Dependency: A
Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations
of Underdevelopment?
Gabriel Palma*
Institute of Latin American Studies. University of
London
Para Magdalena
World Development, Vol. 6, pp. 881-924, Pergamon
Press Ltd., 1978 |
1. INTRODUCTION
May one talk of a 'theory of dependency'? If so, what general
implications does it have for contemporary development strategy? Do we find under the
'dependency' label theories of such a diverse nature that it would be more appropriate to
speak of a 'school of dependency'? Is it even correct to describe as theories the
different approaches within that school? And if so, what general implications might each
one have for contemporary development strategy?
Some writers within the dependency school argue that it is misleading to
look at dependency as a formal theory , and that no general implications for
development can be abstracted from its analyses. Some of those who argue that there is
such a theory flatly assert that it leads inescapably to the conclusion that development
is impossible within the world capitalist system, thus making development strategies
irrelevant,
at least within that system. Others, on the other hand, who speak in terms of a theory of
dependency, argue that it can be operationalized into a practical development
strategy for dependent countries.
If the problem of extracting direct lessons from the dependency analyses is a
dilficult one, it is no less difficult to survey what has been a diffuse and at times
contradictory movement, inextricably a part of the recent history of Latin America itself,
of individual nations, and
of the post-war development of international capitalism, and drawing its inspiration from
such diverse intellectual traditions as the long
and involved Marxist debate concerning the development of capitalism in backward nations,
881
|
and the post-1948 ECLA
critique of the conventional theory of international trade and economic development.
The complex roots of the dependency analyses and the variety of
intellectual traditions on which they draw make any attempt at a comprehensive survey
difficult. The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that in one way or another the
dependency perspective has so dominated work in the social sciences in Latin America and
elsewhere in recent years that it would be literally impossible to review the overwhelming
mass of writing that has appeared, aimed at either supporting or refuting--------------------------
*The initial stimulus for this paper came from a workshop on dependency organized in the
Latin American Centre, St. Antony's College, Oxford, by my colleagues Rosemary Thorp and
Sanjaya Lall, of the Institute of Economics and Statistics, and myself. I am extremely
indebted to them both, and to the participants in that workshop, and particularly to Paul
Cammack, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ernesto Laclau and Philippe Reichstul for discussing
an earlier draft of the paper with me. I would also like to thank Alan Angell, Mariana
Chudnovsky, Rafael Echeverria, Maria Alicia Ferrera, Luis Ortega, Cristobal Palma, Hilda
Sabato, Elizabeth Spillius, Bob Sutcliffe and Margaret Weinmann for their help and
support, and the World University Service and the Institute of Latin American Studies of
London University for making it possible for me to devote myself fully to this research.
F'inally, I would like to express gratitude greater than words can adequately convey
to Paul Cammack, for transforming the original manuscript into polished English. for
clarifying my own ideas on a number of points in so doing, and for editing the essay down
to manageable proportions. despite my frequent protests. The responsibility for what is
left is of course my own. |
its major theses,or simply reflecting its
sudden ascendancy in academic and institutional circles hitherto relatively closed to
radical critiques of current orthodoxy. Added to this is the fact that in one way or
another those who have contributed to the dependency school have been directly and
actively involved in the major political struggles and controversies of post-war Latin
America. Not only has this left an indelible mark on their own work, but it has often led
their oppon~nts to cloud the issues by carrying the debate to purely ideological ter-
rain, thus adding to the confusion surrounding the dependency analysis itself by promoting
an increasingly sterile discussion with little thorough consideration of its theoretical
and historical roots.
I believe that previous surveys of dependency writings have in
particular failed to clarify sufficiently its roots in the tradition of Marxist thought on
the development of capitalism in backward nations, thus giving rise to a great deal of
misunderstanding. I have therefore attempted particularly to place it within this
tradition; Marxism is a highly complex subject, and its contribution to the analysis of
the development of capitalism in backward nations is no less so; an attempt to incorporate
it into the analysis here is however essential, in order to
(1) clarify the conceptual
issues around which the debate revolves,
(2) show how many of the debates among dependency writers echo similar
debates which took place earlier within the Marxist tradition, although in some cases
their relevance has not been duly appreciated, and
(3) show the problems involved in seeking 'implications for contemporary
development strategy' from the dependency writers.
I complement this analysis with a discussion of the other major source
of inspiration behind dependency, the ECLA {United Nations Eco- nomic Commission for Latin
America) school and the attempts to reformulate its thinking which followed the apparent
failure of ECLA- inspired policies of import-substituting industrialization.
I distinguish three approaches within the dependency school, and
conclude that the most successful analyses are those which resist the temptation to build
a formal theory, and focus on 'concrete situations of dependency'; in general terms I have
elected to stress that the cuntribution of dependency has been up to now more a critique
of development strategies in general than an attempt to make practical contributions to
them.
882 |
2.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE MARXIST DEBATE ON CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT
IN BACKWARD NATIONS
The Marxist debate on capitalist development in backward nations is located in
the broader theoretical context of the debate on imperialism. At a first level of
approximation, close to its etymological meaning, imperialism denotes a particular
relationship, 'a relationship of a hegemonical state to people or nations under its
control' ( Lichtheim, 1971, p. 10). At this level the essence of imperialism is domination
and subordination, and the concrete ways in which the sovereignty of lesser political
bodies can be infringed may be manifested in very dissimilar manners, as direct and
visible as in colonialism, or as complex and diffuse as in a system of international
relations of dependency which distorts the economic development of nations.
From this point of view imperialism neither is nor has to be a
phenomenon exclusive to capitalism, for close and asymmetric relationships are not
peculiar to capitalism; what is peculiar to it is the form in which this type of
relationship is developed and made manifest. Even more, the concrete ways in which the
backward countries have furnished the needs of the advanced countries within the system
also vary, in accordance with the changing necessities of the latter in their different
stages of development. For this reason it is not very useful to remain at this first
level; we must progress further, and analyse the way in which these relations of
domination and subjection are situated in the context in which they develop; if not, we
shall find ourselves making only
general disquisitions on imperialism, which
ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between
socio-economic systems, and which inevitably degenerate into the most vapid banality or
bragging, like the comparison: 'Greater Rome or Greater Britain' (Lenin, 1916, p. 97).
a. The Marxist concept
of imperialism(1)
The essential characteristic which distin- guishes the way in which
Marxism places this relationship of domination and subjection within the context in which
it develops (as it does in all other social activities and historical develop- ments) is
its basis in the material conditions of production; while non-Marxist interpretations may
be based equally, and at times jointly, on ideological, political, economic, social or
cultural factors. Nevertheless, the Marxist analysis |
and interpretation of imperialism does not
deny in any way the superstructural elements that may have been prcscnt in the different
stagcs of imperialism,(2) for the elements of the superstructure may and do assume an autonomy of their
own, which in turn reacts upon the material base; to deny the importance of the
superstructural elements is to fail to understand the important feedback of human
consciousness into the material world. What is peculiar to Marxist interpretations of
imperialism is the reference in the final analysis of these and other superstructural
elements to the material base in which they develop.(3)
Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to postulate that the elements of the
superstructure can be related in the final analysis to the material base in which they
develop; we also need to know the concrete forms in which the two are connected. This has
been one of the most controversial themes within Marxism, and Marx himself did not make
the task any easier, saying sometimes that the one 'determines' the other, sometimes
that it 'conditions' it, and sometimes that it 'corresponds' to it. There is at
least agreement among Marxists that changes in the base are necessary but not sufficient
for changes in the superstructure. That is to say, changes in the superstructure are
related to changes in the material base of society. but do not occur as a simple
mechanical reflex.(4)
If Marx uses different terms to refer to this relationship, there are
nevertheless passages in his works which offer the necessary elements for a clear
understanding of his position. In the preface to the second edition of The Eighteenth
Brumaire of Luis Bonaparte for example, written in 1869, he explains that conditioning
historical circumstances (that is, those external to the will of individuals) determine
only the possibilities in historical situations, not the details of their future
development. In the analyses which he made of the Russian situation in the last years of
his life (and to which I shall return later) he is very explicit in this respect. Lenin
for his part constantly debated with the Mensheviks their deterministic view of history:
The Mensheviks think that
history is the product of material forces acting through thc processes of evolution. I
think, with Marx, that man makes history, but within the conditions, and with the
materials, given by the corresponding period of civilization. And man can be a tremendous
social force (quoted in Horowitz, 1969. p. 10).
The importance of the material conditions of the process of production,
which leads Marx to make of this aspect of human activity the
883 |
corner-stone of social
activity and historical development (and hence of imperialism) relates back to the fact
that for him labour is the fundamental human activity. Through it man not only satisfies
the primordial need to subsist, but also develops his potential; this activity, which
consists of an interaction with nature and with one's fellow men, contributes an essential
element to Marx's understanding of man and his history, and it is this which leads Engels
to call this approach 'Historical Materialism'.
The essence of Marx's analysis of the process of labour is to be found in Capital
(1867, pp. 130-138); once he had demonstrated the impossibility of explaining the
process of extraction of surplus value at the level of the circulation of capital, he
decided to take the analysis to a deeper level, to that of production. Making this
transition, he develops the concept of labour first at an abstract level (that is,
independent of any historical process), and later in the particular forms in which it
develops in the capitalist mode of production:
Labour is a process in which both
man and nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates and
controls the material reactions between himself and nature... By thus acting on the
external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops
his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway (1867, p. 130).(5)
The clearest statement of the importance which Marx attached to the material
conditions of the productive process is found in the preface to A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy ( 1859):
In the social production of their
life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their
will, relations of production which correspond to a definite state of development of their
material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the
economic structure of society, the real foundtion, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of
production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process
in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
It is important to stress that from this method of historical analysis
it cannot be deducted that man is simply a product of material conditions; Marx criticizes
Feuerbach for adopting this vicw, which leaves out the subjective, creative side of man's
interaction with nature.(6) What Marx wishes to stress is that |
to understand man, we must begin with the
material conditions of the productive proccess; this does not imply economic determinism,
although Engels later recognized some responsibility for the diffusion of this view:
Marx and I are ourselves partly to
blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side
than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-a-vis our adversaries, who
denied it, and we had not always the time, the place, or the opportunity to give their due
to other elements involved in the interaction (quoted in McLellan, 1975, p. 41)
As regards Marx's method of analysis, he emphasized that any science had
to penetrate from the apparent movement of things to their real underlying causes. This
involved a distinction between appearance and essence, going back a long way from Hegel
through Spinoza and Aristotle.(7) As regards economics, he conceives it as the core of any scientific view of
society, and criticizes those economists who
dealt only with the market system (appearance)
without considering the social foundation (essence) in which the market is based.
(McLellan, 1975, p 58).
The essential elements of Marx's view of the capitalist system are found
in Capital, but it is studied there only from the point of view of the mode of
production, without relating it to any social formation in which it develops. This part of
Marx's work was incomplete at his death. It is generally argued that the fundamental
elements of the methodology of Marx's economic doctrines are found in the general
introduction to his Grundrisse ( 1859, pp. 100-108), and in the preface to the
second edition of Capital (1867, pp. xvii-xxiv), and that the methodology relates
to Hegel, the economic analysis to Smith and Ricardo. Nevertheless, a recent study of
Marx's method of analysis in Capital has contributed new ideas to the debate (
Echeverria, forthcoming)
The fundamental theoretical nucleus of Marx's analysis is the labour
theory of value;(8) from this it follows that the capitalist mode of production is governed by the
drive to extract surplus value from a class of wage labourers, to realize this surplus
value by finding a market for the commodities in which it is embodied, and to turn this
surplus value into capital for investment in new means of production to maintain and
expand the process.
From the point of view of our analysis, the principal implications of
the labour theory of value for the long-term future of capitalisrn are that
884 |
(i) the rate of profits for capitalists would tend to
decrease, thus forcing them to engage in a continual struggle to avoid this fall, marked
among other things by the need for the geographic expansion of their economies;
(ii) the working class would be totally excluded from 'objective
wealth';(9)
(iii) the system as a whole would be shaken as a result of these and
other factors by a series of crises that would culminate in a transition to a higher
system.
The development of this system of production first in the United Kingdom
and later in other countries led them to develop between themselves and with the rest of
the world relationships different from those which had prevailed before, and dictated
primarily by their particular economic needs. These relationships in turn tend to evolve
in accordance with the transformation of the economies of these countries and of
those in the rest of the world. The relationships among the advanced countries in the
system, and those between the advanced countries and the backward countries (the forms in
which the latter furnish the needs of the former) are not static, but evolve through
history.
Within the Marxist tradition the term 'im- perialism' was initially
applied to the relations between advanced and backward countries within the capitalist
system, and later to the totality of a particular phase (the monopoly phase) in the
development of that system, characterized by a particular form of relationships among the
advanced countries, and between them and the backward countries. The fact that the concept
has been used to define both those aspects of capitalist development which have related
the fortunes of advanced and backward areas, and the monopoly phase of the
development of that system, has produccd a certain degree of confusion regarding the
provenance of the concept and its proper concerns.(10) This confusion is also related to the fact
that if one of the fundamental tenets of Marxism is that different aspects of the
theory of capitalist society and development are indivisible strictu sensu, it may
appear to be impossihle to speak of a Marxist theory of imperialism; we could only look at
it as an aspect of the theory of capitalism. In that case, imperialism could be referred
to as a theory only in Lenin's sense of the term -a stage in the development of
capitalism. Despite this, I believe that it is absolutely legitimate to use the concept of
imperialism to designate only those aspects of capitalist development which have |
related the fortunes of the advanced and backward areas within the world capitalist
system, and even to speak of a 'theory cf imperialism' in this sense, so long as we accept
that different theories can have different status.(11) In this case the theory of imperialism would
be part of a wider theoretical field, that of the Marxist theory of capitalism, and, in
the end, the problem would simply be one of specifying with clarity whether the term
'imperialism' is used and understood in its wider or more restricted sense, and whether it
is understood as a theory in both cases, or only in the first.
b. The field of study of the Marxist
theory of capitalism
For analytica[ purposes we may distinguish between three concerns
in the Marxist theory of capitalism; according to the form in which imperialism is
understood it will cover one or all of these concerns:(12)
(i) the development and the
economic and class structure of advanced capitalist societies (especially the factors
which drive them to geographical expansion of their economies), and the relations
between them ;
(ii) the economic and political relations between advanced nations and
backward or colonial nations within the world capitalist system;
(iii) the development and economic and class structure in the more backward
nations of the capitalist system (particularly the way in which their dynamic is
generated through their particular modes of articulation with the advanced countries).
The Marxist analysis of the capitalist system attempts to take these
three concerns together, and build with them a theory of its development. If one uses the
concept of imperialism in its widest sense, the theories of capitalism and imperialism
become identical; if one uses it in its more restricted sense, its analysis relates
primarily to the historical development of the second concern. From this last point of
view we can distinguish in the theory of imperialism, with Sutcliffe,
three quite distinct phases (defined
logically rather than temporally) in the relations between capitalism and the
peripheral countries and areas of the world. One (prominent in Marx's and Engels's
writings) involves plunder (of wealth and slaves) and exports of capitalist manufactures
to the peripheral countries. The second (uppermost in Lenin's writing) involves the export
of capital,
885 |
competition
for supplies of raw materials and the growth of monopoly. The third involves a more
complex, post-colonial dependency of the peripheral countries. in which foreign capital
(international corporations), profit repatriation, adverse changes in the terms of trade
(unequal exchange) all play a role in confining, distorting or halting economic
development and industrialization (1972a, p. 172). (The emphasis is mine.)
In each of these phases of imperialist relations the peripheral areas
would have furnished the needs, in different ways, of the advanced capitalist nations; in
the first, by assisting primary accumulation and allowing those nations to carve out their
essential initial markets; in the second, by playing a role in the partial 'escape'
of a more mature capitalism from the consequences of its contradictions (as analysed by
Luxemburg, 1913;.Bukharin, 1915; and Lenin, 1916 ); and in the third, the least
well-defined, advanced mature capitalism appears to attempt to secure itself against the
emergence of competition which could threaten its stability, organization and growth.
I shall attempt to demonstrate that to the analysis of each of these
three phases in the relationships between the advanced and peri- pheral countries in the
capitalist world postu- lated above there corresponds a particular analysis of the
development of capitalism in backward nations. The first, essentially that of Marx and
Engels, analyses capitalism as a historically progressive system, which will be
transmitted from the advanced countries (through colonialism, free trade, etc.) and which
will spread through the backward nations by a continual process of destruction and
replacement of pre-capitalist structures. As a result of this process a series of new
capitalist societies would arise, whose development would be similar, in the post-colonial
period, to that of the advanced countries themselves; this, then, would be followed
by the development of the series of contradictions inherent to the capitalist system,
which would tend to lead to a higher system of development.
The second approach to the development of capitalism in backward nations,
found primarily
in the writings of the so-called 'classics of imperialism', concerned itself first
with the peculiarities of the development of Russian capitalism, and afterwards with that
of other more backward areas of the world in the 'monopolistic' phase of the world
capitalist system. As regards the development of Russian capitalism, (as we shall see in
detail below) its historically progressive character is stressed, but this development is
no longer analysed simply |
as a process of destruction and replacement
or its pre-capitalist structures, but as a far more complex process of interplay between
its internal and external structures. These analyses stress the difficulties resulting
from 'late' industrialization, the ambiguous role of foreign capital (from Western
Europe), and the great capacity for survival of pre-capitalist structures. As
regards capitalist development in other more backward regions of the world, we may
distinguish two major historical stages in the analyses of the 'classics of imperialism'.
The first was characterized by its analysis (following Marx) of capitalist development in
the colonies as historically progressive, but (qualifying Marx's analysis) limited by the
new imperatives of the advanced economies in their monopoly phase. Faced with these
imperatives the advanced nations were, in the view of these writers, succeeding in
restricting modern industrialization in the colonies. Nevertheless, they stress that once
the colonial bonds are broken modern industrialization could eventually take place. Thus
the capitalist development of backward nations would take on a similar character to that
of the advanced nations. At the same time they insist that this process of post-colonial
industrialization would in no way be free from political and economic difficulties and
contradictions; on the contrary , the emerging national bourgeoisies would face the
difficult but by no means impossible political task of developing their own bourgeois
revolutions, and the no less difficult but equally possible task of 'late'
industrialization.
It was at the beginning of the 1920s that this approach was transformed
as emphasis was placed on a different set of difficulties (particularly of a political
nature) hindering the process of post-colonial industrialization.
The third approach was first developed in the 1950s, and 'took off' with the
publication in 1957 of Baran's The Political Economy of Growth; it is characterized
by the acceptance, almost as an axiomatic truth, of the argument that no Third World
country can now expect to break out of a state of economic dependency and advance to an
economic position beside the major capitalist industrial powers. This is a very important
proposition since it not only establishes the extent to which capitalism remains
historically progressive in the modern world, but also thereby defines the economic
background to political action. Yet, too often, the question is ill-defined; it is not
se/f-evident; its intellectual origins are obscure; and its actual foundations are in need
of a fuller analysis. It is in this third phase that the analyses of the
886 |
dependency school emerge,
although they are not confined to this phase, but relate to the forms of articulation of
the economies and politics of the Latin American nations with the advanced nations
throughout the whole period covered by the three phases I have enumerated,
The core of these analyses is the study of the dynamics of
individual Latin American societies through the concrete forms of articulation between
'external factors' (the general deter- minants of the capitalist system) and
'internal factors' (the specific determinants of each of these societies). They are
therefore a part of the theory of imperialism, if this is understood as the study of the
capitalist system as a whole, or complementary to it, if it is understood as concerning
itself with the political and economic relations between advanced and backward areas of
the capitalist world. In both cases it is intimately connected with the theory of
imperialism, and in no way intended as an alternative to it, as some of its critics
have wrongly argued.(13)
As the majority of dependency studies are intimately connected
with the development of Marxist thought in regard to the development of capitalism in
backward nations, and as these analyses refer to the development of Latin America
throughout the whole period covered by the three phases we have discussed, we shall begin
by examining the first two phases of discussion concerning capitalist development in
backward countries.
c. Marx and Engels on the development of
capitalism in backward nations .
It is not easy to analyse Marx's and Engels's approach to the
development of capitalism in the backward regions of the world, as their remarks on
the subject are scattered throughout their respective works, In Marx's case, although the
analysis of the capitalist mode of production in Capital is a work of profound and
systematic brilliance, his specific references to the concrete forms in which this mode of
production is developed in backward regions are not found there, but in various of
his other works, Of relevance among his political writings is the Communist Manifesto (
1848); among his theoretical writings, the preface to A Contribu- tion to the Critique
of Political Economy ( 1859); among his correspondence, that with his contacts among
the Russian left; and among his articles to newspapers, those in the New York Daily
Tribune between 1853 and 1859. Unfortunately, his concrete references are al- |
most all concerned with India and China,
with only superficial references made to Latin America. This is unfortunate not only
because we are ourselves interested in Latin America, but more significantly because the
sub-continent would have provided Marx with a backward region already developing in a way
which would be typical of post-colonial societies in later years, with the exception of
those of European settlement. While formally free, the countries of Latin America
were economically backward and dependent.
In a letter written in the closing years of his life, Marx stressed that
in Capital he had studied only the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe (Marx,
1877, p. 53). Nevertheless, it is from that same work that we can deduce with clarity his
analysis of the tendencies which would guide the expansion of the capitalist economies
towards the backward regions of the world. The most relevant chapters are those concerning
primary accumulation (1867, Ch. XXIV) and foreign trade (1894, Ch. XIV).
The central element behind the need of the advanced capitalist economies
to expand is the need to develop an effective means of countering the tendency for the
rate of profit to fall; such expansion makes it possible to expand the scale of
production, to lower the costs of raw materials and of the products needed to maintain and
reproduce the labour force at home (making it possible to keep salaries low), and thus to
increase the surplus by helping to preserve the low organic composition of capital.
