DEPENDENCY THEORY
Abstract:
There are many types of theories have been put forward relation to the development of the countries. Among these theories, dependency theories are identifies as having possible elements which are describing under development of third world countries. Such dependency theories pay more attention on this category. He concentrates on external factors to explain the under development of the third world. This paper examines that, do the theories have the practically possible factors to explain the under development of the third world countries in current affairs? Methodology frame work has been adopted for this research, historically and contemporary perspectives of current world user as primary sources and existing literature reviews as secondary sources. Although the theory classified according to the subject as classical theory, it is become more suit itself to the current world. Despite it is proposed to criticize, this is the theory which was examined it first of that era. Many modern theories in relation to development of the third world countries are undertaken based on his theory and also, it gives productive concepts for development field since now.
Historical Development of Theory:
Economic development theorists have developed several models for explaining the “undeveloped-ness” of countries in the third world. These theories are not sufficient to explain about the setbacks on development and predicament that many poor countries face. However, it is remarkable of the concepts of the dependency theories in the contemporary period that gave a frame work to assess the universal development and Undevelopment. To formulate the dependency theory, many concept explanations and the international economic events were the basis.
theory and is based off of the premise that developed nations are developed because of their undergoing of socio-political and economic evolution. The economist Rostrow published a book on the view of modernization, ‘the stage of Development: A non – communist proclamation’. His ideas explained the experience of developed countries related to the development.[ CITATION San10 \l 1033 ] So. The ideas of the modernization schools explained the distindiviely strained functions of developed capitalistic countries such as North American, European countries ect. They did not explain about their historical events. And also they did not guide to understand the problems related to the development of the third world countries.[ CITATION Alv11 \l 1033 ]
During this period, The Latin American structuralism opposed idea related to the development theory of the modernization, and presented the protesting ideas against it. This theory presented the internal explanation for development.
The Liberal reformers Raul Prebisch and his collages did international trade theories based off of empirical research done on developing countries. Countries’ terms of trade from the 19th century until World War II. According to their findings the economic activities of
developed countries often lead to the serious economic problems of poor countries. The explanations that they submitted, explained the phenomenon of the third world countries, straight forwardly. The poor countries export their primary commodities to wealthy countries. In return, the wealthy countries export their manufactured products to poor countries on value added system. In this transaction, the cost of manufactured products was always higher than the raw materials. These were the raw materials that were used to produce the manufactured articles. However, the costs of manufactured products are high. Because of this, the poor countries never able to get neither higher income for their importing items/ things; as such they presented the results of their research. They also presented a straight forward solution for this problem. The poor countries must embark a scheme of substitution for their imports. These countries need not to purchase the manufactured products from the wealthy countries. Similarly, they need not to sell their raw materials in the world market. This is because; the foreign exchange reserves of the poor countries cannot be utilized to purchase their manufactured products. [ CITATION Alv11 \l 1033 ]
Neo- Marxist theory explains the development it explores the economic deprivation of the third world countries. That, ‘the process of world capitalist integration under the control of monopoly capital’ [ CITATION Yeh89 \l 1033 ]
was developed in the core way of China and Cuba. Neo – Marxist focus the imperialism on the point of peripheral view. It indicated and explained the imperial activities on the development of the third world countries. Wanner explains the above concept on his book named ‘Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism’. The book had included revolution concept such as capitalist are the tools of imperialism, there for the local groups should lead the developmental revolution and the other hand this book explores it massive resistance on eradicating the imperialism shall only possible through the way of peasants
The other group of neo- Marxist argues that imperialism never brings any developments but it causes deprivations and underdevelopment. Particularly, the book of Walter Rodney ‘How Europe underdeveloped Africa’. Stimulated the dependency school to think the concept of ‘Development’ in creatively and historically.
The capitalism had controlled the colonized countries to depend on the countries which colonized them until nineteen century. The social and political structure of the colonized countries had to perform the economic activities of the imperialistic countries. This situation prevailed until 19th century. As a result of this, the poor countries such as Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia and Mexico had the experience of beings in the backward position continuously.(2010, May 1)
There for these countries tried to implement several action programmes in order to reform themselves. In this back ground, the dependency school focuses the social, economic and political relationships of the poor countries and presented the explanations. And also further opinions were too presented as such the causes for social unrest in the poor countries are the political investment, the international economic strength and weak economic positions. In this situation, the dependency school tried to find the explanation positively, for the persistent poverty of the poor countries.
