A Dependency Theory of International Relations

Interpretation of IR in terms of external influence on a country, for example, cultural, economic, political, military, etc. It is more related to economic analysis of development related problems in the world.

Trickle down failed.

Dependency Theory was developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch.

Prebisch and his colleagues held that economic growth in the advanced industrialized countries did not necessarily lead to growth in the poorer countries.

Economic activity in the richer countries often led to serious economic problems in the poorer countries.

Such a possibility was not predicted by neoclassical theory, which had assumed that economic growth was beneficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if the benefits were not always equally shared.

All economies of the world are not equally developed. Some are more developed and advanced than others. Therefore, the economics of the world have been classified into developed economies and under-developed economies. By 1950s and 60s, Afro Asian and Latin American countries were facing under-development.

Theories of underdevelopment and dependency theory were formulated.

The debates among the liberal reformers (Prebisch), the Marxists (Andre Gunder Frank), and the world systems theorists (Wallerstein) was vigorous and intellectually quite challenging.
There are still points of serious disagreements among the various strains of dependency theorists and it is a mistake to think that there is only one unified theory of dependency. Nonetheless, there are some core propositions which seem to underlie the analyses of most dependency theorists.
Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies (Osvaldo Sunkel, "National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America," The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, October 1969, p. 23). Theotonio Dos Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his definition:
[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.
(Theotonio Dos Santos, "The Structure of Dependence," in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, eds., Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971, p. 226)

Dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of 2 sets of states, variously described as dominant/dependant, center/ periphery or metropolitan/satellite.

The dominant states are the advanced industrial nations in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The dependent states are those states of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for foreign exchange earnings.
Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that external forces are of singular importance to the economic activities within the dependent states. These external forces include multinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreign assistance, communications, and any other means by which the advanced industrialized countries can represent their economic interests abroad.
There are a number of propositions, all of which are contestable, which form the core of dependency theory. These propositions include:
1. Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different from undevelopment. The latter term simply refers to a condition in which resources are not being used. Underdevelopment refers to a situation in which resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found.
2. The distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment places the poorer countries of the world is a profoundly different historical context. These countries are not "behind" or "catching up" to the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they lagged behind the scientific transformations or the Enlightenment values of the European states. They are poor because they were coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with dominant states.
3. Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are preferable to the resource usage patterns imposed by dominant states. There is no clear definition of what these preferred patterns might be, but some criteria are invoked. For example, one of the dominant state practices most often criticized by dependency theorists is export agriculture. The criticism is that many poor economies experience rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce great amounts of food for export. Many dependency theorists would argue that those agricultural lands should be used for domestic food production in order to reduce the rates of malnutrition.
4. The preceding proposition can be amplified: dependency theorists rely upon a belief that there exists a clear "national" economic interest which can and should be articulated for each country. In this respect, dependency theory actually shares a similar theoretical concern with realism. What distinguishes the dependency perspective is that its proponents believe that this national interest can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor within a society, rather than through the satisfaction of corporate or governmental needs. Trying to determine what is "best" for the poor is a difficult analytical problem over the long run. Dependency theorists have not yet articulated an operational definition of the national economic interest.
5. The diversion of resources over time (and one must remember that dependent relationships have persisted since the European expansion beginning in the fifteenth century) is maintained not only by the power of dominant states, but also through the power of elites in the dependent states. Dependency theorists argue that these elites maintain a dependent relationship because their own private interests coincide with the interests of the dominant states. These elites are typically trained in the dominant states and share similar values and culture with the elites in dominant states. Thus, in a very real sense, a dependency relationship is a "voluntary" relationship. One need not argue that the elites in a dependent state are consciously betraying the interests of their poor; the elites sincerely believe that the key to economic development lies in following the prescriptions of liberal economic doctrine.

Proposition:

There are number of assumptions, all of which are contestable which form the core of dependency theory, these include;

i. Third World countries do not exist in isolation. They can only be understood in the context of the world economic and political system. Political events in the third world countries are directly related to the events in first world countries. However, relations between first and third world countries are asymmetrical. The flow of power and control is from the first world (Centre/core) to the third world (periphery).

ii. Within the world political and economic system, there is a tremendous amount of interaction among core countries and people or between core and periphery. There is very little interaction among periphery countries. The consequences of this are great resulting in an isolated and weak periphery country having an unequal relationship with a united and strong core.

iii. Politics and economics are related. They cannot be understood apart from each other. Economic ties and relationship between core or periphery countries are particularly important. These are advantageous for the core and disadvantageous for the periphery. Core-periphery trading patterns result in continuous growth of political and economic power for the core at the expense of periphery.

iv. Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different from un-development. The latter term refers to a condition in which resources are not being used. Underdevelopment refers a situation in which resources are being actively used, but in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found.

v. Dependency theory suggests that alternative use of resources are preferable to the resource usage patterns imposed by dominant states. There is no clear definition of what these preferred patterns might be, but some criteria are invoked.