Perspective of Development in the 1960s

In the 1960s, there emerged the dependency theory in the modern discourse of development, from which perspective development meant ―economic growth or capital accumulation‖ (Pieterse, 2010, p. 6). Dos Santos (1971, p. 226) describes dependency as a situation in which the relationship between or among countries ―assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can expand and can be self-starting, while other countries (the dependent ones) can do this only as a reflection of that expansion.‖ The theory divides the countries of the world into the periphery and the core nations. The periphery nations

are basically located outside Europe and North America, including countries of in Latin America and SSA. These countries are characterized by least economic diversification, relatively weak governments, relatively weak institutions with little tax base to support infrastructure development, single economic activity, least industrialization, openness to exploitation and influence by the multinational corporations controlled by the core nations, small bourgeois and large peasant classes, high rate of poverty and illiteracy, and high level of inequality (Barfield, 1997; Halsall, 1997). On the other hand, the core nations are the most powerful in the world economic system and they consist of such nations as the ones in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Japan (Andersen and Taylor, 2007). They are characterized by most economic diversification, economic and military wealth and power, strong central governments, extensive bureaucracies, sufficient tax base, high industrialization, high levels of technology and specialization, strong bourgeois and working classes, significant means of influence over non-core nations, and relatively independent of outside control ( Barfield, 1997; Halsall, 1997).

Dependency theory was developed in Latin America to respond to a programme of the UN known as the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) which became bankrupt.

The theory is therefore ―a representation of the voices from the periphery that challenge the intellectual hegemony of the American modernization school‖ to critique ―modernization theory‘s assumptions about development and how to achieve it;‖ and a part of the response to the deficiencies of modernization in theory and practice (Bodenheimer 1970; Dos Santos 1973;

Blomstrom and Hettne, 1984; Staniland, 1985; So, 1990; Haynes, 2008, p. 24). Modernization Theory is critiqued for a number of reasons. The first argument against the theory is that it is a Europeanization or an Americanization of the development discourse; that is, it has an attitude toward Western Europe and the US as they are viewed to have unmatched economic prosperity

and democratic stability (Tipps, 1976). This idea of Western superiority is ethnocentric and makes the theory fall between social policy and science, keeping one eye on society ‗as it really is‘ and another on society ‗as it should be‘ (Stretton, 1987). Another argument against the theory is that its assumption that the path from tradition to modernity is a phased process is not as straightforward as the theory suggests. This assumption fails to take cognizance of the fact that in many cases, social conflict is endemic and pervasive and also that, inequalities between and within countries are sharpening; it further underplays issues of power inequalities within and between societies (Morawetz, 1977; Webster, 1984). The theory is again critiqued on the grounds that its arguments are formulated at a high level of abstractions to the extent that it is difficult to know what country and what historical period are being discussed; its arguments are anchored at a high level of generalization to the extent that its propositions are beyond time and space limitations (So, 1990).

Specifically critiquing Rostowian take off approach, Frank (1971), from his dependency theory perspective known as the development of underdevelopment argues that Rostow‘s approach does not tally with ancient or current facts of existence as it is beyond the bounds of possibility to see anywhere across the globe today a society which displays the features of Rostow‘s traditional stage. Franks goes on to argue that Rostow‘s kind of traditional societies had long broken down as a result of their inclusion in the world global capitalist system which gives rise to a clear-cut focus on the nature and attributes of the disproportional interdependent metropolis-satellite relationship under which the developing countries are stagnated and

exploited by the developed countries. Frank claims that Rostow fails by not examining this association. Further to this Frank argues that the way the developing countries can escape this economic stagnation and exploitation is by detaching themselves from the world capitalist

system through self-sufficiency, socialism and expanded trade with the progressive states which generally referred to the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, especially, the Soviet Union at that time. Frank notices from the historical experiences of Latin America that the economies of the periphery countries grew, their level of manufacturing expanded, their conditions of living became better, and their exports were variegated when their ties with the core countries were weakened; examples being period Europe had internal problems such as the Second World War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the great depression (Frank, 1970). Had the periphery countries been left on their own, they could have initiated actions towards taking the usual route to capitalist development as previously done by the core countries (Frank, 1974). In sum, the bedrock of Frank‘s argument is that the possibility of the economic and human development of the developed/industrialized countries of the world was as a result of the outrageous underdevelopment of the developing countries. This means that the development of the periphery is impossible, unless the strength of their links to the core is reduced or totally matching.

Dependency theory emphasizes that lack of development which include poverty in the periphery nations is basically attributable to the forces of external/exogenous factors that stem down from the core nations that exploit them (Frank, 1970; Wallestein, 1974; Clarke; 2002;

Willis; 2011). The theory simply focuses on the external forces of capitalism and colonialism.

Regarding capitalism, it is claimed that the backwardness of the periphery nations which was progressively capitalist from the 16^th century is attributable to economic condition under which there exists flow of economic surplus from them to the core nations, the effect of which is a sharp inter-societal precedence where the dominant core develops and is more complex at the expense of the periphery which is subordinated via the shift of economic plethora to the core regardless of any economic changes that may occur (Frank, 1971; 1984; 1994; Rodney, 1972;

Hechter, 1975; Blomstrom and Hettne, 1984; Amin, 1987; Haynes, 2008). Corroborating this, Amin (1976, p. 200) states that ―extraversion does not result from inadequacy of the home markets but from the superior productivity of the centre in all fields, which compels the periphery to confine itself to the role of complementary supplier of products for the production of which it possesses a natural advantage.‖ Regarding colonialism, Rodney (1972) claims that the intervention of European powers in the peripheral (particularly Africa‘s) social economic and political processes throughout the 19^th century created a situation of dependency and led to the poor state of the latter. This historical experience ―reversed the development of many advanced periphery nations and forced them to move along the path of economic backwardness‖ as many of these countries like China and India were making steady progress before they bumped into colonialism (So, 1990, p. 96; Frank 1969). In other words, the historical experience resulted in an

―interdependent but unequal relationship established between colonizer and colonized‖ (Spybey, 1992, p. 225). This theory is critiqued on the premise that it overstates the negative influence of the external forces of the core nations on the periphery nations as if they are the only factors that are capable of deciding their fate without regard to their local resistance. Corroborating this, Trimberger (1979, p. 128) identifies that such an exaggeration ―sees dynamic of system as flowing completely from the centre. The periphery, whether originally in Europe or today in the Third World countries, becomes a passive victim of capitalism from without.‖ The theory is further critiqued on the premise that it fails to recognize a positive side to the effect of the external forces of the core nations on the periphery nations, which is that they serve as the opportunities that can be used by the peripheral countries to change their technologies, ideas, and institutions. After all, ―all historical evidence points to the existence of certain degrees of freedom for national government and their ability to carry out, under certain circumstances,

fairly drastic policies of internal and external transformation‖ (Portes, 1976, p. 79). It is noted by the critics of this theory that development and dependency can indeed co-exist and dependency may not lead to underdevelopment at all times (Warren, 1973) This position is exemplified by former colonies of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea that have since the Second World War attained rapid economic development; and also Canada which displays a standard of living higher than that of most Third World countries despite the fact that it is ‗dependent‘ based on its economy being permeated by foreign subsidiaries (So, 1990). Again, the theory is critiqued for being highly abstract as it treats all the periphery countries as if they were same in its bid to lay out the general design of dependency in Third World countries which is erroneous (So, 1990).

Both modernization and dependency theories of development independently stress the vital aspects of development in the developing countries with each looking at the world via myopic lens. Modernization theory focuses on internal political and economic factors of the developing countries whereas the focal point of dependency theory is the purported effects of the restructure of the global economic system on the developing countries. This suggests that in the modernization discourse, for developing countries to attain development, it is a necessity for them to migrate from tradition to modernity through the exertion of modernizing state structures or presumed agents of modernization that has got the capability of completely changing economic, political and social realities; whereas in the dependency discourse, internal factors are deemphasized, emphasis is on the sinister effects imperialism and the international economic system. This reflects a clear division or fragmentation between the two theories of development.