From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Anthropology > Development versus Dependency theory

---

Dependency Theory - Definition and History

Dependency theory posits that the cause of the low levels of development in less economically developed countries (LEDC's) is caused by their reliance and dependence on more economically developed countries (MEDC's) - i.e. the LEDC's are undeveloped because they rely on the MEDC's. Some proponents of dependency theory assert that LEDC's will remain less developed because the surplus that they produce will be siphoned off by MEDC's - under the guise of multinational corporations. There is, as such, no profit left for reinvestment and development.

As a corollary of this theory, LEDC's should cut off ties with MEDC's, retain their surplus production, and follow economically independent and socialistic ideas in order to further develop their economies, as the Soviet Union had done to great effect. Additionally, it also emphasises the virtuous circle of self-perpetuating benefits that the MEDC's gain from their existing prosperity.

Dependency theory, as a theory based on materialist and structuralist theories, has been criticised for placing too much emphasis on material and economic factors. The development of many asian economies that developed along capitalistic, open lines, also serves as an empirical contradiction to dependency theory. (This is not to say that many asian "tiger economies" did not follow the ideas propounded by development theory, for indeed many did - South Korea, Taiwan and others developed through a process of import-subsitution - backed up with heavy investment of American capital.)

Frank proposed an alternative to dependency theory - "Development Theory"

How does Frank's "dependency theory" differ from the traditional "development theory"?

The conventional view of the undeveloped countries denies them a history:

"To classify these countries as "traditional societies" implies either that the underdeveloped countries have no history or that it is unimportant." (Griffin 1969) But it is increasingly clear that the history of the post-colonial countries has been crucially important in shaping their present underdevelopment. The most influential proponent of the thesis that European expansion and colonialism created the underdevelopment of these countries has been Andre Gubder Frank. Frank"s thesis is that underdevelopment is not basically a consequence of traditionalism. Rather, he argues that underdevelopment in Latin America-and by extension, parts of Africa and Asia- has been systematically created by colonist exploitation. Frank has documented "the development of underdevelopment" in Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Cuba.

What explanations are given in Paul Silletoe's article for the failure of development?

Conspiracy theories that suggest "development" is all a multi-national capitalist scheme to enslave the world, saddling many Third World countries today with international debts crippling economic growth. Donors missing overseas assistance for flagrant strategic political ends, notably during the Cold War to support and reward allies, but continuing up to present times by tying aid to trade. The neo-Malthusian argument that relentless population growth is wiping out any technological gains, despite the fact that yield statistics demonstrates that the world produces enough food to feed us all. What was wrong with the "top-down" approach? It is widely agreed that the "top-down" approach which many agencies took to development was partly to blame. Th e assumption that experts, notably economists, can diagnose problems and devise plans for governments to implement to improve people"s lives is questioned. The arrogance, the ignorance of the needs and aspirations of the poor, did great damage.

What does he mean by the "participatory" approach?

Agencies consulting more closely with their "target beneficiaries"- i.e. involve the poor themselves in problem identification and decision-making process, rather than trying to impose outsider-devised interventions on them.

How does indigenous knowledge differ from scientific knowledge?

Indigenous knowledge what "ordinary" folk know. This is local in geographical extent and cultural context. It is fragmentarily distributed, exists nowhere as a totality. Although more widely shared locally than specialised scientific knowledge, no one person, institution, or authority encompasses it all.

The example of the pumpkin vines in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, blights such as bacterial wilt, and fungal disease occasionally attack the profitable pumpkin crops. People attribute this to the "evil eye", and it is common to see inverted earthenware pots, painted black with white circles, hung up to protect the crop.

A role for indigenous knowledge research remains in the solution, to inform and perhaps correct externally-derived adaptive technical interventions. Such research can further understanding of the homestead system, where Pumpkin vines are customarily grown in a spreading tangle off the ground over bamboo frames. Although this is more of a piecemeal "happening" than a planned cultivation, such practices, built up through experience over many generations, may hinder the spread of disease.

Why did the Flood Action Plan have bad consequences for the poor "Jele" caste

The spending of many billions in development assistance-funding scientific advances and associated technological interventions goes hand-in-hand with increased poverty. It bolsters the power of the wealthy elites who occupy positions interfacing with the international community. The poor are excluded and further lose control over their own lives. One clear link in Bangladesh is such that technological advances may increase the value of resources, attracting the wealthy and powerful who then seek to control them. Resources held in common which give uncertain or poor returns and are uneconomically labour-intensive are not attractive propositions. The poor often rely on such common land and water bodies to eke out their meagre livelihoods. If the wealthy evict them, following a scientifically informed intervention that increases productive capacity, the consequences can be dire.

The Flood Action Plan, for example, a multi-billion dollar engineering project of embankments and sluices intended to control monsoon flooding, has also made it more feasible to control what have traditionally been common water-fisheries. When combined with development-assisted fish-stocking programmes, these become highly productive resources and poor jele caste Hindu fisherman find access restricted. Before the 1970s, the untouchable jele caste was almost exclusively involved in fishing, and fishermen followed traditional access customs.

How does the "Green Revolution" often work against the interests of the poor?

• Green revolution- Dramatic increases in agricultural production from genetically engineered hybrid grains that produce high yields in return for high inputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides.
• ELDCs are importing three times more cereals from EMDCs because the green revolution has made these ELDCs increasingly dependant on foreign grain imports although the revolution was supposed to promote self-sufficiency.
• Need for petrochemical fertilisers, mechanised farming, irrigation etc. Therefore except where the country transforming its agriculture is self-sufficient in oil, fertiliser manufacture and industrial capacity to produce tractors and other machinery. The Green revolution creates markets for the industrial countries and plunges under-developed countries into deeper and deeper dependency.
• Consequences for rural populations- radical transformation in the agrarian class structure, The costs favour the large land-owner and relatively prosperous peasant farmer. Widens the gap between the rich and the poor. The poor are forced to sell their land to the expanding capitalist farmers and join the labour force. This causes rural depopulation as poor people seek jobs elsewhere; e.g. Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, India, Philippines.

How did the development discussions make conflict worse in one Bangladeshi village?

The Bangladesh projects have followed established participatory approaches, striving to empower while facilitating technology transfer. Further, the scientists have adopted a problem-centred approach, generating a range of potential options from which "beneficiaries" might choose.

In one Bangladeshi village, the discussions catalysed conflict between stakeholder groups rather than facilitating progressive change. The rich landowners expected their poor and landless clients to go along with whatever they mooted, as usual. The wealthy saw the project as an opportunity to speed up this slow natural process to their advantage. When they were encouraged to speak out at segregated stakeholder sessions, the poor, particularly those who relied heavily on fishing, predictably opposed the suggestions which would deprive them of a common resource. A village leader, addressing a meeting, warned everyone against collaborating with the project and talked of protecting the "beel", as it was part of a British plot to retake colonial control of Bengal. More worryingly, the landowners forbade people to fish over their land over the lake. In another display of power, following elections, landowners refused to enter into sharecropping arrangements with poor member of their villages or employ them as day labourers, effectively depriving local people of an important source of income, by entering into arrangements with persons from elsewhere.

How can anthropologists help in this dilemma?

We need to urge development agencies to debate more openly the wisdom of ethics of interfering socially in other communities, imposing Western-informed notions of good governance, human rights and natural justice. We need to promote this kind of open debate or else the rich will continue to become richer, and the poor poorer. One of our consistent exports to egalitarian tribal societies around the world has been poverty. We should not allow politicians, to whom these issues are so familiar, to spin them away.

Comments