Purely empirical refutations

We shall start with the first sub-group of the empirical critiques, for which we take McGowan (1976) to be a significant representative.

McGowan seeks to respond to a proposition he perceives to be part of the dependence outlook, that a dependence relationship has a negative effect on the development of the the dependent country. The first point to note is that McGowan takes dependence to mean

d ep en d en ce on trade, and development to mean e c o n o m ic p e r fo r m a n c e . He accordingly seeks to test the proposition empirically by working out correlations between certain aspects of trade and a number of economic indicators of performance. The

trade aspects deem ed by him to define dependence are the share of a m ajor d o n o r in the total official b ilateral aid to a 'd e p en d e n t country', the percentage of exports going to a major trading partner, the share of the three leading commodities in total exports, and the ex ten t of in te rn a tio n a l tra d in g th a t a c o u n try carries o u t.i M cGowan u n d erstan d s the dependence outlook to be proposing th at w here the ratios are higher, econom ic perform ance becom es negative. H aving m ade this assum ption, he m atches each of the trade aspects in tu rn w ith tw enty-three q u a n t i f i a b l e econom ic indicators of perform ance in a sam ple of th irty 'black African' countries.

M cG ow an's project enables him to conclude th at there is no significant co rrelatio n betw een ratios of the trad e aspects in question an d levels of economic perform ance, except in term s of in te rn atio n al trad in g . H o w ev er, he arg u es, in th is case the correlation contradicts the prediction of the dependence outlook, since w h at his results show is th at the 'black African' countries w here foreign trad e w as a relatively large factor in the national econom y p erfo rm ed b etter than in those in w hich it w as not (McGowan, 1976: 31). W ith this argum ent, M cGowan then states that dependence 'theory' is not valid.

Several observations can be m ade on M cG ow an’s project. W ith o u t q u estio n in g the ability of his indicators to m easu re economic perform ance as others have done (Smith, 1977), it can be seen that McGowan does not exercise adequate caution in his use of economic indicators to make a judgem ent on developm ent. It will also be seen that his understanding of dependence is not correct.

M cGowan observes that dependence theorists have criticized 'export-generated economic grow th', and concludes from this that

these authors see large ratios of foreign trad e as evidence of dependence (McGowan, 1976: 29). The latter does not necessarily follow from the form er, and no dependence theorist has reached that conclusion. It is of course possible to link a dependence theorist w ith a criticism of 'export-generated economic grow th', for exam ple Sam ir A m in (1974b) w ith the concept of the 'ex p o rt sector'. H ow ever, a keener exam ination of the concept of 'export sector', w hich is only one am ong a num ber of d e p e n d e n c e s y m p t o m s considered, show s th a t the m eaning is different from th at of 'export-generated econom ic grow th'. N ot only does the concept encom pass a p articu lar type of social relations, b u t even in its econom ic sense its specified differentia is n o t th at a country's economic grow th is generated by export, but that the 'export sector' is disarticulated from the rest of the dependent economy.

M cGowan's understanding of dependence derives from a very general m eaning of vulnerability, as pointed out by Sm ith (1977), and som etim es even from a dictionary m eaning of relying on so m eth in g or som eone. D ependence tran sce n d s b o th these m eanings.

M cGowan's problem w ith the m eaning of dependence is partly due to w h at he himself considers a lack of a commonly agreed upon definition (McGowan, 1976: 38). Observing generally th at m uch of the c ritiq u e of the d ep en d en ce ap p ro ach is 'm isp laced ' and 'misconceived', Bienefeld (1980: 5) has had this to say:

"the theoretical and political diversity of the argum ents which hav e been associated w ith this [dependence] school of thought is such th at it is no great task to find fo rm u latio n s and conclusions w ith w hich to disagree. W hat is m ore difficult, m o re rare and m ore useful is to distil the essence o f the

argument out of the stew of the debate and to subject it to scrutiny. As will become obvious, the way one defines this essence has a direct bearing on how it w ithstands the subsequent scrutiny." (Emphasis added.)

As has been pointed out by Kleemeier (1978: 703-704) and Smith (1977: 116), even in a very general sense dependence refers to a particular historical evolution and the structure of the global social formation which prevents self-generating growth from occurring in dependent countries. Two propositions, again of a general nature, can serve as elaborations of this broad description. Firstly that the lack of self-generating growth is chiefly associated with the global spread of capitalism as an economic system. This general proposition is a starting point for investigation, and it hardly expresses a preference for the social system in question. Its validation is possible by the investigation of the history of the global spread of capitalism both generally and for specific geographical entities. The second proposition is that the perpetuation of the lack of self-generating growth is caused by the economic structure whose relative stability is supported by various externally and internally based social forces acting at economic, social and political levels. The emphasis of the propositions on the system and the global character of that system shows a recognition of the objective and universalistic tendency of the accumulation process, and it is in this context that associating capitalism with the present state of affairs in the Third World should be understood. McGowan's polemical interpretation of it as a 'psychologically satisfying value standpoint which places the blame on the "devils" in the West' misses the point.

dependence world outlook is expected to address the entire context of the object of refutation. McGowan's critique revolves around one factor, which is trade, and therefore should be directed towards that factor alone, or, better still, to a specific author who understands dependence purely in terms of trade and economic performance. That McGowan does not identify such an author and yet assigns this meaning to dependence, we suggest, is largely because he sought and made out empirical propositions that would be readily measurable. McGowan (1976: 37) reveals his central concern in one of the passages, where he states that

"The problem for the social scientist is to describe dependence adequately, and to measure it in a reliable and valid fashion ”

(Emphasis added.)

In the process McGowan pushes aside the question of a correct presentation of the material to be evaluated.

