Environments & Societies A - Dr. Lynne Brydon - 16th January 2004

SRN: 513355   Word Count - 1538

What do we mean by 'underdevelopment' and 'dependency'? How useful are terms in understanding African society today?

	'Underdevelopment' and 'Dependency' are both shorthand for sets of theories which seek to explain why many states have much lower levels of development than others, particularly in terms of industrialization. Underdevelopment is the condition itself, whereas dependency is the process argued to have caused it. Describing what is meant by the terms can perhaps be done most clearly with reference to the theories which they oppose. Underdevelopment, as social theory, opposes classical notions of modernisation. Durkheim emphasises the importance of a "segmental society" (Webster, 1990: 44) in a society's development, therefore an argument based on his ideas would point to insufficient division of labour as a cause for slow social development. Although not writing in the Durkheimian tradition, one might look to the work of Jeffrey Herbst for a more detailed and contemporary account of how "the fundamental problem..[of]...inhospitable territories that contain relatively low densities of people" (2000: 12) has inhibited the growth of a society, as labour division requires a high concentration of people. An altogether more complex argument was put forward by Max Weber who, by linking "the spirit of hard work, of progress" (2001: 11) to capitalist development, identified a causal relationship between the adoption of certain moral values and economic development. We should, therefore, seek to understand varying levels of state development through a process of understanding a society's norms and values. Karl Marx offers a third classical perspective on social change, which is well summarised by Blomström and Hettne: "the origins of all social change may be found in the conflict between the forces and relations of production" (1984: 9). That is to say that, as technology enabled more advanced production methods, social organization would eventually advance to match. Despite the many and fundamental differences between these three positions, we can draw a similarity between their works in pointing out that they all analyse a progression from a traditional phase to a modern one, and argue that the reasons for the progression, or lack thereof, can be found within a society's own attributes.

	While Webster points out that it often "does an injustice of the original ideas on which it relies" (1990: 48), it can be said that modernisation theory is largely based on these theories of sociological 'founding fathers'. If we take modernization a set of theories, such as those suggested by Walt Rostow, which see societal development as an inevitable evolution, a progression whereby 'inferior' undeveloped states, then it is here that we find the diametric opposition to the concepts of underdevelopment and dependency. In summarising Blomström & Hettne's overview of the criticisms of modernisation theory (1984: 24) we can see the possible methodological, that is to say use of "comparative statics which neglect the sources and the route of change" and moral, specifically, brashly ethnocentricity, ways in which it could be attacked. The trigger for this attack was empirical; the evolution simply wasn't happening. One of the most important notions to be dismissed by dependency theory was the idea that for "exposure to advanced industrial could only be of positive benefit to the Third World" (Webster 1990: 85). Summarised here by Potter et al, Andre Gunder Frank argued that "the condition of developing countries is not the outcome of inertia, misfortune, chance, climatic conditions or whatever, but rather the manner of their incorporation into the global capitalist system" (2003: 109). In a similar vein, Paul Baran used the idea of economic surplus, defined as "an excess of production over the needs of consumption" (Potter et al: 2003, 108) to analyse underdevelopment. In this model the surplus is extracted to the advanced nations, precluding the possiblity of the less developed ones investing it in their future. That sea-change from seeing Western involvement in Third World states as beneficial, to an exploitative relationship which held the satellite states around the rich metropoles in poverty was sufficiently radical for Blomström & Hettne (1984) to discuss it in terms of a Kuhnian paradigm shift. 

	Dependency theories such as those proposed by Frank and Baran can be seen as neo-Marxist in that they build on Marx's class analysis model, and utilise concepts like surplus, yet they are adapted to suit modern scenarios and to correct perceived oversights. In particular, dependency theorists broaden Marx's emphasis on a society's structures to consider external relations as well. Although this position appears to add insight and value to the sociological understanding of underdevelopment, it has several serious weakness, which are well summarised by Hadjor. He points out that Frank's model, in particular is "static and descriptive" (1993: 96). That is to say, Frank fails to acknowledge that the centre-periphery model is fluid, and thus fails to interpret these changes in international relations over time. Leys succinctly presents Laclau's critique on this point in stating that several vital issues concerning underdevelopment "cannot even be posed in the terms of the formulations used by Frank" (1996: 59). The theory is also vulnerable to criticism of empirical origination, in that several countries previously considered 'third world' have been able to develop rapidly, particularly in Asia, through participating in, not withdrawing from, world trade.

	It is worth commenting that while these serious flaws in dependency theory do prevent them from adequately explaining a complete range of socio-economic structures and processes, they are not completely without use. Returning to Blomström and Hettne's application of the 'paradigm shift', we can see that the shattering of modernization theory has debunked several dangerous myths and unearthed some uncomfortable truths. Perhaps the most important of this is the ethnocentrism of 'modernisation', in that it assumes the failure of what is now the third world can be attributed to "the lack of will or creativity" (Hadjor: 205), or at least geographical determinism. A step which acknowledges international processes as significant determinants of developments is one in the right direction.

	If one is to assess whether dependency is a useful concept in understanding contemporary African societies, one thing that must be considered is whether the dependency has simply lurched from one extreme of analysis to another. Blomström and Hettne note that it is difficult to avoid "a mechanical-externalistic interpretation" (Blomström & Hettne, 1984: 72) of Frank's model, that is, one that ignores internal processes. Marxists in a more classical vein might insist that we still need to internally examine the relations of production, yet this dichotomy is probably somewhat ridiculous and not useful in understanding contemporary processes. Any polarized theory which ignores the opposite processes is bound to produce an incomplete, and probably woefully inaccurate view.

	Even if one concludes that underdevelopment and dependency are not adequate concepts for explaining contemporary events, one does not necessarily preclude their usefulness in present analysis. It is possible that one could consider that a system of dependency did once exist; yet now a more complex system and set of structures exist. If this were the case, one could draw on an 'expired' concept like dependency, arguing that we need consider an African state's position at the periphery in previous decades to understand it's present. Yet, it seems unlikely that even in the colonial era African states were totally subjugated economically. As Cooper reminds us, not all trade between African and the West followed an extreme capitalist model: "success did not always mean acquiescence to a colonial order" (2002: 22). He goes further to argue that a period often believed to be characterized by stagnation was actually much more varied and featured "real achievement... progress in building schools, roads, hospitals and port facilities; progress in bringing Africans into positions in civil service and private employment where they could...help a younger generation advance" (p.130). Even if such achievements were uneven, and it is important to stress the diversity of the colonial and post-colonial experiences in African history, this seems to suggest that, on their own, dependency theories are not sufficient to understanding underdevelopment in Africa.

	If we have concluded that dependency theories, while useful as a critique of modernization, lack the sophistication required to understanding African societies today, an epilogue should be to consider what sort of theory, or theories, we should use instead, and if these relate to the concepts of underdevelopment and dependency. A concept of great significance in understanding modern relations is perhaps globalization. Anthony Giddens assures us that "economic globalisation... is a reality" (2001: 30). Statements such as this might lead one to consider that the resource flows discussed by the dependency theorists might still be of some use today. However, far from being purely economic, Giddens asserts that "globalization... is a complex range of processes" driven by culture and politics also. Perhaps this accent on diversity, in particular, in globalization theory will lead us to consider relations between the North and the South as being far more complex than imagined in the late 1960s, by either those who subscribed to modernization or dependency views. Perhaps the influence of Max Weber will be reasserted as we seek to understand the meanings behind the cultural elements within globalized processes and structures. In summary, while it is, in some regards, easy to dismiss notions of dependency and underdevelopment as irrelevant in discussing Africa, or anywhere else in modern times, it is perhaps worth remembering that vast economic and social inequalities do still exist, and resource-flows do still take place from South to North. We must therefore conclude that while ever these disparities are present, externally based theories of development may be significant.

Underdevelopment Essay Bibliography

Blomstrom, M & Hettne B 1984 Development Theory in Transition - The Dependency Debate & Beyond: Third World Responses London: Zed Books. 

Cooper, F 2002 Africa since 1940 :the past of the present. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Giddens, A 2001 The Third Way - The Renewal of Social Democracy. Oxford: Polity Press.

Hadjor, KB 1993 Dictionary of Third World Terms London: Penguin.

Herbst, J 2000 States and Power in Africa - Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control : Chichester, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Leys, C 1996 The Rise and Fall of Development Theory Nairobi, Bloomington, Indianapolis, Oxford: EAEP, Indiana University Press, James Currey.

Potter RB, Binns T, Elliot J, Smith D 2003 Geographies of development – Second Edition. Harlow :Prentice Hall.

Weber, M 2001 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism London: Routledge.

Webster, A 1990 Introduction to the Sociology of Development - Second Edition. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave.