Overview
Alvin So wrote this book in 1990 and is looking at Cardodo’s ‘new dependency theory.’ So argues that it is popular because of the following reasons:
- It is historical-structural: that is, it can identify the historical uniqueness of a given dependency situation – explaining each situation specifically;
- There is also a focus on the internal structures of dependency: meaning that we see a focus on the socio-political causes of dependency not just economic ones. Therefore, we see a focus on both the people within a nation and coerciveness of their own institutions.
So does not see dependency theory as ‘structural determination’: that is, that the structures immediately result in a pre-determined result. Rather, dependency theory is an open-ended process. Consequently, if we are given some of the same structures, a range of outcomes are possible which are dependent on a range of political alliances and social movements. While structures influence, there is no definite trend or direction that they result in.
Associated dependent development
Cardoba dismissed classical critique of military coup in Brazil: rather, he saw it as ‘associated dependent development’. This approach combines two statements that appear contradictory: dependency and development.
This is a new phase driven by the ongoing expansion of Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) that result in an invasion of industrial capital in periphery economies and leads to a new international division labour. Development occurs if the interests of the TNCs match those of the periphery nation. This, however, does not always lead to the ‘modernisation path’ – regression can and does occur in nations.
He also argues strongly, that a nation not should rely on TNCs setting up – rather, each nation must assert itself into the circuit of international capitalism.
To understand developments, there is a need to look at both foreign domination and domestic political forces: and these are dynamically interrelated and change. So presents three political actors here: the military, TNCs and bourgeoisie (p.142). This analysis has seen the emergence of ‘triple theme development studies’ – which has been applied in many areas.
O’Donnell’s bureaucratic-authoritarian state (B-A)
The bureaucratic-authoritarian state has a number of characteristics including:
- A dominance by bureaucrats;
- Political and economic exclusion of the many;
- A process of de-politicisation; and
- The deepening of dependence on capitalism.
The B-A state emerges only if corporations are willing to invest in the longer term – which is driven by a belief that there is a profitable and stable economy. To attract capital, then the B-A state must eliminate any threats that emerge towards this. Both the process of development and the elimination processes take time and are precarious. This process, driven by bureaucracies, may even mean there is a need to confront and faced challenges from old and established allies. This is a process that also relies on international institutions such as World Bank and the IMF for recognition.
When international capitalism begins to enter a nation in sustained fashion we see the concentration of power. If this leads to economic growth and development, then it is likely that we see control eased.
In what sounds familiar even today, the B-A state claims it is representing and pushing for what is best for the nation. Those who are excluded are asked to participate vicariously. This creates complex power relations, encouraging competitive capitalism to permeate everywhere except where capital flow are concerned – which continue to be monopolised by the elites. As a result, the relationship between the B-A state and international capital is described as ‘mutual indispensability.’
O’Donnell saw two ways for the BA state to fall: either it does not fulfil obligations and is forced to pass power to other elites, or it is successful and gives up its control (though remaining a power broker).
O’Donnell wrote this in the 1970s at the height of BA power.
Evan’s analysis of Brazil
Following the development ‘miracle’ in Brazil, its economy collapsed in the 1980s. Evan’s argument is that a changing external environment and internal contradictions caused this.
Evan’s sees this happening around a triple alliance of interests: the state, TNCs and local capital. While they often cooperate, Evan’s also believes these can also be in conflict. In Brazil then, we had the contradiction of dependent development were we get economic growth that benefits the few while the many suffered.
Gold and Taiwan
Gold was interested in understanding how far dynamic development could proceed without abandoning dependency theory, taking his analysis from Latin American model to SE Asia.
Gold’s focus is Taiwan, and how it moved towards Japan post the Chinese revolution, and began to implement export-led industrialisation (which included export processing zones and capital inflows. The transition has not been smooth with boom and trough, but there has emerged a dynamic dependency with deepening levels of industrialisation.
Unlike classical theorists, Gold sees Taiwan as ‘new factory imperialism.’ He is, however, quite optimistic, arguing that selective capitalism can assist nations develop in many positive ways.
Conclusion
New dependency theory has modified many of dependency theory’s assumptions – moving from determinism to dynamic in both internal and external factors. This gives us a more sophisticated analysis and includes:
- Ensuring historical factors are considered;
- A strong focus on internal and socio-political activities
- Looking at the links between dependency and development.
My thoughts on this: I am thinking that much of these writings are still relevant today - it is always possible to dismiss the flaws in these theories, but they provide us with an important understanding of historical developments and how nations become dependent. This retards their 'development' because it is an unequal power relationship.
The attitude that emerged in the neoliberal world, however, is one that all states are equal, and historical factors do not count. These theorists remind us that they do!
