1/50

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES ST. AUGUSTINE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

GOVT 2060 International Relations:

Theories and Approaches Fall 2017

Topic 7 Dependency and World System Theories Employing systemic or structural analyses, Dependency and World System Theory represent a radical departure from mainstream paradigms previously discussed. Assuming a historical perspective, these neo-Marxists theorists contend that Third World underdevelopment and dependency are a result of global capitalism and exploitation of the periphery by the core. Here, we examine the main assumptions of these perspectives and evaluate their relevance to explaining the structure of the contemporary international system.

2/50

ab1234.yolasite.com

3/50

Course content • The History and Evolution of the International System • Levels of Analysis and Foreign Policy

POSITIVIST THEORIES MAINSTREAM APPROACHES

• Liberalism • Realism • Neorealism • Neoliberalism

STRUCTURALIST APPROACHES

• Classical Marxism • Dependency Theory • Structural Imperialism • Worlds System Theory

• International Society Theory (The English School)

POST-POSITIVIST THEORIES • Constructivism • Postmodernism • Critical Theory • Feminism

4/50

Readings: 1. Ayres, Ron; Clark, David. “Capitalism, Industrialization and Development in Latin America: The Dependency Paradigm Revisited”. Capital & Class, Spring 98 Issue 64, p89-12– Ebsco Host (30p) 2. Andrews, Bruce. “The Political Economy of World Capitalism: Theory and Practice”. International Organization, Winter 82, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p135 –JSTOR (29p) 3. Gunder Frank, Andre. The Development of Underdevelopment in The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment. C. Wilber ed, Random House, NY, 1988 pp 109-120, 4th edition 4. Johan Galtung. A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol 13, no. 2 (1971) pp. 81-94. - JSTOR 5. Baran, Paul. “On the Political Economy of Backwardness”, in The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment. C. Wilber, ed, Random House, NY, 1988 pp 96-108, 4th edition. 6. Peet, Richard. Dependency and World system Theories.” Chapter 4. in Global Capitalism: Theories of Societal Development. Routledge, New York, 1991. p. 43-53. 7. Shannon, T. R. “World System Structure”, in An Introduction to the World System Perspective by T.R. Shannon. Westview Press, 1989.

+ At the Caspian Sea University: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1_Z5ACd6MBPNGJDSUJLX2t4ZG8?usp=sharing John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations, (4th edition 2008), Neo-Marxism.

Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013 (5th edition), Marxism (from Ch.6, pp.167-173).

5/50

P. Viotti and M. Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012 (5th edition), Ch4 Economic Structuralism. Richard W. Mansbach and Kirsten L. Rafferty, Introduction to Global Politics (2008), pp. 577-583.

Chris Brown, Understanding International Relations (3rd ed 2005), Structuralism, pp. 151-156. Paul D'Anieri, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs (2nd edition 2012), pp. 88-94, 110, 113.

6/50

THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT Modernization Theory endogenous Marxism endogenous/exogenous Dependency Theory (neomarxist) exogenous Structural Imperialism (neomarxist) exogenous World System Theory (neomarxist) exogenous

endogenous = generated from within the system exogenous = coming from outside the system

MODERNIZATION Model = Western Europe, 19th century:

- a linear path toward development - several stages leading to progress

Modernization thesis: the West could civilize other areas if the latter adopt Western patterns of development

Poorer nations: - go beyond extraction of raw materials - accept / receive massive financial and technical assistance ↓ agricultural subsistence societies → modern industrial societies.

7/50

Proponents of modernization: Walt W. Rostow (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto 5 stages: 1. Traditional society 2. Preconditions for take off 3. Take off = industrial revolution 4. Drive toward maturity 5. Age of high mass consumption

A.F.K.* Organski (1965) Stages of Political Development 1. Primitive national unification 2. Industrialization 3. National Welfare 4. Abundance

* Abramo Fimo Kenneth

Walt Whitman Rostow (1916-2003)

8/50

9/50

The transformation FROM

Features of underdeveloped states: � The low division of labour � Illiteracy � Traditional agrarian structure, � The traditional attitude of the

population � The lack of communication � Lack of infrastructure � High populations � Unstable governments � “Undemocratic” governments

TO Imitation - Worthy features of developed states: � An extensive division of labor � High literacy rates � Urbanization � High productivity � Specialization � Self-sustaining econ. growth � Well-functioning and active

state apparatus � Democratic form of government � Equality before the law

Ideas and differing value systems (not the material conditions) explain disparities in development. Cultural changes = the most important elements in a process for creating prosperity.