These three classical theorists give the practical explanations related to development and underdevelopment of the third world countries. In order to explain the setback of the developing countries, each theory focused in different view, whatever their differences, they all shared the view that underdevelopment was original or traditional.
“Standard” dependency theory differs from Marxism, this theory arguing against internationalism and any hope of progress in less developed nations towards industrialization and liberating revolutions. Theonio dos Santos explained a ‘new dependency’, which focused on both the internal and external relations of less – developed countries of the periphery, derived from a Marxian analysis.(2010, May 1) Later, dependency theorist focused in different ways of the third world countries’ underdevelopment situations. Later, world systems theory expanded on dependency arguments. It postulates a third category of countries, the semi-periphery, intermediate between the core and periphery. In this model, the semi-periphery is industrialized, but with less sophistication of technology than in the core; and it does not control finances. The rise of one group of semi-peripheries tends to be at the cost of another group, but the unequal structure of the world economy based on unequal exchange tends to remain stable (2010, May 1)
A debt crisis appeared in the third world countries in 1980. In this situation affected the efforts related to development in Latin America, African and Asian countries in 1990. At the same time, another theory related to ‘dependent development’ was presented. Especially in 1995 – 2000, Fernando Henrique Cardoso presented his ideas which derived from his theory of ‘Dependency and Development in Latin America’. Vernengo (2004) suggest his idea that the financial markets (Currency) strength and the International Monetary reservations among the core and periphery countries influence on the development and the dependency [ CITATION San10 \l 1033 ]
As such the ideas, formulation and the growth of the dependency theory, exist as an analyzing practical theory of the matters related to ‘development’ in the poor countries until now.
In order to explain the development and underdevelopment of the countries, many types of dependency theories were presented by many theorists. Particularly, liberal reformers( Prebisch), Neo – Marxists( Andre Gunder Frank) , Wallenstein ( World System theory), Samir Amin , Theonio dos Santos, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Tausch. Theories of these thinkers have been caught a vigorous place, as well as they are quit challenging. They present their theories on different views. Although the dependency theory is not have same ideas. They all shared the common view. It’s to find out the answer for the question, ‘Why the poor countries of the third world are poor?’ There are still pints of serious disagreements among the various strain of dependency theorist and it is a mistake to think there is only one unified theory of dependency. Nonetheless, there are some core propositions which seem to underline the analyzes of most dependency theorist.( Ferraro, 1996)
It defines the external and internal explanations for the economic developments of the countries. It defines about the factors of politics, economics and culture influence the national development policy. Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences political, economy and cultural… on national development polices. [ CITATION Osv69 \l 1033 ]
Theotonio Dos Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency in his definition: [Dependency is] ….an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.[ CITATION KTF711 \l 1033 ]
The dependency theorist most probably presents the definitions of three types of eminent theory.
2. Bath definitions have in common assumption that external forces are of particular importance to the economic activities within the dependent sates. The multinational co-operations, International trade markets, foreign assistance, communication and also all other matters of the developed countries which activate by represent ting on the basis of economic willingness on other countries are included in this definitions.
3. The definitions of dependency all indicate that the relations between dominant and dependent states are dynamic in nature and increased interactions between the two not only reinforce but also intensify the unequal and exploitative patterns. Dependency is an ongoing process that finds its roots in the internationalization of capitalism and hence, it has its own history behind it... This is because; the dependency exists on the deep historical roots and researches the root and the shapes of the capitalism that has been made in universal. Dependency is an ongoing process:
Susan Bodenheimer says, “Latin America is today, and has been since the sixteenth century, part of an international system dominated by the now – developed nations….. Latin underdevelopment is the outcome of a particular series of relationships to the international systems. [ CITATION Hod \l 1033 ] Hence, the international capitalism is the widely deprecated as the force behind dependency relationships by most, if not all, dependency theorists. Andre Gunder Frank, one of the pioneers of dependency theory, he makes a clear point in his widely discussed article “The Development of Underdevelopment”.
necessary condition for the efficient allocation of resources. The most explicit manifestation of this characteristic is in the doctrine of comparative advantage.