Furthermore, for a period of time the capitalist in an advanced country can gain a higher
rate of profits by selling
in competition with commodity producers in other countries with
lessor facilitics for production...in the same way that a manufacturer exploits a new
invention before it has become general (1894, Section 5).(14)
Nevertheless, Marx did not confine himself to the analysis of the
driving forces which lead to the expansion of capitalism. In his analysis of the effect of
this upon the backward regions, following the Hegelian tradition, he
distinguishes between the subjective motivations for this expansion and its
objective historical results. On the one hand he condemns this expansion as the most
brutalizing and dehumanizing that history has ever known, but on the other he argues that
it is necessary if the backward societies are to develop. Only capitalism, he argues, can
provide thc necessary economic and technological infrastructure
887 |
which will enable society to
allow for the free development of every member according to his capacity; and capitalism
can only develop in them through its penetration and imposition from abroad. Only on the
basis of this dialectical understanding of capitalism can we understand the famous
affirmation in the preface to the first edition of Capital that
the backward country suffers nut only from
the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that
development (1867, p. xiv).
In general terms we may say that it is analytically convenient to
distinguish two intimately connected levels in Marx's analysis of the development of
capitalism in backward nations. One relates to the necessity (both political and
economic) of capitalism as an essential step towards higher forms of development of
productive forces, the other to the possibility and viability (both political and
economic) of its development. These two levels of analysis are present in the Marxist
tradition with differing degrees of emphasis. In Marx's writings on the subject the
central concern is with the necessity for capitalist development, with its feasibility
taken completely for granted. In the present day however the emphasis is placed more on
the second level of analysis, that of the feasibility of capitalist development in the
periphery.(15)
As regards the first aspect, the necessity of capitalist development,
Marx states very clearly, at least until the important change which comes towards the end
of his life, that socialism can only be attained through capitalist development, and that
this will not be produced in the backward regions of the world by the development of their
own productive forces, as was the case in Western Europe, but by the impact upon them of
thc capitalism of Western Europe itself.
Marx is overtly hostile to the modes of production in existence in
non-European socie- ties, chiefly on the grounds of their unchanging nature, which he saw
as a drag on the process of history, and thus a serious threat to socialism. This led him,
while condemning the brutality and hypocrisy of colonialism, to regard it as historically
neccessary .
Initially, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels appear to
refer to the backward nations en masse as 'barbarians', 'semi-barbarians', 'nations
of peasants', and 'the East', in a manner which contrasts strikingly with their
meticulous study of European society and history, and is particularly unsatis- |
factory in a work which makes the strongest
possible claim to be based upon a universa11y applicable scientific interpretation of
history. However, 11 years later, in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy, Marx made a more serious attempt to relate the socio-economic
conditions of the non-European world to his general theory of history, but he did so
elliptica11y, and in a way that has bedevi1led Marxism ever since. Discus- sing the stages
of economic development, he strongly brings out the dialectica1 tensions inherent in every
period, saying, in a passage that has become classic:
no social order ever disappears
before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and
new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their
existence have matured in the womb of the old society (1859, p, 337),
Proceeding to analyse the four modes of production, Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal
and Capi- talist, he leaves the Asiatic mode in a form which is difficult to understand.
There is a clear perception of a kind of continuity (its movement produced by the
development of contradictions) between the Ancient, Feudal, Capitalist and Socialist modes
of production, but the Asiatic mode is left disconnected, as if it had neither past nor
future.(16)
If Marx never directly discusses this problem in his work he
does so indirectly, stressing time and again that it should not be forgotten that the
horizon of his work on the discussion of historical development is essentia1ly
European. In a letter written to a Russian Socialist journal in 1877, and already
mentioned on page 887, he warns his readers not to
metamorphose [his] historicaI
sketch of the genesis of capital in
Western Europe into a historical-philosophical theory of
the general path every people is fated to tread, whatever
the historical circumstances in which it find itself,
and goes on to criticize any approach which seeks to understand history
by using as one's masterkey a
general historical- philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists
in being supra- historical.
The problem of the Asiatic mode of production is not merely the academic
one of stablishing how far Marx's theory of history is consistent and universal; it
is that as it does not possess a dialectic of internal development it can only evolve
through the penetration of European capitalism. For this reason Marx analyses european
expansion in India as brutal, but 'a necessary step towards Socialism' ( 1853 ).
888 |
Such an expansion would have a
destabilizing and disintegrating effect on the Asiatic mode of production, re-stabilizing
and re-integrating such societies in a capitalist mode of development which would bring
with it the development of productive forces and generate an interna1 dynamic which would
lead such societies towards higher stages of development.
It is essential to note here that Marx makes no distinction between endogenous
capitalist development (such as occurred in Western Europe) and that which is introduced
from outside. Irrespective of its origins, capitalism once implanted in a society will
develop in a certain way. If one of the central characteristics is to develop both
objective wealth and poverty, this would exist within each society, rather than between
societies.
Only fleetingly in the case of China and with much greater clarity, towards
the end of his life, in the case of Russia, does Marx recognize the possibility that
different traditional structures could be capable of serving as a starting point for
movement towards more advanced stages of development; in the first case he speaks
ironically of the possibility of a bourgeois revolution, in the second of a socialist
revolution.
In February 1850 there was a wave of agrarian interest in China, and
Marx wrote:
when our european
reactionaries, on their next flight through Asia will have finally reached the Chinese
Wall, the gates that lead to the seat of primeva1 reaction and conservantism - who knows,
perhaps they will read the following inscription on the Wall: Republique Chinoise -
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! (quoted in Averini, 1976. p, 251).
Regarding the Russian case, in reply to a letter from the Russian
Marxist, Vera Sassoulitch, in February 1881 (to which we shall return later) Marx stresses
the possibility that the particular traditional agrarian structures of Russia, could
serve as a starting point for socialist development. He reaffirms this point of view
together with Engels, in the preface to a new Russian edition of the Communist
Manifesto in 1882. (17)
Passing now to the analysis of Marx's
attitude regarding the possibility of capitalist development in the non-European world, it
must be stated that Marx leaves no room for misinterpretation; the dynamism and capacity
for expansion of the youthful capitalism of his period would be reproduced in
any society which it penetrated; furthermore, he seemed to expect a proliferation of
autonomous capitalist societies, fundamentally similar to those in Western Europe. There
are three particular |
excerpts which have become obligatory
points of reference, and to which we need refer only briefly. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels argue that the development of capitalism in Western Europe
will
compel all nations, on pain
of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production,
and 5 years later, in his article on the Future Results of British Rule in India (1853),
Marx argues that English imperialism will not be able to avoid the industrialization of
India:
when you have once introduced
machinery into
the locomotion of a country which possesses iron and coals you are
unable to withhold it from its fabrication. (the emphasis is mine).
Finally, 14 years later, in the preface to the first edition of Capital we find his
famous statement:
the country that is more developed
industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.
We may then conclude, with Kierman, that
So far as can be seen, what he
[Marx] had in mind was not a further spread of Western imperialism, but a proliferation of
autonomous capitalism, such as he expected in India and did witness in North America
(1967, p. 183).
Without doubt, the attitude of some dependency writers today that capitalist
industrialization in the periphery is no longer feasible goes against the spirit and
letter of Marx's writings. What is important, as Sutcliffe has argued, is to
ask whether the difference is one of circumstance or diagnosis ( 1972a, p. 180);
that is to say, whether capitalism has been transformed in such a way that the
industrialization of the periphery cannot take place within the capitalist system, or
whether it is that Marx's analysis is itself over-optimistic regarding the possibilities
of industrialisation in the backward areas of the world. We shall return to this point as
the analysis proceeds.
d. Discussions
on the development of capitalism in backward nations by the
'classic writers' on imperialism
If Hilferding (1910) had already provided an important Marxist study
of imperialism, it is in Luxemburg (1913), Bukharin (1915) and Lenin (1916) that we find
the most important contributions from the period in which capitalism was moving through
its monopoly phase. I shall refer only briefly to the works of Luxemburg and
Bukharin; as regards Lenin's work, I shall
889 |
concentrate on those aspects
which are most relevant to the issues under discussion.
Rosa Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital (1913) was the first
Marxist analysis of the world capitalist economy in tbe light of the three concerns
outlined earlier in this paper, and remains among the most complete; it is certainly the
only one of the classic writing on imperialism which sets out to provide a
systematic analysis of the effect which imperialism would have on the backward countries.
Unfortunately, the rigour, profundity and creativity of the analysis are limited by
the fact that, following the Marxist tradition of the period, she underestimates
both the increase in real wages which takes place as capitalism develops in the advanced
countries, and the internal inducement to invest provided by technological progress.
Consequently she overplays and misunderstands the role of the periphery in the process of
accumulation of capital in the developed countries, for these two factors have played a
vital role in rescuing capitalism from the difficulties and contradictions which it
creates for itself. Thus the periphery has played a role both qualitatively different and
quantitatively less important than that which her analysis depicts.(18)
Nikolai Ivanovitch Bukharin contributed to the analysis of imperialism
principally in his works of 1915 and 1926. In the first he analyses the two most important
tendencies in the world economy of the time, tendencies which were made manifest jointly
and in contradiction to each other. These were the rapid process of internationalization
of economic life (the integration of the different national economies into a
world economy) and the process of 'nationalization' of capital (the
withdrawing of the interests of the national bourgeoisies within their respective
frontiers). The most interesting feature of the second work is its polemic against
Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital. From the point of view of our interest, it
is unfortunate that although Bukharin stresses continually throughout the course of his
work that imperialism is a phenomenon which connects the advanced and the backward
economies, and criticizes Luxem- burg's views on the subject, in no part of his work does
he analyse in concrete terms the effect of imperialism upon the backward countries.(19)
When one is analysing Lenin's work it is particularly important to bear in
mind (as with the work of any political leader who is not writing for purely academic
reasons, but with specific and concrete political ends in view), the |
political context in which the works were
written. In fact it is necessary not only to consider the usual problems concerning the
separation of 'history' and 'concept', 'theory' and 'practice', and the 'role' of
ideology, but also to be aware that the relative emphases in these works are frequently
functions of tactical moves related to factional disputes.(20) Furthermore, in the case of
Lenin's Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) he himself was careful
to point out that he wrote it
with an eye to the Tsarist
censorship, ...with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language(1916, p. I).
The political situation within which and as a contribution to which Lenin wrote his
analysis of imperialism was characterized by the outbreak of the First World War and the
subsequent collapse of the Second International.
Within a week of Austria's declaration of war on Serbia on 28 July 1914,
the whole of Europe was at war. Lenin himself arrived in Switzerland on 5 September after
a long odyssey, and set himself up in Berne. He was faced with a difficult double task -
firstly to explain to the international socialist movement the nature of the forces which
had unleashed the war, and secondly to account for the position adopted by the working
class parties of the advanced capitalist countries ( which had led to the collapse of the
Second International). If for the first of these tasks he could avail himself of the
analysis provided by Marx of the tendencies of capitalist development, and the later
contributions of Marxists such as Hilferding, for the second he could draw on no previous
analyses, and he was faced with a complex task. Traditional Marxist analysis could not be
applied simply and directly to explain why the proletariat of the advanced capitalist
countries in general, and the social-democratic parties of the left in particular, had
placed themselves alongside their respective bourgeoisies and against one another when the
war broke out.(21)
It was no easy task to explain the capacity, unforseen by Marx, of
capitalism to extend to important sectors of the working classes some of the benefits of
its development; nor was it simple to derive the relevant political conclusions. This
would in fact be the most important contribution of Imperialism, The Highest Stage of
Capitalism, and would make of it Lenin's most important theoretical work, just as the Development
of Capitalism in Russia ( 1899 ) is his most important study of the development of
capitalism in a backward nation, and is in my view the pioneering classic of dependency
studies.
890 |
To
prepare himself for his difficult task Lenin re-read Marx and Hege1 with great care, and
produced his Philosophical Notebook ( 1915) as a result. In it he stresses the
necessity to understand Hegel's logic (and to give due importance to the subjective
element of the dialectic) in order to understand the development of capitalism in advanced
countries. After this, now settled in Zurich, he wrote, between January and July 1916, his
own study of imperialism, emphasizing in the 1917 preface to the Russian edition and the
1920 prefaces to the French and German editions the dual political purpose I have
mentioned above. He thus makes it clear that his purpose in writing the work is different
to that of Bukharin or Luxemburg.(22)
For analytical purposes we may distinguish three major themes in
Lenin's work.(23)
The first is the description of the most important political and economic changes in the
advanced countries of the capitalist system, the second the analysis of the changes in
international relations which had resulted, and particularly the role played by
international capital, and the third the discussion of the future tendencies of the
capitalist system in its monopoly or imperialist phase, and above all the effect these
would have on its historical progressiveness. There is no systematic analysis of the
effect that this phase of the development of capitalism will have on the backward regions
of the world (the third concern to which I referred earlier). However, as we shall
see later, it is possible to deduce from the analysis of the development of capitalism in
the advanced countries in the system an implicit account of the effects it will tend to
have in those backward regions. Nevertheless, in order to understand this implicit account
it is necessary to go back 17 years to the Development of Capitalism in Russia,
which is intimately connected with the analysis in the later work.(24)
e. Lenin's 'Development of
Capitalism in Russia'
Within the Marxist tradition it is in Lenin's work that we find the
first systematic attempt to provide a concrete analysis of the development of capitalism
in a backward nation. In his analysis he
formulated with simplicity what would be the core of the dependency
analyses: the forms of articulation between the two parts of a single mode of production,
and the subordination of one mode of production to another (Cardoso, 1974a, p. 325). |
In this work then, we find a
detailed and profound study of the forms in which developing capitalism in Russia is
articulated both to the economics of Western Europe and to the other existing modes of
production in Russia itself. That is to say, the way in which Russia - its classes, state
and economy - is articulated to the corresponding elements in the countries of Western
Europe. The essay was written as part of a profound controversy in Russia itself regarding
the necessity and the feasibility of capitalist development there. Discussion of this
controversy is particularly relevant, as it was in the context of an identical controversy
in Latin America in the 1950s and 1960s that the contribution of the dependency studies
was made.
Given that Russia was the first backward country in which Marxism developed,
it is not surprising that it should have been the setting for the first Marxist debates
regarding the feasibility of capitalist development, and as I have stated, Lenin's Development
of Capitalism in Russia was part of this debate and of his constant polemic with the
Narodniks.(25)
The central argument of the Narodniks was that capitalist development
was not necessary for the attainment of socialism in Russia, and that from an economic
point of view it was by no means clear that capitalism was a viable system for a backward
country such as Russia. They laid great stress upon the problems created by 'late' entry
into the process of capitalist industrialization.
Regarding the necessity for capitalist development in Russia, the
Narodniks were convinced that the Russian peasant commune(26) with its system of communal ownership was
essentially socialist, and capable of forming the basis of a future socialist order;
hence Russia might indeed lead the rest of Europe on the road to socialism.
From what Marx and Engels had written before they became interested in
the Russian case it is possible to deduce a priori their disagreement with the
Narodniks. It was a central point of their analysis that the peasantry, fundamentally on
account of its feudal origins, was a backward element in European society, in relation to
the capitalist bourgeoisie and, a fortiori, in relation to the proletariat.
Wherever capitalism was advanced, the peasantry was a decadent class.(27) On this account it is placed in
the Communist Manifesto alongside a number of petty bourgeois groups, as Marx and
Engels speak of
the small manufacturers, the
shopkeepers, the artisans and the peasant....
891 |
Only when the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat, together or apart, are incapable of carrying out the
bourgeois revolution and the overthrow of feudalism would it be permissible to
support the peasantry and its political organizations, let alone to fight for its interest
in individual ownership of the land.
At the end of the 1860s, attracted by the development of the left in
Russia, Marx and Engels learnt Russian and threw themselves into the current debates
there. In 1875 Engels was stressing the necessity for capitalist development, though less
as a necessity of an absolute nature than as a result of the fact that the Russian system
of communal property was already decadent. For this reason it was impossible to 'leap
over' the capitalist stage through the transformation of the communal institutions of the
feudal past into the fundamental bases of the socialist future. On the other hand, he
argued, the triumph of the socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries would
help Russia itself to advance rapidly towards socialism (see Carr, Vol. 2, 1966, p. 385 ).
Two years later Marx entered the debate with the letter I have already
discussed (page 887). In it he expresses a posilion similar to that of Engels, arguing
that the possibility that a different transition to socialism might take place in Russia
no longer appeared to exist:
If Russia continues on the path which she has been following since 1861
[the emancipation of the serfs] she will be deprived of the finest chance ever offered by
history to a nation of avoiding all the ups and downs of the capitalist order.
In the following year a group of young Narodniks led by Plekhanov broke with the rest and
headed for Switzerland; their differences were both political and theoretical, in that
they opposed the use of terrorism and embraced the spirit and letter of the Communist
Manifesto. Nevertheless, they came to adopt positions 'more Marxist than those of
Marx himself', and in 1881 Vera Sassoulitch wrote to Marx seeking a clarification
of his views regarding the peasant commune. After composing three long drafts which
are among his papers he contented himself with a brief response. His analysis of Capital
, he stated, was based upon conditions in Western Europe, where communal property had
long since disappeared; this analysis was by no means mechanically aplicable to Russia,
where such forms of property still survived in the peasant communes. Nevertheless, for
these to serve as a starting-point for a 'socialist regeneration of Russia' they would
require a series of conditions which allowed them to develop freely. Nowhere in his reply
does Marx express |
any doubt that capitalist development is
possible in Russia; his argument is that perhaps given the specificity of the Russian
situation the price of capitalist development in human terms would be too high for it to
be counted as progressive development.(28)
Regarding the other facet of the controversy with the Narodniks, that of
the possibility of capitalist development in Russia, it is in the writings of the
Narodniks that it is first suggested that capitalism may not be viable in a backward
nation. Thus the Narodnik writer Vorontsov argued that
the more belated is the
process of industrialization, the more difficult it is to carry it on along the capitalist
lines (quoted in Walicki, 1969, p. 121)
For the Narodniks, furthermore,
backwardness provided an
advantage in that the technological benefits of modern capitalism could
be used, while its structure rejected (Sutcliffe, 1974a, p. 182).
For these reasons then, for the Narodniks it was not unly possible but
economically imperative to escape from the capitalist stage and move directly towards
socialism. This same position will be found, as we shall see, in the 1960s in Latin
America in the writings of one group of dependency writers.
In the last decade of the 19th century, along with the first industrial
strikes in Russia, there appeared a number of Marxist groups, while the Narodniks, caught
in the blind alley of terrorism, were beginning to lose influence. One of these was the
'League of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class', which appeared in Petrograd
in 1895; among its members was a disciple of Plekhanov, who wrote successively under the
pseudonyms of 'Petrov', 'Frei' and 'Lenin', the latter after 1902. The young Lenin entered
vigorously into the debate with the Narodniks, writing his major contribution towards it,
the Development of Capitalism in Russia, between 1896 and 1899.
Lenin agreed with the Narodniks only in one respect: that
capitalism was a brutalizing and degrading economic system. Nevertheless, like Marx, he
distinguished clearly between this aspect of capitalism and the historical role which it
played in Russia:
Recognition of the
progressiveness of capitalism is quite cumpatible...with the full recognition of its
negative and dark sides..., with the full recognition of the profound and all around
social contradictions which are inevitably inherent in capitalism, and which reveal the
historically transient nature of this economic regime. It is the
892 |
Narodniks who exert every effort to show that an admission of the
historically progressive nature of capitalism means an apology for capitalism... The
progresssive historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two brief propositions:
increase in the productive forces of social labour, and the socialization of that labour
(1899, pp. 602-603). (The emphasis is mine)
Their differences were not only at the theoretical level however; for Lenin
the Narodniks were in error over basic matters of fact. Lenin shows, after a long and
detailed study of the labour market in Russia, that capitalism was already developing
rapidly, and that it should already be considered as essentially a capitalist country,
although
very backward as compared
with other capitalist countries in her economic development (1899, p. 507).
Furthermore, regarding the 'obstacles' to the development
of capitalism in Russia identified by the Narodniks, such as unemployment and
underemployment, he states that these are the characteristics of capitalist
development, and that the Narodniks are guilty of transforming
the the basic conditions for
the development of capitalism into proof that capitalism is impossible (1899, pp.589-590).
For Lenin what was indispensable was the profound study of why the
development of capitalism in Russia, while rapid in relation to development in the
pre-capitalist period, was slow in comparison to the development of other capitalist
nations. It is in his approach to this question that, in my opinion, we find his most
important contribution to the study of the development of capitalism in backward nations.
His analysis of the slowness of capitalist development in Russia ( which
some dependency writers would still insist on describing as 'the development of
Russian underdevelopment') has three interrelated themes:
(i) the weakness of the
Russian bourgeoisie as an agent for the furthering of capitalist development;
(ii) the effect of competition from Western Europe in slowing the growth
of modern industry in Russia; and
(iii) the great and unexpected capacity for survival of the traditional
structures of Russian society.
Regarding the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, Lenin was
taking up a theme already discussed by the Russian left.(29) The interesting feature of his analysis is
that he relates this weakness to the ambiguous role |
played by foreign capital (from Western
Europe) in the development of Russian capitalism. On the one hand it accelerates the
process of industrialization, while on the other it lies behind the weak and dependent
nature of the small Russian bourgeoisie.
In what he says in relation to the second factor which explains
the slower pace of Russian capitalist development, Lenin stresses that as Russia was
industrializing 'late', the development of its modern industry had
to compete not only with the production of traditional artesanal industry (as
the first countries to industrialize had had to do) but also with the far more efficient
industrial production of advanced countries within the capitalist system.
Finally, Lenin places great emphasis and explanatory value upon
the great capacity for survival of traditional structures in Russia:
In no single capitalist
country has there been such an abundant survival of ancient institutions that are
incompatible with capitalism, producers who [quoting Marx] 'suffer not only from the
development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that
development' (1899, p. 607).
An important aspect of Lenin's analysis of the survival of
traditionai structures (and one that is particularly relevant to the present situation in
Latin America) is his treatment of the interconnections which develop between the
different modes of production which existed in Russia:
the facts utterly
refute the view widespread here in Russia that 'factory' and 'handicraft' industry are
isolated from one another. On the contrary, such a division is purely artificial (1899, p.
547).
