HomeOld_PostsWestern theories of development and continued slave modelling: Part Three...puncturing dependency syndrome

Western theories of development and continued slave modelling: Part Three…puncturing dependency syndrome

Published on

THE second group of theories falls under international dependency.
International dependency theories view developing countries as beset by institutional politics and economic rigidities (both domestic and international) and are caught up in dependence and dominance relationships with DCs.
Within this general approach are three main streams of thought: the neo-colonial model, the false-paradigm model and the dialectic thesis.
For the purpose of detailed analysis within this limited scope, this essay will focus mostly on the neo-colonial dependence model.
The Dependency Theory is associated with Andre Gunder Frank.
According to Schuurman (1996) Frank was not necessarily the most typical of the dependency school, but was popularised largely because he wrote in English and also because he ‘was both polemical and outspoken in his arguments’.
Frank argues underdevelopment is a historical process not a condition intrinsic to the Third World.
The theory attributes the existence and continuance of underdevelopment primarily to historical evolution of highly unequal international capitalism in which the centres (DCs) intentionally or unintentionally render attempts by LDCs to be self-reliant and independent difficult if not impossible.
Multi-national companies (MNCs) of the metropolis impose a universal consumption pattern without taking local needs of the periphery (LDCs) into account.
The MNCs out-compete national capital, or undertake joint ventures with local capita. They incorporate a local minority group of landlords, entrepreneurs, military rulers, salaried public officials and trade union leaders who enjoy high incomes, social status and political power.
This local elite ruling class is favoured by the perpetuation of international capitalist system by which they are rewarded.
They benefit from international special-interest power groups including MNCs, national bilateral aid agencies and multi-lateral assistance organisations such as World Bank and IMF.
The latter are tied by allegiance or funding to DCs.
The Dependency Theory posits a neo-Marxist view that a large part of LDCs’ worsening poverty is attributed to the self-serving policies of the industrial capitalist of the Northen Hemisphere and their extensions in the form of small but powerful elite or comprador groups in the LDCs.
Hence it proposes a radical overhaul of the metropole – satellite relations.
The False Paradigm Model is less radical than Frank’s Model.
It attributes underdevelopment to: “Faulty and inappropriate advice provided by well-meaning but often uninformed, biased, and ethnocentric international ‘expert’ advisers from developed countries, assistance agencies and multi-national donor organisations.” (Todaro and Smith: 2003: 125).
It also argues leading local university intellectuals, economists and other civil servants get their training in developed country institutions where they are (un)wittingly served an ‘unhealthy’ dose of alien concepts which are inapplicable to their own situations.
These concepts are often based on mainstream modernisation and structural change models.
As such, they fail to take into account the resilient role of traditional social structures (tribe, caste and class, among others), the highly unequal ownership of land and other property rights and the disproportionate control over local and international financial assets including the very unequal access to credit.
Hence in many cases, imposed concepts serve the interests of existing power structures.
All in all, notwithstanding differences of emphasis, the neo-colonial dependency theories reject the exclusive emphasis on traditional neo-classical economic theories designed to accelerate the growth of GNP as the principal index of development.
They reject the blueprint application of patterns perceived in developed countries on poor countries.
However, this does not imply that the neo-colonial theories are without blemishes.
Although they offer an appealing explanation of why poor countries remain underdeveloped, they offer no theoretical alternative to initiate and sustain development.
Besides, the actual economic experiences of LDCs that have pursued revolutionary campaigns of industrial nationalisation and state-run production have set a bad precedence, thereby making the theory’s thrust for inwardly-directed development a potential disaster.
Bill Adams (1996) notes that China, and to some extent India, experienced stagnant growth until they ultimately opened their economies after 1978 and 1990, respectively.
He notes, too, that, on the other hand, Taiwan and South Korea, that emphasised export to developed countries from the outset, grew very strongly.
The latter example shows that in spite of the dissimilarity of their policies, ‘free markets’ were key to their development.
This point has often gone unchallenged because many people are persuaded to see the development of the two (just like that of the four tigers of Asia) literally, without really considering that the business ventures in the countries do not belong to the local/native people but to MNCs whose headquarters are in the metropoles, and also that the economies are firmly controlled by foreign entrepreneurs.
The other critical observation is that these two countries have anchored their opening up conscious of who they are.
For India the opening has been carefully designed not to kill their identity.
You can invest in India but you cannot own land in India, even if you are a billionaire, as long as you are foreign.
They know what to allow and what not to.
You will remember in one of my submissions I stated that India was colonised by Britain for a longer period than us but the only thing they copied from the British is the game of cricket.
That is what wisdom does.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
Similarly, China did not join globalisation blindly.
Rather it joined and changed the rules of globalisation in its favour.
That is what wisdom dictates.
Again what Mahatma Gandhi says becomes truly fulfilled in China’s approach to development:
“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

A successful first quarter

THE first quarter of the year is done. As a people, we have not been...

FOZEU’s call for strike…an attempt at provoking anarchy

By Elizabeth Sitotombe IN an attempt to sow anarch across the country by calling for...

Chitepo’s fight for land

This story was first published on 21/03/2016 By Patience Rusare LAND ranked highest among the grievances...

Winning mindset in post-elections

WE, in the village, are known for our resilience, we never give up and...

More like this

A successful first quarter

THE first quarter of the year is done. As a people, we have not been...

FOZEU’s call for strike…an attempt at provoking anarchy

By Elizabeth Sitotombe IN an attempt to sow anarch across the country by calling for...

Chitepo’s fight for land

This story was first published on 21/03/2016 By Patience Rusare LAND ranked highest among the grievances...

Discover more from Celebrating Being Zimbabwean

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading