Dependency Frank have become important names in
DependencyTheory and Reflections Name:Hüseyin Y?ld?r?m Dependency theory is thenotion that resources flow from a “periphery” of poor andunderdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching thelatter at the expense of the former.
It is a central contention of dependencytheory that poor states are weakenedand rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the”world system”.The theory arose as a reaction tomodernization theory, an earlier theory of development which held that allsocieties progress through similar stages of development, that today’sunderdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today’sdeveloped areas at some time in the past, and that, therefore, the task ofhelping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them alongthis supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment,technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependencytheory rejected this view, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merelyprimitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features andstructures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being theweaker members in a world market economy.
Dependency theory no longer has manyproponents as an overall theory, but some writers have argued for itscontinuing relevance as a conceptual orientation to the global division ofwealth. The theory of dependency emergedin Latin America in the 1960s. It was born in reaction to the theory ofmodernization, which tried to explain the backwardness of the eastern countriesbecause they did not go through the historical stages of the western countriesand lacked scientific-technological developments. Many scholars such as SamirAmin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernando Cardoso and Andre Gunder Frank have becomeimportant names in this theory. Addiction Theory is essentially an economictheory. Recently, it has become widespread in different fields and disciplines.
One of these disciplines has been international relations. “The Theory of Addiction is atheory of widespread understanding that criticizes the Western countries’relations with Third World countries in a fundamentalist manner since the1960s. The theory basically takes economic imperialism and argues that the mainpurpose of aid to underdeveloped countries is to take the poor countries to theeconomic tribulation of the helping country. According to addiction theorists,the reasons for the backwardness of the Third World countries are developedcountries. The development of these countries can be understood by looking athistorical processes, not their internal dynamics.
Non-Western societies havebeen forced to struggle with internal wars, bumps, etc., under the interventionof western states as colonial or semi-colonial. The political instabilities inthese countries are caused by their inability to have a single economic andcultural structure stemming from the interventions. The main reason for thewealth of developed countries is the exploitation of undeveloped countries.There is also uneven development and polarization between underdeveloped anddeveloping countries. As capitalist relations exist, it is inevitable thatthere will be uneven developments and there will be polarizations.
Third worldsocieties will not be able to access the status of developed countries as longas they follow capitalist countries.1Immanuel Wallerstein made a statement inthe World System Theory about the relation between developed and undevelopedcountries. According to Wallerstein’s “World System Theory”, thereare central, peripheral and semi-peripheral countries in the world. Accordingto this theory, there are certain division of labor between the central andperipheral countries. The role of environment in this division of labor is tosupply raw materials and cheap labor force to central countries.
The centerwith advanced technology produces advanced products. While it is necessary tosell environmental products at cheap prices, the center has to buy at highprices. Semi-environment is; the countries according to the center and thecountries in the center according to the periphery.
The belief that there is a dependencyrelation between undeveloped countries and developed countries in relationsbetween countries is the main assumption of this theory. It is to be emphasizedthat the dependency relation would prevent the development of undevelopedcountries. It is not possible for the developing countries to develop.
According to Samir Amin, one of theidea’s theoreticians of the theory, the foundation of the problem is thedependency on the central countries. And the way to get rid of this addictionis to end the relations of the peripheral countries with the central countries.Political, economic and cultural field-based demarcation must take place. Inthis case, the superiority and polarization of the center resulting fromexploitation will disappear. Thetheory of dependency has also been developed in the context of internationalrelations and the assumption that the foreign policies of developing andunderdeveloped countries, which are dependent on economic and other aspects todeveloped countries, can not be independent. Accordingly, developed countrieshave intense political control over undeveloped countries.
Developed countriesdo not make this determination by expressing their political wishes openly, butthey can do so by applying economic pressures. Some thinkers who disagree with thisapproach are now considering the assumption that interdependency relationsexist between countries, not dependency relations. In the context of mutualdependence, contrary to the dependency situation, which is directed by thepower relation, both parties are striving to carry out the relationship, evenat different levels. But this approach has been criticized by the theorists ofdependence for thinking that imperialism and colonial relations are ignored. Three issues made this policy difficultto follow. The first is that the internal markets of thepoorer countries werenot large enough to support the economies of scale used by the richercountriesto keep their prices low. The second issue concerned the political will of thepoorercountries as to whether a transformation from being primary productsproducers was possible ordesirable.
The final issue revolved around the extentto which the poorer countries actually hadcontrol of their primary products,particularly in the area of selling those products abroad. Theseobstacles tothe import substitution policy led others to think a little more creativelyandhistorically at the relationship between rich and poor countries.At this point dependency theory wasviewed as a possible way of explaining the persistent poverty of the poorercountries. The traditional neoclassical approach said virtually nothing onthisquestion except to assert that the poorer countries were late in coming tosolid economic practices and that as soon as they learned the techniques ofmodern economics, then the poverty would begin to subside. 2 However, Marxists theorists viewed thepersistent poverty as aconsequence of capitalist exploitation. And a new bodyof thought, called the world systemsapproach, argued that the poverty was adirect consequence of the evolution of the internationalpolitical economy intoa fairly rigid division of labor which favored the rich and penalized the poor.
The debates among the liberal reformers(Prebisch), the Marxists (Andre Gunder Frank), and the world systems theorists(Wallerstein) was vigorous and intellectually quite challenging. There arestillpoints of serious disagreements among the various strains of dependencytheorists and it is amistake to think that there is only one unified theory ofdependency. Nonetheless, there are some core propositions which seem tounderlie the analyses of most dependency theorists.
Thereare three common features to these definitions which most dependency theoristsshare.First, dependency characterizes the international system as comprised oftwo sets of states,variously described as dominant/dependent, center/peripheryor metropolitan/satellite. The dominant states are the advanced industiralnations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Thedependent states are those states of Latin America,Asia, and Africa which havelow per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of asingle commodityfor foreign exchange earnings.Second, both definitions have in common theassumption that external forces are of singularimportance to the economicactivities within the dependent states. These external forcesincludemultinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreignassistance,communications, and any other means by which the advancedindustrialized represent their economic interests abroad.
The Argentine economist Prebisch, bothacademically and practically because of the contributions it provides, as thepioneer of the structuralist approach. Prebish focused on the theories of freetrade in the period when the United Nations was running the presidency of theLatin American Economic Commission (ECLA). Prebish emphasized that theassumption of the “internationalization of each country from foreigntrade”, which is the classical theory of international trade, raises suspicion,thus pushing Latin American countries to addiction (Ercan, 2003: 126). The mainreasons for the underdevelopment of Latin American countries are fluctuationsin commodity prices in the short run and in the long run they are shown to bedependent on exports of raw materials, which tend to fall in relative prices. Prebisch analysis, participation inworld trade system with neoliberal-based policies and that it has resulted inloss for the developing country.
Forthis reason Prebish, the relationship between the central and peripheralcountries of the world economyand that this relationship constitutes the basicjustification of backwardness, and therefore calls for an orientation towardsimported substitute politics to ensure the development of underdeveloped peripheralcountries. Looking at the development of the dependency theory it is observedthat it develops in three main streams. These are the “neo-colonial schoolof addiction”, an “indirect paradigm of Marxist thinking”,”the paradigm of wrong paradigm” and “dual developmenttheology”. For neo-colonial dependency school, the backwardness andpoverty of third world countries depend on the historical development processof the unequal international capitalist system, which is based on rich-poor countryrelations. According to the wrong paradigm model, the backwardness and povertyof underdeveloped countries are associated with the wrong policy proposal forfighting against poverty by developed country-based authorities. 3 The recommendation of national and / or international aid agencies, as well as the policy ofcombating poverty by multinational corporations and international financialinstitutions, has not been taken into account in the structural features ofunderdeveloped countries, but rather by a wholesome approach.
Therefore,standard policies have not been successful with the same effect in economieswith different reasons for poverty. Accordingto the third and last trend of bilateral development, backwardness and povertyare the result of ongoing economic relations between the environment and thecentral countries. Centralizedsovereignty created in peripheral countries creates extreme distortions,deformities and disarticulation in the economies of neighboring countries. Thecapitalist expansion in peripheral countries leads to the deterioration ofinternal integrity in these countries, but it is blocking the path ofdevelopment. As a result, it is directed towards the outward-facing growthcenter needs. As a result, theeconomic structures of the peripheral countries were formed in favor of theexporters of the capital of the central countries. The theory of dependence was developedby Paul Baran in the 1950s with underdeveloped countrieshas been developed inthe context of relations between countries.
According to P.Baran, the interestsof underdeveloped countries are in conflict with the interests of developedcountries. Undeveloped countries, which send important raw materials thatdeveloped countries need, which provide their companies with huge profits orinvestment areas, are always indispensable hinterlands for developed countries. For this reason, the US and otherdeveloped countries oppose the industrialization and development of the underdevelopedcountries, which are called the resource countries, and they create all kindsof disabilities. According to P.Baran, the underdevelopment of capitalistdevelopmentalternative costs.
This alternative cost is in the process ofeconomic activity the value added created by commercial relations, relativelyless developed countriesas a result of disproportionate transfer to developedcountries.Concentration of value added emerging ininternational economic relations in developed countries results inimpoverishment of other countries. Development and underdevelopment areconsidered two sides of a medallion. Baran(1957); While the developed countries are obstacles to the development of theunderdeveloped countries, the other side of them is the political andideological deception as to the necessity of the development of thesecountries. The main purposeof the subsidies given to the underdeveloped countries is to reduce the demandfor industrialization of the society and to slow down the socioeconomicprogress by raising the living standards of the people of these countriesslowly and gradually (Baran, 1957: 120-122).
A.G.Frank,influenced by P.Baran’s views,the great states in the region and those whoencourage “free trade” in the world economythe concept of thedevelopment of underdevelopment, which has been developed to describe theconsequences of policies of international organizations, has an important placein the popularity of addictive schools in the 1970s (Ercan, 2003: 134;Wallerstein, 2004: 12). 4Your underdevelopment, like A.G. Frank,P.and that it is a phenomenon that exists together with capitalistexpansion.
Like most addictive theorists, A.G.Frank also has developed countriesand other to the transfer of the development of countries from developedcountries to developed countries through the exploitation of the resultingincrease. The important point that separates A.G. Frank from P.
Baran is that itrelies on the metropolitan-satellite connection to convey the economic surplus.Metropolitan countries are developed countries while satellite countries areunderdeveloped countries. According to this, the satellites can only develop aslong as they are not in conflict with the interests of the metropolises andwhen the metropolises allow it. ImmanuelWallerstein developed the world system theory. According to Baran,Unlike theleading names of the dependency theory like Frank and Amin, they changed theassumptions of dependency. Accordingly, the world system is the capitalistworld system. According to Walsstein, capitalism hasexisted since the 16th century and is concentrated in three regions: central,semi-periphery and periphery.
Thecenter is the sovereign power of the capitalist system and exploits theeconomic remnants of the periphery. According to Walzerstein, socio-economicstructure in semi-periphery and peripheral countries is determined by worldmarket opportunities, technological production possibilities and statestructure and politics are in the interests of the dominant forces.I.
Wallerstein says that the only way toget rid of this situation is to cut relations with the center. Moving from here, the revolutionarymovements in the world to end the oppressive attitude of the center of thecause, and on the part of the states this revolutionary it is expressed thatthere is a real expectation that the development of movements can be realizedin the real sense. Polisheconomist Oskar Lange, “the less developed countries to solve theproblemsmonopoly capitalism and imperialism did not allow the underdevelopedcountries to follow the path of traditional capitalist development.
“Monopoly capitalism and imperialism did not allow the underdevelopedcountries to follow the path of traditional capitalist development. That’s why you have it. The mostimportant thing is the shudder: the main capitalistin countries, thecapitalists there are less, with the development of large capitalist monopoliesthey were not interested in investment in development in developed countries;because this kind investments, a competition that may threaten their robustmonopolistic position As a result, developed countries’ investments inunderdeveloped countries have gained a special character.
The main objective ofthese investments was to exploit the natural resources used by the developedcountries as raw materials and to improve the production of nutrients inunderdeveloped countries to feed the populations in the developed countries. As a result, the economies ofunderdeveloped countries are uni-directional raw materials andhave becomeeconomies exporting nutrients. Foreigners in these countries the profitsgained by the capital are not used again for the investments in thesecountries,has returned to the countries where the capital has come. Theseprofits are the reality of modern economic development.
for any large-scaleindustry investment we know to be dynamicIt was used.(Dobb, 1981: 123-124) 5Explained all the way, explain thedependency theory, your underdevelopment capitalism is a phenomenon that occursin the developmental process. Developed countries development processes alsoconstitute the causes and processes of underdevelopment of underdevelopedcountries. Differences in development between countries, especially followingthe industrial revolution, have revealed the possibility of underdevelopment. The return of inter-country terms oftrade to developed countries has led to a steady increase in disparities indevelopment. From this point of view, it will not be wrong to say that povertyand underdevelopment are the result of capitalist expansion.
According todependency theoryRicardo’s criticism of the comparative advantages theory isthat international trade is not made between equals and the value added istransferred unequally to the surrounding center (Wallerstein, 2004: 12)