replace
class
dynamics
and the
dynamics
of social
organization
in
general,
as the
starting point
for
understanding
underdevelopment. Although
it is
clearly
the case that there is a
spatial
distribution of
population,
wealth, technology,
and
many
other variables over
the world's
landscape,
it is our
argument
that this
spatial
distribution is a
product
of structured
relationships
rather than a cause. The world's wheat
supply
can be
grown
in a
very great many places,
and the fact that
today
a
very
great proportion
of it is
grown
in
Canada,
the United
States, Argentina,
and
Australia,
rather than Russia, Hungary,
or
India,
has much more to do with the
organization
of
capital
and labor
internationally
than with
topographical
and
soil features on the one hand or
transportation
costs on the other
(Friedmann,
1976). Again,
the fact that one
productive activity
rather than another came to
be initiated in a
particular
location
may
have
very
little to do either with the
precapitalist history
of that location or with its
geographical potential (cf.
Wayne, 1975).
Although
this
argument
underlies
dependency analyses
at first
glance,
close
examination reveals inconsistencies. Frank's
categories
are a confused and
confusing
combination of the social and the
geographical:
cities,
such as
London,
New
York,
or Sao
Paolo,
exploit
other
cities,
as well as
agricultural
workers who
frequently
form the end of his
exploitative
chain. The
problems
of
the
hierarchy
of nations and
regions
are thus
compounded by
the confusion
about whether it is social
groups
or
geographical
areas which
occupy positions
in the
hierarchy (or
links in the
chain).
Frank's
reply
to critics
accusing
him of
replacing
class with
geographic analysis
is well-taken
only
in
part.
Given his
advocacy
of the
study
of
relations from the
perspective
of
the satellite
(1969b: 111),
he is able to describe
"underdevelopment
in a
dependent region
such as Latin American ... as the
product
of a
bourgeois
2. Wallerstein defines
capitalism
as
commodity production ("for profit")
both in the
summary
article criticized here
(1974)
and in his more extensive historical
study.
But states do not
exchange goods; they govern regions
across whose boundaries
goods
are
exchanged.
Consequently
the mechanism connecting political
and economic relations should be more
clearly specified,
and the
conception
of economic terms such as
"capitalism" developed
more
fully.
For a further
critique
of Wallerstein's work see
Skocpol (1977).
406
policy
formulated in
response
to class interests and class
structure,
which are in
turn determined
by
the
dependence
of the Latin American satellite on the
colonialist, imperialist metropolis" (1972:1).
But what
emerges
is a
confusing
combination of class
analysis
and
geographical description.
Frank
appears
to
owe much to the
geographers
in his
description
of the chains of
metropolis-
satellite
relationships.
Here is Skinner's
description
of central
place theory,
to
which we shall add (in
brackets)
a translaton into Frank's
wording:
Central
places
-
the
generic
term for
cities,
towns and other nucleated settlements
[metropoles]
with central service functions
[surplus appropriating roles]
-
may
be classified in a
variety
of
ways.
The
approach
taken here follows the lead of Christaller and Losch. In the
analytical
tradition which
stems from these
scholars,
a
given
central
place [metropolis] may
be
typed according
to its
position
in
interlocking spatial [exploitative] systems,
within which economic function
[degree
of
exploitation]
is associated with hierarchical level.
(1972:563)
Similarily,
the
Chicago
school of urban
sociology
conceived of hierarchies of
regional
domination:
An
example
of this ...
type
of
region
is the trade
area,
which is delineated
by
the network of
economic interconnections that holds it
together
and which can be described in terms of the radii of
influence which extend from the center outward. The
importance
of such
regions
in historical and
contemporary
societies
may
be indicated
by pointing
to the role of rural trade
centers,
metropolitian regions,
and cultural and
political capitals,
which extend their tentacles out in all
directions and influence the life of their
regions
in
varying degrees. (Wirth, 1964:210)
Countless studies within social science have noticed these
unequal spatial
relationships.
To describe
them, however,
is a different matter from
explaining
them, which,
we
argue,
can most
compellingly
be done
through
an examination
of structured social
relationships, particularly
social class. Frank does
attempt
to do
this,
as
phrases
such as
"imperialism,"
"national
bourgeoisie,"
and
"peasants"
indicate. But he does not
distinguish
between his
description
of
regional inequalities
and his
analysis
of the class relations within and
among
them,
which result in the observed distributions of functions. While the
geographical description logically
results in a
hierarchy
of bilateral
relations,
it
is invalid to transfer this
perception
of the
regional
structure of the
system
to
the class relations which underlie it.
Frank's central
analytical question
concerns the actual and
potential
role of
the national
bourgeoisie
in the satellite.
Thus,
from the
perspective
of the
satellite,
it is
presumed
to be
enough
to know that
surplus
is
appropriated
from
outside in order to be able to examine class relations within the satellite.
However,
Frank's
great
contribution lies
exactly
in his insistence that
"development"
and
"underdevelopment"
are
opposite
sides of the same
coin,
that both are caused
by
the same
dependent, exploitative
relation.
Thus,
he
succeeds in
examining
class relations within the
dependency,
which result from
relations of
dependency,
but he cannot examine the class relations within the
imperialist metropolis.
These must
logically
bear at least the same
importance
to the
relation as the class relations within the satellite. His
first "contradiction" of
"expropriation/appropriation
of economic
surplus"
is
based on the existence of external and internal
monopoly
in a satellite such as
Chile. But the actual
analysis
is of the
organization
of the internal
monopoly
only,
with a
demonstration,
but not
analysis,
of the fact that "external
monopoly
has
always
resulted in the
expropriation
of the
significant part
of the
economic
surplus produced
in Chile and its
appropriation by
another
part
of
the world
capitalist system" (1967:6-7).
Thus,
one can describe and demonstrate mechanisms of transfer out of
407
Chile,
and one can
analyze
the
resulting
class relations within Chile. But one
cannot,
with a bilateral
dependency
model and this
perspective, explain
the
internal class
dynamics
of the
metropolis leading
to external
exploitation,
that
is, imperialism.
Nor can one
explain
how one
imperialist
nation
replaces
another as the
appropriator
of the
surplus
of a
given
satellite. Frank has
responded
to these
analytical problems,
not
by sorting
out the confusion
between
region
and class as
analytical categories
nor
by attempting
a
truly
global analysis
of
imperialism
as he in
principle advocates,
but
by making
the
metropolis
an ever
greater
abstraction. In a work directed to
answering
his
critics, Lumpendevelopment
and
Lumpenbourgeoisie (1972), processes
of
underdevelopment
are attributed
decreasingly
to
specific metropolis-satellite
relations and
increasingly
to an abstract "world
metropolis."
For
example,
whatever the
changes
in its
metropoles,
and these have been
three,
the whole
history
of
Argentine underdevelopment
is summarized as follows:
The bulk of the
capital
available for investment was channeled, by
the institutions
of
underdevelopment,
into
mining, agriculture, transport,
and commercial
export enterprises
linked to
the
metropolis;
almost all the rest went to
luxury imports
from the
metropolis,
with a
very
small
share left for manufactures and
consumption
related to the international market. Because
of
commerce and
foreign capital,
the economic and
political
interests of the
mining, agricultural
and
commerical
bourgeoisie
were never directed toward internal economic
development.
The relations
of
production
and the class structure of the latifundia, and of
mining
and its economic and social
"hinterlands," developed
in
response
to the
predatory
needs of the overseas and the Latin American
metropolis.(1972:23) (emphasis added)
If the italicized
phrases
are
removed,
what is left is a
simple description
of
what
happened,
not
analysis.
The
imprecise
nature of the
explanatory concepts
makes them little more than a label for unexamined and
unexplained
"causes"
of observed
consequences.
A later
description
relies on the
transportation
network as the model for the structure of
exploitation
within Latin America
(1972:69-70), indicating
once
again
that the source of the
problem
is the
confusion of
geographical description
of
consequences
of the
structure,
with
analysis
of the structure itself.
(4)Relations of production
and
exchange.
The basis of this
conceptual
confusion is the
primacy given
to relations of
exchange
rather than relations of
production.
It is
certainly
true that
capitalist exchange
relations have
penetrated
the remotest areas and
populations,
conceived both
geographically
and
socially.
