The aim of this posting is to shift gears. This account wishes to turn its attention to
an international concern and an associated theory. It is a concern that has lost some of its
virulence over the last decade or so, but there is still a noted interest among
leftist scholars. Those who study this
concern have summarily named the theory, dependency theory. This writer cites this theory to point out a
distinction; that is, how one defines a problem area has a significant effect
on what solutions that person finds viable.
Since World
War II, an array of interests has extended significant amount of analysis as to
why what used to be called the Third World countries and are referred to today as
lesser developed countries (LDCs) are not as developed or wealthy as industrial
or post-industrial nations. One set of
explanations or theories are known as modernization theories. Another approach is the aforementioned dependency
theory. Modernization is generally
supported by capitalist defenders and dependency theory by Marxist or Marxist
leaning challengers.
A third view
is a cultural view. Simply stated, one can
attribute advancement to cultural traits that bolster functional behaviors. These behaviors are defined as those modes of
action that actually achieve development.
That is, they are not only helpful, but essential in achieving economic
parity with the advanced countries. This
posting looks at comparing dependency theory with culturally based views.
One writer who
has addressed this comparison directly is David Landes.[1] He is partial to the cultural view, but he
presents a nuanced argument. He does not
dismiss the concerns of dependencists that captured quite a bit of
attention or follow-ship in Latin America. His offering attempts to be more practical and
less ideological. In doing so, he offers
some insights that this account presents as a set of ideas worth considering.
He begins his
cited article as follows:
Max Weber was right. If we learn anything from the history of
economic development, it is that culture makes almost all the difference
… Yet culture, in the sense of inner values and attitudes that guide a
population, frightens scholars. It has a
sulfuric odor of race and inheritance, an air of immutability. In thoughtful moments, economists and other
social scientists recognize that this is not true, and indeed they salute
examples of cultural change for the better while deploring changes for the
worse … [C]riticisms of culture cut close to the ego [of those being studied]
and injure identity and self-esteem.
Coming from outsiders, such animadversions, however tactful and indirect,
stink of condescension. Benevolent
improvers have learned to steer clear.[2]
This writer agrees with Landes overall warning. Cultural approaches step on toes and any
advancement of culturally based arguments, to be considered, needs to be not
only mindful of this, but be presented honestly with humility and empathy.
This account’s
blogger writes of this sensitivity from first-hand experience. He was born into a Latin family – with a
father from Cuba and a mother from Honduras.
He started in a mostly Irish American neighborhood in New York City. He likes to tell people that English is his
second language in that he learned Spanish first. But through the effects of TV and mostly
English-speaking neighborhood friends, he made the Anglo language not only his
dominant language, but almost his only language.
Along with
language, there was his assimilation into the “Americanism” of the 1950s. This was further enforced by pre-Cuban
“invasion” Miami influences, since his family moved there in 1958. Often, he can remember consciously making
decisions to adopt American ways over Latin ways. To this day, he feels he is a cultural American
with some insight into the Latino life.
He does love his black beans and rice.
But this
digresses a bit. As for Landes’
treatment, that writer readily admits that LDCs have been exploited and that
exploitation has played a role in their fate.
And, therefore (in part), the challenges that LDCs represent are complex
and caused by various factors that are not only numerous, but interrelated. Surely, any set of solutions cannot be
totally oblivious to the realities this overall reality poses. But as a guiding sense of how to approach
those challenges – and here is the tie this posting wants to make – an emphasis
of one factor or a set of factors at the definitional level can have rippling
effects.
Dependency
theory is usually based on a view of global politics. That view identifies exploitive relationships
between advanced nations (referred to as core or center nations) and LDCs
(referred to as peripheral nations).
Simply summarized, that global
arrangement has LDCs divided among the core nations into monopolistic
arrangements. In these set ups, one can
readily see why this general explanation is called dependency theory in that these
nations’ relationships are meant to further the benefits of the core nations at
the expense of the peripheral nations.
How?
Natural resources are extracted from peripheral nations at less than
market prices – since the nations are divided within monopolistic markets of a
single buyer. A peripheral nation then
becomes a consumer nation of a core nation’s products – again with limited
options that, in turn, bolster prices. That
is, peripheral nations are limited with whom they can trade. All this is supported by exploitive relationships
between workers and entrepreneurs within both types of nations. The “haves” of the peripheral nations do just
as well as those of the core nations.[3]
From this overall description one can
readily see how dependency theory reflects Marxian arguments. While Landes does not disprove dependency
theory, he does find fault with it from a practical perspective. He writes:
Cynics might say that dependency
doctrines have been Latin America’s most successful export. But they have been bad for effort and
morale. By fostering a morbid propensity
to find fault with everyone but oneself, they promote economic impotence. Even if they were true, it would have been
better to stow them.[4]
So, critics of dependency theory
would state, it leads one to ask: “Who
did this to us?” This perspective, given
the challenges involved with development, can be seriously
counterproductive. Culturalists would
ask: “How do we put it right?” Landes demonstrates this latter approach with
the example Japan offers in the years after the overthrow of the Tokugawa
shogun (1868).
Of course, Japan provides a una-cultural
case study. How that example relates to
Latin America, where a Latin culture dominates but has had the influx of many
other traditions, or other LDCs can be questioned. Yet Japan, to the extent its experience can be generalized, does provide relevant information. Perhaps this can be a topic for a future
posting.
But, for the purposes of this blog, its writer feels that a more proactive view, one that does not go around ascribing blame to all other factors or parties and, instead, takes on directly the challenges is a more beneficial outlook. This is true not only in confronting the challenges of LDCs, but to address any social/political/economic dysfunctionality.
But, for the purposes of this blog, its writer feels that a more proactive view, one that does not go around ascribing blame to all other factors or parties and, instead, takes on directly the challenges is a more beneficial outlook. This is true not only in confronting the challenges of LDCs, but to address any social/political/economic dysfunctionality.
[1] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the
Difference,” in Culture Matters: How
Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P.
Huntington (New York, NY: Basic Books), 2-13.
[2] Ibid., 2.
Emphasis added.
[3] Johan Galtung, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research 8, 2 (1971): 81-117. (See http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/readings/galtung.pdf .)
[4] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the
Difference,” 5 (emphasis in original).
No comments:
Post a Comment