Lenin's view of capitalist development in Russia can be summarized
as follows:
(i) in conformity with
the central tradition of classical Marxist analysis he sees it as politically necessary
and economically feasible;
(ii) through a concrete analysis he shows that its development is
fully underway;
(iii) the development of capitalism in backward nations is seen
for the first time not simply as a process of destruction and replacement of
pre-capitalist structures, but as a more complex process of interplay between internal and
external structures; in this interplay, the traditional structures play an important role,
and their replacement will be slower and more difficult than previously supposed; and
(iv) despite the complexity of Russian capi-
893 |
talist development, both it and the bourgeois revolution which would
accompany it would eventually develop and become relatively similar to that of
Western Europe. (The development of capitalism in Russia would therefore be a kind
of 'slow-motion replay' of the same development in Western Europe.)
I shall now go on to examine thc relationship between this analysis of Russian
capitalism and Lenin's theory of imperialism.
f. The later development of Lenin's
thought
regarding the development of capitalism in
backward nations
The two historical events which had a profound influence upon the future
development of Lenin's thought in all its aspects were the revolution of 1905 and the
collapse of the Second International. If the second of these showed that it was by no
means clear that the development of capitalism led necessarily and 'inevitably' to
socialism, the first had shown the concrete possibility of interrupting capitalist
development, avoiding its potential risks, and transferring to the proletariat the task of
completing the democratic-bourgeois revolution.
The collapse of the Second International showed that as it developed,
capitalism also created an unforeseen capacity to assimilate important sectors of the
proletariat, and that therefore the development of its internal contradictions would take
a more complex path than had hitherto been realized.
Marx had emphasized that capitalist development was condemned by its own
nature to resolve its difficulties and contradictions through transformations which would
necessarily lead to the creation of others even greater. Nevertheless, there seemed to be
one aspect of capitalist development which at least in the medium term was acting in the
opposite direction: rising real wages. These, essentially a result of the organization and
struggle of the working class, played a crucial role in the development of capitalism,
both from the point of view of its political stability, and of the increase in effective
demand, So essential for the realization of surplus value.
In explaining both this capacity of capitalism to increase real wages much
more than had been foreseen, and the political effect which it had upon the working class
in the advanced capitalist countries, Lenin placed great emphasis upon the 'superprofits
of im- |
imperialist exploitation' (1916, p.
9). Not long afterwards, Henry Ford, following the analysis already proposed by Hobson (
1902, 1911 ), stated:
If we can distribute high
wages, then that money is going to be spent and it will serve to make storekeepers and
distributors and manufacturers in other lines more prosperous and this prosperity will be
ref1ected in our sales. Country-wide high wages spell country-wide prosperity (1922, p.
124).
Kalecki (1933, 1934, 1935) and Keynes ( 1936) would later incorporate
this insight into a new theoretical conceptualization of the development of capitalism; 2
years later, Harold Macmillan would refer as follows to the enormous political importance
of extending to the working class some of the material benefits of capitalist development:
Democracy can live only so
long as it is able to cope satisfactorily with the problems of social life. While it is
able to deal with these problems, and secure for its people the satisfaction of their
reasonable demands, it will retain the vigorous support sufficient for its defence (1938,
p. 375; quoted in Kay, 1975,p. 174).
In this context it is important to recall that although Marx's
expectations regarding the standard of living of the working class under capitalism are
not entirely clear (see note 9), it seems evident that he did not expect an increase of
the magnitude which eventually ocurred. It emerged later that capitalism was going to
provide rising real wages at a rate relatively similar to the rhythm of its
development but only after a considerable 'time-lag' (Sec Hicks, 1969, pp. 148-159). In
1923, in what would be his last article, Lenin wrote:
but the Western European
countries are not completing this development [towards socialism] as we previously
expected they would. They are completing it not through a steady 'maturing' of socialism,
but through the exploitation of some states by others (quoted in Foster-Carter, 1974, p.
67).
The train of history was not going to drop its passengers off at the
station of their choice, socialism, unless they took charge of it at an earlier stage. The
contribution of the events of 1905 in Russia was precisely that it showed that it was
possible, though by no means necessarily economically feasible.
From 1905 onwards, first in Trotsky and Parvus and latter in Lenin,
there began a change of position regarding the necessity of continuing with capitalist
development. As we saw earlier (pp. 887), Marx had stated that no social order would
disappear before having
894 |
developed all the
productive forces it could contain, and that higher relationships of production would not
appear until the old order had run its full course. The events of 1905 showed both the
limitations of the development of capitalism in Russia and the concrete possibility
of interrupting it, transferring to the proletariat the task of completing the
democratic-bourgeois revolution. Nevertheless, Engels had argued (see p. 891) that for
this to happen there would have to be a revolution in Western Europe. Russia could play
the role of the weakest link in the capitalist chain, and with the help of more
developed socialist societies could follow the path towards socialism more rapidly.
Therefore the socialist revolution could begin in a country such as Russia, but it could
not be completed there.(30)
However, the events of 1905 did not only show Lenin and the Bolsheviks
the path to follow; they also showed Nicolas II and his brilliant Minister, Stolypin, the
need to embark upon a rapid process of social, economic and political restructuring if
revolution was to be avoided. Of the transformations which they initiated Lenin
said:
our reactionaries are
distinguished by the extreme clarity of their class consciousness. They know very well
what they want, where they are going, and on what forces they can count (quoted in
Conquest, 1972, p. 61).
By this time Lenin's attitude towards the necessity for capitalist
development was different than it had been in 1899. Should the policies of Stolypin
succeed, and Russia enter definitively onto the capitalist path, the revolution would have
to be postponed for a long time. As early as 1908 Lenin saw the dangers of
Stolypin's policies:
the Stolypin constitution and
the Stolypin agrarian policy mark a new phase in the breakdown of the old
semi-patriarchal and semi-feudal system of Tsarism, a new movement towards its
transformation into a middle-class monarchy ...It would be empty and stupid democratic
(sic) phrase- mongering to say that the success of such a policy is 'impossible' in Russia
..It is possible! If Sto1ypin's policy continues. Russia's agrarian structure will
become completely bourgeois (quoted in Laclau, 1972, p. 69, my translation).
The events of the subsequent period, which ended with the assumption of
power by thc Bolsheviks in October 1917, are the subject of one of the great
controversies of modern history. On the one hand the policies initiated by Stolypin showed
clearly that Lenin's analysis of the potential of capitalist development was correct;
during that period Russia enjoyed |
a considerable industria1 boom; and by 1917
the peasants were owners of more than three-quarters of Russian farmland, Perhaps it was
factors such as these which led Lenin to conclude a lecture given in Zurich on 9 January
1917, only months before he was to come to power, with the words
we of the old generation will
perhaps not live to see the decisive battles of our own revolution (1917, p.158, my
translation).(31)
But on the other hand it was precisely that industrial boom which strengthened the left in
general and the Bolsheviks in particular. As the Mensheviks exercised political control
over the older proletariat, the Bolsheviks needed a new proletariat to strengthen them;
the industria1 boom supplied them with it.
This already lengthy analysis can be pursued no further here. I have tried to
extract from it its most important contributions to the debate which would later develop
concerning the development of capitalism in other backward nations,
Russia then had a series of characteristics in common with countries
which would later attempt capitalist development, such as those related to 'late'
industrialization, and to the leading role played by foreign capitalism and technology,
and those linked to the emergence of a socia1 class structure somewhat different from that
resulting from capitalist development in Western Europe, and more complex in its
composition, with a relatively weak and dependent bourgeoisie, a sma11 but strong
proletariat, and a relatively large 'sub-proletariat' which is its potential al1y.(32)
Equally however, there are also significant differences: Russia was never the
colony of a Western European power; late industrialization is not a1ways the same if it
occurs at differente stages of development of the world capitalist system; and as Lenin
demonstrates brilliantly for the Russian case, the particular features of the development
of capitalism in any backward region will depend significantly on the characteristics of
the pre-capitalist mode of production. In the case of Latin America for example, if there
were countries [such as Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina] which were attempting to
industrialize in the same period as industrialization was taking place in Russia, the
social formations of those countries, inherited from Portuguese and Spanish colonization,
were very different to those of Russia itself. In any case, if it is clear that the
analyses of Lenin and his contemporaries cannot be applied mechanically to the development
of capitalism in other
895 |
periods and in other backward
regions of the world, it remains true that in Lenin's analysis especially we find the
essential road to follow; this is the study of the concrete forms of articulation between
the capitalist sectors of the backward nations and the advanced nations in the system, and
of the concrete forms taken by the subordination of pre-capitalist forms of production to
the former, and to the rest of the system. It is essentially the study of the dynamic of
the backward nations as a synthesis of the general determinants of the capitalist system
(external factors) and the specific determinants of each (internal factors).
But if neither Lenin, Bukharin nor Luxemburg studied the concrete
development of capitalism in other backward regions of the world, it is possible to derive
from their analyses of imperialism the 'general determinants of the capitalist system' or
the 'external factors' as they are generally labelled, which those regions will confront
in their attempts to pursue capitalist development. These are essentially the driving
forces which impelled the advanced capitalist countries towards the domination and control
of the backward regions of the world; the specific determinants, or 'internal factors' as
they are generally called, will depend upon the characteristics of the particular backward
societies.
The driving forces behind the economic expansion of the advanced capitalist
countries are identified, with differences of emphasis in each analysis, in the financial
and in the productive spheres. The two are intimately connected, and are the result of a
single process of transformation in the advanced capitalist countries. The financial
driving forces are related to the need to find new opportunities for investment, due to
the fact that their own economies are incapable of generating them at the same rate as
they generate capital; those of the productive sphere are related to the necessity of
ensuring a supply of raw materials, and continued markets for manufactured products. Thus
it is that Bukharin and Preobrazhenzky define imperialism as:
the policy of conquest which
financial capital pursues in the struggle for markets, for the sources of raw material,
and for places in which capital can be invested (1919, p. 155).
The result of this would be a tendency towards a greater integration of the
world economy, a considerable degree of capital movement, and an international division of
labour which would restrict the growth of backward economies to the production of |
mineral and agricultural primary products.
For thlese primary products to be supplied cheaply, the lahour force in the backward
countries would have to be kept at subsistence level.
As a result of the effects of the expansion of the advanced capitalist
economies as they enter the monopoly phase of their development, the economies of the
backward countries will tend to be characterized by increasing indebtedness and by a
productive structure which leads them to consume what they do not produce, and to produce
what they do not consume. The fundamental characteristics of the development of such
economies will obviously depend upon the particular characteristics of the export sectors
they develop, and the terms on which they exchange products and obtain capital.
If these relationships were shaped within a colonial context, they would
clearly be unequal, and therefore for the colonial nation the possibilities of development
would be very restricted. If they were shaped within a post- colonial context, the
possibilities of development would depend upon the capacity of the national bourgeoisies
and other dominant groups to establish a more favourable relationship with the advanced
countrics in the system, or upon their capacity to transform the economic structure of
their respective countries, in an effort to develop through a different type of
integration into the world economy.
We may summarize the classical writers' conception of what capitalist
development in the backward regions of the world would tend to be as foUows: imperialism
would tend to hinder industrial development, but once the colonial bonds had been broken
the backward countrics would be able to develop their economies in a different way, and
eventually to industrialize. This industrialization, given its 'late' start and probably
with the presence of foreign capital and technology, would face problems and
contradictions, but as in the Russian case, these would not be insuperable. In the words
of Rosa Luxemburg.
the imperialist phase of
capital accumulation ...comprises the industrialization, and capitalist emancipation of
the hinterland...[bourgeois] revolution is an essential for the process of capitalist
emancipation. The backward communities must shed their obsolete political organisations,
and create a modern State machinery adapted to the purpose of capitalist production
(quoted in O'Brien, 1975, p. 16).
This description of the role of capitalism in the colonies clearly
differs from that of Marx and Engels, as it refers to different stages of capitalist
development in the advanced
896 |
countries. Discussing their
writings, I showed how for them the Asiatic mode of production was characterized by its
lack of internal tensions, which bestowed upon it an unchanging nature. The penetration of
capitalism from abroad would therefore perform the task of 'awakening' them. It follows
directly that the concrete forms which the process would adopt would necessarily depend
upon the type of capitalism involved.
Marx expected that the process which began with the development of
railways in India would necessarily end with the placing of that country on the path
towards industrialization. For the classical writers on imperialism on the other hand,
while capitalism continued to be progressive in the backward nations of the world, it was
precisely its progressiveness which would create contradictions with the needs of monopoly
capitalism in the advanced countries; within a colonial context the imperialist countries
can and will hinder the industrialization of the colonies. Once the colonial bonds are
broken the incipient national bourgeoisies can proceed with the development, which was
hindered by the colonial bonds, completing the bourgeois revolution and attempting to in-
dustrialize. These writers did not of course mean to suggest in any way that such attempts
at post-colonial industrialization would be free of problems and contradictions; they felt
that as in the Russian case such countries would be able to overcome such problems and
industrialize. Should that prove to be the case, there would appear in the post-colonial
period new capitalist societies relatively similar to those in Western Europe (as in the
United States and the regions of European settlement).
Nevertheless, the political independence of the backward nations has not
been foUowed by development, contrary to the expectations of the authors I have been
discussing. Even more, in the case Latin America it is precisely in the post-colonial
period that the development of individual nations (with the due economic and political
variations) has taken upon itself the articulations with the advanced capitalist countries
which the classical writers on imperialism noted in the colonies: the growth of their
productive sectors concentrated on primary products, whether mineral or agricultural; the
degree of industrialization was limited; and their financial dependence grew enormously.(33)
Only around 1920 did a new vision of capitalist development in the
backward nations begin to be developed within Marxist thought (see Lenin, 1920). It would
be formulated explicitly at the Sixth Congress of the Com- |
munist International (the Comintem) in
1928. This approach differs from that which preceded it in that in its analysis it gives
more importance to the role played by the traditional dominant classes of the backward
countries (generally termed oligarchies). The power of these elites was seen to be in
contradiction with the transformations of internal structures which would necessarily be
brought about by capitalist development in general and industrialization in particular
(the 'bourgeois revolution'). There would therefore exist objective conditions for
alliances between these groups and imperialism, destined to avoid such transformations.
In the 1928 Congress then, Kusinen introduced new 'Theses on the
Revolutionary Movements in Colonial and Semicolonial Countries' (Degras, 1960, pp.
526-548). In them he argues that
the progressive consequences
of capitalism, on the contrary, are not to be seen there (despite the increase in foreign
investment). When the dominant imperialist power needs social support in the colonies it
makes an alliance first and foremost with the dominant classes of the old pre-capitalist
system, the feudal-type commercial and money-lending bourgeoisie (sic), against the
majority of the people.
In my opinion this Congress may be considered the turning point in the
Marxist approach to the concrete possibilities of the historical progressiveness of
capitalism in backward countries. From this point onwards, the emphasis will be placed not
only on the obstacles which imperialism can and does impose on the process of
industrialization during the colonial period (obstacles which could be overcome once the
colonial bonds had been broken), nor simply on the obstacles to any process of
industrialization which starts late (the technological gap, the ambiguous role of foreign
capital, and so on), which could be overcome, as had been demonstrated during the Stolypin
period in Russia; now the historical progressiveness of capitalism in the backward regions
of the world - in the colonial and post-colonial periods - is analysed as being
limited by the previously mentioned alliance between imperialism and traditional elites,
the so-called 'feudal-imperialist alliance'.
As the process of industrialization in the batckward countries was seen
in contradiction not only with imperialism. but also with some internally dominant groups,
the ability of the incipient national bourgeoisies to develop it in the post-colonia1
phase would depend upon their political capacity to assert themselves over that alliance,
and to impede the adoption of
897 |
such policies as, for example,
those of free trade which it sought to impose.
This double contradiction in capitalist development in Latin America
(particularly in the process of industrialization) which would tend to be transformed into
a single contradiction through the alliance of the groups in question, figures prominently
in the political and economic analysis of large sectors of the Latin American left
(including the Communist parties of the sub-continent), right into the 1960s.(34) Furthermore, it seems to have
had an influence (albeit naturally an unacknowledged one) upon the ECLA analysis of the
obstacles facing Latin American development, as we shall see later; the attempt to go
beyond the terms of this analysis would be the common starting-point of the different
approaches that I shall distinguish within the dependency school.
On this analysis then, the major enemy was identified as imperialism (in
one way or another the omnipresent explanation of every social and ideological process
that occurred), and the principal target in the struggle was unmistakable: North American
imperialism. The allied camp, on the same analysis, was also clear: everyone, minus those
internal groups allied with that imperialism (and in particular those groups linked to the
traditional export sector). Thus the anti-imperialist struggle was at the same time the
struggle for industrialization. The local state and national bourgeoisie appears as the
potential agent for the development of the capitalist economy, which in turn was looked
upon as a necessary stage. The popular fronts would draw on this analysis both of the
historical role which capitalism should play in Latin America, and of the obstacles which
it would find in its path.
This simple analysis of Latin American capitalist development would be
maintained by the majority of Latin American left-wing groups until the time of the Cuban
Revolution (1959). The discrepancies which originally existed between the guerrilla
movement and the old Cuban Communist Party (the Partido Socialista Popular) regarding the
character which that revolution should assume are well known, with the former arguing for
an immediate transition to socialism,(35) the latter for the process previously analysed, which was traditionally sought
in Latin America.
The Second Declaration of Havana (1962) and the declarations and
resolutions of the first conference of OLAS (the Latin American Solidarity
Organization) of 1967 left no doubt regarding the path which was chosen: the democratic
and anti-imperialist revolution |
which the continent required could only
take a socialist form:
The so-called Latin American
bourgeoisie, because of its origins and because of its economic connections and even
kinship-Iinks with landowners, forms a part of the oligarchies which rule our America and
is in consequence incapable of acting independently. ...It would be absurd to suppose
that...the so-called Latin American bourgeoisie is capable of developing a political line
independent...of imperialism, in defence of the interest and aspiration of the nation. The
contradiction within which it is objectively trapped is, by its nature, inescapable
(quoted in Booth, 1975, pp. 65-66).
It is precisely within this framework, and with the explicit
motive of developing theoretically and documenting empirically this new form of analysis
of the Latin American revolution that Frank enters the scene, initially with his article
in the Monthly Review ( 1966) and later in a more elaborated form in his well-
known study of the development (or underdevelopment) of Chile and Brazil (1967).
In this way Frank was to initiate one of the most important
lines of analysis within the dependency school. At the same time, both within and outside
ECLA, there began the development of the other two major approaches which I shall
distinguish in this type of analysis of Latin American development.
3. THE DEPENDENCY ANALYSES
The general field of study of the dependency analyses is the
development of Latin American capitalism. Its most important characteristic is its attempt
to analyse it from the point of view of the interplay between internal and external
structures. Nevertheless, we find this interplay analysed in different ways.
The majority of the survey articles which have been written
regarding these analyses tend to distinguish between three major approaches within them.
The first is that of those who do not accept the possibility of capitalist development in
Latin America, but only of the 'development of underdevelopment', or the 'underdevelopment
of development'; the second, of those who concentrate upon the obstacles which confront
capitalist development in those countries (particularly market constrictions); and the
third, of those who accept the possibility of capitalist development in Latin America,
placing the emphasis upon the subservient forms which it adopts with
898 |
respect to the capita1ism of
the centre.
While I accept that this classification is adequate from a certain
perspective, I feel that on a more profound analysis 'it is less than satisfactory. In my
opinion, the differences which divide dependency analyses go further than discrepancies
regarding simply the possibility of development within a capitalist context in Latin
America.
For my part (and with the necessary degree of simplification which every
classification of intellectual tendencies entails) I shall distinguish three major
approaches -not mutually exclusive from the point of view of intellectual history- in
dependency analyses. The first is that begun by Frank and continued by the 'CESO school'
(CESO being the Centro de Estudios Sociales of the Universidad de Chile), and in
particular by dos Santos, Marini, Caputo and Pizarro, with contributions by Hinkelam-
mert, of CEREN (Centro de Estudios de 1a Realidad Nacional of the Universidad Catolica de
Chile). Its essential characteristic is that it attempts to construct a 'theory of Latin
American underdevelopment' in which the dependent character of these economies is the hub
on which the whole analysis of underdevelopment turns: the dependent character of Latin
American economies would trace certain processes causally linked to its underdevelopment.
The second approach, found principally in Sunkel and Furtado, is that which is
characterized by the attempt to reformulate the ECLA analyses of Latin American
development from the perspective of a critique of the obstacles to 'national development'.
This attempt at reformulation is not a simple process of adding new elements (both
political and social) which were lacking in the ECLA analysis, but a thorough-going
attempt to proceed beyond that analysis, adopting an increasingly different perspective.
Finally, I distinguish that approach which deliberately attempts not to develop a
mechanico-formal theory of dependency (and much less, a mechanico-formal theory of Latin
American underdevelopment based on its dependent character) by concentrating its analysis
on what have been called 'concrete situations of dependency'. In the words Cardoso :
The question which we should ask
ourselves is why, it being obvious that the capitalist economy tends towards a growing
internationalization, that societies are divided into antagonistic classes, and that the
particular is to a certain extent con- ditioned by the general, with these premises we
have not gone beyond the partial -and therefore abstract in the Marxist sense(36)
-characterization |
of the Latin American situation and historical process (Cardoso,
1974, pp. 326-327).
What would be needed before is the study of the concrete forms in which
dependent relationships develop; that is to say, the specific forms in which the economies
and polities of Latin America are articulated with those of the advanced nations.
It is not that this approach does not recognize the need for a theory of
capitalist development in Latin America, but that (in part as a reaction to the excessive
theorizing in a vacuum characteristic of other analyses of dependency) it places greater
emphasis upon the analysis of concrete situations. The theoretical reasoning which can be
developed at present concerning capitalist development in Latin America is strictly
limited by the lack of case studies; the need at the moment is for 'analytic' rather than
'synthetic' work.
That is, without a considerable number of concrete studies any new
theory which may be elaborated concerning capitalist development in Latin America will
necessarily fall into the trap of the 'dialectic of thought', which consists of the
working out upon itself of an abstract dialectic, starting from previously constructed
concepts.
a. Dependency as the 'theory of Latin
American underdevelopment'
There is no doubt that the 'father' of this approach is Paul
Baran. His principal contribution to the general literature on development (Baran, 1957)
continues the central line of Marxist thought regarding the contradictory character of the
needs of imperialism and the process of industrialization and general economic development
of the backward nations.(37) Thus he affirms at the outset that
What is decisive is
that economic development in underdeveloped countries is profoundly inimical to the
dominant interests in the advanced capitalist countries (1957, p.28).