It is also true that in order to monetize economic
relations,
thus
providing
the basis for
exchange throughout
the
world, capital
has
systematically destroyed
the basis of
independent
social
organization
of
every
population previously
outside its orbit. Once these bases of
self-sufficiency
were
removed,
the
population
was forced to
play
a
part
within world markets. But
while the movement of
capital
into hitherto
virgin territory
can be described in
geographical
terms,
the creation of a
peasantry and/or
a
proletariat
must be
analyzed
in terms of social class. In other
words,
the
newly
established
relations of
production
are the basis for
understanding
the
exchange
relations
among geographically
defined units.
Unless attention is
paid
to relations of
production,
a number of
questions
will
go
unanswered. The most
important
of these
questions
concern the
dynamics
of
capitalism,
which has
historically expanded
in terms of
exchange
and
commodity production.
It has drawn more and more
people
into
productive
roles within the
system. Why
was this the case? What is the
408
connection between the
growth
of
monopoly
or the relations between merchant
and industrial
capital
on the one hand and colonialism or
dependence
on the
other?
Why
is there
underdevelopment
within the
metropolitan countries,
and
indeed,
within those
very metropoles
that are identified as the ultimate termini
of the
surpluses
extracted from the
underdeveloped regions
and nations? We
suggest
that these
questions
cannot be answered without
focusing
on class
relations. As we have
seen, analyses
of
underdevelopment
that do not make
class the central
analytical category
leave the "world
capitalist system"
as
unspecified
as the functionalists' "environment."
The
problems generated by attempting
to
analyze dependence
without
making
class a
part
of the
analysis
are demonstrated in the influential work of
Arghiri
Emmanuel. Emmanuel
(1972) presents
us with a world order
composed
of
hierarchically arranged
rich and
poor countries,
each
"exploiting"
the
one(s)
below.
Basing
his
argument
on the two
assumptions
of labor
immobility
and
capital mobility internationally,
Emmanuel redefines Marx's labor
theory
of
value
(Bettelheim, 1972:110-115)
in neo-classical terms of "factors of
production,"
transforms Marx's cost of
production
formalae
accordingly
and
"proves" that
"unequal exchange"
between nations is based on differential
wages (that is,
a smaller
proportion
of the
product produced
in
underdeveloped
countries
goes
to the
labor,
as
opposed
to the
capital, factor).
It is
unnecessary
to delve into the technicalities of the
formalae,
since Emmanuel's
analysis
falls
down on two
grounds. First,
his central
assumption
of labor
immobility
is
incorrect.
Capital organizes
labor for
production internationally
no less than
nationally. Immobility
of labor
internationally superficially appears
to be the
case at some
periods,
but this must be seen in the
light
of the fact that
capital
has
organized
mass
migrations
both to colonies at the end of the nineteenth
century (Bettelheim, 1972:299)
and from southern to northern
Europe today.
In
periods
when labor
power
is
organized
more or less
stably
within national
boundaries,
this is no less a
consequence
of
capitalist
relations of
production
than are
migrations. Second,
monopoly organization
of
capital internationally
is an
empirically
demonstrable fact. Emmanuel bases his
argument
of the
division of the
product
between
capital
and labor on the
assumption
of a
free,
though nationally segmented,
market. But
monopoly organizes production
and,
as a
consequence, exchange internationally.
Emmanuel
completely
misunderstands
monopoly,
as indicated in his one discussion of it:
As for the actions of the
monopolies,
of which Marxist authors talk so
much,
this
question
is as
remote from our
subject
as
any
other form of direct
plunder
of the
underdeveloped
countries
by
the
rich and
strong
ones.
(1972:93)
If
monopoly initially emerges through capitalist dynamics
in the
imperium, by
this
logic
the
imperium
is no
longer capitalist
but some
system
of "direct
plunder" domestically
as well. He continues the discussion
by adding
that
"some Marxist writers find that the
monopolies
cannot
figure
as a factor in
non-equivalence
since
they
are rife on both sides of the barrier"
(1972:94).
But
monopolies
are not
exclusively national;
it is
exactly
the "multi-national
corporations"
which invest
capital
in
underdeveloped
countries and
provide
the
major
outlet for their
products.
Bettelheim's
critique
of Emmanuel is
penetrating.
Consistent with the
Marxist
analysis
of
imperialism,
in which world
economy
is defined as "a
system
of
production
relations
and,
correspondingly,
of
exchange
relations on
a world scale"
(Bukharin, 1973:26),
he
argues
that
409
... the
poverty
of the
'poor
countries' and the wealth of the 'rich countries,' that
is,
their economic
inequality,
is
'prior'
to
exchange
between them and to what is called the
'inequality'
of this
exchange.
It results from world
relationships
of domination and
exploitation
and from the effects
of these relations on the
development
of the
productive
forces and on the transformation of the
relations of
production. (1972:292)
In other
words, capital
is
organized
on a world
scale,
with both international
and national
aspects. Through
investment in the
production
of different
commodities at different
technological levels,
it
organizes
different class
structures
(relations
of
production)
in different areas. The resultant
exchange
of these commodities at
any given
moment
may
be
analyzed,
but it will never
lead in its own
right
to an
understanding
of the different relations of
production
which resulted in the commodities
being exchanged.
It is now
possible
to
identify
the contribution made
by dependency theory
and to see the
ways
in which one
might
build
upon
it to create a more
holistic,
structural account of
underdevelopment.
The
dependency
literature
usefully
focuses our attention on relations
among
nations and
regions.
It focuses our
attention on the fact that
development
and
underdevelopment
are linked and
that both have taken
place
in a world
integrated through capitalist
relations of
production
and
exchange.
And it
provides
us with a model for
understanding
the structural
changes
created within
underdeveloped
areas.
Dependency
theory
as it now
stands, however,
has not moved
beyond analysis
of bilateral
relations between nations
and, hence,
has tended to
conceptualize
the world of
nations as a static
hierarchy
which does not
change,
save for movements of
individual nations. The
body
of work in this tradition has taken
spatial
metaphors
and
spatially
defined units much too
seriously. Consequently,
the
analysis
has rested on
exchange relations,
with
relatively
little attention
paid
to
the relations of
production,
which,
we
argue,
underlie them.
It is our
argument
that the
major
contribution of
dependency theory
can be
enhanced,
and the
problems
eliminated, through
its careful
integration
with
Marxian theories of
capitalism
and
imperialism.
The works of
Lenin,
Bukharin,
and
Luxemburg present
a view of
capitalist dynamics
that
gives
more
precise meaning
to the "world
capitalist system"
to which Frank and the
other theorists make reference.
III.
Imperialism
and
underdevelopment
It is
important
at the outset to
identify
one of the
major shortcomings
of the
Marxist literature on
underdevelopment, namely,
the modified
"stages" theory
so often
employed.
For
example,
Bettelheim
frequently
refers to the
"hindering"
or
"blocking"
of the
development
of the
productive
forces in the
colonies
(1972:289
for
example). Similarly, Luxemburg postulates
a forced
progression by imperialism
from "natural
economy"
to
"simple commodity
production"
to
capitalist
relations of
production (1968:466-467).
These
stages
are not consistent with actual historical
developments. Frank, by viewing
underdevelopment
as a distortion of
pre-contact
relations of
production
and
exchange
within the
dependent
area,
has
provided
an invaluable
replacement
of
the
blocking concept
in the classical literature.
On its
part
the classical Marxist literature on
imperialism
furnishes us with
a
conceptual
framework and a set of historical studies that allow us to
overcome the difficulties encountered
by dependency theory
as it now stands.
In this section we shall draw on some of the theoretical
propositions
and
410
empirical generalizations generated by
these writers in order to
present,
in
condensed and
simplified
form,
a
perspective
on the world
capitalist system
that will be
productive
in terms of research
questions
on
development
and
underdevelopment.
We shall
begin
with the
proposition
that
historically capital
has tended to
expand
to
virtually
all
parts
of the world and all
populations.
This
proposition
is
historically
evident: the
story
of trade and
production
on
every
continent
since the industrial revolution is one of
increasing interdependence
with
capitalist organizations
based in
Europe, and,
more
recently,
North America
and
Japan.
While there have been national economies at
specific
times which
have
disengaged
themselves to
varying degrees
from world
markets,
such as the
USSR and
post-revolutionary
China,
this resulted from
anti-imperialist
struggles
and thus reinforces the main
point, namely,
that
through inducing
commodity production
for a world market
capital
has come to
permeate
virtually every
section of the
globe.
