s that maintained inequality in the world. Andre Gunder. Frank. 2. Frank's main dependency theory, the people of less-developed countries are not to blame for the failure of their . geog__f08/Articles/cotubesina.ml In response to this theory, Andre Gunder Frank in propounded his “ dependency theory which saw the world's nations as divided into a. Dependency Theory developed in the late s under the guidance of the . Andre Gunder Frank, one of the earliest dependency theorists, is quite clear on.
|Language:||English, Indonesian, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||26.65 MB|
|PDF File Size:||16.73 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Foci and Loci in the Study of International Relations. 5. A Model of Andre Gunder Frank's Dependency Theory. The Links between Economic. The Intellectual Heritage of Dependency Theory. The ECLA. Neo- . Andre Gunder Frank, who happened to be in Latin America in the early s, was. In response to this theory, Andre Gunder Frank in propounded his “ dependency theory which saw the world's nations as divided into a core of wealthy.
Most loans to the Third World involve interest.
However, economies grow too slowly and long-term development projects such as irrigation schemes, dams, etc. In the meantime, the interest builds up and can eventually outstrip the initial loan.
Most of the countries in real trouble are extremely poor African states, e. Nearly a quarter of the aid African countries receive this year will be immediately repaid to the West to repay debts. Hayter argues that debt has a number of consequences.
It leads to dependency. LDC governments may find themselves pressurised into accepting MNC investment, into making internal political changes and ensuring LDC support for Western strategic interests, e.
Kenya was rewarded with aid for providing US forces with port facilities during the Gulf War. Debt contributes to high infant-mortality rates and low life-expectancy because the money spent servicing debt could be spent on improving the infrastructure of LDCs, especially health and education. Aid benefits the donor country because they can insist that future aid is tied, i.
For example, it is estimated that for every British pound lent to LDCs, 70 pence is spent in the UK or spent on projects which primarily employ expertise from the donor country. In many Western governments including the UK announced that they were looking at ways in which LDC debt could be cancelled or reduced.
In the UK announced its intention to put a stop to tied aid.
Remembering Dependency Theory
For Frank, development and under-development are two sides of a world process by which the First World developed at the expense of the LDCs.
Such poor countries are locked into a system that is almost impossible for them to escape. Frank also suggests a socialist revolution may be necessary in some LDCs to overcome the ruling classes who collaborate with the West.
However, Frank believes that sooner or later, the West would reassert its control. Criticisms of dependency theory John Goldthorpe and other liberals have argued that colonialism did have positive benefits because it provided LDCs with a basic infrastructure in terms of transport and communications. Never colonised LDCs such as Ethiopia and Afghanistan experience severe problems today because they lack the infrastructure provided by the colonial powers.
Goldthorpe also points out that those countries without colonies such as the USA and Japan have performed economically better than those with empires. The Marxist, Frank Warren argues that colonialism and neo-colonialism were, on balance, conducive to development rather than under-development. Despite extensive investment and aid, some LDCs have experienced little or no economic growth.
Some countries such as Bangladesh have grown poorer despite increased aid from the West over two decades. While Baran certainly had a pre-eminent influence on his thinking, his decision to travel to Latin America in had a defining impact on his writings and politics.
He first taught at the University of Brasilia. On his travels through Latin America, including visits to Cuba, he met and interacted with key social scientists and political personalities. In my view, Frank tends to underestimate the influence which Latin American thinkers had on his own intellectual development and in this sense he was quite self-centred.
When quizzed by me on this point, he 2. See, for example, Laclau and Marini Be that as it may, the revolutionary upheavals in Latin America and elsewhere at that time certainly influenced him.
Many intellectuals expressed similar sentiments to his, when he wrote in a preface: These essays were written to contribute to the revolution in Latin America and the world, and they are collected here in the hope that they may help others to contribute more to the revolution than the author has been able to.
Frank, ix Times have certainly changed!
Most staff went into exile, some for the second or even third time in their lives. Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, key figures of monetarism and neoliber- alism, were at Chicago University and helped shape their thinking and support their policies in Chile.