To avoid such development the advanced nations will form alliances
with pre-capitalistic domestic elites (who will also be adversely affected by the
transformations of capitalist development), intented to inhibit such transformations. In
this way the advanced nations would have easy access to domestic resources and thus be
able to maintain traditional modes of surplus extraction. Within this context the
possibilities of economic growth in dependent countries would be extremely limited; the
899 |
surplus they generated would
be expropriated in large part by foreign capital, and otherwise squandered on luxury
consumption by traditional elites. Furthermore, not only would resources destined for
investment thereby be drastically reduced, but so would their internal multiplying effect,
as capital goods would have to be purchased abroad. This process would necessarily lead to
economic stagnation, and the only way out would be political.
Starting out with this analysis Frank attempts to develop
the thesis that the only political solution is a revolution of an immediately socialist
character; for within the context of the capitalist system there could be no alternative
to underdevelopment (Frank; 1967).
For the purpose of this analysis we may distinguish three
levels in Frank's 'model of underdevelopment'. The first is that in which he attempts to
demonstrate that Latin America and other areas in the periphery have been incorporated
into the world economy since the early stages of their colonial periods. The second is
that in which he attempts to show that such incorporation into the world economy has
transformed the countries in question immediately and necessarily into capitalist
economies. Finally, there is a third level, in which Frank tries to prove that the
integration of these supposedly capitalist economies into the world economy is necessarily
achieved through an interminable metropolis-satellite chain, in which the surplus
generated at each stage is successively drawn off towards the centre. On account of this
he develops a subsidiary thesis:
If it satellite status
which generates underdevelopment, then a weaker or lesser degree of metropolis-satellite
relations may generate less deep structural underdevelopment and/or allow for more
possibility of locel development.(Frank, 1967, p.11)
But as the weakining of the satellite - metropollis
network can, according to Frank, only take place for reasons external to the
satellite economies, of a necessarily transient nature, it follows that there is no real
possibility of sustained development within the system. (38) According to this analysis, the only
alternative becomes that of breaking completely with the metropollis - satellite network
through socialist revolution or continuing to 'underdevelop' within it.
In my opinion, the value of Frank's analysis is his
magisterial critique of the supossedly dual structure of peripheral societies.(39) Frank shows clearly that the
different sectors of the economies in question are and have been since very |
early in their colonial history linked
closely to the world economy. Moreover, he has correctly emphasized that this connection
has not automatically brought about capitalist economic development, such as optimistic
models (derived from Adam Smith) would have predicted, by means of which the development
of trade and the division of labour inevitably would bring about economic development.
Nevertheless Frank's error (shared by the whole tradition of which he is part, including
Sweezy and Wallerstein among the better known) lies in his attempt to explain this
phenomenon using the same economic deterministic framework of the model he purports to
trascend; in fact, he merely turns it upside-down: the development of the 'core'
necessarily requires the underdevelopment of the 'periphery'. Thus he criticizes both the
alternative proposed by the traditional Latin American left (the possibility of a
democratic bourgeois revolution, because in this context the only political solution is a
revolution of an immediately socialist character), and the policies put forward by ECLA.
Nevertheless, his critique is not directed towards the real
weaknesses in the analysis made by the Latin American left - the mechanical determination
of internal by external structures; on the contrary, he strengthens that mechanical
determination in his attempt to construct a model to explain the mechanisms through which
the expropriation of the surplus takes place. Probably still unduly influenced by his
training as an economist at the University of Chicago, he constructs a mechanico-formal
model which is no more than a set of equations of general equilibrium (static and
unhistorical), in which the extraction of the surplus takes place through a series of
satellite - metropolis relationships, through which the surplus generated at each stage is
syphoned off.
It is not surprising that his method leads Frank to displace class relations
from the centre of his analysis of economic development and underdevelopment, Thus he
develops a circular concept of capitalism; although it is evident that capitalism is a
system where production for profit via exchange predominates, the opposite is not
necessarily true: the existence of production for profits in the market is not ncccssarily
a signal of capitalist production. For Frank, this is a sufficient condition for
the existence of capitalist relations of production. Thus for Frank, the problem of the
origins of capitalism (and therefore the origins of the development of the few and the
underdevelopment of the majority) comes down to the origins of the expanding world market and
not
900 |
to the emergence of a
system of free wage labour
Although Frank did not go very far in his analysis of the capitalist system as
a whole, its origins and development, Immanuel Wallerstein tackeld this tremendous
challende in his remarkable book, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and
the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century ( 1974a),
Frank has reaffirmed his ideas in a series of articles published jointly in
1969; a year later he sought to enrich his analysis with the introduction of some elements
of Latin American class structure (Frank, 1970).
Frank has been criticized from all sides, and in almost every point in his
analysis.(40) Prominent
among his critics is Laclau (1971), who provides an excellent synthesis of Frank's
historical model, and shows that the only way in which Frank can 'demonstrate' that all
the 'periphery is capitalist and has been since the colonial period is by using the
concept of capitalism in a sense which is erroneous from a Marxist point of view, and
useless for his central proposition, that of showing that a bourgeois revolution in the
periphery is impossible. As regards this point then, Laclau concludes that Frank makes no
contribution, leaving the analysis exactly where it started.(41)
Robert Brenner (1977) takes Laclau's analysis of Frank (as well as Dobb's
critique of Sweezy ), and demonstrate how the work of Sweezy, Frank and Wallerstein -
brilliantly summarized and analysed by him - are doomed to negate the model put forward
first by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations , Book 1, but
because they have failed...to
discard the underlying individualistic - mechanist presuppositions of this model, they
have ended up by erecting an alternative theory of capitalist development which is, in its
central aspects, the mirror image of the 'progressist' thesis they wish to surpass. thus,
very much like those they criticize, they conceive of (changing) class relations as
emerging more or less directly from the (changing) requirements for the generation of
surplus and development of production, under the pressures and opportunities engendered by
a growing world market. Only, whereas their opponents tend to see such market-determined
processes [the development of trade and the division of labour], as setting off,
automatically, a dynamic of economic development, they see them as enforcing the rise of
economic backwardness. As result, they fail to take into account either the way in which
class structures, once established, will in fact determine the course of economic
development or underdevelopment over an entire epoch, or the way in which these class
structures themselves emerge: as the outcome |
of class struggles whose results are incomprehensible in terms merely of
market forces (Brenner, 1977, p.27).
Thus the way in which Frank uses the concept 'development' and
'underdevelopment' seems incorrect from a Marxist point of view; furthermore, they do not
seem useful for demonstrating what Frank attempts to demonstrate. But as this critique can
also be applied to other authors who adopt the same approach I shall reserve discussion on
this point to page 903.
To summarize, Frank's direct contribution to our understanding of the process
of Latin American development is largely limited to his critique of dualist models for
Latin America.(42) Nevertheless, his indirect contribution is considerable. By this I mean that his
work has inspircd a significant quantity of research by others ( whether to support or
rebut his arguments), in their respective disciplines, particularly in the sociology of
development.
The central line of Frank's thought regarding the 'development of
underdevelopment' is continued, though from a critical point of view, by the Brazilian
sociologist Theotonio dos Santos,(43) for whom
the process under
consideration [Latin American development] rather than being one of satellization as Frank
believes, is a case of the formation of a certain type of internal structures conditioned
by international relationships of dependence (1969, p. 80).
Dos Santos distinguishes different types of relations of dependency (essentially
colonial, industrial-financial and industrial-technological, the latter having grown up
since the Second World War), and consequently distinguishes different kinds of internal
structures generated by them. Dos Santos emphasizes the differences and discontinuities
between the different types of dependency and between the internal structures which result
from them, while Frank himself stresses the continuity and similarity of dependency
relations in a capitalist context. In other words, while Frank wishes to emphasize the
similarities between economic structures in the times of Cortez, Pizarro, Clive and
Rhodes, and betwecn those and the structures typified by the activity of multinational
corporations, Dos Santos is more concerned with the differences and discontinuities
between them.
There is within Dos Santos's analysis the beginnings of an
interesting attempt to break with the concept of a mechanical determination of internal by
external structures which dominated the traditional analysis of the left in Latin America,
and which particularly charac-
901 |
terized Frank's work. One
perceives initially in his analysis the perception not only that both structures are
contradictory, but that movement is produced precisely through the dynamic of the
contradictions between the two. Nevertheless, as he proceeds in the analysis he
re-establishes, little by little, the priority of external over internal structures,
separating almost metaphysically the two sides of the opposition -the internal and the
external- and losing the notion of movement through the dynamic of the contradictions
between these structures. The analysis which begins to emerge is again one typified by
'antecedent causation and inert consequences'. The culmination of his process is his
well-known formal definition of dependency, which because of its formal
nature is both static and unhistorical: it is found in his 1970 article in the American
Economic Review:
Dependence is a conditioning
situation in which the economies of one group of countries are conditioned by the
development and expansion of others. A relationship of interdependence between two or more
economies or between such economies and the world trading system becomes a dependent
relationship when some countries can expand through self-impulsion while others, being in
a dependent position, can only expand as a reflection of the dominant countries, which may
have positive or negative effects on their immediate development (1970, pp. 289-290).
A further anlysis along the same lines of Frank's 'accumulation of
backwardness' and the 'development of underdevelopment' is that of Rui Mauro Marini (
1972b). His work, which is fundamentally an attempt to develop a far more sophisticated
model than that of Frank or Dos Santos, can be summarized as primarily an attempt to apply
Luxemburg's schema (1913) to the Latin American situation.(44)
Finally, Caputo and Pizarro, starting from the same declaration of principles
that 'it is impossible to develop our countries within the capitalist system' ( 1974, p.
51 ), attempt to analyse the international economic relations of Latin America within the
context of the theory of dependency. While their work contains an interesting critique of
the orthodox theory of international trade, and a very full summary of the classical
theory of imperialism, they do not integrate their analysis of the international economic
relations of Latin America, discussed in the second chapter of their book, with their
analysis of the contemporary world capitalist system, which they leave until the last
chapter. Although they stress there the recognized fact that 'after 1950...the new
orientation of |
North American investment ...is directed
basically towards the manufacturing sector' ( 1974, p. 256), they do not even suggest the
possibility that such a process could produce in some countries at least a process of
dependent capitalist development. The only aspect of this process which they feel able to
emphasize is that such investment is 'profoundly destabilizing for national economies'
( 1974, p. 258), as if the development of modern industry with or
without foreign capital was not always destabilizing in economies which still have
important traditional manufacturing sectors.
At CEREN meanwhile, Hinkelammert ( 1970 a,b,c) was making an interesting
attempt to connect the economic structure of the dependent countries with their class
structure, and to analyse the way in which the alliance between the traditional dominant
elites and imperialism develops. However, he also falls into the 'stagnationist trap' and
develops his thesis of the dynamic stagnation (sic) of Latin American economics.(45) Even so, in his analysis of the
dependent economies he treats creatively the role of the 'technological gap' in the
relationship between these and the advanced countries in the system. .
This type of approach has inspired an unending stream of works, mostly
theoretical;(46)
the most thorough-going critiques of this type of 'theory of underdevelopment', in
addition to that of Laclau already discussed, have come from Cardoso (1974), Lall
(1975) and Weisskopf ( 1976 ). I myself am presently engaged upon a further contribution
to this critical effort, which should be completed shortly.
Lall (1975) offers an interesting critique of a number of dependency
studies.(47) He
argues that the characteristics to which underdevelopment in dependent countries is
generally attributed are not exclusive to these economies, but are also found in so-called
'non-dependent' economies, and that therefore they are properly speaking
characteristics of capitalist development in general and not necessarily only of dependent
capitalism. He further argues that such analyses are not surprisingly unable to show
causal relationships between these characteristics and underdevelopment.
Lall argues that any concept of dependency which claims to be a theory of
underdevelopment should satisfy two criteria:
(i) it must lay down certain
characteristics of dependent economies which are not found in non-dependent ones;
(ii) these characteristics must be shown to affect adversely the course and
pattern of development of the dependent countries (1975, p. 800).
902 |
If crucial
features of 'dependence' can be found in both dependent and 'non-dependent' economies, the
whole conceptual schema is defective. And if it does not satisfy the second criterion,
that is, if particular features of dependency cannot be demonstrated to be causally
related to underdevelopment, we would be faced not with a 'theory of Latin American
underdevelopment' but simply with a catalogue of social, political, economic and
cultural indicators, which will not help us to understand the dynamic of underdevelopment
in Latin America.
Lall goes on to analyse the principal characteristics commonly
associated with dependent economies and concludes that it appears that the technique is
to pick off some salient
features of modern capitalism as it affects some less developed countries and put them
into a distinct category of dependence (1975, p. 806).
He goes on to consider the possibility that the characteristics
associated with the dependent economies could have a particular cumulative effect when
occurring together, but finds no conclusive evidence. He concludes then that such a
concept of dependency applied
to less developed countries
is impossible to define and cannot be shown to be causally related to a continuance of
underdevelopment (1975, p. 808).
It is not surprising then that
one sometimes gets the impression
on reading the literature that 'dependence' is defined in a circular manner: less
developed countries are poor because they are dependent, and any characteristics that they
display signify dependence (1975, p. 800).
Thomas Weisskopf ( 1976) takes Lall's analysis as a starting-point and
provides empirical data to substantiate it(48). He shows that in terms of general economic growth many 'dependent' countries
grow more rapidly than 'non-dependent' countries, and that this is particularly true as
regards industrial growth. He therefore finds no empirical support for the 'dependency'
theses of stagnation. He concludes
my main point is that these aspects
of underdevelopment [those which some attribute to dependency] cannot simply be attributed
to dependency per se, for they are inherent in the operation of the capitalist mode
of production whether or not it takes a dependent form. It is more appropriate to view
dependence as aggravating conditions of underdevelopment that are inevitable under
capitalism than to view dependence as a major cause of underdevelopment (1976, p. 21).
The most systematic critique is that of Cardoso. who argues that these 'theories' are |
based on five interconnected erroneous
theses concerning capitalist development in Latin America. These are:
(i) that capitalist development in
Latin America is impossible,
(ii) that dependent capitalism is based on the extensive exploitation of
labour and tied to the necessity of underpaying labour,
(iii) that local bourgeoisies no longer exist as an active social force,
(iv) that penetration by multinational firms leads local states to pursue an
expansionist policy that is typically 'sub-imperialist', and
(v) that the political path of the sub-continent is at the crossroads, with the only
conceivable options being socialism or fascism.
After rejecting one by one these erroneous theses upon which this line
of analysis of dependency is based, and showing that they have been developed in order to
support one another, Cardoso argues that in the case of Brazil the writers in question
have in fact identified some of the conditions which give capitalist development
its specificity. He shows, in his own words that some 'pieces of the puzzle are the
same, but the way they go together. ..is different' ( 1973, p. 21 ).
For my part (see Palma, forthcoming), I would argue, following Cardoso's
analysis, that these theories of dependency I have been examining are mistaken not only
because they do not 'fit the facts', but also -and more importantly- because their
mechanico-formal nature renders them both static and unhistorical.
The central nucleus around which the analysis of these dependency
writers is organized is that capitalism, in a context of dependency, loses its historical
progressive character, and can only generate underdevelopment. In this respect, I would
argue that though it is not difficult to see that the specific forms of development
adopted by capitalism in dependent countries are different from those of advanced
countries (this development is marked by a series of specific economic , political and
social contradictions -many of which have been correctly identified by these writers- and
these contradictions appear to have become sharper with the passage of time), to leap from
that assertion to the claim that for that reason capitalism has lost, or never even had, a
historically progressive role in Latin America, is to take a leap into the dark. We need
only recall Lenin's critique of the Narodniks (see pp. 892-893), their
contemporaries are equally 'wrong in their facts'; for example, in my own analysis of the
Chilean case (which
903 |
covers the period from 1910 to
1970) I have shown that Lenin's criteria for assessing the progressiveness of capitalism
-increase in the productive forces of social labour and in the socialization of that
labour- were both met during the period under study.
Now, if the argument is that such processes have been manifested differently
than in other capitalist countries, particularly those of the centre, or in diverse ways
in the different branches of the Chilean economy, or that they have generated inequality
at regional levels and in the distribution of income, have been accompanied by such
phenomena as underemployment and unemployment, and have benefited the elite almost
exclusively, or again that they have taken on a cyclical nature, then it does no more than
affirm that the development of capitalism in Latin America, as everywhere else and at all
times, has been characterized by its contradictory and exploitative nature. The
specificity of capitalist development in Latin America stems precisely from the particular
ways in which these contradictions have been manifested, and the different ways in
which many Latin American countries have faced and temporarily overcome them, the
way in which this process has created further contradictions, and so on. It is
through this process that the specific dynamic of capitalist development in
different Latin American countries has been generated. In this connection we should
recall that the whole of Lenin's analysis of the development of capitalism in
Russia was a detailed study of the specific ways in which capitalism there temporarily
overcame its contradictions, and that he criticized the Narodniks for transforming
those contradictions into a proof that capitalism was impossible in Russia, and
for failing to understand that the same contradictions were the very
ones which were basic to capitalist development, and which took specific forms in
Russia.
In this context, I would also argue that the form in which the concepts
'capitalist development' and 'capitalist underdevelopment' are used by these dependency
writers does not seem adequate. (I now take up the point discussed on p. 901.)
Capitalist development is essentially a process of capital
accumulation which produces as it evolves modifications in the composition of the
productive forces, in resource allocation, in class relations, and in the character of the
state; that is, which produces as it evolves modifications in the different structures of
society. Whether the cyclical nature of capital accumulation or the modifications and
contradictions |
which. this accumulation produces are or
are not 'desirable' or 'optimal' is another question entirely.
To deny, as the 'contemporary Narodniks' do, that capitalist development is
taking place in some countries in Latin America and in some parts of the rest of the
periphery is no less than absurd. To recognize it on the other hand, as Lenin told the
Narodniks, is quite compatible with the full recognition of the negative side of
capitalism, and in no way an apology for it.
My personal judgement is that in their completely justifiable eagerness to
denounce the negative side of capitalist development -its enormous social cost- to the
analysis of which they have made significant contributions, they, like the Narodniks, have
been unable to see the specifity of its historical progressiveness in Latin America. They
have therefore thrown out the baby with the bath water.
The place which should have been occupied in their analyses by the study of
this specificity of capitalist development in Latin America has unfortunately been
occupied by easy but misleading concepts such as 'active development of
ultra-underdevelopment', 'sub-imperialism', and 'lumpen-bourgeoisie'. Furthermore, they
have disregarded the cyclical nature of capitalist accumulation, and to demonstrate their
thesis of 'stagnation' they have taken empirical evidence mainly from the period from the
mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, one of recession not only in Latin America but also in the
whole of the periphery, and projected it as if it were a permanent characteristic of
capitalism; that is, they treat a conjunctural phenomenon as if it were a permanent
feature.(49)
The crucial point is that these errors of analysis have not only disfigured an
important part of the production of social scientists in Latin America, but have also led
to a great deal of distorted political analysis, along the lines that the local
bourgeoisie no longer exists as an active social force, but has become 'lumpen', incapable
of rational accumulation and rational political activity, dilapidated by its consumerism,
and blind to its 'real' interest, and that as there is no possibility of capitalist
development in Latin America the sub-continent is necessarily at the crossroads, forced to
choose between an immediate socialist revolution or a permanent state of capitalist
underdevelopment.(50)
Reading their political analysis one gets the impression
that the whole problem around which the question of what course the revolution should take
in Latin America revolves is that of whether or not capitalist development is
904 |
viable there. In other words
it seems that they deduce that if one accepts that capitalist development is feasible on
its own terms one is automatically bound to adopt the political strategy of awaiting
and/or facilitating such development until its full productive powers have been exhausted,
and only then to seek to move towards socialism. As it is pecisely this option which these
writers wish to reject (as for them the revolution must take on an immediately socialist
character), and as they seem to believe that they would be forced to adopt it if they
accepted the possiliility of any kind of capitalist development, they have been obliged to
make a forced march back towards a purely and simplistically ideological position, and to
make every analytical effort to deny dogmatically any possibility of capitalist
development.
In my judgementnt this option is a false one. To take only one example,
we may recall Marx's position regarding the development of capitalism in Russia. The
viability of capitalism there did not precluded an immediate move towards socialism, for
viability did not in itself imply necessity, any more than the mere existence of
necessity, in any situation, implies viability.
Without wishing to undertake a prolonged analysis, I should like to
suggest that the choice facing Latin America today regarding the character which the
revolutionary struggle should adopt is much more complicated than the simplistic and
apocalyptic 'now or never', 'all or nothing' approach of some dependency writers. It is
precisely this retreat to a purely and simplistically ideological position, necessary if
they were to deny thc possibility of capitalist development and thus force the conclusion
that the struggle should take on an immediately socialist nature, which has caused these
analyses, despite the important contributions they have made to some aspcets of the Latin
American social sciences, to fail in their attempt to establish a new paradigm.(51)
If one agrees with Cardoso (1976, p. 1) that the standard that one
has to use to assess the analytical adequacy, the interpretative and predictive capacity
and the creative strength of new explanatory schema in the social sciences is the
sensitivity with which they detect new social processes and the precision with which they
are able to explain mechanisms of social reproduction and modes of social transformation,
one should agree that the dependency analyses which have attempted to construct a formal
theory of Latin American underdevelopment are of relatively low standard; they have been
unable to meet these requirements |
in their study of the economic development
and political domination of Latin America.
To use their own language, by transforming dependency into a mechanico-formal
theory of Latin American underdevelopment -thus losing the richness that a dialectical
analysis would provide- these writers have underdeveloped the theory of dependency.
(i) Empirical work related to this
approach to dependency
The attempt to transform dependency into a 'theory of Latin American
underdevelopment', and in some cases even into a theory of underdevelopment in the whole
of the periphery, was bound to succumb to the temptation to elaborate a corpus of formal
and testable propositions which could by themselves explain the 'laws of motion of
dependent capitalist underdevelopment'. Similarly, the attempt to construct a theory of
this nature was bound to appear a seductive challenge for the part of the North American
academic world which is ever anxious to consume unidimensional hypotheses referring to
clearly established variables. While some are concerned to contribute to making the theory
of underdevelopment consistent and operational, and therefore seek to identify as clearly
as possible a set of empirically testable hypotheses, with the aid of which they could
construct a continuum running from 'dependence' to 'independence', others wish to
demonstrate that this 'theory' has no 'scientific status', as it has not constructed to
date a model whose hypotheses pass the various tests of significance. As Cardoso has said
instead of making a
dialectical analysis of historical processes and of conceiving them as the result of
struggle between classes and groups that define their interest and values in the process
of the expansion of a mode of production, history is formalized and...the ambiguity, the
contradictions and the disjunctions of the real are reduced to 'operational dimensions',
which are by definition uniform but static (1976b, p. 15).