This
expansion
of
capital
has taken
place (a) by
the
export
of
capital, (b) by
the
enlargement
of
markets,
and
(c) by
the creation of
peasantries
and
proletariats,
as well as the creation of
dependent bourgeoisies (that is, by
bringing populations
with
pre-capitalist
relations of
production
into
exchange
relationships
with
capitalist organizations).
These
expansions
have taken
place
both within
predominantly capitalist
national economies and into
separate pre-
capitalist
areas. At the
highest
level of
generality,
there is a structural
similarity
between
English peasants
forced off the
land, thereby providing
a
pool
of labor
for the
factories,
and African
peasants similarly
forced
temporarily
or
permanently
to labor in mines or
plantations.
While the movement of African
peasants
comes at a later time in
history
and while
many
Africans have come to
play
a different version of the
proletarian role, structurally they
stand in the
same
relationship
to
capital
as
English workers,
then or now.
Capitalism
has
expanded
for a number of reasons.
Luxemburg (1968)
argues
that
capitalism
cannot sustain itself without constant
expansion. Any
particular capitalist organization and,
as we shall
argue,
therefore all
capitalist
organizations,
must
constantly
seek to
expand profits
and hence
expand (a)
the
amount of
capital
it has
invested, (b)
the size of its
markets,
and
(c)
the number
and
productivity
of its
employees.
It must
expand because,
at the
simplest level,
no
capitalist organization
exists in a
vacuum;
each has
competitors,
and
increasing
size and
scope
is the
only way
of
ensuring survival,
as much as that is
possible.
The
trend,
as both Bukharin
(1973)
and Lenin
(1963)
have
argued,
is for
increasing
concentration of
capital;
more and more
capital
is owned and
controlled
by
fewer and fewer
capitalist organizations.
This
trend,
facilitated
by
new
organizational
forms
(such
as cartels and
trusts),
in which bank and
industrial
capital
are
merged,
has
brought
the world to an
age
of
monopoly
capitalism. Organizations previously independent
are either driven out of
markets and hence
bought up
or
brought
to
bankruptcy
or
integrated vertically
with other
organizations. Monopoly capitalism
does
not, however,
mean an
end to
competition.
At its most
extreme,
state
capitalism,
the
capitalist
organization
must still
compete
with others
organized
within other countries
(Bukharin,
1973:122
ff).
Even before this
degree
of
capital
concentration is
reached, however,
the state is
clearly involved, militarily
and in other
ways,
in
protecting
and
extending
the domestic and
foreign
interests of national
411
capitalist organizations.
Imperialism
and
underdevelopment
can
only
be
understood,
it
follows, by
paying
attention to
competition among capitalist organizations
and the role of
the state in
promoting
the welfare of
specific groups
of
capitalists
under
specific
historical conditions. As Brett
(1974)
has shown in his
study
of East Africa in
the
period following
the First World
War,
the British
government sought, by
means of its direct control over its East African
colonies,
to
promote
the
welfare of British
capitalists.
British attitudes to colonial
development
were
decisively
conditioned
by
her needs as a
major
manufacturing
and
capital exporting country.
The
resulting
demand for external markets and
cheap
sources of raw materials had
always
influenced
policy;
these demands were
greatly
intensified
by
the effects of the
War,
which
suddenly exposed
her
competitive
weakness and
heightened
the
importance
of markets which could be
directly
controlled
through
the colonial
system. (1973:71)
While colonialism in
general
was
regarded
as
good
for the welfare of
capitalist
enterprise,
Brett
goes
on to show that
specific government
action was
undertaken to
help specific groups
of manufacturers who were in
particular
difficulty
and who were
structurally
related to
government decision-making
bodies. Thus the textile
industrialists,
faced with rises in raw cotton
prices,
received a
great
deal of
governmental help.
"Their needs were to be of
prime
importance
in
determining
both the nature of the aid
programme ultimately
evolved in East Africa and the areas in which it was to be
spent" (1973:121).
The British
government
increased the
profit position
of the textile industrialists
by taking
a number of
steps: they
underwrote research into
tropical
cotton
growing,
introduced
preferential
tariffs,
furnished an infrastructure at
great
capital
cost
(largely railways),
and
paid
a
great
deal of attention to
working
with
peasants
in order to
develop
cotton cultivation in the East African
colonies.
Brett's
example
reinforces the
point
taken from the classical literature: in
order to understand
underdevelopment
we must understand the search for
competitive advantage
undertaken
by specific
blocs of national
capital
at
specific
historical
periods.
The fact that vast areas of Tanzania and
Uganda
are
today
under cotton
cultivation,
rather than devoted to subsistence
agriculture
or an alternative cash
crop,
has to do
directly
with the crisis in the British textile
industry following
the First World War and the
steps
undertaken
by
the British
government
to solve that crisis.
Thus,
as Wallerstein
(1974) argues,
the
specifics
of
drawing
a
previously unintegrated population
into
exchange
relations with
specific capitalist organizations,
and hence into
relationships
which result in
underdevelopment,
can be understood
by looking
at
capitalist
rivalries and the
role of the state in
undertaking
actions on behalf of
capitalists.
But the fact that
African cotton is
produced through peasant agriculture
rather than a
plantation
or
tenancy system
as in the US South must be
explained through
the
specific
intersection
among capitalist organizations, states,
and
existing
social
relations.
Imperialist expansion
to secure the
supply
of cotton for
English
factories took different forms in different colonies or
dependencies
at different
times,
a
problem
that can be addressed
only through
simultaneous
analysis
of
each case of
underdevelopment
within the holistic
perspective
of
imperialism.
This
requires
an examination of
changing
social
relations, especially productive
relations,
in their own
right.
The result also has a
great
deal to do with class contradictions within the
metropolitan economy. Imperial
initiatives in East Africa were taken with one
412
eye
on
growing unemployment
and
underemployment
in Britain
(Brett,
1973:117). Imperialist
initiatives
are, however, capitalist initiatives, although
"bamboozled" workers
may identify
with the
expansionist
interests of national
capital (Bukharin, 1973:162-163). Imperialism
feeds the concentration of
capital
and
provides
the additional
profits
that make
viable,
adding
to the
power
of
at the same time as their
interests and the interests of the state become intertwined.
In the
process
of
extending capitalist
interests into new lands and
territories,
the
metropolitan
class structure
reproduces itself,
with the difference
(as Frank
has made
very clear)
that the colonial
bourgeoisie
is a
dependent bourgeoisie,
whose
position depends
on the control over the
economy
maintained
by
the
external
capitalists.
To be
sure,
labor need not be
organized along
the lines
normally
found in the
metropolitan
countries
(Luxemburg, 1968:363-364).
It is
always necessary, however,
to
destroy
the
pre-existing economy (what
Luxemburg
called the "natural
economy")
in order to
integrate
the
population
into the world
capitalist economy.
But neither the
organization
of
peasants
and
workers as colonial
producers
nor the creation of consumer markets can be
understood without
making
reference to
changing
relations of
production
within the
metropolitan economy,
with
particular
reference to intra-national
and
(with growing relevance)
international
capitalist
rivalries
accompanied by
state intervention.
To see
underdevelopment
as a
product
of
relationships governed by capital
is a
great
advance over
widely
held
sociological
theories of social
change.
But
even the abbreviated
argument
of the classical theorists of
imperialism
which
we have
presented
adds
greatly
to the
understanding
of
underdevelopment
because it directs us to
historically specific
studies of such
relationships.
These
studies
suggest, among others,
the
following
lines of research:
1. Before the mid-nineteenth
century, capital
was
organized nationally
and
was
changing
from chartered
monopolies
to
formally independent
corporations.
Toward the end of the nineteenth
century,
colonialism was based
on a
partial
reversal of this
tendency,
with
corresponding changes
in the role of
the state.
Thus,
the
assumption
of colonial rule
by
the British state in India in
the mid-nineteenth
century, replacing
the rule of the East India
Company,
marked a shift in relations
among capitalist groups, among nations,
and
between
capital
and the state. Canadian
independence
and
incorporation
of
territory previously governed by
the Hudson's
Bay Company represented
a
different outcome in international relations
resulting
from the same basic shift
in the
capital-state
relation. Several decades
later,
the
partition
of Africa
represented
a renewed establishment of chartered
companies
and colonial
relations
among regions,
but within a
changed
context of relations
among
capitalist groups
and
among
states.
2. Under certain conditions
have
specific
requirements
which can be satisfied
only by extending
the domination of
European/American/Japanese
state and
capitalist power
into new territories
and
among
new
populations.
In terms of the
requirements
for raw
materials,
these arise at determinate times and are limited in
range
for each
group.
