The Political Implications of Dependency Theory

Abstract

The widely diverse body of theory that has come to be known as dependency theory has had a significant impact on the anti-imperialist movement and revolutionary forces particularly in Latin America. It enjoys a fairly high degree of prestige and influence not only among professional economists and social scientists its principal advocates but within the revolutionary movements themselves. Whether intentionally or unconsciously, the proponents of dependency theory are actually responsible for advancing two strategic political lines for the movement.1 The first and most influential calls for an independent road to capitalist development (and/or gradual transition to socialism) as a means of overcoming the historical legacy of underdevelopment: i.e., independence from foreign domination. This is ultimately a reformist policy that readily appeals to the apologists for neocolonialism and only leads to the proliferation of poverty and exploitation. In effect, this line underestimates the possibility and necessity of socialist revolution as a distinct, advanced stage in the struggles for national liberation and therefore serves to conciliate bourgeois nationalism. The most sophisticated advocates of this line are Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1972) and Samir Amin (1976).2 The second strategic line calls for world-wide socialism as a precondition for eliminating underdevelopment. This idealist view is based on the proposition that imperialism, or foreign domination, directly causes underdevelopment and serves as the main obstacle to development. In effect, this ultra-left line underestimates the role of the national democratic stage of