Developmentalism Ideolooogy or Tactics of Transnational Dependentism?

When the ideals of developmentalism reached the American continent, this ideology took on a global
significance in terms of the capitalist world-economy 1. However, as Ramón Grosfoguel and Arturo
Escobar demonstrate in their works, developmentalist thinking unfolded differently in the Latin
American periphery than it did in Europe during its passage towards modernity 2.

On the one hand, Grosfoguel brings Johannes Fabian's 'denial of coevalness' to the table to explain
the development of developmentalist ideas on the South American continent and the creation of a
double ideological engine3. This engine will facilitate the efforts of England firstly and then the United
States to achieve an industrial position in the capitalist world economic system. It is important to
note that Grosfoguel argues that develompemtalism first appeared on the continent at the end of
the eighteenth century and then between 1945-1990, a period which he himself considers to be a
part of the longue durée of the geoculture of modernity4.

On the other hand, Escobar's work, which is twenty years older than Grosfoguel's, describes the
European categorization of underdevelopment and the numerous conditions attached to this
artificial construct5. Under this categorization, many mechanisms of interventions took place in the
'undeveloped' countries from the developed ones, such as technological innovations, restructuring of
bureaucracy and also political support for many opposition leaders to take the power by force 6. All of
this focused on the development of growth as an aim and tool for encompassing forms of power and
system of control through knowledge and management mechanisms7.

Although both of the authors traced the develompentalist ideology at different times, they agree
that through underdevelopment categorization, the 'first world' took as a must the intervention of
the 'third world' with the argument of minimizing the international consequences of modern poverty
in the globe8 providing modern schemes in order to overcome the condition of 'backwardness'.

Thus, numerous cultural and social factors were the key to this transnational economic dependence,
which has continued to this day. Moreover, the contrasting political and economic contexts between
countries at different "stages" of development paved the way for the installation of economic and
political domination in countries categorised as underdeveloped, especially where ideas of national
protectionism were at the forefront during the Latin American national configuration. It seems to
make more sense for imperialist countries to bring modernisation in exchange for natural resources
than to solve the 'problem' of poverty.

1
Ramón Grosfoguel 2000. “Developmentalism, Modernity, and Dependency Theory in Latin America”: 347–74.
2
Idem; Arturo Escobar, 1995. Encountering Development, 21–55
3
Grosfoguel 2000. “Developmentalism, Modernity, and Dependency Theory in Latin America”: 347–74
4
Idem.
5
Escobar, 1995. Encountering Development, 21–55
6
Idem
7
Idem
8
Idem, Grosfoguel 2000. “Developmentalism, Modernity, and Dependency Theory in Latin America”: 347–74