Insofar
as the extraction and
/
or
growing
of these raw materials is
concerned,
we
expect
to find in each case that
(a)
the time at which the
dependency
is drawn into the
capitalist order, (b)
the
organization
of
production undertaken,
and
(c)
the
413
existence
and/or
characteristics of
political
domination are all
likely
to be the
outcome of the intersection between the
specific
needs of the
capital groups
for
whom the raw materials are
being developed
and the
specific
conditions
governing
social relations in actual or
potential producing
areas. For
example,
the
organization
of
production
of
agricultural
materials on a
settler, plantation,
or
peasant
basis cannot be understood without simultaneous reference to the
capital
involved in
organizing production
of the
wheat,
the
sugar,
the
sisal,
et cetera and to the
prior
social conditions in the North American
prairies,
the
Caribbean,
and East Africa.
It
may
be useful here to
speak
of
underdevelopment strategies
that are
consciously
undertaken
by capitalist
and state
organizations.
Given that
underdevelopment
leads to increased
profits by
the
capitalist organization,
we
can chart
(insofar
as data are
available)
the
development
of
strategies
for
destroying existing
economies and
tying
the
population
to
capitalist
relations of
production
and
exchange.
These
strategies,
it is
suggested,
are formulated
much as other
strategies
for
increasing profits
are formulated. The
history
of
underdevelopment
can be seen as the
history
of
executing
these
strategies,
within the limits set
by
state and rival
capitalist organizations,
as well
as,
from
time to
time,
within the limits set
by populations
roused to the
struggle
for self-
determination.
Once the
problem
is studied in this
light, dependency theory
can become a
much more useful tool of
analysis.
Rather than
studying
bilateral
relationships
between
nations,
we must focus our attention on activities undertaken
by
and on the
populations
that are
brought
into a
relationship
with
capital
as workers or
peasants,
wherever
they
are found.
Workers, materials,
and markets are necessities for
capitalist organizations,
and there is
competition
for these necessities
among capitalist groups.
The
state,
as an
organization, helps
to secure these elements
through political
control and
military
intervention on behalf of the
intertwined with
it,
but this
relationship
is a
complex one,
not
necessarily
contained within the nation.
We
resist, therefore,
the notion that cities
exploit
hinterlands or that nations
exploit
nations. One
spatially
defined unit does not
exploit
another
spatially
defined unit.
Capital
does, however,
exploit
workers and defines the conditions
of
production
and
exchange
for
peasants.
While both are located in
space,
the
map
of where
they
are located does not obviate the need for
analysis
of the
productive
relations
-
as well as
exchange
-
that cuts across national
boundaries. There is no reason to assume that social relations follow the same
pattern
as more
clearly
visible international relations. On the
contrary,
the
complex
interrelations
among capitalists
in different branches of
production,
different forms of
productive organization,
and different states must be matters
for
empirical
research. At the same
time,
a model of their
evolving
interaction
at the
global
level must take into account as a central factor the
organization
of
production
of all commodities in all
regions. Thus,
the route to the common
goal
of historical
specificity
combined with
analytical universality (Wallerstein,
1974:391)
must include a focus on the relations of
production.
If this view has
merit,
it would not be out of
place
to
suggest
that even within the constraints of
a world
system, people
can affect their conditions of existence in all nations
by
altering
their social and
political
relations.
414
References
Almond,
Gabriel
A.,
and James S. Coleman, eds.
1960 The Politics
of
the
Developing
Areas. Princeton: Princeton
University
Press.
Amin,
Samir
1971
"Underdevelopment
and
dependence
in Black Africa: historical
origin."
Journal
of
Peace Research 2:81-117.
Banfield,
Edward C.
1958 The Moral Basis
of
a Backward
Society.
New York: Collier-Macmillan.
Berry,
Brian J.L.
1972 "Hierarchical diffusion: the basis of
developmental filtering
and
spread
in a
system
of
growth
centers." In P.W.
English
and R.C.
Mayfield,
Man,
Space
and Environment.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Bettelheim,
Charles
1972
Appendices I,
III and IV in
Arghiri Emmanuel, Unequal Exchange:
A
Study of the
Imperialism of
Trade. New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
Brett,
E.A.
1974 Colonialism and
Underdevelopment
in East
Africa.
