in this follower position in the past. Dependency theorists argue that underdeveloped countries remain economically vulnerable unless they reduce their connectedness to the world market.
The theory sees the world’s nations as divided into a core of wealthy nations which dominate a periphery of poor nations whose main function in the system is to provide cheap labour and raw materials to the core. It held that the benefits of this system accrue almost entirely to the rich nations, which become progressively richer and more developed, while the poor nations, which continually have their surpluses drained away to the core, do not advance.
Furthermore, dependency theory states that poor nations provide natural resources and cheap labour for developed nations, without which the developed nations could not have the standard of living which they enjoy. Also, developed nations will try to maintain this situation and try to counter attempts by developing nations to reduce the influence of developed nations. This means that poverty of developing nations is not the result of the disintegration of these countries in the world system, but because of the way in which they are integrated into this system.
In addition, some dependency theorists like the famous Immanuel Wallerstein have rejected the notion of a Third World, claiming that there is only one world which is connected by economic relations. Wallerstein argues that this
system inherently leads to a division of the world in core, semi-periphery and periphery.69
One claim that seems to permeate the dependency theory is that the very contact between the developed and developing world within the world capitalist system is what hinders growth and causes poverty in the latter. Thus, dependency is often described as a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. Dependency theorists, however, consider the gap between the underdeveloped and the developed nations to be an inherent part of the system, effectively siphoning wealth form the South to the North.
With the above background, the dependency theorists argue that the phenomenon of underdevelopment has continued unabated even after colonialism through the activities of neo-imperialist institutions and agents who masquerade as leaders in developing countries. The period of transfer of political power to the indigenous bourgeoisie by the western colonialists witnessed the promotion of class and power relations which ensured the continued domination of Third World countries by international capitalism.70Thus, the dependency theorists hold that for underdeveloped nations to develop, they must break their ties with developed nations and pursue internal growth. Put differently, as Samir Amin argues, the solution to the crisis of development lies in de-linking developing or
underdeveloped countries from the global order and thus from western hegemony.71 Thus, the dependency theory insists that development can only occur if there is a deliberate or conscious effort by the Third World countries to de-link from the world capitalist order.
Nevertheless, dependency theory has been rendered “obsolete”, disappearing from the theoretical radar and leaving some of the crucial epistemological questions about development and poverty unanswered. One of the reasons why dependency theory lost its place in the normative universe and fell from currency is because its fragmented nature prevented it to develop a grand narrative that would provide a more robust framework of analysis.
Therefore, there is no one unified dependency theory. Depending on the ontological and causal focus, different authors come up with different interpretations and prescriptions. One of the more important distinctions is between Marxist and Latin American structuralist version of dependency theory. Their views diverge when it comes to issues of determination and possibility of development. The former version claims that development within the global capitalist system is impossible and focuses almost exclusively on external factors of determination. The latter theory is perhaps more optimistic when it comes to prospects of development, but it mainly tends to address internal factors of progress.
Also, policy recommendations of dependency theorists vary greatly. For instance, Andre Gunder Frank claims that causes of underdevelopment are explicitly historical, with recognition of internal class struggles, and solutions must be global, political and ultimately revolutionary, with necessary delinking of dependent economies. On the other hand, authors like Cardoso and Faletto believe that ‘associated dependent development’ is possible within the capitalist framework. They also focus on financial relations between countries, framing their theory in the terms of“bankers andclients.”72
Furthermore, the ideological impact of certain historical events, such as the failure of Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) in some Latin American countries and the fall of communism, rendered dependency theory “outdated”
compared to the vindicated policy prescriptions of neo-liberalism.