This essay shall discuss two theories of development – modernisation and dependency theory (MT and DT). In this limited space, I shall narrow my analysis down to two of the staunchest representatives of each camp: Walt W. Rostow and André G. Frank. Also, because it is impossible to discuss their broad publications, I shall subject only the very core of their theories to scrutiny here. After (1) a quest for the shared assumptions of both theories, this account will discuss (2) Rostow’s idea of stages of economic growth (1959) and (3) Frank’s notion of development of underdevelopment (1966), both with their policy implications¹. I will treat these mutually exclusive ideas as thesis and anti-thesis and shortly discuss (4) the direction into which a synthesis could go (and maybe has gone).

1. Shared Assumptions

Both theories seem to have some ‘faith in the efficacy of urban-based industrial growth’ (Potter et al. 2008, p. 94²). Interestingly, even though Frank accuses MT of Eurocentrism (1966, p. 17), he never reflects whether industrialisation per se (with all the institutions that come with it) is a European concept in itself, a consideration I would have expected (Frank 1966, 1975). This shows that both scholars share the following paradigmatic assumption: Development necessitates industrialisation.

However, whereas MT is much more a theory of economic growth rather than about development (Binns 2002, p. 79), DT rejects the narrow informational basis of MT (GDP and trade indices) and focuses on a range of indicators (Ferraro 1996), much like nowadays Sen (1999) and the Human Development Index.

One could argue that the lack of dialogue and acceptance between the two schools is due to the cold war context within which they emerged. Rostow was a fierce anti-Marxist³ whereas Frank was exactly that, a Marxist.

2. The unilinear growth of MT

Rostow’s stages of economic growth (Rostow 1959, Binns 2002, Potter et al. 2008, pp. 89-91) assumes that the South ought to imitate the North in its path of development. It is important not to confuse Rostow’s theory with modern neo-liberal free-trade – he, for example, allows for import substitute industrialisation (Potter et al. 2008, p. 91). One can, however, advance the same criticism against stages of economic growth like against any theory of any evolutionary process within spacial boundaries other than the whole planet (e.g. classical Marxism), namely the idea of diffusionism (Macfarlane 2001, 32:30): Considering that ideas travel, to argue that every country needs to evolve through necessary evolutionary steps is implausible. A country must be able to ‘jump’ steps because it is informed by its neighbours – and so countries did (Binns 2002, p. 79). MT’s anti-thesis, DT, could be seen in this light as trying to respect this principle.

The policies that Rostow deduces from his model that developing countries ought to implement are found in his description of the stage ‘preconditions for take-off’ (1959, p. 5-8):

First, a build-up of social overhead capital, notably in transport. […] Second, a technological revolution in agriculture. […] Third, an expansion in imports financed by the more efficient production and marketing of some natural resources plus, where possible, capital imports. […] Framed by these three forms of sectoral development, yielding both new markets and new inputs for industry, the initially small enclaves of modern industrial activity could begin to expand, and then sustain expansion, mainly by the plough-back of profits (ibid. p. 5).

In the non-economic dimensions this requires the willingness to accept new technologies (especially agriculture), free enterprise, a government capable of enforcing law and order and investing in infrastructure, acceptable terms of trade and the spread of new technology (ibid., p. 5-6).

Most important for the argument here is that Rostow’s theory of economic growth is firmly inward-looking. The causes of underdevelopment lie within a country, thus its structure needs to be adjusted. This is not to make Rostow responsible for the content of structural adjustment programs, but his theory does suggest the very idea thereof. His theory arguably contributed to the neglect of outside influences on countries, a shortcoming which a synthesis ought to rectify.

3. The development of underdevelopment

One could argue that only oppressed countries can be aware of the oppression of the world system and DT’s different interpretation of the challenges of development is solely due to its perspective on the world from within the developing South (Conway & Heynen 2002) to which I partly agree. However, I hold that only by considering the two different ideological footings one can truly account for the differences between DT and MT, because their crucial difference is that DT conceives of the state as embedded in a Marxisticly-perceived capitalist world system. The relation between development and underdevelopment is, according to Frank, ‘an essential part of the structure and development of the capitalist system on a world scale as a whole’ (1966, p. 18). Here, his Marxist ideology that is not so much found in Latin American structuralists (Clarke 2002) becomes apparent⁴. Important to his narrative are Marxist theories of imperialism which claim that imperial tendencies of capitalist countries are structural necessities of capitalism itself (for economic growth, investment opportunities or out of an interest in the profitable undertaking of imperialism) (see Daalder 1968, pp. 102-4).

Frank (1966) bases five assumptions on this reasoning, the first three of which are relevant to this essay:

1. The dual society thesis (Binns 2002, p. 76) is wrong. Underdevelopment and development are both sides of the same coin, that is global capitalist development (ibid., p. 20)
2. The weaker a state’s ties to global capitalism, the stronger its development (p. 25).
3. The most underdeveloped countries are the ones that had the strongest ties to the global capitalist system in the past (ibid., p. 27).