internal factors:

• cultural • institutional • organizational

→ unmodernized countries

10/50

• value system • culture • institutional

configuration

→ potential for development

"irrational" allocation of resources in traditional society ↓ non-industrialization of poor countries

UNDERDEVELOPMENT THEORISTS United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA or CEPAL): Raúl Prebisch: a new commercial and industrial bourgeoisie would emerge = supporter of national interests in the face of foreign penetration of LDCs Celso Furtado (Development and Underdevelopment, 1964): – underdevelopment ≠ a necessary stage in the formation of modern capitalist economies – solution to national development = autonomy – opposed imperialism and foreign penetration into the domestic economy

ECONOMIC STRUCTURALISTS (SYSTEMIC APPROACH)

• Economic structures determine politics world politics = based on how the world is organized economically

11/50

• The world = divided between the have and the havenots:

- economically developed countries (EDCs) - less developed countries (LDCs) = weak and poor → facilitate exploitation of the poor countries

• They favour - fundamental reforms - a radical restructuring of the economic system ↓ end the uneven distribution of wealth and power Divided into two major camps: 1. Marxism 2. Dependency and World System Theory

MARXISM best known strand of structuralist thought origin: Karl Marx

12/50

13/50

14/50

15/50

16/50

17/50

Test: identify the error

18/50

19/50

A new Party!

20/50

21/50

Marxism: economic order = determines political and social relationships essence of politics:

- distribution of wealth ↓ - struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat (class struggle)

V. I. Lenin (1916) Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism: - capitalist bourgeois leaders duped their proletariat into supporting the exploitation of other proletariat peoples through imperialism - class struggle also included an international class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat countries and peoples THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE: • capitalism = the most dynamic mode of production in world history • main sources of economic growth = valorization and accumulation:

to achieve a profit → capitalists exploit labour → pay the workers less than the equivalent of the value of what they produce (valorization) ↓ workers, not the capitalists, generate value

22/50

↓ this value is accumulated by the capitalist → survive in competition with others (accumulation) Capital growth = accumulation of surplus generated by the workers (capital concentration) + merging with other companies (capital centralization) Marx (inspired by classical political economists) = emphasis on production After Marx = neoclassical political economists = emphasis on exchange Marx also explained - the totality of society - the way this totality of society

• emerged • changed • disappeared

to be replaced by new forms

Marxism - Key terms: factories, machines, tools and raw materials used to produce wealth = means of production means of production + human labour power = forces of production relations among: – workers – means of production – owners of the means of production = relations of production

23/50

a specific combination of: – forces of production – relations of production = mode of production (e.g. antique, feudal, capitalist, communist) → defines the type of society

The Marxist base-superstructure model:

driving forces behind societal changes = social classes acting within structural limits imposed by: - forces of production - prevailing production relations

History = a class struggle between - those who own the means of production - those who sell their labour in order to purchase the goods they require

24/50

There is – exploitation of the proletariat by elites

+ – international collaboration between elites to keep Third World peoples in a perpetual state of underdevelopment

25/50

DEPENDENCY THEORY BACKGROUND late 1950s - developed under the guidance of Raúl Prebisch, Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA or CEPAL): economic growth in industrialized countries did not bring growth in poorer countries ↓ economic activity in richer countries → serious economic problems in poorer countries ↓ not predicted by neoclassical theory → economic growth = beneficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if benefits are not always equally shared Prebisch: poor countries export primary commodities to rich countries ↓ rich countries manufacture products out of those commodities ↓ manufactured products are sold back to poor countries declining terms of trade = terms of trade, between primary products and manufactured goods, deteriorate in time

26/50

Latin American Structuralists / Neo-Marxist:

• Raúl Prebisch, • Celso Furtado, • Anibal Pinto

at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA or CEPAL)

+ popularized by US (Neo-)Marxists

• André Gunder Frank

• Paul Baran • Paul Sweezy

+ Fernando Henrique Cardoso Samir Amin DEFINITIONS OF DEPENDENCY: = an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences - political, economic and cultural - on national development policies (Osvaldo Sunkel, 1969)

= an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favours some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics... a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected (Theotonio Dos Santos, 1971)

Three common features of all definitions:

27/50

1. international system = two sets of states: dominant/dependent, center/periphery, metropolitan/satellite dominant = advanced industrial nations in the Organization of Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD) dependent = states of Latin America, Asia and Africa which

- have low per capita GNPs - rely heavily on the export of a single commodity

2. external forces are of singular importance to the economic activities within the dependent states external forces =