If one accepts (as I do) that the basic feature of the dependency analyses is their
conception of the dynamic of the societies in question in terms of the specific form of
their articulation into the world economy, then the mixing of data from different
situations of dependency can be at most of secondary interest, if not of mere curiosity
value; it can neither validate nor invalidate statements which should be presented as
characteristic of specificsituations of dependency.
905 |
This critique is
by no means directed at the use of quantitative methods in the social sciences (after all,
many studies which have attempted to make analyses of concrete situations of dependency,
including my own, contain detailed quantitative work). The problem is not whether or not
to measure; it is that, despite the horror that it provokes among logical positivists,
there are fundamental differences between methodology in the social and the natural
sciences. The differences are not only quantitative (e.g., minutes of computer time per
printed page), but qualitative, concerning
what and how to measure as
well as the methodological status of measuring (Cardoso and Faletto. 1977, p.7).
For these reasons the criticism of these quantitative studies is not that they are
quantitative, but that they have fallen into the same trap as the dependency writers that
I have discussed so far, that of understanding dependency as a formal concept that can be
made uniform and reduced to operational dimensions.
Undoubtedly the most sophisticated empirical study of this kind
published so far is that of Chase-Dunn (1975). It is an attempt to test the effects of
'dependency' on economic development and income inequality. Chase-Dunn uses 'investment
dependency' and 'debt dependency' as measures of a country's dependent position, and finds
strong support for the hypothesis that investment dependency inhibits economic
development, but less support for the hypothesis that debt dependency does the same. He
also finds support for the hypothesis that dependency is related to income inequalities,
although he finds that the relationship is insufficiently statistically significant. He
concludes that theories of dependency predict the effects of inputs from advanced nations
to less developed ones better than neo-classical theories of international economy, or
sociological theories of modernization.
A different attempt to test the theory is Kaufman el al ( 1975).
The authors test several propositions from the literature of dependency, and find that
some results show some support while others furnish negative evidence; therefore, they
conclude, the study
permits no definitive conclusions to be drawn about dependency theory one
way or the other (1975, p. 329).
Pockenham (1976) attempts to study the Brazilian situation in terms of
degrees of independence (sic), while Tyler and Wogart |
( 1973 ) inquire into Sunkel's hypothesis
that increasing international integration leads to greater national disintegration in the
less developed countries, and conclude that 'there is insufficient evidence to reject it'
( 1973, p. 42).
Schmitter (1971, 1974) rejects the proposition that
dependency is the cause of all the ills of Latin America, but accepts that the theory of
dependency has contributed a basis for a more subtle, differentiated and empirically test-
able theory. Finally, McGowan and Smith (1976) test the relevance of the theory of
dependency for black Africa, and conclude that a modified conventional model would be more
appropriate.
To summarize these essays in their own terms, if we plotted
the findings of this group of empirical studies of the 'theory of dependency' we should
obtain a curve whose mean would be that the theory is relatively acceptable, whose median
would be the use of data drawn from a mix of different situations of dependency, and whose
interval in respect of the mean in terms of standard deviation would go from those who
affirm that there is insufficient evidence to accept the theory to those who affirm that
there is not enough to reject it. Finally, the range of the curve would run from those who
on the basis of empirical evidence would accept the theory unhesitatingly to those who
would reject it out of hand.
b. Dependency as a reformulation of the
ECLA analysis of Latin American development
Towards the middle of the 1960s the ECLA analyses were
overtaken by a gradual decline, in which many factors intervened. The statistics relating
to Latin American development in the period after thc Korean War presented a gloomy
picture (see Booth, 1975, pp. 62-64) which was interpreted in different ways as indicating
the failure of thc policies ECLA had been proposing since its foundation. Furthermore, the
first attempts to introduce into the traditional ECLA analysis a number of 'social
aspects' (Prebisch, 1963), far from strengthening the analysis, revealed its fragility
(see Cardoso, 1977, p. 32).
One of the results of the relative decline in the influence of
ECLA's analyses was the emergence of an attempt to reformulate its thought. Before this
can be discussed, a brief review of the ECLA analyses themselves will be necessary.(52)
ECLA itself attempted to reformulate the
906 |
conventional theory of
economic development, just as Keynesianism had set out to do with the central body of
conventional economic theory.(53) Baran (1957, p. 24) summarizes Keynes's contribution as demonstrating that
strong tendencies towards instability, economic stagnation and chronic under-utilization
of resources, both human and material, are intrinsic to the market economy. For Keynes
these are only 'tendencies', for he always stresses that they can be managed if the
adequate counter-acting measures are taken. That is, if individual and anonymous decisions
tend to produce a series of disequilibria (with consequences as serious as the depression
of the 1930s), they can be avoided by the collective decisions of individuals through the
state (Keynes, 1932, p. 318). In this way Keynes was opposed not only to the conception of
the 'harmony of unregulated classical liberal capitalism', but also to the traditional
Marxist view that the growing and cumulative contradictions of capitalism would
necessarily become unmanageable in the end. The Keynesian tradition did not only emphasize
the need for corrective state intervention in the economy, but also introduced into
conventional economic analysis a series of variables previously considered 'exogenous' or
'irrational', such as income distribution, the interests of individuals, groups and
nations, and market imperfections.(54)
That the ECLA analyses should have drawn their inspiration from
Keynesianism in no way denies their originality; this lay in the way in which they applied
the Keynesian analysis to the Latin American situation, and to the theory of economic
development, to which the Keynesian tradition had hitherto paid little attention. The ECLA
analysts produced the first major Latin American contribution to the social sciences, and
furthermore went beyond the merely theoretical level to make concrete policy proposals on
the basis of their theoretical work.
The nucleus of the ECLA analysis was the critique of the conventional
theory of international trade (as expressed in the Hecksher - Ohlin - Samuelson(55) model of Ricardo's theory of
international trade); it aimed to show that the international division of labour which
conventional theory claimed was 'naturally' produced by world trade was of much greater
benefit to the centre (where manufacturing production is concentrated) than to the
periphery ( which was destined to produce primary products, be they agricultural or
mineral). There were according to ECLA two reasons for this: first, that factor and
commodity markets |
were more oligopolistic at the centre than
in the periphery, and that therefore the benefits of trade were unequally distributed,
leading to a long-term decline in the terms of trade for the periphery; and second, that
as those writers who laid considerable emphasis upon the role of 'externalities'(56) suggested, there were a number
of benefits associated with industrial production itself. That is, an international
division of labour which concentrated industrial production at the centre and inhibited it
in the periphery not only worked against the latter through its effect on the long-term
trend in the terms of trade, but also because of the loss of a series of benefits proper
to a process of industrialization.(57)
In other words, to achieve accelerated and sustained economic growth in Latin America a
necessary condition (and, some ECLA writings seemed to suggest, a sufficient one) was the
development of a process of industrialization. But this process of industrialization could
not be expected to take place spontaneously, for it would be inhibited by the
international division of labour which the centre would attempt to impose, and by a series
of structural obstacles internal to the Latin American economies. Consequently, a scries
of measures were proposed, intended to promote a process of deliberate or 'forced'
industrialization; they included state intervention in the economy both in the formulation
of economic policies oriented towards these ends and as a direct productive agent. Among
the economic policies suggested were those of 'healthy protectionism', exchange controls,
the attraction of foreign investmcnt into Latin American industry, the stimulation and
orientation of national invest- ment, and the adoption of wage policies aimed at boosting
effective demand. The intervention of the State in directly productive activity was
recommended in those areas where large amounts of slow-maturing investment were needed,
and particularly where this need coincided with the production of essential goods or
services.(58)
It is not particularly surprising that ECLA should have attracted its share of criticism,
particularly as it went beyond theoretical pronouncements to offer packages of policy
recommendations. It was criticized from sectors of the left for failing tu denounce
sufficiently the mechanisms of exploitation within the capitalist system, and for
criticizing the conventional theory of international trade only from 'within' (see for
example Frank, 1967, and Caputo and Pizarro, 1974). On the other hand, from the liberal
right the reaction was im-
907 |
mediate and at times
ferocious; ECLA's policy recommendations were totally heretical from the point of view of
conventional theory, and threatened the political interests of significant sectors. A
leading critic in academic circles was Haberler ( 1957 ), who accused ECLA of failing to
take due account of economic cycles, and argued that single factorial terms of trade would
be a better indicator than the simple relationship between the prices of exports and
imports,
On the political front, the liberal right accused ECLA of being the 'Trojan
horse of Marxism', on the strength of the degree of coincidence between both analyses.
Without doubt there was a significant degree of coincidence -both ideological and
analytical - between the thought of ECLA and the post-1920 Marxist view of the obstacles
facing capitalist development in the periphery, despite the fact that the language that
they used and the premises from which they started were different. As I have shown, the
central line of Marxist thought after 1920 argued that capitalist development in Latin
America was necessary, but hindered by the 'feudal-imperialist' alliance; thus the
anti-imperialist and 'anti-feudal' struggle had become at the same time a struggle for
industrialization, with the state and the 'national bourgeoisie' depicted as potential
historical agents in this necessary capitalist development. In the case of ECLA, as with
the Marxists, the principle obstacle to development (ECLA chose to speak of the 'principal
obstacle' rather than the 'principal enemy') was located overseas, and ECLA shared with
the Marxists the conviction that without a strenuous effort to remove the internal
obstacles to development (the traditional sectors) the process of industrialization would
be greatly impeded.(59)
Furthermore, the coincidence between crucial elements in the
analysis of the two respective lines of thought is made more evident by the fact that the
processes of reformulation in each occurred simultaneously Thus when it became
evident that capitalist development in Latin America was taking a path different from that
expected, a number of ECLA members began a process of reformulation of the traditional
thought of that institution, just at the time that an important sector of the Latin
American left was breaking with the traditional Marxist view that capitalist development
was both necessary and possible in Latin America, but hindered by the 'feudal imperialist'
alliance. Not only did the different processes of reformulation take place at the same
time, but |
despite the apparently growing divergencies
(particularly seen in the vocabulary adopted), they had one extremely important element in
common: pessimism regarding the possibility of capitalist development.
As regards the attempt to reformulate the thought of ECLA, it was undoubtedly the sombre
picture presented by their own statistics on Latin America (ECLA, 1963) which wrought thc
effect which the Cuban revolution had had on thinking within the other group. In the
terminology of Kuhn (1962, 1972) they sought to change their paradigm. The process of
import-substituting industrialization which ECLA recommended seemed to aggravate
balance-of-payments problems, instead of alleviating them; foreign investment was not only
in part responsible for that (as after a certain period of time there was a net flow of
capital away from the sub-continent),(60) but it did not seem to be having other positive effects that ECLA had expected;
real wages were not rising sufficiently quickly to produce the desired increase in
effective demand -indecd, in several countries income distribution was worsening; the
problems of unemployment were also growing more acute, in particular as a rcsult of rural
- urban migration: industrial production was becoming increasingly concentrated in
products typically consumed by the elites, and was not having the 'ripple effect' upon
other productive sectors of the economy, particularly the agricultural sector.
The bleak panorama of capitalist deve1opment in Latin America led to changes in the
'pre-theoretical entity' (to return to the language of Kuhn) in ECLA thinkers, but it
strengthened the convictions of the dependency writers I reviewed earlier.(61) The former were faced with the
problem of trying to discover why some of the expected consequences of industrialization
on the course of development were not being produced, the latter denied with greater
vehemence the least possibility of dependent capitalist development.
The pessimism with regard to the possibilities of capitalist development
in Latin America which was the keynote of the works written by both groups during this
period was in each case accompanied by the same error: the failure to take duly into
account the cyclical pattern characteristic of capitalist development.
The irony was that while both groups were busy writing and publishing different versions
of stagnationist theories (the most sophisticated perhaps being Furtado, 1966),
international trade was picking up, the terms of trade were changing in favour of Latin
American exporters
908 |
of agricultural and mineral
products, and some countries were able to take advantage of the favourable situation and
accelerate rapidly the rythm of their economic development. Thus, as Cardoso (1977, p. 33)
remarks, 'history had prepared a trap for pessimists'.
Perhaps the other distinctive aspect of this line of Latin American thought was that it
made a basically ethical distinction between 'economic growth' and 'economic
development'. According to this, development did not take place when growth was
accompanied by:
(i) increased inequality in the distribution of
its benefits;
(ii) a failure to increase social welfare, in so far as expenditure went to unproductive
areas -or even worse to military spending - or the production of unnecessarily refined
luxury consumer durables;
(iii) the failure to create employment opportunities at the rate of the growth in
population, let alone in urbanization; and
(iv) a growing loss of national control over economic, political, social and cultural
life.
By making the distinction in these terms, their research developed along two separate
lines, one concerned with the obstacles to growth (and in particular to industrial
growth), the other concerned with the perverse character taken by development. The
fragility of such a formulation consists in its confusing a socialist critique of
capitalism with the analysis of the obstacles of capitalism in Latin America. For a review
of these issues see Faria ( 1976, pp. 37-49).(62)
But if the attempt at reformulation which followed the crisis in the ECLA school of
thought did not succeed in grasping the transformations which were occurring at that
moment in time in the world capitalist system,(63) it did in time produce together with the abandonment of stagnationist theories,
a movement towards a more structural-historical analysis of Latin America.(64) The first substantial critique
of stagnationist theories came from Tavares and Serra ( 1970), Pinto ( 1965, 1974) in his
turn, less seduced throughout by those theories, discussed the concept of structural
heterogeneity, and the process of 'marginalization of the periphery' (Pinto and
Knakel, 1973). Vuscovich (1970) studied the 'concentrated and exclusive' character
of Latin American development, and later ( 1973) analysed the way in which the
economic policy of the Unidad Popular government had to adjust itself to the constraints,
both political and economic, facing Chile at that moment in time.(65) Sunkel ( 1973a ; Sunkel and Paz,
1970) |
studied the relationship between internal
economic problems and the world capitalist system, in an attempt to show that development
and underdevelopment were two sides of the same coin. His most significant contribution is
his analysis of the process by which international integration leads to greater national
disintegration in the less developed countries; this work was complemented by analyses of
the effects of multinational corporations in Latin America ( 1972, 1973b, 1974). He later
went on to write with Cariola a revealing analysis of the relationship between the
expansion of nitrate exports and socio-economic transformations in Chile between 1860 and
1930 ( 1976), and the effects which this had on class formation in Chile ( 1977).
c. A methodology for the analysis of
concrete situations of dependency
In my critique of the dependency studies reviewed so far I have
already advanced the fundamental elements of what I understand to be the third of the
three approaches within the dependency school. It is primarily related to the work of the
Brazilian sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, dating from the completion in 1967 of Dependencia
y Desarrollo en America Latina, written with the Chilean historian Enzo Faletto.
Briefly, this third approach to the analysis of dependency can be
expressed as follows:
(i) In common with the two approaches discussed already, this
third approach sees the Latin American economies as an integral part of the world
capitalist system, in a context of increasing internationalization of the system as a
whole; it also argues that the central dynamic of that system lies outside the peri-
pheral economics and that therefore the options which lie open to them are limited by the
development of the system at the centre; in this way the particular is in some way
conditioned by the general. Therefore a basic element for the understanding of these
societies is given by the 'general determinants' of the world capitalist system, which is
itself changing through time; the analysis therefore requires primarily an
understanding of the contemporary characteristics of the world capitalist
system. However, the theory of imperialism, which was originally developed to provide
an understanding of that system, had remained practically 'frozen' where it was at the
time of the death of Lenin until the end of the 1950s. During this period, capitalism
underwent significant and
909 |
decisive stages of development
and the theory failed to keep up with them. The depression of the 1930s, the Second World
War, the emergence of the United States as the undisputed hegemonic power in the
capitalist world, the challenge of the growing socialist bloc, and its attendant creation
of new demands on the capitalist world if its system were to be maintained, the
decolonization of Africa and Asia, and the beginning of the process of the
transnationalization of capitalism had all contributed to create a world very different
from that which had confronted Lenin. As the theory of imperialism once again began
to place itself at the centre of Marxist analysis this failure to make any theoretical
advance began to make itself felt; the transformations which had occurred and which
continued to occur were slowly if at all incorporated into its analysis. Contributions as
important as those of Gramsci(66) and Kalecki have remained almost unintegrated until very recently.(67)
One characteristic of the third approach to dependency, and one which has been
widely recognized, has been to incorporate more successfully into its analysis of
Latin American development the transformations which are occurring and have occurred in
the world capitalist system, and in particular the changes which became significant
towards the end of the 1950s in the rhythm and the form of capital movement, and in the
international division of labour. The emergence of the so-called multinational
corporations progressively transformed centre-periphery relationships, and relationships
between the countries of the centre. As foreign capital has increasingly been directed
towards manufacturing industry in the periphery.(68) the struggle for industrialization, which has previously seen as an
anti-imperialist struggle, has become increasingly the goal of foreign capital.
Thus dependency and industrialization cease to be contradictory, and a path of
'dependent development' becomes possible.(69)
(ii) Furthermore, the third approach not only accepts as a
starting-point and improves upon the analysis of the location of the economies of Latin
America in the world capitalist system, but also accepts and enriches their demonstration
that Latin American societies are structured through unequal and antagonistic patterns of
social organization, showing the social asymmetries and the exploitative character of
social organization which arise from its socio-economic base, giving considerable
importance to the effect of the diversity of natural resources, geographic loca-
|
tion, and so on of each economy, thus
extending the analysis of the 'internal determinants' of the development of the Latin
American economies.
(iii) But while these improvements are important, the most significant
feature of this approach is that it goes beyond these points, and insists that from the
premises so far outlined one arrives only at a partial, abstract and indeterminate
characterization of the Latin American historical process, which can only be overcome
by understanding how the general and specific determinants interact in particular and
concrete situations. It is only by understanding the specificity of movement in these
societies as a dialectical unity of both, and a synthesis of these 'internal' and
'external' factors, that one can explain the particularity of social, political and
economic processes in the dependent societies. Only in this way can one explain why, for
example, the single process of mercantile expansion should have produced in different
Latin American societies slave labour, systems based on the exploitation of indigenous
populations, and incipient forms of wage labour.
What is important is not simply to show that mercantile expansion was the
basis of the transformation of the Latin American economies, and less to deduce
mechanically that that process made them capitalist, but to avoid losing the specificity
of history in a welter of vague abstract concepts by explaining how the mercantilist drive
led to the creation of the phenomena mentioned, and to show how, throughout the history of
Latin America, different sectors
of local classes allied or clashed
with foreign interests, organized different forms of state, sustained distinct ideologies
or tried to implement various policies or defined alternative strategies to cope with
imperialist challenges in diverse moments of history (Cardoso and Faletto, 1977, p. 12)
The study of the dynamic of the dependent societies as the dialectical unity
of internal and external factors implies that the conditioning effect of each in the
movement of these societies can be separated only by making a static analysis. Equally, if
the internal dynamic of the dependent society is a particular aspect of the general
dynamic of the capitalist system, that does not imply that the latter produces concrete
effects in the former, but finds concrete expression in them.
The system of 'external domination' reappears as an 'internal' phenomenon
through the social practices of local groups and classes, who share its interests and
values. Other inter-
910 |
nal groups and forces oppose
this domination and in the concrete development of these contradictions the specific
dynamic of the society is generated. It is not a case of seeing one part of the world
capitalist system as 'developing' and another as 'underdeveloping', or of seeing
'imperialism and dependency as two sides of the same coin, with the underdeveloped or
dependent world reduced to a passive role determined by the other, but in the words of
Cardoso and Faletto,
We conceive the relationship
between external and internal forces as forming a complex whole whose structural links are
not based on mere external forms of exploitation and coercion, but are rooted in
coincidences of interests between local domi- nant classes and international ones, and, on
the other side, are challenged by local dominated groups and classes. In some
circumstances, the networks of coincident or reconciliated interests might expand to
include segments of the middle class, if not even of alienated parts of working classes.
In other circumstances, segments of dominant classes might seek internal alliance with
middle classes, working classes, and even peasants, aiming to protect themselves from
foreign penetration that contradicts its interests (1977, pp. 10-11).
There are of course elements within thc capitalist system which affect
all the Latin American economies, but it is precisely the diversity within this unity which
characterizes historical processes. Thus the effort of analysis should be oriented
towards the elaboration of concepts capable of explaining how the general trends in
capitalist expansion are transfomed into specific relationships between men, classes and
states, how these specific relations in turn react upon the general trends of the
capitalist system, how internal and external processes of political domination reflect one
another, both in their compatibilities and their contradictions, how the economies and
polities of Latin America are articulated with those of the centre, and how their specific
dynamics are thus generated.
Nevertheless, I do not mcan to support a naive expectation that a
correct approach to the analysis of dependcncy would be capable of explaining everything;
or that if it does not yet do so, it is necessarily due to the fact that the method
was wrongly applied, or has not yet been developed enough. I do not have any illusions
that our findings could explain every detail of our past history, or should be capable of
predicting the exact course of future events, because I do not have any illusions that our
findings can take out from history all its ambiguities, uncertainties, contradictions and |
surprises. As it has done so often in the
past, history will undoubtedly continue to astonish us with unexpected revelations -as
unexpected as those that astonished Lenin in 1917 ( see page 894).
It is interesting to note that Cardoso's work on dependency was preceded by a
series of concrete analyses of aspects of Brazilian history and contemporary sociology
which fore-shadowed in many ways his later positions. Cammack ( 1977) argues that his
analysis of slavery in southern Brazil ( Cardoso, 1960, 1962) provides an explicit
characterization of the specific contradictions of subordinated development, although
within the context of a single nation, and for a time at least under conditions of
colonial rule. He states that
the characterization of
capitalist development in a peripheral economy (the description given to the south of
Brazil) stresses that it is dynamic, but that the process of capital accumulation is
incomplete, and marked by contradictions not found in classical forms of capitalist
development (Cammack, 1977, p.10).