These principles seem to suggest a development path that is focused on self-reliance and attempts a disentanglement from world capitalism. However,

‘experiments with such a policy [were made,] such as China’s Great Leap Forward or Tanzania’s policy of Ujamaa. The failures of these policies are clear, and the failures suggest that autarky is not a good choice. Rather a policy of self-reliance should be interpreted as endorsing a policy of controlled interactions with the world economy: poor countries should only endorse interactions on terms that promise to improve the social and economic welfare of the larger citizenry. ’ (Ferraro 1996)

DT thus makes one aware of the difficulties the world market may pose to developing countries, and the very idea of dependency is not a bad one. Nevertheless, rejecting both, Frank’s suggestion of socialist revolution (Conway & Heynen 2002, p. 99) and full autarky, I shall attempt to outline a synthesis that lies in between both extremes, in full agreement with Chang’s more modern account of development (2008).

4. Towards a synthesis

A robust synthesis of these rather outdated accounts of development should have the following features, most of which I indicated already:

• Reject grand narratives, specifically Marxism, for their inevitable neglect of detail and theoretical weakness revealed by diffusionism. Thus, it should address both, a country’s structural weaknesses and its disadvantageous positions within global trade.
• It should not be dogmatic about any principles in general and specifically ‘not accept market forces blindly’ (Chang 2008, p. 210). Attention should be paid to the political sphere so that governments are prepared and capable to sacrifice short-term profit for long-term development.
• It should have multiple level of analysis and not only focus on countries. While states and their governments do (arguably) still play the most significant role in steering development (Allen & Thomas 2002), one must not neglect other actors⁵.
• The first of two rough guidelines I would consider applicable nearly everywhere is to acknowledge that international trade offers a great potential for development if countries do not accept free-trade orthodoxy and carefully raise reasonable protectionist tariffs to protect their infant industries.
• The second guideline is to assert the nurturing of manufacturing industries for their unique capacity to create surplus value.

These are only rough corner stones any development theory ought to consider and one should genuinely question the value of any general theory of development. Therefore, I allowed myself only two humble inputs generalising the direction into which I think any (mainly economic) development ought to be going: outwards looking in trade and nurturing manufacturing industries.

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to compare the vast theoretical fields of MT and DT by looking at two prominent scholars within each field. It has found that they share one common assumption, namely that industrialisation is a part of development. It has rejected both theories in their pure forms, MT for its vulnerability to diffusionism and its Eurocentricsm and DT for its Marxist footing and flawed policy implications. Finally it has shortly outlined the most important features a synthesis of the two should have. A good example of a modern and reasonable theory is Chang (2008). He writes in the modern context, against neo-liberal free-trade orthodoxy. A view which I share.

Bibliography

Allen, T. & Thomas, A. (2002) ‘Chapter 9: Agencies of Development’ in Allen, T. & Thomas, A. (ed.) (2002) Poverty and Development into the 21^st century, Oxford: OUP, pp. 189-218.

Binns, T. (2002) ‘2.4 Dualistic and unilinear concepts of development’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 75-80.

Chang, H. (2008) Bad Samaritans, New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Clarke, C. (2002) ‘2.7 The Latin American structuralists’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 92-6.

Conway, D. & Heynen, N. (2002) ‘2.8 Classical dependency theories: from ECLA to André Gunder Frank’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 97-102.

Daalder, H. (1968) ‘Imperialism’ in Sills, D. L. et al. (eds.) (1968) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 7, New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillian, Inc, pp. 101-9.

Ferraro, V. (1996) Dependency Theory: An Introduction [Online], Vincent Ferraro, Mount Holyoke College. Available at: <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm>

Frank, A. G. (1966) ‘The development of underdevelopment’ in Monthly Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 17-31.

Frank, A. G. (1975) ‘Development and Underdevelopment in the New World: Smith and Marx vs. the Weberians ’ in Theory and Society, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 431-466 .

Klak, T. (2002) ‘2.10 World-systems theory: centres, peripheries and semi-peripheries’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 107-12.

Macfarlane, A. (2001) A map of social theories, 1000-2000 [Lecture], Cambridge University. Available at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf9QJ02VkhU>

Marshall, D. D. (2002) ‘2.9 The New World Group of dependency scholars: reflections on a Caribbean avant-garde movement’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 102-107.

Potter, R. (2002) ‘2.1 Theories, strategies and ideologies of development’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 61-5.

Potter, R. et al. (2008) ‘Chapter 2: Understanding colonialism’ and ‘Chapter 3: Theories and strategies of development’ in Geographies of Development, 3^rd ed., Essex: Pearson Education Limited, pp. 47-126.

Power, M. (2002) ‘2.2 Enlightenment and the era of modernity’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 65-70.

Rostow, W. W. (1959) ‘The stages of economic growth’ in The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1959), pp. 1-16.

Rostow, W. W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rostow, W. W. (1985) ‘The World Economy Since 1945: A Stylized Historical Analysis ’ in The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 252-275 .

Sapsford, D. (2002) ‘2.3 Smith, Ricardo and the world marketplace’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 70-4.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simon, D. (2002) ‘2.6 Neo-liberalism, structural adjustment and poverty reduction strategies’ in Desai, V. & Potter, R. (ed.) (2002) The Companion to Development Studies, London: Arnold, pp. 86-92.

Thomas, A. (2002) ‘Chapter 2: Meanings and Views of Development’ in Allen, T. & Thomas, A. (ed.) (2002) Poverty and Development into the 21^st century, Oxford: OUP, pp. 23-48.

Notes

Tags: andré gunder frank, dependence, dependency, development, development studies, modernisation, walt rostow

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am and is filed under International Relations / Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.