The dependency perspective

The dependency perspective

In its emphasis on the expansive nature of capitalism and in its structural analysis of society,the dependency literature draws on marxist insight and is related to the marxist theory of imperalism.

Assumption

The dependency perspective rejects the assumption made by modernization writers that the unu of analysis i studying underdevelopment is the nationa; society.The domestic cultural and institusional features of latin America are in themselves simply not the key variables accounting for the relative back wardness of the area,though,as will be seen below ,domestic structures are certainly critical intervening factors.

The dependency perspective assumes that the development of a national or regional unit can only be understood in connection with its historical insertion into the worlwide political-economic system which emerged with the wave of european colonizations of the world.

The center is viewed as capable of dynamic development responsive to internal needs, and as the main beneficiary of the global links.

For this reason dependence is characterized as ‘structural,historical,and totalizing’or an ‘ integral analysis of development’it is meaningless to develop,as some social scientist have,a series of synchronic statistical indicators to establish relative of dependence or independence among different  national units to test the ‘validity’ of the model.

Contrary to some assumptions in economic theory,the international division of labor did  not lead to parallel development through comparative advantage.the center states gained at the expense of the periphery.

It is  not inappropriate attitudes which contribute to the absense of entrepreneurial behavior or to institutional arrangements reinforming under development.

Dependency in a any given society is a complex set of associations  in which the external dimensions are determinative in varying degrees and,indeed,internal variables may very well reinforce the pattern of external linkages.

The dependency perpective is primarily a historical model with no claim to ‘universal validity’.This is way is has paid less attention to the formulation of precise theoritical constructs,such aa those found un the modernizations literature, and more attention to the specification of historical phases which are an integral part of the framework.

But the final blow to ‘important substitution’ industrialization  came not  from difficulties  in the periphery but further transformations  in the center  which have led,in sunkel’s term,to the creation of a new ‘transnational’ system.With rapid economic recoery the growing multinational corporations sought new markets  and cheaper production sites for them  increasingly technological manufacturing proces.Dependency consequently  acquired a ‘new character’ as dos  santos noted,which would   hae a profound  effect on latin America.Seeral processes were inoled resulting in (1) the invesment of centrally based corporations in manufactures within the periphery for sales in its  internal market or,as Cardoso and Enzo Faletto note,the ‘internationalisation of the internal  market,(2) a new international  division of labor  in which the periphery acquires capital goods,technology,and raw,materials and a few manufactured items produced by  multinational subsidiaries  and, (3) a denationalization  of the older import subsituting industries established originally.

Summary and conclusions

Modernizations and dependency are two different perspectives each claiming to provide  conceptual and analytical tools capable of explaining the relative underdevelopment of latin america.The object of injury is practically  the only thing that these two competing ‘visions’ have in common,as they differ substantially not only on fundamental assumptions ,but also on methodological implications  and strategies for research.

Though there are variations  in the literature ,the leel of analiysis of a substantial  tradition in the modernizations perpectie  and the one which informs  most reflections on latin America ,is behavioral  or microsociological.the primary  focus is on individuals,their values,attitudes,and  beliefs.the dependency perspective ,by contrast ,is structural or macrosociological.its focus in on the  mode of production,patterns of international trade,political and economic,inkages between alites in peripheral and central countries,group  alliances and contliticts,and so on.Both perspective are concerned with the process of development in national societies.

For the dependency perspective,the time dimension is a crucial aspect of what is fundamentally a historical model.

At the root of the differences between the two perspectives is a fundamentally different perception of human nature .Dependency assumes that human behavior  in economic matters is a ‘constant’.Individuals  will be bahave  differently  in different contexts not because they are different.

Modernizationists,on the other hand,attribute the lack of certain bahavioral patterns  to the ‘relativity’ of human behavior  to the fact that cultural values  and beliefs,regardless of opportunity structures.underlie the patterns  of economic actions.thus the conception of change in the modernization  perspective is a product of innovations which result from the adoption of modern attitudes among elites,and eventually followers.

For this  reason the dependency  perspective is an ‘ approach ‘ to the study  of  underdevelopment   rather than a ‘theory’.

But the strengths of dependency perspective  lie not only in this consideration of a richer body of  evidence and a broader  range of phenomena ,it is  also  more promising  from  a  methodological point of view.

The focus on individuals  simply  does not permit consideration of a broader  range of contextual variables which  might lead to invalidating  the assumption.

And yet the dependency approach appears  to have a fundamental advantages over the modernizations  perspective, it is open to historically grounded  conceptualizations  in underdeveloped context,while modernizations is locked into an  illustrative methodological style by virtue of its very assumption.