Needless to say Frank, who had received his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago in , was not infected with the neoliberal virus. From his early years he had shown an independence of mind which remained a constant throughout his life. However, having been at Chicago and being acquainted with the key figures, Frank was in a good position to write a scathing and passionate critique of their involvement in the Chilean neo-liberal experiment Frank, His reputation as a radical thinker was further enhanced, especially among young sociologists and anthropologists, by his devastating critique of modernization theory, the dominant perspective within the sociology of development at the time.
In his b article, which was rejected by many mainstream journals and eventually published in a little known magazine of the University of Buffalo, he systematically critiques the main premises of the modernization thesis made by such prominent figures as Talcott Parsons, Bert Hoselitz, Wilbert Moore, Everret Hagen, Daniel Lerner, David McClelland and Walt Whitman Rostow, among others.
Frank took them to task for their dualism, challenging their thesis that the now devel- oped societies were once underdeveloped and that underdevelopment is the original stage of what are supposedly traditional societies. He also criticized their diffusionist thesis according to which the underdeveloped countries with their traditional societies would gradually become developed and modern countries by engaging with the developed capitalist economies and modern societies.
For Frank those linkages between the developed and underdeveloped countries were not the solution but the problem, per- petuating the underdevelopment of the latter.
Thus he turned moderniza- tion theory on its head and opened the way for new analyses of the relationships between developed and underdeveloped countries. Thus many of the critiques of dependency theory in the Anglo-Saxon world were actually misplaced. By embracing the world system theory and adopting the global system as the unit of analysis, Frank avoided such a pitfall and the associated internal—external determination problematique.
Marta Fuentes, his companion until her premature death in , was certainly familiar with all his writings and Frank valued her opinion. From the mids onwards Frank was concerned with the historical processes of capital accumulation, first in Latin America and later in other regions, principally Asia, which he always placed within the global context.
He was one of the main founders of world system theory together with Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin and Giovanni Arrighi. Indeed Frank can be considered as the world system theorist par excellence given his many writings on world accumulation.
His viewpoint on the possibility of autonomous develop- ment in the South changed correspondingly. Thus he reflected many years later that: The importance of the central theme of the world economy and of its interdependence. What has changed is my belief, which was largely implicit in the idea of dependence, that a state of independence, or at least non-dependence, could be achieved through de-linking from the world economy through concerted political actions in the Third World countries or regions.
On this last issue, I suppose I have changed the most, especially since the coup in Chile. Experience has shown it to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for voluntarist political action to de-link particular countries from world economy. While at Amsterdam he was invited on more than one occasion to give a seminar at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. By his views on the new social movements had become more appreciative, although he still pointed out their limitations. I want to be practical.
To be practical we should look to see where the action is. Where is the action today? There is a vast activity among these social move- ments, which someone has compared to termites.
Each has no power on its own, but an army of termites is often able to completely eat through the essential structure of a building 3. For some of his writings on world capital accumulation, see Frank , , , and What is notable about these social movements is that very few of them.
Instead of capturing state power, they seek to carve out for their members a different kind of social existence within the possibilities that are offered to them. Many of these social movements are more defensive than offensive.
His canvas was indeed the whole world and his analysis was long-term, going back as far as if not earlier. In ReOrient, Frank — in typical Frankian fashion — turns the Eurocentric view of the world economy on its head by arguing that Asia was at the centre of the world economy centuries before the industrial revolution and the rise of the West, thereby challenging the views of Marx, Weber, Polanyi, Rostow, Braudel and Wallerstein, among others.
Needless to say, ReOrient, like his first book and the rest of his work, sparked many con- troversies among Marxists, non-Marxists and anti-Marxists.Frank's undergraduate studies were at Swarthmore College. By embracing the world system theory and adopting the global system as the unit of analysis, Frank avoided such a pitfall and the associated internal—external determination problematique. After World War II, increasing numbers of companies started to produce manufactured goods in the LDCs, taking advantage of cheap labour, relaxed health and safety laws and low taxes.
At the forefront of this type of exploitation are the multinational companies MNCs. For Frank, development and under-development are two sides of a world process by which the First World developed at the expense of the LDCs. Furthermore, in Capital Vol.