Dependency Theory Critiques :colonialism Via Capitalism Instigate Third World Dependency.

Critiques of the Dependency Theory  As Rodney (1972) contends, under colonialism, the things that developed were dependency and underdevelopment. The central claim  of the dependency theory was that the circumstances of the Third World countries were to a large extent shaped by the global structures within which they found themselves in particular, the dominance of the west.  

However, before looking at the critiques of the dependency theory, it is necessary to give a summary of the theoretical explanations which the proponents share together. 

i. The importance of considering both the historical experience of

peripheral (Third World countries) and the places of their

involvement within wider encompassing systems;

ii. The necessity of identifying specific political, economic and

cultural linkages of centres and peripheries;

iii. The requirement of active state involvement in the pursuit of

development.

Andre Gunder Frank, is seen as the leading representative of the dependency school. His key term, the development of the  underdevelopment can be seen as the radical counterparts of Rostow’s  take-off stage. He argued that the development of the satellites is limited  simply because they are satellites. Development along metropolitan lines  is precisely not possible for satellites given their subordinate position in  the international division of labour. Using the same three indices as yardstick for assessment, Frank is also  found wanting empirically. His view that no real development at all is  possible under capitalism is far from real. It is difficult to identify his  metropole-satellites with any actual sociological entity; rather, they are  mix of geographical and social. There are also policy problems. His  delinking from the Western world capitalist system is still problematic. Dependency theory also ignored the internal factors that may play critical role either to facilitate development or distort the processes of  development. For example, values, leadership, discipline, corruption, etc  constitute these internal obstacles that can ruin the process of  development. Dependency ignored the possibility of cultural resistance  as well as the right of a tribal society to reject or accept change and  innovations, as this diffused into the TWCs. Dependency suffers from

serious failings. Just as early modernisation scholars over emphasised

the internal causes of underdevelopment, dependency theorists

erroneously attributed virtually all of the TWCs problems to external

economic factors.

The most systematic critique of dependency is that of Cardoso, who

argues that their theories are based on five interconnected erroneous

theses concerning capitalist development in Latin America. These are:

1. that capitalist development in Latin America is impossible;

2. that dependent capitalism is based on the extensive exploitation of labour and tied to the necessity of underpaying labour; 

3. that local bourgeoisie no longer exist as an active social force;

4. that penetration by multinational firms leads local states to pursue an expansionist policy that is typically sub imperialist; and, 

5. that the political path of the sub continent is at the crossroads with the only conceivable options being socialism or fascism.