- multinational corporations - international commodity markets - foreign assistance - communications - any other means by which the advanced industrialized countries represent their economic interests abroad

28/50

3. relations between dominant and dependent states are dynamic ↓ reinforce and intensify the unequal patterns

dependency = a deep-seated historical process, rooted in the internationalization of capitalism.

dependency = an ongoing process Latin America is today, and has been since the sixteenth century, part of an international system dominated by the now-developed nations.... Latin underdevelopment is the outcome of a particular series of relationships to the international system (Susanne Bodenheimer, 1971)

TWO SCHOOLS - The Fatalist School: underdevelopment = a permanent and inescapable condition. The only escape for underdevelopment is the escape from capitalism and the introduction of socialism (Frank 1969) - The Non-Fatalist School: accepted a possibility for some degree of development: either associated or dependent (Cardoso 1972). Associated development = carried out by actions of the local elites associated with elites from the developed world (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan).

29/50

Dependent development = carried out by specific state policies designed to achieve development within the context of dependency. State policies for promoting industrial growth include more inward strategies oriented towards the protection of domestic industries, known as the Import Substitution Industrialization strategy. THE STRUCTURAL CONTEXT OF DEPENDENCY: CAPITALISM OR POWER? Dependency theorists: international capitalism = the force behind dependency relationships

...historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the now developed metropolitan countries. Furthermore, these relations are an essential part of the capitalist system on a world scale as a whole (André Gunder Frank, 1972)

capitalist system ↓ rigid international division of labour ↓ underdevelopment of many areas of the world

30/50

dependent states: – supply cheap

o minerals o agricultural commodities o labour

– serve as the repositories of o surplus capital o obsolescent technologies o manufactured goods

economies of dependent states = oriented towards the outside:

o money o goods o services

flow into dependent states, BUT the allocation of these resources = determined by the economic interests of the dominant states

• international division of labour → poverty • capitalism → int. division of labour = a necessary condition for the efficient allocation of

resources Illustration = the doctrine of comparative advantage

DEPENDENCY VS MARXISM • dependency + Marxist theories of imperialism: common main assumption: economic and political power = heavily concentrated and centralized in the industrialized countries ↓ distinction between economic and political power = spurious

31/50

governments protect private economic interests (→ multinational corporations) • Not all dependency theorists = Marxist dependency ≠ Marxist theory of imperialism

dependency theory

Marxist theory of imperialism

underdevelopment

dominant state expansion

explains consequences of imperialism

reasons why imperialism occurs

imperialism = part of the process by which the world is transformed = a process which accelerates the communist revolution

CORE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DEPENDENCY THEORY 1. Underdevelopment ≠ undevelopment underdevelopment = resources are actively used, but in a way which benefits dominant states

undevelopment = resources are not being used (e.g. colonial North America: land not cultivated on a scale consistent with its potential)

↓

32/50

poorer countries ≠ "behind" or "catching up" to the richer countries ≠ poor because they lagged behind

o the scientific transformations o the Enlightenment values of the European states

= poor because they were o coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers of raw

materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labour o denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with

dominant states 2. Dependency theory → alternative uses of resources = preferable to patterns imposed by dominant states

- no clear definition of these patterns - some criteria are invoked:

export agriculture ↓ high rates of malnutrition ↓ stop exporting agricultural products

there exists a clear "national" economic interest ↓ it can and should be articulated for each country

- similar to realism, but - this national interest can only be satisfied by addressing

the needs of the poor within a society ↓

determine what is "best" for the poor = a difficult analytical

33/50

problem over the long run ↓ no operational definition of the national economic interest

3. Elites: Diversion of resources = maintained by

- the power of dominant states - through the power of elites in the dependent states:

private interests of elites coincide with the interests of dominant states ↓ elites maintain a dependent relationship

elites - typically trained in dominant states - share similar values and culture with

elites in dominant states ↓ a "voluntary" dependency relationship

elites ≠ consciously betraying the interests of their poor = sincerely believe economic development ↔ following the liberal economic doctrine 4. Industrial goods = cheaper if imported from the developed world ↓ dilemma = how to convince the present generation from the South to abstain from buying such goods so that future generations will have a better life

34/50

5. In smaller countries, relatively autonomous development = virtually impossible Some countries do not have the natural resources or the market size to make this goal possible 6. Underdevelopment ≠ result of backwardness or traditionalism of developing countries = results from development in other parts of the world Northern countries developed at a time when there was no other advanced country ↓ underdeveloped countries cannot parallel them 7. import substitution cannot bring real economic development in the short-run = might help the balance of payments in the long run = increased dependency on the North - need for importation of technology, replacement parts, new machinery and foreigners to run the industries 8. Real economic development ↔ end of the influence of foreign capital and culture only times that Latin America developed technologies and industries on a large scale = the two world wars and the Great Depression ↓ The South should divorce itself from the industrialized countries