London: Heinemann.
Bukharin,
Nikolai
1973
Imperialism
and World
Economy.
New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
Clairmont, Donald,
and Dennis
Magill
1974
Africville:
The
Life
and Death
of
a Canadian Black
Community.
Toronto: McClelland
and Stewart.
Cohen,
Abner
1969 Custom and Politics in Urban
Africa. Berkeley
and Los
Angeles: University
of
California Press.
Emmanuel, Arghiri
1972
Unequal Exchange:
A
Study of
the
Imperialism of
Trade. New York:
Monthly
Review
Press.
Frank,
Andre Gunder
1969a
Capitalism
and
Underdevelopment
in Latin America. New York:
Monthly
Review
Press.
1969b Latin America:
Underdevelopment
or Revolution. New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
1972
Lumpendevelopment
and
Lumpenbourgeoisie.
New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
Friedmann, Harriet
1976 "The Transformation of Wheat Production in the Era of the World
Market,
1873-1935:
A Global
Analysis
of Production and
Exchange." Unpublished
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Harvard
University.
Galtung,
Johan
1972 "Structural
theory
of
imperialism."
The
African
Review, 1(4):93-138.
Gerth, Hans,
and C.
Wright
Mills
1958 From Max Weber:
Essays
in
Sociology.
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Hempel,
Carl S.
1965
Aspects of Scientific Explanation.
New York: The Free Press.
Hill, Polly
1963
Migrant
Cocoa-Farmers
of
Southern Ghana.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kirwein,
Michael
1974 "The Prohibition of the African Leviatic Custom: An
Interdisciplinary Study
of the
Conflicts Between Christian
Teachings
on
Marriage
and the Leviatic Care of Widows in
Four African Societies."
Unpublished
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
University
of Toronto.
Leeds, Anthony,
and Elizabeth Leeds
1974 "Brazil and the
myth
of urban
rurality."
In Arthur J.
Field, ed.,
City
and
Country
in the
Third World.
Cambridge,
Mass.: Schenkman
Publishing Company.
Lenin,
V.I.
1970
"Imperialism,
the
highest stage
of
capitalism."
Selected Works, Volume 1. Moscow:
Progress
Publishers.
Lerner,
Daniel
1968 "Toward a communication
theory
of modernization." In S.N.
Eisenstadt, ed.,
Comparative Perspectives
on Social
Change.
Boston:
Little,
Brown and
Company.
415
Luxemburg,
Rosa
1968 The Accumulation
of Capital.
New York:
Monthly
Review Press.
McClelland,
David
1964 "Business drive and national achievement." In Amitai and Eva
Etzioni, eds., Social
Change.
New York: Basic Books.
Parsons,
Talcott
1966 Societies:
Evolutionary
and
Comparative Perspectives. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
1971 The
System of
Modern Societies.
Englewood
Parsons, Talcott,
and Edward
Shils,
eds.
1951 Toward a General Theory
of
Action. New York:
Harper
and Row.
Rostow,
W.W.
1960 The
Stages of
Economic Growth.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Skinner,
G. William
1972
"Marketing
and social structure in rural China." In P.W.
English
and R.C.
Mayfield,
eds., Man,
Space,
and Environment. New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Skocpol,
Theda
1977 "Wallerstein's world
capitalist system:
a theoretical and historical
critique."
American
Journal
of Sociology 82(5):
1075-1090.
Smelser,
Neil
1963 The
Sociology of
Economic Life. Englewood
Wallerstein,
Immanuel
1973
"Dependence
in an
interdependent
world: the limited
possibilities
of transformation
within the world
capitalist economy." Paper presented
at the
Conference
on
Dependence
and
Development
in
Africa, Ottawa,
16 to 18
February.
1974 "The rise and future demise of the world
capitalist system: concepts
for
comparative
analysis." Comparative
Studies in
Society
and
History, 16(4):387-415.
Wayne,
Jack
1975 "Colonialism and
underdevelopment
in
Kigoma Region,
Tanzania: a social structural
view." Canadian Review
of
Sociology and
Anthropology, 12(3):316-332.
Wirth,
Louis
1964 On Cities and Social
Life. Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
416

3340297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

3340297

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3340297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dependency Theory: A Critique

Author(s): Harriet Friedmann and Jack Wayne

You might also like