Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concepts of ‘Development’ and ‘Dependency’ are central to understanding global inequalities. Traditionally, ‘Development’ has been framed as a linear progression towards Western models of industrialization and economic growth. However, the Dependency Theory, emerging in the mid-20th century, challenged this notion, arguing that the underdevelopment of certain nations is not an inherent state but a consequence of their historical and ongoing exploitation by developed ‘core’ nations. This perspective gained prominence amidst decolonization and the perceived failure of modernization efforts in many post-colonial states, prompting a re-evaluation of global power dynamics and their impact on economic trajectories.
Defining Development and Dependency
Development, in its conventional sense, refers to sustained improvements in a nation’s economic well-being, social progress, and political stability, often measured through indicators like GDP per capita, Human Development Index (HDI), and levels of industrialization. However, this definition is often critiqued for its Eurocentric bias.
Dependency, conversely, describes a situation where the economic development of a nation is constrained by its relationship with a more powerful, developed nation. This constraint can manifest through unequal trade relations, debt burdens, or political domination.
Origins and Core Arguments of Dependency Theory
Dependency Theory emerged as a response to modernization theory, which posited that all societies would eventually follow the path of Western nations. Key figures like Raúl Prebisch (Argentina), Andre Gunder Frank (Germany/US), and Samir Amin (Egypt) challenged this view. Prebisch, in his work on the terms of trade (1950s), argued that the prices of primary commodities (exported by developing countries) tend to decline relative to manufactured goods (exported by developed countries), leading to a structural imbalance in the global economy.
Andre Gunder Frank, in his ‘development of underdevelopment’ thesis (1966), argued that the historical relationship between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ nations had actively created and perpetuated underdevelopment in the latter. He posited that colonialism and subsequent neo-colonial practices drained resources from the periphery, hindering their independent development. Samir Amin further elaborated on this, identifying different layers within the periphery – center, semi-periphery, and periphery – highlighting the varying degrees of dependence.
Core-Periphery Relationship and Mechanisms of Dependency
The core-periphery model illustrates the unequal power dynamics. Core nations control capital, technology, and markets, while periphery nations provide raw materials and cheap labor. Several mechanisms perpetuate this dependency:
- Unequal Trade: As highlighted by Prebisch, unfavorable terms of trade consistently disadvantage developing countries.
- Foreign Debt: High levels of external debt force developing countries to allocate resources to debt servicing, hindering investment in crucial sectors like education and healthcare.
- Multinational Corporations (MNCs): MNCs often exploit resources and labor in developing countries, repatriating profits to their home countries.
- Political Interference: Historical and contemporary political interference by developed nations can undermine democratic processes and hinder independent policy-making.
Criticisms of Dependency Theory
Despite its influence, Dependency Theory has faced several criticisms:
- Oversimplification: Critics argue that the core-periphery model is too simplistic and fails to account for the diversity of experiences within developing countries.
- Lack of Empirical Support: Some studies have challenged the empirical validity of the theory, pointing to instances of successful development in countries with historically dependent relationships (e.g., the East Asian Tigers).
- Internal Factors: The theory is often accused of neglecting internal factors, such as corruption, poor governance, and lack of investment in human capital, which also contribute to underdevelopment.
- Ignoring Agency: It can be seen as portraying developing countries as passive victims, ignoring their agency and potential for independent development.
Contemporary Relevance
While the original formulations of Dependency Theory may require revision, its core insights remain relevant in understanding contemporary global inequalities. The rise of global value chains, the increasing influence of MNCs, and the persistence of debt burdens continue to create dependencies. The concept of ‘neo-colonialism’ – indirect forms of control exerted by developed nations – remains a powerful analytical tool. Furthermore, the debate surrounding fair trade, debt relief, and the regulation of MNCs reflects ongoing concerns about the unequal power dynamics highlighted by Dependency Theory.
Conclusion
Dependency Theory offered a crucial critique of conventional development models, highlighting the historical and structural factors that contribute to global inequalities. While its rigid core-periphery framework has been challenged, its emphasis on unequal power relations and the detrimental effects of exploitation remains pertinent. A nuanced understanding of dependency, alongside consideration of internal factors and agency, is essential for formulating effective strategies for sustainable and equitable development in the 21st century.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.