Cammack thus shows how these early works provide the basis for a rejection of the stagna-
tionist theses; he also demonstrates that there is in the discussion of the contradictory
nature of slave labour an implicit rejection of the 'feudal' and 'super-exploitation of
labour' theses concerning Latin American development. However, it was research conducted
in the early 1960s into the political position of the 'national bourgeoisie' that
convinced Cardoso that the class structure of Brazil was essentially different from that
which had served as its implicit model, derived from classical Marxist analysis of the
development of class relations in the advanced countries of Western Europe.
It is thus through concrete studies of specific situations, and in
particular of class relations and class structure in Brazil that Cardoso formulates the
essential aspects of the dependency analysis. As Cammack notes, Cardoso denies elsewhere,
in 'Althusserismo o marxismo? A proposito del concepto de clases en Poulantzas' (in
Cardoso, 1972b), a critic of Poulantzas (1972), that there are any 'general categories'
within Marxism.(70)
In my view, some of the most successful analyses within the
dependency schoo1 have been those which anallyse specific situations in concrete terms. A
case in point is Chudnovsky (1974), who after analysing the effect of multinational
corporations in Colombia, goes on to relate it to the theory of imperialism. For other
successful attempts at concrete anallysis, one should consult the already mentioned
911 |
works of Laclau (1969), Pinto
(1964, 1974), Cariola and Sunkel (1976, 1977), and Singer (1971).
4. BY WAY OF A
CONCLUSION
Throughout this survey of dependency studies relating to Latin America(71) I have shown that there is no
such thing as a single 'theory of dependency'; under the dependency label we find
approaches so different that we may at best speak of a 'school of dependency'. The
principal common element in these aproaches is the attempt to analyse Latin American
societies through a 'comprehensive social science', which stresses the socio-political
nature of the economic relations of production; in short, the approach is one of political
economy, and thus an attempt to revive the 19th and early 20th century tradition in
this respect.
From this perspective there is a critique of those who divide reality into
dimensions analytica1ly independent of each other and of the economic structures of a
given society, as if these elements were in reality separable. Thus the dependency school
offers an important critique of such approaches as Rostow's 'stages of growth',
'modern-traditiona1' sociological typologies, dualism, functionalism, and in general a1l
those which do not integrate into their analysis an account of the socio-political context
in which development takes place.
Nevertheless, as 1 have attempted to show, not a1l the approaches within the
dependency school are successful in showing how these distinct spheres -social,
economic and political- are related.
I have criticized those who fail to understand the specificity of the
historical process of the penetration of capitalism into Latin America, and only condemn
its negative aspects, complementing their analysis with a series of stagnationist theses,
in an attempt to build a formal theory of underdevelopment. These are mistaken not only
because they do not 'fit the facts', but because their mechanico - formal nature renders
them both static and unhistorical. They have thus developed schemas unable to rxplain the
specificity of economic development and political domination in Latin America; indeed
their models lack the sensitivity to detect the social processes of Latin America,
and are unable to explain with precision the mechanisms of social reproduction and modes
of social transformation of these societies. This leads them to use vague and |
imprecise concepts, as vague, and imprecise
as those used at the other end of the political spectrum, as for example the 'Brazilian
miracle'.(72)
I have also criticized those who fail to understand that capitalist
development will necessarily take place on its own terms , 'warts and all', and who
hope that it could produce a just distribution of income, wealth and power,
Finally, 1 have shown that we find in these analyses a methodology
adequate for the study of concrete situations of dependency, from which concrete
concepts and theories can be developed; and from which strategies of development can
be set up in terms of specific situations of each society, with economic analysis placed
within clear social and political coordinates.
Attention to the social and political context in which development takes place (or fails
to take place) may avoid the investment of time and energy in the preparation of
strategies which stand little chance of being properly put to the test.(73) How can this be
avoided? Perhaps benefiting from the insights of the best work of the dependency
school, re-uniting quantitative studies with historical structural analysis, thus ending
the 'dialogue of the deaf'(74) and recognizing the truth, in its broadest sense, of a comment made by Dudley
Seers ( 1963 ): 'Economics is the study of economies'. After all, development strategists
have one thing at least in common with Marx -they want not only to understand reality, but
also to transform it.(75)
NOTES
1. Those who are
already familiar with the basic tenets of Marxism will excuse a brief and
necessarily superficial digression here.
2. As for
example the subjective or psychological elements discussed by Schumpeter (1919), such as
the existence of a decadent military aristocracy, or an underemploycd middle class of thc
supposedly mystical aims of a Catholic Empire.
3. It is for
this reason that to accept and recognize this interaction between base and superstructurc
does not lead to a circular explanation of human relations, nor to the deduction that
these are the product of 'separable' factors among which the economic factor is the
'determinant'.
4. A concrete
expression of this fact is that so much emphasis is placed upon the creation of
revolutionary consciousness and the importance of a vanguard party.
912 |
5. For an
analysis of Marx's discussion of the process of labour in general and the alienation of
labour under capitalist relations of production in particular see Echeverria
(forthcoming).
6. Marx himself
recognizes the possibility of 'unequal relationships' between, for example, art and the
development of material production at some stages of history.
7. For a
discussion of Marx's scientific method see Sweezy, 1942; Meek, 1956; Ryan, 1972; Vygodski,
1974; Carver, 1975; Howard and King, 1975.
8. For a further
discussion of this, see Dobb, 1937; Robinson, 1942; Sweezy, 1942; Meek, 1956; Horowitz,
1968; Mandel, 1970; Freedman, 1971; Howard and King, 1975.
9. Marx has
generally been interpreted as predicting that the relative standard of living of the
working class would tend to decline, in the sense that the percentage of the GNP accruing
to the working class would tend to fall ( see for example McLellan, 1975, pp. 53-56). I
would argue that when Marx analysed capitalism's need to separate the property of the
means of production from the working class, he was especifically predicting their
condemnation to 'absolute poverty', and not necessarily to a decline in their standard of
living -either relative or absolute- or in his words, to 'absolute poverty';
poverty not as shortage, but as total exclusion of objective wealth'(1859, p. 296).
10. For a
classification of different Marxist and non-Marxist approaches to imperialism, see
Fieldhouse, 1961.
11. Althusser,
1967, distinguishes between a general theory, regional theories, and sub-regional
theories; examples have been provided in Harnecker, 1969, pp. 227-231.
12. I am here
closely following Sutcliffe, 1972b, p.320.
13. See for
example Fernandez and Ocampo, 1974.
14. In this
respect see Lenin, 1899, pp. 65-68; Dos Santos, 1968; Barrat-Brown, 1972, pp. 43-47;
Sutcliffe, 1972a, pp. 180-185; Caputo and Pizarro, 1974, pp. 118-123.
15. This is due
in part to the experience of the transition of socialism, and to the existence today of
developed socialist economies which can provide what otherwise would have been obtained
from capitalist developments.
16. For further
discussions of the Asiatic mode of |
production see Hobsbawm, 1964; Dos Santos,
1968; Averini, 1968, 1976; D'Encausse and Schram, 1969; Batra,1971; Foster-Carter,1974.
17. The great
importance of these statements towards the end of Marx's life is that they show that he
saw history not as a mechanical continuum of discrete stages through which each society
must pass, but as a process in which the particularity of each historical situation had an
important role to play. His position regarding the Russian case illustrates well the
flexibility of his approach, which was informed by the dialectical unity of subjective and
objective factors. Stalin (1934, p. 104) would later pervert this approach, stating that
the Soviet form of dictatorship of the proletariat was 'suitable and obligatory for all
countries without exception, including those where capitalism is developed', thus
condemning all countries except the USSR to have no history of their own.
18. On Rosa
Luxemburg see Sweezy, 1942, pp. 124-129; Robinson, 1963; Lichtheim, 1971, pp. 117-125;
Barrat-Brown, 1974, pp. 50-52; Caputo and Pizarro, 1974, pp. 148-166; Furtado. 1974, pp.
229-233; Nettl,1975; Bradby,1975, p.86,
19. For a
further discussion, see Caputo and Pizarro, 1974, pp, 135-145; O'Brien, 1975, p, 21.
20. Similarly,
Lukacs stresses, in his preface to the 1967 edition of Geschichte und Klassenbewusstein
(1923), that his work should be read with an eye to the factional disputes of the time
at which he wrote it.
21. Even less
could it explain why it was precisely the Social Democratic groups of France, Italy,
Germany and England who were the first to break the agreements taken in Congress after
Congress during the Second International to oppose the war on account of its imperialist
nature. The only ones to stand by those agreements were the Russians, both Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks, and some minority groups in other countries, such as Luxemburg's followers in
Germany. The Russian left opposed the granting of war credits in the Duma. Later the
Mensheviks followed the line of Social Democrats elsewhere, as did some Bolshevik groups.
Those in Paris enrolled in the French Army, and Plekhanov, the 'father of Russian Marxism'
and collaborator with Lenin for many years, went so far in their support, according to
Lenin's widow, Krupskaya, (1930, p. 247) to 'make a farewell speech in their honour'.
22. This point
is emphasized by Lukacs, 1924, p. 75; it is important not to seek in the essay what Lenin
did not set out to provide, an 'economic theory' of imperialism; in this respect Lenin is
largely content to follow Hobson, 1902, and Hilferding, 1910. The substantive element of
his contribution is in the analysis of the effect which economic changes have on the world
capitalist system in general, and on the class struggle in individual countries in
particular. Approaches to Lenin's work from different points of view have led to some
misdirected criticism; for a
913 |
summary of it see Sutcliffe,
1972b, pp. 370-375.
23. I am here
following Rudenko, 1966,
24. For further
discussions of Lenin's work and its relation to other work on imperialism see Varga and
Mendelson (eds.), 1939; Kruger, 1955; Kemp, 1967, 1972; L. Shapiro and P. Reddaway, 1967;
Horowitz, 1969; Pailloix, 1970; Hinkelammert, 1971; Lichtheim, 1971; Barrat-Brown,1972,
1974
25. The
Narodniks were a group of intellectuals and a series of terrorist group, who were the
leading Russian revolutionaries during the last three decades of the 19th century,
reaching their peak in the 1870s. From this group emerged later the 'Social
Revolutionaries', a party which played an important role in the period from February to
October 1917, and of which Kerensky was a member. The base of the party was fundamentally
peasant, although it had some strength in the towns, dominating the first democratic
municipalities, many soviets, and some sectors of the army. The Narodniks were a complex
group of 18th century Enlightenment materialists and radicals in the tradition of the
French Revolution; their theoretical roots were in Marxism, their political practice was
inspired by anarchism. The first translation of Capital , by a Narodnik, appear as
early as 1872.
26. The peasant
commune, a system of common land tcnure with periodical redistribution of individual
allotments, prevailed under serfdom and survived its abolition in 1861
27. They went on
to explain the ambiguity of the class position of the peasant as follows: 'If by a chance
they are revolutionaries, they are so only in the view of their impending transfer to the
proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interest; they desert
their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat'.
28. A
year later, and only a year before he died, Marx (with Engels) returned to the theme in a
new preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, using similar
arguments Ten years later , Engels would affirm that if there had ever been a possibility
of avoiding capitalist development in Russia there was no longer. The Russian commune was
by then part of the past, and Russia could therefore not escape passage through the stage
of capitalism.
29. Thus for
example a year before (in february 1898) in the founding Congress of the 'Russian Social
Democratic Workers' Party' (the first concerted attempt to create a Russian Marxist party
on Russian soil, and the forerunner of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)), delegates
stressed that the principol dilemma of the Russian revolution was the incapacity of the
bourgeoisie to make its own revolution; from that they derived the consequent need to
extend to the proletariat to leadership in the bourgeois democratic revolution. In this
contcxt they stated, 'The farther east one goes in Europe, the weaker, meaner |
and more cowardly in the political sense
becomes the bourgeoisie, and the greater the cultural and political tasks which fall to
the lot of the proletarias' (cited in Carr, 1966, Vol.1, p.15).
30. It was only
some years later that Stalin developed his well-known thesis of 'Socialism in one
country'.
31. Lenin's
widow herself has testified to the great surprise with which Lenin received the news of
the February revolution. See Krupskaya, 1930, p. 286.
32. For a
general discussion of the problems of late industrialization see Gerschenkron, 1952; for a
discusssion of the impact of the expansion of capitalism into backward nations, see Rey,
1971.
33. In 1824 the
British Chancelor, Lord Canning, made on off-quoted statement: 'Spanish America is free,
and if we do not badly mismanage our affairs, she is English'. History would prove that
his optimism was justified.
34. It is
surprising that other lines of Marxist analysis were practically absent in the debate;
Trotsky's work, for example, was not influential, or at least, not acknowledged as
influential, despite his important cuntributions, and in particular that of 1930, in which
he insisted that the specific historical circumstances of individual countries would
preclude their repeating the path to capitalisl development traced out by the advanced
nations.
35. It should be
noted that this did not preclude, for example, an alliance with small rural producers. For
a full account of the whole controversy mentioned briefly here see Suarez, 1967.
36. A
characterization is abstract in the Marxist sense when it is based on partial or
indeterminate relationships See Lupurini, 1965, and Sassoon, 1965.
37. Baran
enriches the theoretical framework of this line of Marxist thought. See also Baran and
Sweezy, 1966, and Mandel, 1968.
38. Hence, according to Frank, the continual failure of
attempts, such as those in Latin America in the 1830s, to weaken the metropolis -
satellite chain. See Frank, 1967, pp.57-66.
39. For the
presentation of dualist analyses, see Lewis, 1954, 1958; Jorgenson, 1961, 1967; Fei and
Rams, 1964. Other critiques of dualism have come from Griffin, 1969; Laclau, 1969; Novack,
1970; Singer, 1970; Rweyemamu, 1971; Cole and Saunders, 1972; and Seligson, 1972. The
thesis that Latin America had been capitalist since colonial times had previously been
advanced by Bagu, 1949, and Vitale,1966.
40. Frank
himeself has kept his audience up to date with the growing bibliography relating to his
own
914 |
work (Frank, 1972, 1974,
1977). Here we would only mention a critique commonly made of Frank, of other dependency
writers, and of Marxists in genera1, regarding the role of ideology in their analysis (see
for example, Nove, 1974). Marxist analysis, as a genera1 rule, springs simultaneously from
politica1 and intellectua1 praxis, and therefore only on a logica1 level is it possible to
make a clear distinction between 'concept' and 'history', and between 'theory' and
'practice'. From this point of view it is only of formally scholastic interest to claim
that a concept is generated 'impure', and 'stained' with ideology. This is how any theory
emerges in the social sciences. As Cardoso (1974, p. 328) states, 'Ideology reflects the
rea1 inversely and at times perversely'. To criticize Frank and other authors because
their concepts are 'impregnated' with ideology is only to state the obvious; to criticize
them because their ideology reflects reality perversely may be an important element of a
critique of their work. For further ideas relating to this subject see Larrain, 1977.
41. Laclau
(1971) points out that by restricting his ana1ysis to the circulation of capita1 Frank
fails to rea1ize that integration into the world economy sometimes even strengthens
pre-capitalist relations of production; it does not follow however that if such relations
were not capitalist they were feuda1 (Cardoso, 1974b). In my judgement, the frequent use
of the term 'feuda1' to characterize pre-capitalist relations of production in Latin
America illustrates the folly of purely theoretica1 analysis. It is precisely the lack of
concrete analysis which leaves a vacuum, and there is a tendency to fill it with concepts
developed for other situations. It is time to attempt to analyse the Latin American
experience in terms of categories derived from its own history, rather than continue to
squeeze her history into Western European categories. For interesting studies of
pre-capitalist relations in Latin America see Cardoso, 1960, 1962; Glaucer, 1971;
Barbosa-Ramirez,1971.
42. Frank of
course also criticized models of economic development such as that of Rostow, which
claimed that all nations could and should follow the, same path. For a discussion of Frank
and Rostow, sec Foster-Carter, 1976.
43. For an
ana1ysis of the work of Dos Santos see Fausto, 1971.
44. For a
critique of Marini, see Laclau, 1971, pp. 83-88; Cardoso, 1973, pp. 7-11. See also
Marini's earlier works (Marini, 1969, 1972.).
45. This
consists, according to Hinkelammert, of two factors: (1) the capacity to import is
determined by the sale of raw materials to the countries of the developed world, and (2)
it is impossible to substitute the exporting of raw materials with exports of manufacturcd
goods.
46. See (among
others) Lebedinsky, 1968; Galeno, 1969; Petras, 1969, 1970; Cecena Cervantes, 1970; |
Fernandez, 1970; De La Peña, 1971; Bagchi,
1972; Cockroft, Frank and Johnson (eds.), 1972, Malave-Mata, 1972; Meeropol, 1972;
Alschuler, 1973; Muller, 1973.
47. Although
La11 (and later Weisskopf) appears to direct his critique at the whole dependency school,
it is applicable in fact only to those whom I classify as attempting to build a
mechanico- formal theory of dependent underdevelopment.
48. We should
note here that the figures for industrial growth of many less developed countries should
be regarded with caution. They may be inflated due to monopoly pricing; the industria1
sector may be so small as tu make its rate of growth appear misleadingly high; the
repatriation of profits carried by foreign capita1 may be high, and in that case the
growth rate of industrial production may overstate, in some cases significantly, the
growth in national income derived from industry.
49. This error
is the reverse of that committed by others, who (as we shall see later) focus upon the
high point of the cycle and project it as a permanent state of affairs. Both forget that
the basic permanent features which capitalism has shown are the cyclica1 character of
capita1 accumulation and the spontaneous tendency toward the concentration of income and
wealth, particularly when the state does not take measures to avoid this.
50. See for
example the works of Regis D.bray, 1970.
51. See Kuhn,
1962, 1972.
52. Among the
many analysis of the thought of ECLA the best are Hirschman, 1961, 1967, and Cardoso,
1977. ECLA itself has cuntributed a good synthesis, in ECLA, 1969.
53. It is not
coinciden1 that Prebisch published a study of Keynes before he made his first
contributions to ECLA. For a short and systematic exposition of Prebisch's main ideas see
Bacha, 1974; for a full bibliography, see Di Marco (ed.), 1972.
54. That is,
instead of initiating analysis from a perspective such as that of Ilicks (1969, p. 160)
'if there were no nations ...the absorptian of the whole human race into the ranks of the
developed world would be relatively simple', Keynesian analysis takes the existence of
nations as the starting point for economic analysis, not as an obstacle to it (Robinson,
1970; Knapp, 1973, etc.) For an interesting analysis of the different perspectives of
neo-classical, Keynesian and Marxist economics, see Barrat-Brown, 1974.
55. See
Hecksher, 1919; Ohlin, 1933; and Samuelson, 1939. For a full account of the theory see
Bhagwati, 1969.
56. A tradition
inaugurate by Marshall, 1890, and
915 |
continued by Young, 1928. It
was later taken up by Scitovsky, 1954; Nurkse, 1955; Rosenstein-rodan, 1957; Myrdal, 1957,
etc.
57. For Di Tell,
1973, this traditional emphasis upon 'externalities' is no more than an attempt, not
always conscious, to reconcile two contradictory phenomena - the constant fall in
industrial production costs and the necessity to work with a rising cost curve at the
level of the firm - if one wishes to assume the possibility of the existence of perfect
competition. Di Tella attempts to show that the only way in which both phenomena can be
reconciled is through the addition of a further element to the analysis: externalities. He
argues that if one accepts that the cause of decreasing costs lies in internal economies
of scale, it must follow that the type of competition intrinsic to industrial production
is oligopolistic, not perfect (p. 26). It would therefore be pointless to attempt to
reconcile decreasing costs with a scheme of perfect competition 'through a theoretical
interpretation of external economies, of dubious relevance to the modern world' (p. 27).
If one accepts Di Tella's argument, one should conclude that the two points on which the
ECLA critique was based are basically one and the same.
58. This is the
case for example with steel, where heavy investment is called for with no prospect of an
early return, where the productive process involved and particularly the crucial
importance of internal economies of scale, practically ensure that the market will be
dominated if not monopolized by a single producer, and where the strategic role of the
product as an essential input for a wide range of industrial produccion makes it
particularly important that a producer should not exploit his monopoly or oligopoly
position; it was therefore considered an ideal case for state investment.
59. Among the
structural obstacles to which attention was repeatedly drawn from the very beginning of
the ECLA analyses were archaic patterns of land ownership, the low effective demand due to
the low level of wages, and rigidities in the tax system which made it difficult to
increase public revenues. See ECLA, 1949, and Prebisch, 1950.
60. One of the
characteristic elements of the critique of ECLA policies regarding foreign capital is its
insistence that there is a tendency in Latin America to a net outflow of capital (for
empirical evidence on this point see Caputo and Pizarro, 1974, and Booth, 1975). This
criticism is generally correct, but misdirected; for it the effect of foreign capital is
analysed only from the point of view of capital flow, and supposing that all
its profits are repatriated, the point is an obvious one. For the net flow of capital to
be into Latin America, the rate of growth of foreign investment would have to be
not simply geometrc, but hypergeometric (see Palma, forthcoming). The essential problem is
to analyse the effect of foreign capital from a perspective which looks beyond capital
flows and also asks why foreign capital tends to |
repatriate profits, and not to reinvest
them. For a revealing analysis of this point, see Griffin, 1974.
61. In
other words, if the Cuban revolution provided the basis for the adoption by other sectors
of the left of the analysis which called for an immediate transition to socialism, it was
the 'bleak panorama of capitalist development' in the early 1960s which finally brought
them into that camp.
62. For the
discussion of stagnationist theses, see pp. 37-41; for that regarding 'distorted'
development, pp. 42-49.
63. And
thus lacking what was perhaps the most important element of the creative and
original aspects of the first ECLA analyses.
64. In the
meantime, furthermore, ECLA as an institution continued to produce weighty reports, of
which the most outstanding is that of 1965.
65. For a
collection and disussion or articles concerning the different aspects of the government of
Unidad Popular, see Palma (ed.), 1973.
66. For a
good collection of Gramsci's work (the most original contribution to Marxist thought since
Lenin) see Gramsci, 1971.
67. For
attempts to update the theory of imperialism, see Rhodes (ed.), 1970; Owen and Sutcliffe
(eds.). 1972; Barrat-Brown, 1974; and Radice (ed). 1975.