Moreover, to a large extent the dependency models rest upon the assumption that economic and political power are heavily concentrated and centralized in the industrialized countries, an assumption shared with Marxist theories of imperialism. If this assumption is valid, then any distinction between economic and political power is spurious: governments will take whatever steps are necessary to protect private economic interests, such as those held by multinational corporations.
Not all dependency theorists, however, are Marxist and one should clearly distinguish between dependency and a theory of imperialism. The Marxist theory of imperialism explains dominant state expansion while the dependency theory explains underdevelopment. Stated another way, Marxist theories explain the reasons why imperialism occurs, while dependency theories explain the consequences of imperialism. The difference is significant. In many respects, imperialism is, for a Marxist, part of the process by which the world is transformed and is therefore a process which accelerates the communist revolution. Marx spoke approvingly of British colonialism in India:
England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating--the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia [ CITATION San10 \l 1033 ]
For the dependency theorists, underdevelopment is a wholly negative condition which offers no possibility of sustained and autonomous economic activity in a dependent state.
relationships). To a dependency theorist, the central characteristic of the global economy is the persistence of poverty throughout the entire modern period in virtually the same areas of the world, regardless of what state was in control.
Finally, there are some dependency theorists who do not identify capitalism as the motor force behind a dependent relationship. The relationship is maintained by a system of power first and it does not seem as if power is only supported by capitalism. For example, the relationship between the former dependent states in the socialist bloc (the Eastern European states and Cuba, for example) closely paralleled the relationships between poor states and the advanced capitalist states. The possibility that dependency is more closely linked to disparities of power rather than to the particular characteristics of a given economic system is intriguing and consistent with the more traditional analyses of international relations, such as realism.
Theoretical Arguments
concentrating the internal factors of the poor countries. But Andre Gunder Frank’s concept presents an alternative idea.
Andre Gunder Frank is one of the most prominent writers of the dependency theory, his approached is a specialized offshoot of the Marxian theory of capitalism the concept of Frank presents the external explanation related to the subject of development of the third world countries. In order to explain the under development of the third world countries, he present his explanations focusing historical root of those countries.
He remarks, that third world countries cannot reach the development through following the modern path of the western countries. Because, the western countries had never got the experience of colonization as the third world countries had got. The third world countries had been a colony over hundred years. The foreign domination changed the structure of those countries to fit according to their fit. And also they drastically altered their path of development. “The now developed countries were never underdeveloped, though they may have been undeveloped . . . Contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the now developed metropolitan countries.” [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ]
Further the third world countries were wrongly characterized as ‘primitive’, ‘feudal ‘or ‘traditional’. But when we look for the historic events, China and India were quite advanced before they become as colonized countries. The time period before the sixteenth century was as underdevelopment, as such he says.
Also he says that the prevailed situation in the third world countries from sixteenth century to twentieth was as ‘underdevelopment’. The concept of ‘underdevelopment’ is the main contribution of Frank. “Underdevelopment means the results of the capitalistic development.” [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ] So, the history of the third world countries is the development of underdevelopment. The colonization and the foreign dominance pushed back word the development of the third world. Historically occurred these colonization and foreign dominance historically functioned on three dimensions. This situation prevails continuity with changes. The structure of the world economy was unequal at all times.
1. Trade capitalism (1600 B.C- 1770 B.C) 2. Industrial capitalism ( 1770 B.C – 1830 B.C) 3. Imperialism (1870 B.C – 1930 B.C)
trade market relation’ in these three times periods. In these three time periods, exporting of economic surplus (substance) and importing of commodity goods were done between the wealthy and poor countries. These functions were collected by the depending countries through exploitation, as such he says. So underdevelopment and development are the two side of a coin. This is the result of the contradiction of the world capitalism. ‘Under development is not a natural condition but an artifact created by the long history of colonial domination in the third world countries.’ [ CITATION Gun661 \l 1033 ]
In an addition, Frank has formulate a “metropolis – satellite “model to explain how the mechanism of underdevelopment are at work on countries, that they becoming undedeveloping countries.
The Model: Understanding the Metropolis- Satellite Relationship
The colonizing countries carried out exploitation in the third world countries and made them into dependency. Exploitation comes from dependence. That’s why the western countries established new cities in their dominant countries during the colonizing period in order to facilitate their economic surplus. These national cites carried out exploitation locally. The western countries exploited the resources that the national cities exploited. The national cities function as satellite and the western countries function as metropolis.
According to Frank, Metropolis connects satellite with regions. It’s forced to send the produced natural resources, raw materials, minerals, commodities and profits ect in the outer region to the centers. The national wide cities function as central place for the exploitations. It is not the financial outcome of the exploitation. Because, the national governments function as satellite voluntarily.
The settles supply their commodities to wealthy countries in cheap price. The wealthy countries produce manufactured products using those commodities and send them back to satellite as value added goods. The highest purpose of there is to get profit only and not for anything.
So, metropolis – satellite relationship here means that the western countries develop themselves and flourish their governing power through the profit they get from the poor
classes. It is Gunder Frank’s belief that this metropolis- satellite relationship is only in existence to serve the “interests of the metropolis which take advantage of this global, national, and local structure to promote their own development and the enrichment of their ruling classes.” [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ] In order to create a permanent development in the wealthy countries, the satellite (poor countries) have disconnected from the real world. As a result of this, those countries have fallen in to underdevelopment. This is what Gunder Frank means by the “development of underdevelopment”. These countries are not undeveloped because of their lack of technological advancement, or disconnect from the real world. The case is, however, quite the contrary. Because of the exploitative relationship through the metropolis-satellite model, whole regions develop a state of “underdeveloped-ness” that is witness to the massive upheaval of its capital resources and the transference of said recourses to the metropolis.
We must conclude, in short, that underdevelopment is not due to the survival of archaic institutions and the existence of capital shortage in regions that have remained isolated from the stream of world history. On the contrary, underdevelopment was and still is generated by the very same historical process that also generated economic development: the development of capitalism itself. [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ]
Frank shows an example for this situation with the experience of development in Brazil. Brazil functions as a satellite of Washington . In Brazil itself, Rio de Genera, Sava polo and other cities function as metropolis and satellites. The profit is smuggled to the cities in top passing many steps mentioned as above to the western countries.
Social structure was created in the countries to suit for the exploitation. Therefore, the dependency is the result of planned activities of metropolis. According to Gunder Frank. One of his hypotheses in developing this theoretical model states, “Satellites experience their greatest economic development and especially their most classically capitalist industrial development if and when their ties to their metropolis are weakest.”
Another safe haven from the exploitative metropolis was being isolated from the world economy. The weak connection, as satellites, that certain countries were fortunate enough to have, saved them for a time, from their eventual underdevelopment (e.g. Gunder Frank mentions cities likes Tucuman, Asuncion, Mendoza, and Rosario as places that fit this description). [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ]
network functions as the shape of a pyramid. Sometimes satellite functions as a metropolis and exploits. We can the above mentioned subject in a diagram.
It’s the laborers and peasants are in the urban of the third world countries are subjected to exploitation. The members of the developed countries exalt their life state. Similarly national elite in the satellite too gain most advantage.
The economics of the dependency countries has been constructed to depend always on the capitalist countries. By obtaining an excellent outstanding quality in producing a thing, a dependency country is made into depend on that economics. Similarly the capitalist countries paid attention to produce manufactured goods, heavy machineries for industry. There for it cannot be made a split in the bond between the metropolis (core) and the satellite (periphery). The exploitation and its outcomes are the foundation of the structure of the world. This is the reason for the dependency in the third world. “The flow economic surplus in the world economy is from the satellite to the metropolis and the world economy is organized to make this happened. The under development nations there for have become and remain under developed because they are economically dominated by the capitalist nations that have continually been extracting wealth from them.” [ CITATION And72 \l 1033 ]
De- linking
reach the development. The imperialism that remains continuously and long means, the situation of depending on that country and the dependency too will increase. He says that the poor countries should disconnect their economic relationship with the developed countries.
