Is The "dependency" Thesis Still Relevant To Twenty-first Century International Politics?

The "dependency" thesis is used to describe various theories with different arguments, and made an important contribution to international relations (IR) theory in the 20th century. With the premises for dependency theory changing so much in the early 21st century, it is sound to ask whether the thesis is still relevant to international politics today. This article will demonstrate that because there are various theories associated with the "dependency" label, it should be understood as a paradigm. Furthermore, this article will show that as a school of IR theory, its assumptions are still relevant to the early 21st century due to the persistence of its core assumptions. One can then use the paradigm to explain recent phenomena, such as the growth of the BRIC, the continuity of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the continuing difficulty to reach conclusions in the Doha round of negotiations.

The term "dependency" was first used in the 1960s to describe the development theory of Raúl Prebisch and his team in the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), but since then, many different theories have been associated with the "dependency" label. However, theories associated with "dependency" share common assumptions as follows.

The first assumption is that there exist two groups of countries known as the Core and the Periphery. These terms reflect the proximity of the groups with regard to a capitalist economic system defined largely in terms of international trade and financial activities. As the names imply, the Core lies at the heart of the system; they are characterised by developed economies and high standards of living; while the Periphery countries lie farther in the system, and have developing economies and lower standards of living than the Core. Some theories also assume Core countries to benefit more than Periphery ones from the system due to structural economic differences (e.g. Periphery countries tend to focus on primary goods production). It follows logically that Core countries are more powerful than Periphery ones in this system.

The second assumption is about the condition of development in the Periphery in the system. It is assumed that Core countries will wish to perpetuate or strengthen the current capitalist order, which works to their benefits; as a result, the Core is willing (and able, due to their economic clout) to affect adversely the development of Periphery countries. Coupling with structural differences and weaker capabilities for growth, Periphery countries will face difficulty in development in such a system.

From these two points, a paradigm of "dependency" can be defined: that the world consists of Core and Periphery countries, and this structure affects adversely the ability of Periphery countries to develop. The phrase "dependency" remains relevant if countries in the Periphery, due to external pressure and/or structural weakness, become economically dependent on those in the Core.

Also, dependency can be linked with the concept of imperialism. According to Galtung's structural theory of imperialism, this relationship takes place within a core-periphery framework, in which the dominance is maintained by the linkage between the ruling élites (bourgeoisies) in Core and Periphery countries, who share common interests. Based on this structure, imperialist domination can take place in different types (economic, political, military, communication and cultural) . Hence, it is arguably plausible to write about a "dominance and dependence" paradigm.

Between the 1960s - when "dependency" theories originated - and the early 21st century, major changes have happened to the international system. One of the major changes is that in the global economic balance, with the emergence and maintenance of powerful economies outside the "Western" realm (which includes North America, Western Europe and Japan); in particular, the NICs (South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore) in the 1980s and the BRIC in the 1990s and 2000s. In 1980, the economies of the developed G7 consisted of 56.3% of world GDP, while that of developing countries and Asian NICs combined was 32.4%; in 2010, the figures were 40.1% and 50.9%, respectively. Also, in recent decades, all the world regions have experienced economic growth of varying degrees. From 1990 to 2008, the average growth of Africa was approximately 100%, while that of Europe was just 45%; no regions experienced negative average growth through the period. These facts went against expectations by a strand of dependency theory, originated from the ECLA and developed through Baran and Frank, which does not accept the possibility of economic development from the "dependent" Periphery, and suggests that "decoupling" from the capitalist system and following the "socialist" mode of production is the only way "underdeveloped" countries can achieve development . Many theorists, such as Warren, have directed criticism toward these theories from as early as the 1980s, citing the "facts of post-war progress" in developing countries as empirical evidence against them, and thus arguing that "dependency" theory as a whole has become obsolete . However, as shown in previous paragraphs, those critics have failed to recognise the diversity of "dependency" as a paradigm; such a failure "has led to considerable confusion as scholars have argued 'for' and 'against' the use of a dependency perspective" . There are other dependency theorists who argue that peripheral development is still possible, such as Bienefeld, who demonstrated the case of NICs from a dependency perspective.

In the 21st century, it can still be argued that the "dependency" paradigm still retains a degree of relevance, because the underlying assumptions of the paradigm still remain relevant.

The first assumption is true; the existence of a Core and a Periphery, a.k.a. a developed and developing world, with wide differences in income levels and standards of living, can still be felt, and that the Core (developed countries) still commands the majority of world GDP, although the percentage fell from 69.3% in 1980 to 51.9% in 2010 . The developed countries still have more power over developing ones in international financial institutions: for example, voting power of developed countries (including NICs) and their major partners (high income oil producers) in the IMF is 52.3% . Due to this fact, it has been extremely difficult to finish the current Doha round of negotiations, which is intended to benefit developing countries by lowing tariffs and non-tariff barriers around the world.

Also, the second assumption is true: despite universal growth levels, developing countries still face challenges to economic development that can also make them dependent on developed ones. The lack of vital technology and capital for development means that peripheral countries will always have to rely on developed ones who can provide them (although this is arguably less the case now, with the emergence of emergent nations like China which can be alternative sources of technology and capital). Despite the relaxation of trade tariffs, many developed nations still retain heavy non-tariff barriers to entry, such as consumer standards and testing procedures; also, domestic subsidies in primary goods, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the European Union, negatively affect the economies of developing countries reliant on primary goods exports. An added factor is the potentially adverse effects of multi-national corporations (MNCs) - a factor also present in the 1960s: it has been argued, back in the 1960s, by several scholars, using available data, that foreign investment by MNCs will result in a net outflow of capital to the developed Core, due to the profit-seeking nature of them, and due to the fact that almost all MNCs are located in Core countries.

Thirdly, Galtung's theory of imperialism is arguably still relevant in today's international politics. It can be argued that the economic dependency of the majority of developing nations to the Western world (of which the centre is arguably the US) provides the suitable conditions to other forms of Western dominance in the international system. Politically, liberal democracy, the current political model in the West, can be seen as the dominant political regime in the international system, and its spread is consistent with the spread of the market capitalist system. Militarily, the US is arguably the dominant military power, with military expenditure in 2009 equalling 46.5% of world total; expenditure of the US, UK and France combined in 2009 equal 54.5%. In terms of culture and communication, the West's dominance is only strengthened with the advent of globalisation. The fact that the British education industry can attract a large number of international students who are willing to pay higher tuition fees annually can be seen as an example of Western cultural influence and domination.

In conclusion, by asserting that core assumptions of the "dependency" paradigm are still relevant in 21st century world politics, arguably the paradigm can be used to explain the phenomena in today's politics. Using this paradigm, further comments can be made regarding the development of countries. In his essay, Bienefeld correctly argues that the NICs were able to change their status from Periphery to Core by combining political repression and state-directed industrialisation by import substitution, coupled with an advantageous external environment due to generous financial assistance from the US and the decline in American productivity in the same period . Arguably, similar domestic policies can be given credit for the emergence of China and India as economic powerhouses. This shows that the right policies, coupled with favourable external conditions, can counter the structural restraints on peripheral development; also, it can be argued that one country can be able to change its position in the international economic order from Periphery to Core./.