Several participants in this debate have observed that the main difficulty of social scientists who are heavily inclined towards quantitative measurements is that they are predisposed towards deriving meaning that is readily measurable (Jackson, et.al., 1979: 20; Seers, 1981: 15). There is then a tendency to push aside the question of a correct presentation of the material to be evaluated, as McGowan does with dependence. This central concern for what is readily measurable ultimately turns into empiricism in the case of McGowan when he declares dependence invalidated on account of his own quantitative empirical project alone.

The points raised by McGowan are similar to those put forward by another purely empirical appraisal of dependence, conducted by Kaufman and others (1975). By using cross-sectional data for various nations, this project examines the effect of certain types of

external factors, including trade, investm ent and debt, on Third W orld 'economic developm ent and distribution'. The project has been criticized by Jackson et al (1979: 19- 20), w ho are them selves in v o lv e d in q u a n tita tiv e m e a s u re m e n ts of d e p e n d e n c e propositions. The latter argue that such projects have no regard to stru c tu re , h isto ry an d social relations, an d th at they assign to d ep en d en ce different kinds of m eaning w hich are only rem otely connected w ith it. These kinds of m eaning, they point out, include th e n o tio n th at external relatio n s cause in eq u ality , an d th at aggregate econom ic production equals developm ent. C hase-D unn (1975), w h o has c o n d u c te d a n o th e r e m p iric a l a p p ra is a l of dependence, can be criticized in a similar w ay (Jackson et al, 1979).

The sam e dissatisfaction can be expressed regarding the w ork of Vengroff (1975, 1977). By his ow n account, Vengroff's w ork ends up 'su p p o rtin g the propositions of the dependence outlook', after he set o u t 'to subject dependency theory to a prelim inary em pirical test'. But, once again, neither does the au th o r seek to identify the central thesis or theses of the dependence outlook nor does he relate any of w hat he calls 'assertions of dependence' to a w riter w ithin that outlook. He lists three of w h at he regards as elem ents of dep en d en ce. These are accordingly fo rm u lated in to three h y p o th eses for testing. The first is th at th ere is a n eg ativ e c o rre la tio n b etw een econom ic d e p en d e n ce an d th e econom ic p erform ance of a nation. His figures ap p ear to d isp ro v e this h y p o th esis. The second is th at there are positive correlations betw een econom ic dependence, political dependence and m ilitary d e p en d e n ce , an d he finds the h y p o th esis pro v en . The th ird proposition is that there is a positive correlation betw een economic d ep en d en ce and the level of inequality w ithin a nation. W hile

regarding inequality as being the 'm ost crucial test of dependence th eo ry ', he considers that 'the b est available m easu re of this in e q u a lity ' is 'th e ethnic re p re se n ta tiv e n e ss of th e cab in et' (Vengroff, 1977: 615, 620). A nd this rath er rare d efin itio n of inequality in the dependence debate helps V engroff p rove the hypothesis correct. W hat is quite clear is th at none of these hypotheses is proposed by the dependence outlook.

O ne other appraisal of dependence to be considered in this category is that of Lall (1975). Lall argues that there is a close affinity betw een the w ords dependence and interdependence, and that it is possible to show empirically the relationship betw een nation-states as one of interdependence. He agrees th at the features of the economy as described by dependence theorists exist, b u t argues that dependence is the w rong w ord to describe them. In effect Lall's critique becomes a linguistic one.

T here is in d eed in terd ep en d en ce betw een alm ost all social phenom ena. But concepts do not necessarily equal the elem entary m eaning of w ords from which they originate. Foster-Carter (1976) and C ard o so and Faletto (1979: xxi) have d e m o n stra te d how conceptually m istaken this 'interdependence' view is as a counter­ critique of the dependence approach.

Lall raises two further themes for consideration, although they are quite undeveloped in the essay. The first argues th at the features of u n d e rd e v elo p m en t described by dependence th eo rizatio n are general to capitalist grow th, and that these features are present in no g re a te r m ag n itu d e in 'u n d e rd ev e lo p e d ' co u n tries th an in in d u strialized countries. Lall does not p roduce figures, b u t he insists th at his views are based on their empirical dem onstrability. W hat is notable is the impression given, that the significant features

of developm ent observed in the Third W orld are not peculiar to it. The second them e raised by Lall is th at dependence theorization takes a value stan d p o in t, i.e. w hether capitalist developm ent is desirable or not. This description of dependence analyses as being influenced by ideological or m oral preferences is better form ulated than M cGowan's attem pt in his reference to 'blam ing the devil in the W est', and can to an extent be dem onstrated. Lall also points to features - for exam ple im m iseration - w hich he thinks do not signify dependence but aspects of capitalism that are objectionable to dependence theorists (Lall, 1981). But he m erely m entions them , and we think th at they are better articulated by those w ho have attem pted to present an alternative statem ent, as we shall see soon.

A lthough Lall him self does not produce figures, he w orks out 'characteristics of dependence' to be m easured as factors in a m anner sim ilar to others in this category. H e too appears to be convinced th a t th e p ro o f or v a lid a tio n of d e p e n d e n c e th e o riz a tio n is d ep en d en t entirely on the critic's em pirical m easures of w hat are th o u g h t to be characteristics of dependence. The additional tw o them es in tro d u c e d by him an d m en tio n ed above in d icate an aw areness that dependence is not m ade u p of rigid features and m echanical relationships - an attem pt to m eet the theorization on a conceptual plane. Below we consider the largely empirical refutation of dependence by W arren (1973), w ho is categorised in a different su b -g ro u p because he offers altern ativ e statem ents to those he criticizes.