68. For
empirical evidence on this point see O'Connor, 1970; Bodenheimer, 1970; Quijano, 1971;
Fajnzylber, 1971; Cardoso, 1972; Barrat-Brown, 1974; and Warren, 1973.
69. This
does not mean, as Warren (1973) seems to argue, that it became possible throughout the
periphery.
70. Cardoso has
always stressed that the fundamental issue (at a logical level) is above all theoretical
- methodological (see Cardoso, 1974, 1976b, 1977 (with Faletto)).
71. For other surveys of
dependency literature, see Chilcote, 1974 and O'Brien, 1975. For a survey of the
literature relating to the Caribbean, see Girvan, 1973.
I have not attempted in this essay to integrate the growing
literature related to Africa. For a recent survey article on this subject, see Shaw and
Grieve, 1977; see also Harris, 1975. I would just like to mention that from the
point of view of the subject covered, this literature has placed particular emphasis on
the analysis of the way in which political independen-
916 |
dence has been followed by a
process of strong economic and social 'dependence' (Amin, 1972; Fanon, 1967; Jorgenson, 1975;
Okumu. 1971); and how three relationships of dependence have developed in an
increasingly complex framework (Bretton, 1973; Rotchild and Curry, 1975; Selwyn 1975 b and
c); and considerable attention has been given to the particular role that the new ruling
classes have played in it (Cronje, Ling and Cronje, 1976; Green, 1970; Markovitz,
1977; Shaw, 1975; Shaw and Newbyry, 1977; Wallerstein, 1973 and 1975; and Zarman, 1976).
The possibilities of a capitalist development for the African countries
are analysed from all points of view (Amin, 1973; Davidson, 1974; Fanon, 1970 a and b;
Nyerere, 1973; Wallerstein, 1973 and 1974b); and special emphasis has been placed on the
problem involved in the elaboration of alternative development strategies (Falk, 1972;
Green, 1975; Ghai, 1972 and 1973; Huntington and Nelson, 1976; Rood, 1975; Schumacher,
1975; Seidman, 1972; Selwyn, 1975a; Thomas, 1974, 1975 and 1976; Vernon, 1976; Wallerstein
1971 and 1974b). Finally, for analysis of specific African countries, see Callaway, 1975;
Cliffe and Saul (eds.), 1972; Godfrey and Langdon, 1976; Green, 1976; Grundy, 1976; Johns,
1971 and 1975; McHenry, 1976; Pratt, 1975; Rweyemanu, 1973; Sandbrook, 1975; Saul, 1973;
Seidman, 1974; and Shaw, 1976.
72. It is
not surprising therefore that the most penetrating analyses of Brazilian economic
development are found in dependency analyses already cited, or in those which place the
post-1967 boom in its historical context. For example, Bacha (1977) shows how the
aggregate Brazilian economic growth from 1968 to 1974 is not a 'miracle', but conforms
rather closely to the cyclical growth pattern of the Brazilian economy in the post-war
period.
73. In
this context we might recall a comment quoted by Sanyaja Lall in a 1976 essay. The
comment, from a World Bank/IDS study, is a poignant admission of the fate of many 'fairy
tale' development strategies: "There are a number of regimes for which the strategy
proposed in this volume is 'out of court'. Some are dominated by entrenched
elites who will relinquish nothing to the underprivileged except under duress of armed
force. Others have attacked successfully the cause of poverty by means far more direct and
radical than those discussed here. Yet that still leaves a considerable range of societies
for which the strategy is at least plausible, even though in some of them the likelihood
that it will be adopted with any vigour is remote" (quoted in Lall, 1976, p. 192).
74. See
Cardoso, 1976b. p. 15.
75. See
Feuerbach Theses, No. 11, in Marx, 1845. |
REFERENCES
Editions cited are those quoted in
the text of the essay itself; however, given the importance of the date of
writing or first publication this is placed in brackets immediately after the author's
name, both in this bibliography and in the text of the essay itself.
Some of the works cited are unpublished; I would like to thank those who made
them available to me and allowed me to discuss and quote them freely.
Alschuler, L. R. (1973), 'A sociological theory of Latin American
underdevelopment', Comparative Studies, Vol. VI (April 1972), pp. 41-60.
Althusser, L. (1967), 'Sur le travail theorique', La Pensée, No.132 (April
1967), pp. 3-36.
Amin, S. (1972), 'Underdevelopment and dependence in Black Africa: origins and
contemporary forms', Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 10, No.4 (December
1972), pp. 503-525.
Amin, S. (1973), Neocolonialism in West Africa (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1973).
Avineri, S. (ed.) (1968), Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. His
Despatches and Other Writings on China, India, Mexico, the Middle East and North Africa (New
York Doubleday,1968).
Avineri, S. (1976), 'Karl Marx on colonialism and modernization', in M. C. Howard
and J. E. King. Marx ( Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976).
Bacha, F. L. (1974), 'Un modelo de comercio entre centro y periferia en la
tradicion de Prebisch', Trimestre Economico, Vol. 41, No.2 (1974), pp. 303-312.
Bacha, E. L. (1977), 'Issues and evidence on recent Brazilian economic growth', World
Development Vol. 5, Nos. 1 and 2 (January-February 1977), pp.47-68.
Bagchi, A. K. (1972), 'Some international foundations for capitalist growth and
underdevelopment', Economic and Political Weekly Special Number (August 1972), pp.
155-170.
Bagu, S. (1949), Economias de la Sociedad Colonial (Buenos Aires: Ateneo,
1949).
Baran, P. (1957), La Economia Politica del Crecimiento (Mexico. E.C.E.,
1969).
Baran, P. and P. Sweezy (1966), Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American
Economic and Social Order (New York. Monthly Review Press, 1966).
Barbosa-Ramirez, A. R. (1971), La estructura economica dc la Nueva España (Mexico:
Siglo XXI Editores,1971).
Barrat-Brown, M. (1972), 'A critique of Marxist theories or imperialism', in R.
Owen and B. Sutcliffe (eds.), Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London:
Longman, 1972)
Barrat-Brown, M. (1974), Economics of Imperialism (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1974).
Bath, C. R. and D. D. James (1976), 'Dependency analysis of Latin America: some
criticisms, some suggestions', Latin American Research Review Vol. XI, No.3 (1976),
pp. 3-54.
917 |
Batra, R. (1971), El
Modo de Produccion Asiatico (Mexico: ERA, 1971).
Beckrord, G. (1972), Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation
Economies of the Third World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972).
Bettelheim, C. (1970), Chine et URSS: Deux Modeles d'1ndustrialisalion (Paris:
Temps Modernes, 1970).
Bhagwati, J. (1969), lnternational Trade (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1969).
Blackburn, R. (ed.) (1970), 'Ideology' in Social Science' (London:
Fontana, 1972).
Blackemore, H. (1975), 'Limitations of dependency: an historian's view and
case study', Boletin de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Carihe ( Amsterdam, No.18
(1975), pp. 74-87,
Bodenheimer, S. (1970), 'Dependency and imperialism', Politics and Society (May
1970), pp 327-358.
Booth, D. (1975), ' Andrew Gunder Frank: an introduction and appreciation', in
I. Oxaal, T. Barnett and D. Booth, Beyond the Sociology of Development (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975}
Bradby, B., 'The destruction of natural economy', Economv and Society, Vol.
4, No.2 (May 1975), pp, 127~161.
Brenner. R. (1977), 'The origins of capitalist development: a critique of
neo-Smithian Marxism', New Left Review, No. 104 (July-August 1977), pp. 25-93.
Bretton, H. (1973), Power and Politics in Africa (Chicago: Aldine, 1973
).
Bukharin, N. I. (1915), Imperialism and World Economy (London: Martin
Lawrence, 1929).
Bukharin, N. (1926), Der Imperialismus und die Akkumulation des Kapitals (Berlin/Vienna:
1926).
Bukharin, N. and I. Preobrazhensky (1917), The ABC of Communism (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1969).
Callaway, B. (1975), 'The politicat economy of Nigeria', in R. Harris (ed.)
(1975).
Cammack, P. (1977), 'Dependency, class structure and the state in the writings
of F. H. Cardoso' (Ms. 1977).
Caputo, 0. y Pizarro (1974 ), Dependencia y Relaciones
Internacionales (Costa Rica: EDUCA, 1974}
Cardoso, F. H. (1960), Cor e Mobilidade Social en Florianopolis (Sao
Paulo: Editora Nacional, 1960).
Cardoso, F. H. (1962), Capitalismo e Escravidao no Brasil Meridional (Sao
Paulo: Difusao Europeia do Livro, 1962).
Cardoso, F. H. (1970), 'Teoria de la dependencia o analisis concretos de
situaciones de dependencia?', F. H. Cardoso (1972b).
Cardoso, F. H. (1971), 'Althuserismo o Marxismo?: a propósito del concepto de
clases en Poulantzas', in F, H. Cardoso (1972b).
Cardoso, F. H. (1972a), 'Dependency and development in Latin America', New
Left Review, No.74 (July-August 1972), pp. 83-95.
Cardoso, F. H. ( 1972b), Estado y Sociedad en América Latina (Buenos
Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1972).
Cardoso, F. H. (1973), 'The contradiction of associated development'
(Ms. 1973); reprinted in |
'Current theses on Latin American
development and dependency: a critique' (1976a)
Cardoso, F. H. ( 1974a) 'Notas sobre el estado actual de los estudios sobre la
dependencia' in J, Serra (ed,), Desarrollo Latinoamericano: Ensayos Criticos (Mexico:
F.C.E. 1974),
Cardoso, F. H. (1974b), 'The paper enemy', Latin American Perspectives, Vol.
I, No.1 (Spring 1974), pp.66-74.
Cardoso, F. H. (1976a), 'Current theses on Latin American development and
dependency: a critique' (paper presented to the III Scandinavian Research Conrerence on
Latin America; Bergen, 17-19 June 1976).
Cardoso, F. H. (1976b), 'The consumption of dependency theory in the US' (paper
presented to the III Scandinavian Research Conference on Latin America; Bergen, 17-19 June
1976); reprinted in Latin America Research Review, Vol. XII, No.3 (1977), pp, 7-24.
Cardoso, F. H. (1977), 'The originality of the copy: ECLA and the idea of
development' (Ms. 1977).
Cardoso, F. H. and E. Faletto (1967), Dependencia y Desarrollo en America Latina
(Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, 1969).
Cardoso, F. H. and E. Faletto (1977), Dependency and Development in Latin
America (American ed. with new preface, forthcoming).
Cariola, C. and 0. Sunkel (1976), 'Expansión salitrera y transformaciones
socio~económicas en Chile 1860-1930' (Ms. 1976).
Cariola, C. and 0. Sunkel (1977), 'Some preliminary notes on nitrate expansion and
class formation in Chile in the period 1860-1930' (Ms. 1977).
Carr, E. H, (1966), The Bolshevik Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966).
Carver. T. (ed.) (1975), Karl Marx. Text on Method (Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Ltd., 1975).
Cecena-Cervantes, J. L. (1970), Superexplotacion, Dependeneia y Desarrollo (Mexico:
Editorial Nuestro Tiempo, 1970).
Chase-Dunne, C. (1975), 'The effect of international economic dependence on
development and inequality: a cross national study', American Sociology Review Vol.
40, No. 12 (December 1975), pp. 720-730.
Chilcote. R, H. (1974), 'Dependency: a critical synthesis of the literature', Latin
American Perspective', Vol.I. No. I (Spring 1974), pp.4-29.
Chudnovsky, D. (1974). Empresas Multinacionals y Ganancias Monopólicas en una
Economía Latinoamericana (Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 1974).
Cliffe, L. and J. S. Saul (eds.) (1972), Socialism in Tanzania. Vols. 1 and 2 (Nairobi:
East African Publishing House, 1972 and 1973).
Cockcroft, J. D., A, G. Frank and D. K. Johnson (1972), Dependence and
Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy' (New York: Doubleday and Co.,
1972).
Cole, W. and R. Sanders (1972), 'A modified dualism model for Latin American
economies', Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. VII (January 1972), pp.
185-198.
Conquest, R. (1972), Lenin (London: Fontana, 1972).
918 |
Cronje, S., M.
Ling and G. Cronje (1976), Lonrho: Portrait of a Multinational (Harmondsworth:
Pelican, 1976).
Davidson, B. (1974), Can Africa Survive? Arguments against Growth without
Development (Boston: Little Brown, 1974).
Debray, R. (1970), Strategy for Revolution: essays on Latin America,written
between 1965 and 1969 and edited in 1970 by R. Blackburn (London: Jonathan Cape, 1970).
Degras, J.(ed.) (1960), The Communist International 1919-1943; Documents, Vol.
2, 1928-1938 (London: Oxford University Press, 1960).
De Kadt, E. and G. Williams (1974), Sociology and Development (London:
Tavistock Publications, 1974); with an introduction by E. de Kadt, pp. 1-19).
De la Peña, S. (1971), El Antidesarrollo de America Latina (Mexico:
Siglo XXI Editores, 1971).
D'Encause, H. C. and S. R. Schram (1969), Marxism in Asia (London:
Allan Lane, 1969),
Di Marco, L. E. (ed,) (1972), International Economics and Development (New
York: Academic Press, 1972).
Di Tella, G. (1973), La Estrategia del Desarrollo Indirecto (Buenos
Aires: Paidos, 1973).
Dobb, M. (1937), Political Economy and Capitalism: Some essays in Economic
Tradition (London: George Routledge and Son Ltd., 1937).
Dominguez, C. E. (1976), 'The dependency theory and 'primates cities', (Ms.
1976).
Dos Santos, T. (1968), 'Colonialismo, imperialismo y monopolios en "El
Capital"' in CESO, Imperialismo y Dependencia Rxterna (Santiago: CESO, 1968).
Dos Santos, T. (1969), 'The crisis of development theory and the problems of
dependence in Latin America', in H. Bernstein (ed.), Underdevelopment and Development (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1973).
Dos Santos, T, (1970), 'The structure of dependence', American Economic
Review, Vol, 60, No.2 (1970), pp.231-236.
Echeverria, R. (1978), 'Marx's concept of scicnce' (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, London University, 1978).
Echeverria, R. (forthcoming), Abstract and Alienated Labour.
ECLA (1949), Economic Study of Latin America (New York: United Nations,
1951).
ECLA (1963), The Economic Development of Latin America in the Post- War
Period (New York: United Nations,1974),
ECLA (1965), El Proceso de Industrialización de América Latina (Santiago:
ECLA, (December 1965).
ECLA (1969), El Pensamiento de la CEPAL (Santiago: Editorial
Universitaria, 1969).
Fajnzylber, F. (1971), Sistema Industrial e Exportacao de Manufacturados:
Analise da Experiencia Brasileira, (Rio de Janeiro: IPEA/INPES, 1971).
Falk, R. A. (1972), 'Zone II as a world order construct', in J. N. Rosenau, V.
Davis and M. A. East (eds.), The Analisis of International Politics (New York: Free
Press, 1972). |
Fanon, F. ( 1967), The Wretched
of the Earth(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967).
Fanon. F. ( 1970a), Black Skins, White Masks (London: Paladin, 1970).
Fanon, F. (1970b), Towards the African Revolution (Harmondsworth: Pelican.
1970).
Faria, U. (1976). 'Occupational marginality, employment and poverty in urban
Brazil' (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1976).
Fausto, A. (1971), 'La nueva situación de la dependencia y el análisis
sociopolítico de Theotonio dos Santos', Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales. Nos.
1/2. (June-December 1971 ), pp. 198-211.
Fei, J. C. H. and G. Ranis (1964), Development of the labour surplus Economy:
Theory and Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1964).
Fernandez, F. (1970), 'Patrones de dominación externa en América Latina', Revista
Mexicana de Sociologia, Vol, XXXII (Novembe -December 1970), pp.1439-1459.
Fernandez, R. and J. Ocampo, (1974) 'The Latin American Revlotion: a theory of
imperialism not dependency', Latin American Perspective, Vol. 1, No.1 (Spring
1974). pp. 30-61.
Fieldhouse, D. K. (1961), 'Imperialism: an historical revision', The Economic
History Review. Vol. XIV, No.2 (1961), pp. 187-209.
Fieldhouse, D. K. (1967), The theory of capitalist imperialism, (London:
Longman, 1967).
Flanders, J. (1973), 'Prebisch on protectionism: an evaluation', Economic
Journal, Vol. 74, No, 6 (1973), pp. 305-326.
Ford, H. (1922), My life and work (London: William Heinemann,1922).
Foster-Carter, A. (1974), 'Neo-Marxist approaches to development and
underdevelopment', in E. de Kadt and G. Williams (1974).
Foster-Carter, A. (1976), 'From Rostow to Gunder Frank: conflicting paradigms in
the analysis of underdevelopment', World Development, Vol. 4. No.3 (1976),
pp.167-180.
Frank, A. G. (1966), 'The development of underdevelopment', Monthly Review, Vol.
18, No.4 (September 1966), pp. 17-31.
Frank, A. G. (1967), Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America:
Historical studies of Chile and Brasil, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967).
Frank, A. G. (1969), Latin America: underdevelopment or Revolution, (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1969).
Frank, A. G. ( 1970), Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpen Development, Dependence, Class
and Politics in Latin America, reprinted (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972).
Frank, A, G, (1972, 1974 and 1977), 'Dependence is dead, long live dependence and
the class struggle: an answer to critics', (Ms., University of Dar es Sa1aam, 1972; Latin
American Perspectives, Vol. 1, No.1 (1974), pp, 87-106; and World Development, Vol.
5., No.4 (April 1977), pp. 355-370).
Freedman, R. (1971 ), Marx on Economics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971).
919 |
Furtado, C.
(1966), Subdesarrollo y Estancamiento en América Latina , (Buenos Aires: C.L.A.I.,
1966}
Galeno, F. (1969), 'The de-nationalizarion of Brazilian Industry', Monthly
Review , Vol. XXI, No. 7 (December 1969), pp. 11-30.
Gerschenkron, A. (1952), 'Economic backwardness in historical perspective', in
B. Hoselitz (ed.), The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas ( Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1952), reprinted in A. Gerschenkron (1962) , Economic Backwardness in
historical perspective (Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press, 1962).
Ghai, D. P. (1972), 'Perspectives on future economic prospects and and
problems in Africa', in J. N. Bhawati (ed.), Economics and World Order, (New York:
Macmillan, 1972)
Ghai, D. P. (1973), 'Concepts and strategies of economic independence. Journal
of Moder Africa Studies. Vol. 11. No.1 (March 1973), pp. 21-42.
Girvan, N. (1973), 'The development of dependency economics in the Caribbean
and Latin America', Social and Economic Studies, Vol 22, No.1 (March 19771, pp.
1-33.
Glaucer, K (1971), 'Orígenes del regimen de producción vigente en Chile', in
Cuadernos de la Realidad Nacional, No. 6 (Santiago; 1971), pp. 78-152.
Godfrey, M. and S. Larrain (1976), 'Partners in underdevelopment?: the
transnationalization thesis in a Kenyan context', Journal of Commonwealth and
Comparative Politics, Vol 14, No. 1 (March 1976), pp. 42-63.
Gramsci, A. (1971), Selection of his Prison Notebooks ( London:
Lawrence and Wishart, 1971 )
Green, R. H. (1970), 'Political independence and the national economy: an
essay on the political economy of decolonisation', in C. Allen and R. W. Johnston (eds.), African
Perspectives: Papers in the History, Politics and Economics of Africa, presented to Thomas
Hodgkin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
Green, R. H. (1975), 'The peripheral African economy and the MNC', in C.
Widstrand (ed), Multinationals firms in Africa, (Uppsala: Scandinavian Institutr of
African Studies, 1975).
Green, R. H. (1976), 'Tanzanian goals, strategies, results: notes toward an
interim assessment' (Ms. Seminar on Socialist Development in Tanzania since 1967, Toronto,
April 1976).
Griffin, K. ( 1969 ), Underdevelopment in Spanish America (London:
Allen and Unwiin, 1969.
Griffin, K. ( 1974 ), 'The international transmision of inequality', World
Development, Vol 2. No.3 (1974), pp. 3-15
Grundy, K. W. (1976), 'Intermediary power and global dependency: the case of
South Africa', International Studies Quarterly, No.20 (December 1976), pp. 553-580.
Haberler, G. (1957). 'Los términos del intercambio y el desarrollo
económico', in H. S. Ellis (ed.), El desarrollo económico y América Latina, (Mexico:
F.C.E., 1957).
Harneker, M. (1969), Los conceptos elementales del materialismo histórico,
(México: Siglo XXI, 1969 |
Harris. R (ed.) (1975). The
Political Economy of Africa, (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkmen. 1975).
Hecksher, F. (1919), 'The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of
income', Ekonomisk Tidsrift (1919), pp. 497-512, reprinted in Readings in the
Theory of International Trade (1949).
Hicks, J. (1969), A theory of economic history , (London: Osford
University Press, 1969).
Hilferding, R. (1910). Finanz Kapital: eine study uber die junste
Entwicklung des Kapitalismus (Vienna, 1910).
Hinkelammert, F. (1970a) El subdesarrollo Latinoamericano. Un caso de
desarrollo capitalista (Santiago: Ediciones Nueva Universidad, Universidad Católica
de Chile, 1970).
Hinkelammert, F. (1970b), 'La teoria clásica del imperialismo, el
subdesarrollo y la acumulación capitalista', reprinted in M. A. Garreton (ed.), Economia
Politica en la Unidad Popular (Barcelona: Libros de Confrontacion, 1975).
Hinkelammert, F. (1970c), ' Teoria de la dialéctica del desarrollo desigual',
Cuadernos de la Realidad Nacional, No.6 (December 1970), pp. 15-220.
Hinkelammert, F. (1971), Dialectica del Desarrollo Desigual (Valparaiso:
Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaiso, 1970).
Hirsham, A. (1958), The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven:
Ya1e University Press, 1958
Hirsham, A. ( 1961 ), 'Ideologies of Economic Development', reprinted in A
Bias for New Hope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).
Hirsham, A. (1971), 'The politica1 economy of import-substitution
industrialization in Latin America', in A Bias for Hope (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1971).
Hobsbawn, E. (1964), Introduction to Karla Marx: pre-capitalist economic
foundations (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1964).
Hobson, J. A. (1902), Imperialism: A Study (London: A11cn and Unwin,
1938).
Hobson, J. A. (1911), The economic interpretation of investment (Lomdon:
The Financial Review of Reviews, 1911 ).
Hodgson, J. L. (1966), 'An evaluation of the Prebisch thesis. (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1966).
Horowitz, D. (ed.) (1968), Marx and Modern Economics (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1968).
Horowitz, D. (1969), Imperialism and Revolution (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1969).
Howard, M. C. and J. E. King (1975), The Political Economy of Marx (London:
Longman, 1975).
Huntington. S. P. and J. M. Nelson (1976), No Easy Choice: Political
Participation in Developing Countries (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1976).
Johns, S. (1971), 'Parastatal bodies in Zambia: problems and prospects' in H.
and U. F. Simonis ( eds.) (1971 ), Socio-Economic Development in Dual Economies: the
example of Zambia (Munich: Weltform Verlag, for African Studies Institute, 1971).
Johns, S. ( 1975 ), State capitalism in Zambia. The
920 |
Evolution of the
Parastatal Sector (San Francisco: African Studies Association, Octobcr 1975).
Jorgenson,, D. W. (1961), 'The development of a dual economy', Economic
Journal (June 1961). pp. 309-334.
Jorgenson, D. W. (1967), 'Surplus agricultural labour and the development of a
dual economy', Oxford Economic Papers (Novembcr 1967), pp. 288-312.
Jorgenson, J. J (1975), 'Multinational corporations in the indigenization of
the Kenyan economy', in C. Widstrand (ed.) Multinational firms in Africa (Uppsala:
Scandinavian Intitute of African Studies, 1975).
Kahl, J. A. (1976), Modernization, Exploitation and Dependency in Latin
America (New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1976).
Kalecki, M. (1933, 1934 and 1935), Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the
Capitalist Economy, 1930-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
Kaufman, R., H. I. Chernotsky and B. Geller (1975), 'A preliminary test of the
theory of dependency. Comparative Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3 (April 1975), pp.
303-330.
Kautsky, K. (1914), 'Ultra impcrielism', New Left Review (January -
February 1970).
Kay, G. (1975), Development and Underdevelopment: a Marxist analysis, (London:
Macmillan, 1975).
Kemp, T. (1967). Theories of Imperialism, (London: Dobson Books, 1967).
Kemp, T. (1972), 'The Marxist theory of imperialism', in R. Owen and B.
Sutcliffc (1972).
Keynes, J. M. (1932), 'The end of laissez faire', in Essays in Persuasion, (London:
Macmillan, 1932).
Keynes, J. M.(1938). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, (London:
Macmillan, 1960).
Kierman, V. G. (1967), 'Marx on India', Socialist Register, (London:
Merlin Press, 1967).
Knapp (1973), 'Economics or politica1 economy', Lloyds Bank Review (January
1973). pp. 19-43.
Kruger. D. H. (1955), 'Hobson, Lenin and Schumpeter on Imperialism', Journal
of the History of Ideas of Ideas (April 1955), pp.250-260.
Krupskaya, N. (1930), Memories of Lenin(London: Lawrence and Wishart,
1970).
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1962), (2nd edn. with new postscript, 1970).
Kuhn, T. S. (1972), 'Second thoughts on paradigms', in Suppe (ed.), The
Structure of Scientific Rheory, (1972).
Laclau, E. (1969), .'Modos de producción, sistemas económicos y población
excedente: aproximación histórica a los casos Argentinos y Chilenos'. Revista
Latinoamericana de Sociología, Vol. 2, No.2 (1969), pp.776-816.
Laclau, E. (1971), 'Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America', New Left
Review , (May-June 1971), pp. 19-38).
Lall, S. (1976), 'Is dependence a useful concept in analysing
underdevelopment?' World Development, Vol.3, No.11 (1975), pp.799-810.
Lall, S. (1976), 'Conflict of concepts: welfare econo- |
mics and development', World
Development, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1976), pp. 182-195.
Larrain, J. (1977), 'The concept of ideology: some theoretical and
methodological questions' (unpublished Ph.D.), dissertation, Sussex University, 1977).
Lebedinsky, M. (1968), Del Subdesarrollo al Desarrollo, (Buenos Aires:
Editorial Quipo, 1968).
Lenin (1899), The Development of Capitalism in Russia, (Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1967).
Lenin (1915), Philosophical Notebook (Moscow: Progress Publishers,
1967).
Lenin (1916), Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, (Peking:
Foreign Languages Press, 1970).
Lenin (1917), 1905 - Jornadas Revolucionarias, (Santiago: B.E.P.,
1970).
Lenin (1920), '1920 theses', in La Guerra y la Humanidad (México:
Ediciones Frente Cultural, 1939).
Lewis, A. (1954), 'Economic Development with Unlimited supplies of Labour', Manchester
School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 22, No.2 (May 1954), pp.139-192.
Lewis, A. (1958), 'Unlimited labour: further notes', Manchester School (January
1958).
Lichtheim, G. (1971), Imperialism, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971).
Lukacs, G. ( 1923 ), History and Class Conciousness: Studies in Marxist
Dialectics, (London. Merlin Press, 1971).
Lukacs, G. (1924 ), Lenin: A study on the unity of his thought, (London:
New Left Books, 1970).
Luporini, C. (1975), 'Reality and historicity: economy and dialectics in
Marxism', Economy and Society, Vol. 4, No.2 (May 1975), pp. 206-321. and Vol. 4,
No3 (August 1975), pp. 283-308.
Luxemburg, R. ( 1913 ), The Accumulation of Capital, (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1963).
Mandel, E. (1968), Marxist Economic Theory, (London: Merlin Press,
1968).
Mandel, E. (1970). La Formación del Pensamiento Económico de Marx, (México:
Siglo XXI Editores, 1970).
Malave-Mata, H. (1972), 'Dialéctica del subdesarrollo y dependencia', Problemas
de Desarrol1o, No.111 (August-October 1972), pp. 23-52.
Marini, R. M. (1969), Subdesarrollo y Revolución, (México:
Siglo XXI Editores, 1969).
Marini, R. M. (1972a). 'Brazilian sub-imperialism', Monthly Review, No.9
(February 1972), pp. 14-24.
Marini, R. M. (1972b), 'Dialéctica de la dependencia: la economía
exportadora', Sociedad y Desarrollo,No.1 (January-May 1972), pp. 5-31.
Markovitz, L. L. (1977), Power and Class in Africa: an Introductions to
Change and Conflict in African Politics, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hal1, 1977).
Marshall, A. (1890), Principles of Economics (New York: Macmillan and
Co., 1948).
Marx, K. (1845). 'Theses on Feuerbach' in K. Marx and F. Engels ,
Selected Works, (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1968).
Marx, K. (1848), 'The Communist Manifesto', in I.
921 |
Feuer (ed.), Marx
and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, (London: Fontana Library,
1969).
Marx, K. (1853), 'Future results of British rule in India', New York Daily
Tribune (25 June 1853), reprinted in L. Feuer (ed.), Marx and Engels Basic Writings
on Politics and Philosophy, (London: Fontana Library, 1969).
Marx, K. (1859), Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political
Economy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973).
Marx, K. (1867), El Capital, Vol. I (México: F.C.E., 1946).
Marx, K. (1869), The Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Moscow:
Progress Publisher, n.d.).
Marx, K. (1877), 'Russia's pattern of development', Letter to the Editorial
Board of the Otechestvennige Zapiski, reprinted in L. Feuer (ed.), Marx and Engels:
Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (London: Fontana Library, 1969).
Marx, K. (1885), El Capital, Vol. II (México: F.C.E., 1946).
Marx, K. (1894), El Capital, Vol. III (México F.C.E., 1946).
McGowan, P. (1976), 'Economic dependence and economic performance in Black
Africa', The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 14., No. 1 (1976), pp. 25-40.
McGowan, P. and D. C. Smith (1976), 'Economic dependence in Black Africa. a
causal analysis of competing theories' (Ms., University of Southern California, 1976).
McHenry, D. E. (1976), 'The underdevelopment theory: a case study from
Tanzania', Journal of Modern Africa Studies, Vol. 14, No.1 (1976), pp.621-636.
McLellan, D, (1975), Marx, (London: Fontana, 1975).
Meek, R. (1956), Studies in the Labour Theory of Value, (London:
Lawrence and Wishart, 1956).
Meeropol, M. (1972), 'Towards a political economy analysis of
underdevelopment', Review of Radical Political Economy Vol. IV (Spring 1972), pp.
77-108.
Muller, R. (1973), 'The multinational corporation and the underdevelopment of
the third world', in C. K. Wilbee(ed.), The Political Economy of Development and
Underdevelopment, (New York: Random House, 1973).
Myrdal, G. (1957), Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, (London:
Duckworth and Co., 1957).
Nettl, P. (1975), Rosa Luxemburgo(Méxic: ERA,1975).
Novack, G. (1970), 'The permanent revolution in Latin America', lnternational
Press, Vol. III (November 1970), pp. 978-983.
Nove, A. (1974), 'On reading Andrew Gunder Frank' Journal of Development
Studies. Vol. 10, Nos. 3 and 4 (April-July 1974), pp.445-455.
Nurkse, R. ( 1955), Problemas de Formación de Capital, (México:
F.C.E., 1955).
Nyerere, J. K. (1973), Freedom and Development, (Dar es Salaam: Oxford
University Press, 1973),
O'Brien, P. (1975), 'A critique of Latin American |
theories of dependency', in I. Oxaal,
T. and D. Booth (eds.), Beyond the Sociology of Development, (Londo: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1975).
O'Connor, J. (1970), 'The meaning of imperialism', in R. 1. Rhodes (1970).
Olhin, B. (1933), Interregional and International Trade (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1933).
Okumu, J. (1971), 'The place of African states in international relations' in
A. Schou and A. Brundtland (eds.), Small States in International Relations (Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell, Nobel Symposium 17, 1971).
Ortega, L. M. A. (forthcoming), 'Las transformaciones de la economía chilena
entre 1865-1880'.
Owen, R. and B. Sutcliffe (eds.) (1972), Studies in the Theory of
Imperialism (London: Longman, 1972).
Packenham, P. (1976), 'Trends in Brazilian dependence since 1964' (Ms., 1976).
Palloix, C. (1970), 'La question de I'imperialisme chez V. 1. Lenin et Rosa
Luxemburg', L'homme et societe (January-March 1970).
Palma, G. (ed.) (1973), La Via Chilena al Socialismo Mexico: Siglo XXI
Editores, 1973).
Palma, G. (forthcoming), 'Essays on the development of the Chi1ean
manufacturing industry: a case of capitalist associated development'.
Petras, J. (1969), Politics and Social Forces in Chilean Development (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1969).
Petras, J. (1970), Politics and Social Structure in Latin America (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).
Pinto, A. (1965), 'La concentración del progreso técnico y de sus frutos en
el desarrollo', Trimestre Económico, No.25 (January-March 1965), pp. 3-69;
reprinted in A. Pinto (1973).
Pinto, A. (1973), Inflación: Raices Estructurales (Mexico: F.C.E.,
1973).
Pinto, A. (1974 ), 'Heterogeneidad estructural y el método de desarrollo
reciente' in J. Serra (ed.), Desarrollo Latinoamericano: ensayos críticos (México:
F.C..E., 1974).
Pinto, A. and J. Knakel (1973), 'The centre-periphery system 20 years later', Social
and economic studies (March 1973), pp. 34~89.
Pratt, R. C. (1975), 'Foreign policy issues and the emergence of socialism in
Tanzania, 1961-68'; International Journal, Vol. 30, No.3 (Summer 1975), pp.445-470.
Poulantzas, N. ( 1972), Poder Político y Clases Sociales en el
Estado Capitalista (Máxico: Siglo XXI Editores, 1972).
Prebisch, R. (1950), 'El desarrollo económico de la América Latina y algunos
de sus principales problemas', reprinted in Boletín Económico de América Latina, Vol.
VII, No.1 (February 1962).
Prebisch, R. (1963), Hacia una Dinámica del Desarrollo Económico (México:
F.C.E., 1963).
Quijano, A. (1971), 'Nationalism and capitalism in Peru: A study of
neo-imperialism', in Monthly Review (July August, 1971).
Radice, H. (ed.) (1975), International Firm and Modern Imperialism (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1975).
922 |
Ray, D. (1973),
'The dependency model of Latin American underdevelopment: three basic fallacies' Journal
of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. XV (February 1973), pp. 4-20.
Rey, P. P. (1971), Les Al1iances des Classes (Paris: Maspero, 1971).
Rhodes, R. I. (eds.) (1970), Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A Reader (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).
Robinson, J. (1942), An essay on Marxian economics London: Macmillan,
1966).
Robinson, J. (1963), Introduction in Rosa Luxemburg, Accumulation of
Capital (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963).
Robinson, J. (1970), Freedom and Necessity' (London: Allen and Unwin,
1970).
Rood, L. L. (1975), 'Foreign investment in African manufacturing', Journal
of Modern African Studies, Vol. 13, No.1 (March 1975), pp. 19-34.
Rosenstein-Rodan. P. (1957), 'Notas sobre la teoría del gran impulso', in H.
S. Ellis, El Desarrol1o Económico y América Latina, (Mexico: F.C.E., 1957).
Rothchild, D. and R. L. Curry (1975), Beyond the Nation-State: The
political economy of Regionalism (San Francisco: American Political Science
Association, September 1975).
Rudenko, G. (1966), La Metodología Leninista en la Investigación del
Imperialismo (Havana: Publicaciones Económicas, 1966).
Rweyemamu, J. F, (1971), 'The causes of poverty in the periphery', Journal
of Modern African Studies, Vol. IX (October 1971), pp. 453-455.
Rweyemamu, J. (1973), Underdevelopment and Industrialization in Tanzania (Nairobi:
Oxford University Press, 1973).
Ryan, A. (1972), The Philosophy of the Social Sciences London:
Macmillan Student Edition, 1972).
Sabato, H. I. R. (forthcoming), 'Estructura agraria y relaciones do
producción en la Provincia de Buenos Aires, al norte del Salado'
Salera, V. (1971), 'Prebisch's change and development', Interamerican
Economic Affairs, Vol. 24, No.4 (1971), pp. 67-79,
Samuelson, P. (1939), 'The gains from international trade', Canadian
Journal of Economic and Political Science, Vol. e (1939), pp. 195-205.
Sandbrook, R. (1975), Proletarians and African Capitalism: the Kenyan case
1960-1972 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
Sassoon, D., 'An Introduction to Luporini', Economy and Society, Vol.
4, No.2 (May 1975), pp. 194-205.
Saul, J. S. (1973). 'Socialism in one country: Tanzania', in G. Arrighi and J.
S. Saul, Essays on the Political Economy of Africa (New York: Monthly Review Press,
1973).
Schmitter, P. (1971), 'Desarrollo retrasado, dependencia externa y cambio
político en América Latina', Faro Internacional, Vol. XII (October - December
1971), pp. 135-174.
Schmitter, P. (1974), 'Paths to political development in Latin
America', in D. A. Chalmers (ed.), Changing Latin America: New
Interpretation of its
|
Politics and Society (New
York: Columbia University, 1974).
Schumacher, E. F. (1975), Small is Beautiful: economics as if people
mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1975).
Schumpeter, J. A. (l919), The Sociology of Imperialism (New York:
Kelly,1951).
Scitovsky, T. (l954), 'Two concepts of external economics', Journal of
Political Economy (April 1954), pp.143-151.
Seers, D. (1963), 'The limitations of the special case', Bulletin of the
Oxford Institute for Economics and Statistics, Vol. 25, No.2 (1963), pp. 77-98.
Seidman, A. (1972), Comparative Development Strategies in West Africa (Nairobi:
East African Publishing House, 1972).
Seidman, A. (l974), 'The distorted growth of import-substitution industry: the
Zambian case', Journal of Modern African Studies , Vol. 12, No.4 (December 1974),
pp. 601-631.
Seligson, M. (l972), 'The dual society thesis in Latin America: a
reexamination of the Costa Rica case', Social forces. Vol. LI (Scptember 1972), pp.
91-98.
Selwyn, P. (ed.) (1975a), Development Policy in Small Countries, (London:
Croom Helm, 1975).
Selwyn, P. (1975b), Industries of the Southern African Periphery (London:
Croom Helm, 1975).
Serra, J. (ed.) (l974), Desarrollo latinoamericano, Ensayos Críticos (Mexico:
F.C.E. 1974).
Shapiro, L. and P. Reddaway (1967), Leni; The Man, The Theorist, The
Leader, (London: 1967).
Shaw, T. M. (l975), 'The political economy of African international
relations',Issue, Vol. 5, No.4 (Winter 1975), pp. 29-38.
Shaw. T. M. (l976), Dependence and Underdevlopment: the development and
foreign policies of Zambia, (Athens: Ohio University, Papers in International Studies,
Africa Series No.28, 1976).
Shaw, T. M. and M. C. Newbury (1977), 'Dependcnce or interdependence? Africa
in the global political economy', in M. W. Delancey (ed.), Frican International
Relations (New York: Africana, 1977).
Shaw, T. M. and M. Grieve (1977), 'Dependence or development: international
and internal inequalities in Africa., Development and Change, No.8 (1977),
pp.377-408.
Singer, H. W. (l970), 'Dualism revisited: a new approach to the problems of
the dual society in developing countries', Journal of Development
Studies, Vol. V1I (October 19710), pp, 60-75.
Singer, P. (l971), Força do Trabalho e Emprego no Brasil, 1920-1969, (Sao
Paulo: CEBRAP, Cuardeno, Numero 3, 1971).
Stalin. J. (1934), Problems of Leninism (Moscow Cooperative
Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR,1934).
Stenberg. M. (1974), 'Dependency, imperialism and the relations of production,
Latin American Perspective, Vol. 1, No.1 (Spring 1974), pp. 75-86.
Sunkel, 0. (l972). 'Big business and dependency, Foreign Affairs, Vol.
24, No.1 (1972), pp. 517-531.
Sunkel, 0. (1973a), 'The pattern of Latin American
923 |
development', in
V. I. Urquidi and I. R. Thorp (eds,), Latin America in the International Economy, London:
Macmillan, 1973).
Sunkel, O. (1973b), 'Transnational capital and national disintegration in
Latin America', Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1973), pp. 132-176,
Sunkel, 0. (1974), 'A critie.1 cummenleIy un the United N.tiuns J{epult on
multin.tion:ll e°rl)uI.. lions in world development', (Suse,x: JlJS, 1974)
Sunkel, 0. and P. Paz (1970), Subdesarrollo Latinoamericano y la Teoria del
Desarrollo, (Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, 1970).
Sutcliffe, B. (1972a), 'Imperialism and Industrialization in the Third World',
in R. Owen and B. Sutcliffe (1972).
Sutcliffe, B. (1972b), 'Conclusions', in K. Owen and B. Sutc1iffe (1972).
Suarez, A. (1967), Castroism and Communism; 1959-1966 (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1967).
Sweezy, P. (1942), La teoria del desarrollo capitalist (Mexico: F.C.E.
1969).
Tavares, M. C. and J. Serra (1970), 'Más allá del estancamiento', in J.
Serra (1974).
Thomas, C. V. (1974), Dependence and Transformation: The Economics of the Transition to
Socialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974).
Thomas, C. V. (1975), 'Industrialization and the transformation of Africa: an
alternative to MNC expansion', in C. Widstrand (ed.), Multinational firmas in Africa (Uppsa1a:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1975).
Thomas, C. V. (1976), 'Class struggle, social development and the theory of
the non-capitalist path' (Scandinavian Seminar on Non-capitalist development in Africa,
Helsinki, August 1976).
Trotsky, L. (1930), Historia de la Revolución Rusa (Santiago:
Quimantú, 1972).
Tyler, W. G. and P. Y. Wogart (1973), 'Economic dependence and marginalization: some
empirical evidence', Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. XV
(February 1973), pp. 36-45.
Varga, E. and L. Mendelson (eds,) (1939), New Data for V. I. Lenin's
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1939).
Vernon, R. (1976), 'The distribution of power', in K. Vernon (ed,), The Oil
Crisis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976).
Viner, I. (1951), 'Seis conferencias', Revista Brasileira de Economia,
Vol. 2 (Rio de Janeiro,1951).
Vitale, L. (1966), 'América Latina: ¿feudal o capitalista?', Estrategia, No.
3 (1966).
Vuscovich, P. (1970), 'Distribución del ingreso y opciones de desarrollo',
reprinted in M. A. Garretón, Economía Política de la Unidad Popular (Barcelona:
Libros de Confrontación, 1975).
Vuscovich, P. (1973), 'La política económica del gobierno de la Unidad
Popular', in G. Palma (1973).
Vygodski, V. S. (1974), The Story of Great Discovery (Kent: Abacus
Press, 1974).
Walicki, A. (1969), The Controversy over Capitalism (London:
Oxford Universiy Press, 1969). |
Wallerstein, I. ( 1971 ). 'The range of
choice: constraints on the policies of governments of contemporary African independent
states', in M. F. Lofchie (ed.), The State of the Nations (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1971 ).
Wallerstein, I. (973), 'Africa in a capitalist world', Issue, Vol. 3, No.3 (Fall
1973), pp. 1-12.
Wallerstein, I. (1974a), The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic
Press, 1974).
Wallerstein, I. (1974b), 'Dependence in an interdependent world: the limited possibilities
of a transformation within the capitalist world economy', Africa Studies Review, Vol.
17, No. 1 (April 1974). pp. 1-26.
Wallerstein, I. (1975), 'Class and class conflict in contemporary Africa', Monthly
Review, No. 26 (February 1975), pp. 34-42 (originally published in the Canadian
Journal of Africa Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 375-380.
Warren, B. (1973), 'Imperialism and capitalist industrialization', New Left Review (September
- October 1973), pp. 3-44.
Weisskopf, T. E. (1976), 'Dependence as an explanation of underdevelopment: a critique',
(Ms. University of Michigan, 1976).
Young, A. (1928), 'Increasing returns on economic progress', Economic Journal
(December 1928), pp.. 527-542.
Zartman, I. W. (1976), 'Europe and Africa: decolonization or dependency?', Foreign
Affairs, Vol. 54. No. 2 (January 1976), pp. 325-343.
924 |
|
|