Comparative Frank’s theory with present situations of the third world
This last, and most important work in this paper is bridging the gap, and looking at a comparative theoretical examination of Frank’s dependency theory in third world to prove its relevance fifty years later.The theory of Frank points out the external factors for the under development of third world countries. The metropolis that he has forwarded explains about how the model underdevelopment is used for networking. Likewise most of the literature views say at present also all his theories seems to have the similarity. Emeh defines this as “Andre Gunder Frank’s contribution to the theory of development and underdevelopment are tremendous but the most glaring is the dependency theory. His theory tries to explain underdevelopment situation in the third world which Nigeria is a part of “[ CITATION Eme121 \l 1033 ]
At this present world, the view about the development of under development is used in the countries like Africa, Latin America, Caribbean Island, Thailand, Bangladesh and Indonesia. When comparing and by doing research of the theory of Frank with the history of the countries in the third world, Specially Sri Lanka, Japan, USSR, Africa and Cuba, we can come to know about the growth of the under development . Under development means the effect of the imperialism. Here the third world countries are included.
Sri Lanka:
According to Frank, indicates we can understand that Colombo was functioned as satellite, colonized countries as metropolis and other small urban areas were like the satellite and metropolis for this exploitation.
In Sri Lanka due to the Arrack lease, plantations, commerce and graphite mining led to the growth of capitalism, and Sri Lanka has invested in the plantation field specially, for coffee and tea. Coffee and tea was planted and expropriated in the land of people. On the mean time, the farmers to work on this land were taken from the country itself. 1/3, ¼ amounts of peasant coffee that was exported from Sri Lank was grown in the house lands itself. [ CITATION Kum091 \l 1033 ] The national elites buy this in the cheapest price from the farmers and sell it to the cities of the highest price and gain profit on it. And it was sent to the centrals. The east company of the British which was in Colombo which had the two authorities and had the power to decide the price. This situation was continued until 1930. Likewise, these employers in Sri Lanka were function as intermediaries and as agent. But they were not given the authority in the international market to invest or to get loan. The banking system in Sri Lanka was under ruled by the banks of British. This gave opportunities only for the European investors for loan as well as the shares for the business. [ CITATION Kum091 \l 1033 ]
The things were imported without any blocks. All those things were manufactured products from the developed countries. The goal of the colonist rulers was to gain profit from the poor country. Likewise the problems to get loans did not give place for the growth of industry in Sri Lanka. Later, industries were created and that was belonging to the Europeans. This industry was brought up rapidly and the volunteers were developed. Oil distillation factory, Timber mills, workshops were brought up to make furniture’s, to build building and to make wood box for packing. [ CITATION Kum091 \l 1033 ] So, even in the history, there were barrios for the industrial development of Sri Lanka.
So, in history, Sri Lanka had not gained any profits during the colonism period and also even today. We can understand that it gained only under development instead of development. The modern plantation economy during the colonies period, the business embracing it, and the people and the farmers did not get any profit from the economy developed by above mentioned streams. [ CITATION Bal09 \l 1033 ]
The economic activities followed by the independence of Sri Lanka, had a shape of the content of colonism. The country was depended on the product import. The foreign business, business company, the financial distribution companies, and the other activities of economic were put in a one box called’ International business communication’. We can explain this by the export and import report of Sri Lanka.
Table -1
Productions 1948 1960 1970 2000 2010 2013
Agricultural production
98.6 94.4 91.7 18.2 24.6 24.8
Tea 63.1 59.8 55.0 12.7 14.4 14.8
Industrial production - - 2.0 77.6 75.4 74.6
Mineral Production - - 0.9 2.5 0.1 0.1
Table - 3
The chart represents that Sri Lanka still exports the raw materials. Obviously, those materials are mostly exports to developed countries. (Table-2) Sri Lanka engages traditional plantation production and garments production. However, the countries those porches these productions are still being a powerful tool for determination of exported materials are rapidly increase. There for, Sri Lanka is being forced to the pathetic situation to contest and get sold the raw materials in the international market. Along with this phenomena what interesting thing is a country like Sri Lanka which exports raw materials is happen to contest the countries who are ranked as under developed as them. This is a well planned commercial exploitation. This is called a model of neo colonization.
