An Inverted Paradigm: A Reply to Elisabeth Gidengil

Abstract

AbstractThrough a critique of the “internationalist” arguments outlined and defended by Paul Kellogg, Elisabeth Gidengil has mounted a defence of dependency theory as it has been applied to Canadian political economy. She argues that dependency theory, far from being discarded as Kellogg has suggested, must be part of any new synthesis that is developed in Canadian political economy. She argues that Bukharin's Marxism, defended by Kellogg, is too abstract to be of any real guide in this new synthesis. This reply first situates where a “Bukharinist” approach is in agreement with dependency theory. Both recognize the existence of a rigid hierarchy of nations that impedes development in the Third World. But in Canada, it is argued, this insight has been stood on its head, Canada being theorized as “dependent” and suffering dependency-induced “structural weaknesses.” A selection of empirical examples is introduced to indicate the weak factual ground on which this claim is based. If there are aspects of the dependency paradigm to be retained, in the Canadian case this requires inverting the way in which this paradigm has usually been applied and insisting on Canada's entrenched position, alongside the other G7 powers, at the top of the hierarchy of nations in the world system.