35/50

SUMMARY • Underdevelopment is caused by exploitation of LDCs (South) by EDCs (North) • LDCs produce low cost primary products EDCs produce high priced manufactured goods • It is in the interest of EDCs to keep LDCs dependent by structuring the rules of international economics • Rich states at the centre of the world system dominate poor states at the periphery • Neo-imperialists co-opt and corrupt the local elites of the South ↓ personal wealth in return for governing their countries to benefit the North (keeping low wages for MNCs and low prices of primary products)

36/50

Structural Imperialism

Johan Galtung - A Structural Theory of Imperialism (1971) "Structural violence" Imperialism = a structural relation of political, economic, military, cultural and communication domination Centre and periphery - between nations - inside nations

Johan Galtung (b. 1930)

those in power in the centre + those in power in periphery = community of interest centre of peripheral nations = transmission belt for the values of core nations

For Effects the majority of the people in peripheral states clearly negative the majority of the people in centre states largely in their interest

37/50

38/50

Imperialism = a dominance relation between nations. economy: relationship motivated by the need for expanding markets via imperialistic means. 5 types of imperialism:

Economic

- development and modernization models of centre = must be imitated by periphery

- primary goods vs. manufactured goods.

Political

democracy and liberalism

Military only the centre has - the appropriate industrial capacity - a social structure compatible with a modern army

Communication non-transfer of technologies

Cultural acculturation

39/50

WORLD SYSTEM THEORY = a macro-sociological perspective that explains the "capitalist world economy" as a "total social system" ORIGINS Immanuel Wallerstein - 'The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis' (article, 1974) - The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (book, 1974) Draws heavily from: • Dependency Theory +

Immanuel Maurice

Wallerstein (b. 1930) • Galtung's Structural Imperialism • Fernand Braudel ("Longue durée", long term view)

40/50

THE MODERN WORLD SYSTEM → a theoretical framework to understand the historical changes involved in the rise of the modern world ↓ makes possible

- understanding the external and internal manifestations of the modernization process - analytically sound comparisons between different parts of the world

The modern world system, essentially capitalist in nature, followed the crisis of the feudal system and helps explain the rise of Western Europe to world supremacy between 1450 and 1670.

MEDIEVAL PRELUDE Before the 16th century Western Europe = feudalism 1150-1300 population and commerce expanded within the feudal system 1300-1450 expansion ceased → severe economic crisis Causes: - decrease or stagnation of agricultural production → burden of peasant producers increased

- feudal economy had reached its optimum level and began to shrink

- shift of climatological conditions led to o decreased agricultural productivity o increased epidemics

The Black Death (Bubonic plague) was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1348 and 1350. It is estimated to have killed 30-60 percent of Europe's population.

41/50

THE NEW EUROPEAN DIVISION OF LABOUR Europe established a capitalist world economy to ensure continued economic growth ↓ - expansion of the geographical size of the

"world" - development of different modes of labour

control - creation of relatively strong state machineries

late 15th and early 16th centuries (around 1500) = the world economic system emerged ↓ - the first economic system to

encompass much of the world; - links that superseded national or other

political boundaries

the new world economy ≠ earlier empire systems: not a single political unit

Empires: commercial monopolies + the use of force ↓ flow of economic goods from the periphery to the centre

extensive bureaucracy and a standing army ↓ control within specific political boundaries

techniques of modern capitalism ↓ the modern world economy extended beyond the political boundaries of any one empire

Immanuel Wallerstein - Unit of Analysis (3min10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h43c2uC-y4A

42/50

CORE ASSUMPTIONS 1. Historical origin = the rise of the Western political and economic domination ↓ its acceleration due to industrial revolution (mid 1700s) ↓ periphery exploited by the core ↓ distorted development ↓ vast economic, social and political disparities between the core and the periphery ↓ current global economic inequality (Fernand Braudel - "Longue durée", long term view)

2. continuation of concerns of early social theorists: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim 3. A reaction against the modernization theory 4. The system is divided into core, periphery and semi-periphery. Became stabilized in the 16th

century 5. System-wide change ← far reaching changes in the economic model of Western-dominated capitalism (= unlikely)

6. Vicious attack on capitalism = it cannot be supported except if it is radically reformed: exploitative capitalism → cooperative capitalism (→ moral and practical advantages of ensuring acceptable economic and social conditions for all)