Currently, the World Bank, IMF, WTO who are giving a big assistance for economical strength, when the countries get harmful effect from fluctuation. That loan money to the needy countries. When a country come by a debt form such institutions, they complain that those institutions pushing the countries into more economical burden, control the local economy and economically oppressing such of them.[ CITATION Pro09 \l 1033 ]
are developing new means of exploitation and enriching neo colonies. Particularly metropolises (developed country) imports heavy machineries, fertilizers and pesticides to Sri Lanka under the guise of ‘Green revolution’. Green revolution originally means third world’s farmers are being used to fulfill the food needs of the developed countries in law wages. Metropolises distribute fertilizers, seeds, machineries at high rats and import the agricultural products in law rates from the satellites (3rd world country). This situation is continuing in the
global market. This is how Sri Lanka is being exploiting.
The developing countries always to depend on developed countries. So, this countries stored the raw materials to vend them in a great price increase of satisfied the fundamental needs , they wait for hiked up the raw materials, the people who produce the raw materials are burnt to death. As a result of famine, starvation and hunger. The famine in India and Bengal are good example of it. Amerthiya Sen. refers according to this, ‘the famine was not because of the food but because of the disorder on providing land’[ CITATION Rbe03 \l 1033 ]
Today, global trade organizations are the base for the commercial activates which is work for in the metropolis in globalizes world system. While the organizations are giving prize guarantees to the developed countries, they exploit the under develop countries and work as a tool of driving the countries slave.
No along in the globalized world TNC’s (Trans National Cooperation) exploiting the people of Asia and Latin America Ethiopia Si lank, Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines in an integrated link and imply modern means of metropolis – satellite system and all. All these TNC’s in the world are belongs to developed countries. They offer the goods and services to under developed countries. Especially, these countries ranked top in the world trade and they established agents to imply these in local. Local capitalist who are the agents; they exploit the raw materials and send them all. TNC’s import them as manufactured products in return, for instant, Nestle company get ¼ of Coco form Ethiopia and gives the manufactured food to the country in higher debt. The coco company established its co operations in under developed countries and exploiting the poor and the environment. [ CITATION Rbe03 \l 1033 ]
Metropolis firmly established their satellite system at the under developed countries to make them deepen on selling the raw materials and in return the manufactured goods. This is how metropolis intervention in under developed countries.1/3 of lands is still ruling by the national capitalist in Latin America. Today, village people are strolling to reserve their lands and recourses. It is remaining in Chili, Guatemala, Uruguwe, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil and Maxico. In Chili, 25% of lands has allocated for the mine mining companies. They exploit mineral resources and import those to developed countries. Such countries states are institutionalized to maintaining the system. (Meenilancl, N. ,2015)
Likewise MNC’s (Multi National Co-operations) produce agro a food import services. The MNC’s lease the land of third world countries and produce agro fuels and bio- tech foods. They utilize the local farmer in low wages for this production. Government complicit for these operations. MNC’s has controlled the states under their influences. Some of developing countries are being ruled by the military forces according to such causes. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt are the best example. Still now developed countries conducting mechanism in African continent by creating internal conflict beyond the countries and developing exploitation as indirect attack. [ CITATION Eme121 \l 1033 ]
The current globalized economy is Knowledge based economy. Education based industrial development drives education based economical development. The question is, the human capital called Educational economy, where does move? Form where to? Who are being applied it? In the third world countries, highly skilled and qualified people working for the developed countries. Brain drain is commercialized under the guise of’ Knowledge based economy’ developed countries gain them in lower amount.
Poverty and wealth are still remaining as two poles due to this. Uneven world system. The main consequence for this system is exploitation. It causes development and under development in direct contradiction. Frank explains this as two sides of the same coin. Metropolis using the third world countries as satellites in multiple ways and patterns for the changing world.
it seems to be a suitable thought for the development. This is because, Japan has reached to the development as it didn’t get the experience of colonization, similarly when we look at china and India, they had the experience of colonization, their nature of under dependency and the restricted schemes on local import and export helped them for development in the later part of time. Similarly, an alternative scheme of production for import was carried out in Sri Lanka in 1960’s. This scheme moved forwarded a large number of local private sectors and the government towards the industrial. As this scheme was concentrated on dual economy, it went to a setback. [ CITATION Pro09 \l 1033 ]
Similarly, the planning of the country influenced the economic in 1992’s. Earlier the Soviet Union was a country of strong economics. Because, USSR did not allow the other forge in ownership. However, it had to bear up some private ownership in the later part of time. This is situation was to one reason for the breaking up of the economics. North Korea and Cuba operate their economic structure with the central economic planning systems. China functions on staying central planning systems and creates the integrated economics on open markets. These are the reasons that changed India and china as the countries of high ststnded in world market. China is in the second place, India is as a capacity of universal supplier of products and services. (Smith, T.,1979).
If we look at the growing countries in a short period of time like Qatar, Dubai they did not make them to depend on developed countries. That’s why growth was possible there.
When we look at the experience of Africa, this country too was under the dominance of colonization for long time. It still depends on exporting primary products. So, it is still unable to reach the development position. Today, the neo- colonies exploits the countries. In order to keep the exploitation continuously, the Trans National Cooperation’s have created internal conflicts. As a result of this, more human deaths occur due to security and starvation. Countries like Somalia, Sub Saharan region, Burundi, Rwanda have been under neo colonization. In the last twenty years the continent has experienced several ethnic hostilities, civil war, political chaos, and massive government corruption.(castil) Today Africa export iron, still and gems and import weapons. By this Africa depends more and more. The basic purpose of the developed country is exploiting the resources. That Nigeria is today; overwhelmed by poverty and underdevelopment can easily be attributed to poor, visionless, inept and selfish leadership. The reason of this that it still depends on foreign economic and political relations. [ CITATION Eme121 \l 1033 ]
brought a self- reliant system. This system stimulated the people to engage self employment; enterprises produced handicraft goods for people. So that their country could be able to fulfill their basic needs. So, Cuba boosted of unique social strutting, a highly educated population that worked with state regulation and planning to figure out an amazing alternative a model “green the socialist revolution.”[ CITATION Ros00 \l 1033 ]
Cuba did set up new schemes in agriculture. It motivated private sectors to engage in production in commerce and trade using the local handicraft resources. It also focused on tourism. All these were planned according to the local integration and implemented. So, Cuba ruined as a country of exporting wheat, dairy products, meat and industrial machines to Spain and Canada, nickel oxide and raw sugar to North America and the mine resources to Canada. We can see the development of Cuba is further progressed under its Cuban Liberty and solidarity Act -1996. [ CITATION Ros00 \l 1033 ] The fact that Cuba has had a lot of economic problems in the 1990s but “de-linking” as the only option proposed by the radical dependency theories has been proved useful and possible by Cuba and it has shown that with the development of alternate model and an effective practice of it, There for we can say that the idea of Frank is, it will be possible to create development in third world countries if we de- linked the relationship with the developed countries.
Criticism
The theory of Frank related to development and under development is appropriate for the present day’s situations .However, Marxist and Neo- Marxist thinkers of development, presented their ideas saying that there is a need to absorb some changes and when looking at the time situations there are some sufficiency in it. The Marxist thinkers criticize the metropolis – satellite relationship .Frank tries to show that the social relations of production are spatial relations. It is criticized that without explain the structure of the world capitalism on the basis of exchange relations.
capitalism. His can be accepted. However, the reasons for Frank has failed to pay attention related to the methods of production are that his research was primarily on external relations. His main purpose was to proof that the link of capital countries is with the under developed countries. There for he may not have paid deep attention on internal relations. Frank has explained the vertical relations that internally were in the metropolis- satellite relations. Similarly if he had the horizontal relations prevailed there, his research would have presented many other new ideas.
The research of Norman long explains the relation between metropolis- satellites in Latin America along with some other branches of relations. He pointed out about the relations not only with cities but also with towns, farms, commercial, economical and social relations. But Frank did not find about this relations. But the change that occurs in this place influences the satellite as well as the metropolis.[ CITATION Nor01 \l 1033 ] That is to say, Frank’s ideas the change that occurs in satellite is the impact of the changes that occur in metropolis. But his idea completely cannot be accepted. So, Norman long says, Frank did not pay attention on the facts that the satellite too decides the reservation of resources and the expansion of market opportunity.