43/50

7. LDCs = poor ← exploited by the core for low cost, low profit primary products 8. Declining terms of trade Price of primary products increase at a slower rate than price of manufactured goods produced by core and imported by the periphery 9. Investment profits leak from the periphery to the core

Eduardo Galeano, Las venas abiertas de América Latina (Open Veins of Latin America, 1971)

FOUR CATEGORIES describing each region's relative position within the world economy: core, semi-periphery, periphery, external the capitalist world system ↔ international division of labour ↓

- relationships between different regions Within each region: - types of labour conditions - type of political system - internal political and economic characteristics

44/50

THE CORE Benefited the most from the capitalist world economy First core region = North=Western Europe (England, France, Holland) Developed

- strong central governments, - extensive bureaucracies, - large mercenary armies.

Local bourgeoisie → control over international commerce ↓

extract capital surpluses from trade Rural population:

aftermath of the feudal crisis ↓

switch from feudal obligations to money rents ↓

rise of independent or yeoman farmers ↓ predominance of commercially oriented independent farmers +

- the rise of pastoralism - improved farm technology

↓ agricultural productivity increased

- squeezed out many other peasants off the land ↓ they moved to the cities ↓ cheap labour essential for the growth in urban manufacturing

45/50

THE PERIPHERY - lacked strong central governments or were controlled by other states, - exported raw materials to the core, - relied on coercive labour practices

The core ← much of the capital surplus generated by the periphery through unequal trade relations

Peripheral regions: 1. Eastern Europe - especially Poland: Poland = kings lost power to the nobility ("noblemen’s democracy") Poland = prime exporter of wheat to Western Europe ↓ landlords forced rural workers into a "second serfdom" on their commercial estates 2.Latin America Spanish and Portuguese conquests - destroyed indigenous authority structures - created weak bureaucracies under European control Landlords of Iberian origin = aristocratic capitalist farmers

- enslavement of the native populations - importation of African slaves - coercive labour practices (encomienda,

forced mine labour) ↓ export of cheap raw materials to Europe

46/50

Eastern Europe + Latin America: Labour systems ≠ earlier forms in medieval Europe ↓ produced goods for a capitalist world economy (not for internal consumption)

relationship with the world economy ↓ - aristocracy grew wealthy - drew on the strength of a central core

region to maintain control THE SEMI-PERIPHERY • core regions in decline or rising peripheries • buffers between core and peripheries • exploited by the core, exploit peripheries • historical examples:

o Portugal and Spain o Italy, southern Germany, southern France

• tensions between central government and a strong local landed class • limited and declining

o access to international banking o production of high-cost high-quality manufactured goods

• failed to predominate in international trade → did not benefit to the same extent as the core

47/50

• weak capitalist rural economy → landlords resort to sharecropping: o reduce the risk of crop failure for landowners o enjoy profits from the land and landownership prestige

EXTERNAL AREAS = maintained their own economic systems and remained outside the modern world economy Example - Early Russia: • wheat → internal market • traded with Asia and Europe; • internal commerce = more important than foreign trade • the considerable power of the Russian state:

o helped regulate the economy o limited foreign commercial influence

48/50

49/50

SUMMARY • System-wide change ← far reaching changes in the economic model of Western-dominated capitalism (= unlikely) • Vicious attack on capitalism = it cannot be supported except if it is radically reformed: exploitative capitalism → cooperative capitalism (→ moral and practical advantages of ensuring acceptable economic and social conditions for all) • LDCs = poor ← exploited by the core for low cost, low profit primary products • Declining terms of trade Price of primary products increase at a slower rate than price of manufactured goods produced by core and imported by the periphery • Investment profits leak from the periphery to the core

Dependency and World-System Theory Strengths

• Offers a developing perspective of the world.

• Captures the reality of uneven world development.

• Takes a global (systemic) viewpoint, rooted in history.

• Explains inequality and exploitation of the Third World.

Weaknesses • Overemphasis on economic relations.

Politico-strategic actors are not addressed. • State is autonomous and not a passive

agent of the capitalist class. It can increase its power by maintaining mass popularity.

• Too much focus on external factors. Ignores internal factors.

50/50

Please avoid the following statements taken from previous exam scripts. They are MISTAKEN: This can relate to the theory of marcism. Marcism is ... Immanulstein The proponents of Constructivism were, to name a few, Immanuel Wallerstein and Karl Marx. the World Systems Theory developed by Kant. The IR theory of Realism proposed by Wallerstein