Frank says, that the capitalism that found in dependency countries also means capitalism. But he has failed to find out what amount of influence of the role of the national elites was used in the barrier of development. The capitalist classes of Latin America operate the policy for development of Latin America. There for, it can be considered that the matters that happen in the country paves the way to continue the relationship of domination- dependency.
a complete theory.
Development means to expand the freedoms enjoyed by the member of the society. But freedom depend also on other determinants, such as social an economic arrangements (facilitates for education and health care) as well as political and civil rights (liberty to participate in public discussion and security).[ CITATION Ame00 \l 1033 ] When it looks on the basis of his idea, the internal factors too influence in development in great amount. Particularly, when the education and health are in the progressing position of a country, the social change will take the country into a healthful development position. Cuba is an exemplary for this. The quality of education and health were in the superior position in Cuba. So Cuba used this position as an investment of the development. So, in what manner the external factors are being the cause for the underdevelopment, similarly, the internal factors too are being the cause for the under development. This phenomenon is appropriate
For whole the countries in the world.
Finally, a last criticism comes from traditional Marxists and their claim that dependency theory is “Neo-Marxism without Marxism”. It removes the idea of “class struggle” and makes the struggle one of national, regional, and international affairs. Marxists also claim that while unequal exchange may be a key element in the underdevelopment of nations, it is not the impetus for them. According to Marxists and Marxist theory, at the end of it all, the capitalist mode of production is the reason for which why countries become underdeveloped. Their logic is that:
[T]hose aspects of underdevelopment [...] cannot simply be attributed to dependency per se, for they are inherent in the operation of the capitalist mode of production whether or not it takes a dependent form. It is more appropriate to view dependency as aggravating conditions of underdevelopment that are inevitable under capitalism than to view dependency as a major cause of underdevelopment. Ferraro, V. (2008)
Even though the ideas of Frank were subjected to criticism mentioned above, he is the person who presented the new glance for the concept of dependency in regard to the development of the third world countries. This idea is cannot be denied. The model of Frank’s help to analyze the development of present day’s poor countries through the external factors.
Bibliography
Alvin, Y. (2010, May 10). Historical development and Theoretical Approaches in Sociology. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from www.eolss.net/.../Historical-Developments-Theor
Balakrishnen, N. (2009). Development problems in Sri Lanka. Colomb: Kumaran.
Dependancy theory. (2010, May 1). Retrieved November 18, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
Emeh Ikechokwu, E. J. (2012). A discourse on Andre Gunder Frank's contribution to the theory and study of development and under development. Green Journl of biological sciences , 52-65.
Ferraro, V. (2008). Retrieved November 17, 2015, from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/.../depend.htm
Frank, A. G. (1972). The development of under development. In A. G. James D. Cockcroft, Dependancy and under development (p. 3). Garden city: Anchor Books.
Gülalpa, H. (1981 pulished in line 2008). Frank and Wallerstein revisited: A contribution to Brenner's critique. Journal of Contemporary Asia , 168-188.
Gunder Frak, A. (1966). "The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review Press , 4-15.
Hodges, F. a. (n.d.). "Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American Underdevelopment," in "Dependency and Imperialism: The Roots of Latin American Underdevelopment. 157.
J.C.Yong, R. (2003). Post colonialism: A very short introduction. UK: Oxfort University press.
Jayawardana, K. (2009). Nobodies to somebodies: The rise of the colonial Bourgeoise in Sri Lanka. Chennai: Social Scientist Association.
K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, e. (1971). The Structure of Dependence and , Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent.
Long, N. (2001). Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. Contributors. London.: Routledge. Place of publication.
Meenilancl, N. (2015, November 5). War for resources. Tamil Mirror, p. 9.
Rosset, P. M. (2000). Cuba: A Successful Case Study of Sustainable Agriculture. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. UK: Oxford University.
Silva, P. D. (2009). International Trade as a driven of Economic growth. Economic Review , 2-8.
Sunkel, O. (1969). "National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America,. The Journal of Development Studies , Vol, 06, No 1 , p- 23.
Y, A. (2011). Historical Development and theorotical approches in Sociology: Dependancy and the world system perspectives. Sociology , vol-ii, 56-75.
Yeh, s. H. (1989). Yeh, Stephen H.K. "Understanding Development: Modernization and Cultural Values in Asia and the Pacific Region. . New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization .
