The origins and aims of Dependency Theory

The origins and aims of Dependency Theory Dependency theory was established in 1950s by Raul Prebisch. Prebisch and his friends developed it in an attempt to understand why some countries in the world remained underdeveloped. There was a concern that the richer nations were prospering while poverty heightened in the underdeveloped nations (Kendall, 2010). During that time, research showed that the economic practices in the wealthy nations were instrumental in the poor countries deterioration. These results contrasted with the neoclassical theory that had stated that economic growth benefited all the countries. According to Prebisch, the exports made by the poor countries directly benefited the rich countries since they use them as the raw materials for their industries. Surprisingly, these rich countries export the end products to the poor countries. Consequently, the rich countries earn foreign exchange at the expense of the poor countries (Kegley, 2009). Some of them include the small internal markets in the underdeveloped countries, failure of the poor countries to make a change, and restriction of the poor countries to export their products. It is for this reason that the scholars developed the theory of dependency. Consequently, scholars developed the dependency theory in an attempt to justify the intensity of poverty in the underdeveloped countries (Pfeffer, 2003). Earlier on, the neoclassical theory condemned the poor countries, attributing their economic status to their delay in handling making important economic decisions. However, the dependency theory opposed their views with claims that poverty in these countries resulted from exploitations by the capitalists (Ghosh, 2000). The dependency theorists argued believe that the international imperialists are instrumental in the perpetuation of dependency in the poor countries. One of these theorists is Andre Gunder Frank who asserts that further underdevelopment of the poor countries is caused by the capitalists economic practices (Daft, 2010). Dependency theory is based on the Marxist theories that explain the reasons for the international inequality. They assert that economic elites use idealism and realism ideologies in order to justify disparities among the wealthy and poor countries worldwide (Brewer, 2010). Therefore, dependency theory bases its arguments on the Marxist theories. Dependency theory argues that the developed countries use the concept of class to establish certain strategies that guard and support their needs. There are certain principles of the dependency theory that are based on the Marxist theory. First, it states that the world is segmented into certain classes based on economy rather than politics. It asserts that the economy is superior to politics. Therefore, the theory holds that the imperialists created global state system so as to address the interests of the rich countries and organizations (Johnson, 2009). This explains the ongoing poverty in the poor countries, and prosperity in the wealthy nations. The rich and the poor countries form vital parts of the world system. That is the rich countries are that the central rich nations that posses and prosper from the natural resources (John, 2007). On the other hand, the poor countries give the majority of the human and natural resources that the rich nations exploit. Therefore, the rich nations take advantage of the poor countries resources in furthering their economic activities. As a result, the economic gap between these countrie s widens. Additionally, the theory argues the global economic laws perpetuate the international inequality. For instance, one of these influential laws is the World Trade Organization (Ritzer, 2003). The dependency theory and the other Marxist theories try to explore ways of addressing the issue of international economic difference. One of these ways is involves the efforts to bring change among themselves. They should make viable economic decisions and policies that are capable of changing their status in a way. This means that their strategies should aim at freeing them from the economic bondage by the strong international forces. They should also champion for the reduction of the wealthy countries control on their economic activities. For example, they should seek ways of breaking the import barriers in the case of the import substitution. Although Frank is not the initiator of the underdevelopment theory, he made it very popular (Bardach, 1998). He borrowed a lot of Paul Barans work. He believes that capitalism is caused by underdevelopment in the developing countries in the world. There are certain reasons that led to the uneven development in these countries. Furthermore, Frank maintained that the increase in the imperialism in Europe is influential in transforming the world into one global system. He further explains the extent to which these capitalists had gained access to the Latin America. Subsequently, this has a negative impact on the countrys economy. This, in turn, results in uneven development across the nations. For instance, there are some places that we realize positive development while others record underdevelopment. This happens because the world system consists of the metro-polis satellite relations. These relations are used by the satellite but not committed to the satellite. Using the examples of Chile and Brazil, Frank explains that Chile had an experience of monopoly of imperialists structure (Martin, 2002). As a result, these metropolis relations facilitate a stronger bond between the capitalists and the metropolises to their respective centers. It also extends the capitalists rule to the businessmen, stockholders and the tenants. In Brazil, Frank had the same ideas on the effect of capitalism in the country. He explains the transmission of these capitalistic effects from the merchants to the tenants. Additionally, Frank elaborates on the involvement of the monopolistic system in the countries. According to him, this system involves the poor usage and wastage of a countrys resources in the system (Chilcote, 2003). The unequal expropriation and appropriations lead to the development and the underdevelopment of the countries; hence the difference in the economic status. Imperatively, Frank elaborated on the operations of the satellites and their effects on the world system. First, he explains that the political, social, and cultural aspects are linked to the metropolis. Secondly, establishes that a metropolis is having dependent progress. Thirdly, there are weak bonds between the satellites and the metropolis. The fourth idea is that strengthening of these links might result in further underdevelopment of the metropolises. Nevertheless, Frank opposed the notion that underdeveloped world had more than one economies; the current and the ancient economies. He explains that capitalism had deepened its roots in Latin America. Though these countries seemed to be doing ell economically, there was a decrease in the performance of the export industries. For example, there was a decline in the productivity of the sugar company in Brazilian North-East (Petrella, 2003). This collapse was as a result of weak ties between the metropolises. Therefore, anything that looked like feudal characteristics results from underdeveloped imperialism. There are certain criticisms of the dependency theory by certain scholars. Just like any other theory, dependency theory has its share of strengths and weaknesses. To start with, dependency theory has the following strengths. Firstly, the theory analyses the inequality existing between the poor and the rich countries. Moreover, the theory breaks some political bonds and explains reasons why the wealthy nations are taking advantage of the poor countries (Doukhan, 2003). Also, dependency theory dismisses the neoclassical theorys claim that the existing global inequality is caused by the poor countries laziness. In stead, it argues in favor of these underdeveloped countries and blames the imperialists. On the contrary, certain scholars argue that the theory has some limitations. One of the weaknesses concerns the theorist, over-generalization and over simplification. Explicitly, frank should have investigated other parts of the world other than Latin American situation. In such a situation, it is essential different parts of the world, for example, the African countries and Asia (Martin, 2002). Therefore, his ideas are not realistic in that he used a few examples in his arguments. Another weakness of the dependency theory is that does not explain other factors that lead to underdevelopment other than the role played by the wealthy nations. The terms core and periphery are different from the terms traditional and modern. Additionally, dependency theory is weak in that in Frank failed in his attempt to provide solutions to the situation. His suggestions were very unrealistic and over-ambitious. Moreover, these solutions created certain dependencies among themselves. For example, it was impossible for Cuba to disentangle itself from the economic dominion with the USA (Willer, 1999). Furthermore, Frank attempted to prove that the imperialism is the major cause of the economic difference. Instead, he bases arguments on unrealistic perceptions. In addition; the theory is weak in that Frank failed to consider all class relations in his ideas. He also misinterpreted the Marxists concepts. Frank only addresses market relations. Some critics also challenge the theory by maintaining that it will cause corruption; with the higher markets and the other markets. Corruption is quite intense in the government industries than in than in others. It also causes lack of competition in the industries of both wealthy and poor countries. The completion is as a result of the restriction of imports to the poor countries, and subsidization of inducements (Ghosh, 2000). Finally, dependence theory encompasses certain scholars such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Fernand Braudel, Giovanni Arrigi, Samir Amin, Hans Singer, Frank Gunder and Raul Prebisch. In conclusion, dependency theory is influential in explaining the international inequality in terms of economy. Dependence theory asserts that the disparity is a resultant of the imperialism by the powerful and wealthy nations in the world. Therefore, they take advantage of the poor countries, hence widening the gap between them. However, there are a lot of criticisms on the theory that display more weaknesses than the strengths. Therefore, this theory may not be suitable in the explaining global inequality.

Chinese Foreign Policy & National Security Essay

The China-South Korea axis is perhaps the most overlooked variable in the strategic environment of Northeast Asia. For nearly five decades their relationship was characterized by war, lack of dialogue and non-recognition; then, over a period of some three years, this situation gave away to fully normalized and amiable relations in 1992. Rapprochement between Seoul and Beijing in 1992 opened one of the first frontiers of the post-Cold War thaw in the region, and future security will hinge at least partly on this core relationship. In this context, Cha analyzes the evolution of Sino-South Korean reconciliation, and argues that the South Korea’s engagement policy from the late 1980s in the political, economic, and cultural arenas played a major part in eliciting unprecedented cooperation from Beijing, however, its initiatives alone were not a sufficient condition to prompt this cooperation. A prior and necessary condition was a change in the strategic context surrounding China and the Korean Peninsula that raised both the benefits of cooperation and the costs of non-cooperation; the end of Cold War . In the context of security environment in Northeast Asia, South Korea’s success in engaging China has implications for future security on the Korean Peninsula. On balance, the axis is a stabilizing factor but not without its share of future challenges. With this in mind, the key questions of the article include: (1) How does one explain the growth of cooperation between China and South Korea? (2) To what extent has Sino-ROK rapprochement been the result of successful strategies on the part of South Korea to ‘engage’ China? (3) What are the implications on North Korea? For a quarter-century after the Korean War, Sino-South Korean relations sat at the intersection of the global East-West conflict and the Sino-Soviet split, making any hint of cooperation impossible.1 However, since the middle 1980s, Sino-South Korean relationship has moved from being sworn enemies and opposed combatants in the Korean War, to being potential economic partners (but still strategic adversaries), and fully normalized diplomatic relations in 1992. Three key drivers propelled the change in the relationship: (1) the transformation of strategic environment concomitant to the end of Cold War, which established the baseline for post-war interaction. In this context, Sino-Soviet reconciliation was a significant factor in Chinese calculations to normalize with Seoul. In particular, the end of Sino-Soviet rivalry reduced in Chinese minds the strategic consequences of ‘losing’ North Korea to Moscow, and made opening to South Korea more feasible. Furthermore, in South Korea’s view, China had evolved from being a revisionist power to being a status quo one, in the degree to which Beijing emphasized ‘unification’ or ‘peace maintenance’ as the security priority for the Peninsula. ‘Unification’ was associated with China’s revolutionary power and support for North Korea to overthrow the South – the essence of China’s one Korea policy of the Cold War. On the other hand, ‘peace maintenance’ implied stability outcome for Korea by recognizing South Korea and opposing provocative acts by the North which might upset the unstable peace on the Peninsula. (2) Domestic change in China concomitant to Deng Xiaoping’s modernization reforms, and subsequent separation of politics from economics. The initial economic trade was largely indirect, transacted through third-party intermediaries or South Korean trading firms in Hong Kong. By 1985, however, total Chinese-South Korea trade surpassed that between China and North Korea. During the 1980s, while the two sides still viewed one another as military adversaries, they increasingly recognized each other as economic opportunities. The beginnings of a diplomatic relationship also emerged in the 1990s with the establishment of trade offices between the Korea Trade Promotion Association (KOTRA) and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in 1990, which facilitated shift from indirect trade to open and direct transactions, and subsequently in establishing formal diplomatic relations in August 1992. (3) South Korea’s conscious policy of engagement to elicit cooperation from China, in particular using non-punitive, non-coercive diplomacy and seeking mutual accommodation. South Korea’s engagement strategy contained the following tiers: first, economic linkages, investment and trade ties to increase the benefits to China of cooperation, and the costs of non-cooperation, providing foreign capital and technology, separating political cooperation with economics, but gradually produce cooperative behavior in other arenas. The growth of trade ties in the 1980s was a major reason why China chose to participate in the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Olympics hosted by South Korea, which served as key event to normalize relations. Second tenet of South Korea’s engagement strategy was to treat the opposing state’s perspectives as legitimate per se. This meant engaging China’s divergent position into official dialogues on the proposals for enhancing peace and stability in the region such as the Four-Party talks, and more importantly South Korea’s recognition of One China Policy, acknowledging Beijing as the only legal government in China. These initiatives at the diplomatic front were followed by general increase in communication flows on the business, educational, and cultural levels to cultivate goodwill. In this context, South Korea’s engagement strategy included the following goals: (1) cultivate Beijing’s cooperation by tying Chinese national interests to stability on the Peninsula; (2) improve South Korea’s credibility in the international arena by enhancing its image as a ‘regional player’ willing to reduce tensions and foster dialogue; and (3) engage North Korea through alternative channels. In order to pursue these goals, South Korea utilized the following means: in the macro-political perspective, the strategy of engagement of China was pursued through the policy of Nordpolitik and Globalization (segyehwa) which implied mutual economic prosperity as a means of expanding diplomatic ties with former adversaries as well as assuming a leading role for South Korea in international organizations and the continued expansion of program multi-directional diplomacy (i.e. using meetings of multilateral bodies such as APEC, ASEAN, non-governmental track-t wo diplomacy, high-level military exchanges). The second method of engagement has been sports diplomacy – participating in athletic competitions hosted by each country provided a useful means by to express good will and interest in expanding the economic cooperation (Seoul 1988 Olympics, Beijing Asian Games 1990). What was the benchmark of success of South Korea’s engagement strategy? The key was not only engaging China, but also the terms of policy toward North Korea. The following measure could be used: (A) Failure – Chinese support of North Korea (B) Minimal Success – ‘1.5’ Korea policy; formal support of North Korea and de-facto recognition of South Korea (C) Moderate Success – equidistance between North and South Korea (D) Very Successful – discourage North Korean provocation and aggression (E) Most Successful – China supports only South Korea Cha argues that the outcome of South Korea’s engagement falls in the middle range (B to D). For example, Chinese behavior on the North Korean nuclear issue in 1993-94, when Beijing sided with the US and South Korea on many aspects (such as opposing North Korea to renege Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and abide to non-nuclear Peninsula), however, at the same time Beijing expressed strong opposition against any acts of coercion against the North. It persistently pressed for dialogue and negotiona as the only acceptable means of settling the dispute, and opposed any U.S. led sanctions thought the UN Security Council. A more successful outcome was the redefined Chinese behavior on UN admission of the two Koreas in 1991, in which Chinese accepted dual membership of the two Koreas in the UN. Arguing that South Korean engagement of China has been sustained, comprehensive and moderately successful, the next question is how this new relationship will affect security on the Korean Peninsula and throughout the broader region? Salient issues include the impact of the Asian financial crisis, the dynamics of second U.S.-North Korea nuclear crisis, the effect of Bejing-Seoul dà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½tente on South Korea’s alliance with Washington, and the future challenges that could be posed by Korean unification. (1) The impact of the Asian Financial Crisis didn’t affect China-South Korean relations thus far. In-fact, in 2003 China has surpassed the U.S. as South Korea’s largest trading partner (2) Sino-South Korean relations have important implications in understanding current relations between North and South Korea. Under Kim Dae Jung, South Korea initiated Sunshine Policy that rests on Seoul’s assurances of no-isolation, no destabilization, and no absorption. The Sunshine Policy is in many ways similar to the engagement strategy toward China, both in form and potential success. In particular, it is consistent (despite North’s provocations) and designed to elicit cooperation from the opposing state. However, there are also differences- regarding intentions; for cooperation to emerge, the opposing state has to be engageable. North Korea’s behavior does not suggest she is open to an improvement of relations. Second, there are differences in South Korea’s capabilities of early 1990’s and late 1990s, in particular, in the early 1990s South Korea that engaged China did so from a position of relative strength and prosperity; however, in the late 1990s, the Asian financial crisis put South Korean position to a relative weakness., because conciliatory gestures are more likely to be interpreted as appeasement rather than engagement. Hence success to engagement of North Korea is not likely. (3) Looking beyond the immediate North Korean nuclear problem, Korean unification raises a plethora of new factors that would test the resilience of China-South Korea engagement. The absence of the North Korean buffer would give rise to a situation in which two powers with different regimes share a contiguous border. Another future challenges is on the economic front – the rising China may hange its trade needs and increase competition with Korea. A final potential conflict between a united Korea and China centers on nationalism, and the two-million ethnic Korean living in Chinese Jilin province, which a unified Korea might claim. In the final analysis, the dramatic transformation of Chin-South Korean relations in the 1990s represents the most successful case of engaging China in East Asia. The lessons stemming from this engagement include: (1) consistency- a policy can only be successful if it is applied consistently and deliberately, (2) engagement requires will and domestic political support to sustain the policy even in the face of little reciprocity by the other state; (3) engagement applied from a position of strength conveys credibility, but applied from a position of weakness connotes appeasement. For the foreseeable future, the burden of managing the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula falls even more on the new China-South Korea dà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½tente and the continuing U.S.-South Korea Alliance. My Observation: Victor Cha offers a plausible analysis of the South Korea’s engagement strategy and the factors that have significantly improved Sino-South Korean relations, nonetheless, I would argue that he underestimated the historical factors that bind China and South Korea together, which might have accelerated the rapprochement on both sides. Traditionally, Korea has fallen under the Chinese sphere of influence, with Korea belonging to the first-tier state of the Sino-centered worldview. In this context, another traditional binding element is the continuing anti-Japanese sentiments and mistrust in both Koreas and China that target Japanese sense of irresponsibility and demand apology for its war atrocities. Taken together, I would argue that these factors also facilitated the relatively rapid transformation of the relations, on a personal level between Korean and Chinese officials. In the context of enhancing peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, positive Sino-South Korean relations certainly play an important role. Both states are aware of this factor, and share similar interests. However, Beijing seems to be in a dilemma, it desperately does not want to face a collapse of North Korea nor does it want to see a nuclear North Korea. Hence, China’s actions in the foreign policy arena are still bound to the minimum necessary level to ensure stability. Ironically, while the Chinese officials have been claiming that they are making efforts to persuade North Korea to enter multilateral dialogue and negotiation, they also claim that North Korea doesn’t listen as it used to. In this regard, my question is: How much leverage does China have over North Korea? 🙂 1 From the ROK perspective, during the Cold War China was part of the communist bloc, a patron of revolutionary regimes in Asia, and thus one of the primary threats to South Korea’s survival. China’s intervention in the Korean War in 1950, in conjunction with the July 1961 Friendship Treaty between China and North Korea with its automatic intervention clause cemented South Korea’s perceptions of China as a threat. At the same time, China’s hostility toward South Korea was equally intense. South Korea was the ‘fascist’ axis of the ‘iron triangle’ that included ‘U.S. imperialism’, and ‘Japanese militarism.’

A Room Of Ones Own And Terry Eagleton Analysis - 1098 Words

There are many different theories you can look for when reading literature. You have five of Terry Eagleton’s theories which are reader’s response, feminism, psychological view, and historical, and formalism. There is Nietzsche’s theory where he believes everything is a metaphor, everything can be interpreted differently by the reader. Emerson’s theory is transidlism and existentialism. Transidlism is when someone will accept that there are miracles in the world. Existentialism is when someone doesn’t believe there are miracles. The last theory is the chaos theory where everything is connected to everything, one thing sets off a chain reaction, and the whole world is affected by it. You can see these different theories in Virginia Woolf’s†¦show more content†¦Therefore, this is how she thought the life for women would be like in the sixteenth century, any women born with a talent would end up being laughed up, mocked and ending their lives like the fictional character Judith. â€Å"A highly gifted girl who had tried to use her gift for poetry would have been so thwarted and hindered by other people, so tortured and pulled asunder by her own contrary instincts, that she must have lost her health and sanity to a certainty† (Woolf). Finally you notice Emerson’s theory of transidlism which is someone who believes in miracles. Woolf believes that there can be miracles for women. â€Å"For my belief is that if we live another century or so - I am taking of the common life which is the real life and not of the little separate lives which we live as individuals - and have five hundred a year each of us and rooms of our own; if we have the habit of freedom and the courage to write exactly what we think; if we escape a little from the common sitting-room and see human beings not always in their relation to each other but in relation to reality; and the sky, too, and the trees or whatever it may be in themselves; if we look past Miltons hogey, for no human being should shut out the view; if we face the fact, for it is a fact, that there is no arm to cling to, but that we go alone and that our relation is to the world of reality and not only to the world of men and women, then the opportunity will come and the de ad poetShow MoreRelated Aphra Behn and the Changing Perspectives on Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel6049 Words   |  25 Pagesthe past twenty years. While the initial stages of, first, feminist and, later, post colonial perspectives may have sought only to insert marginalised texts into the existing literary discourse, their long term ramifications are obliging a wider analysis of how we approach the English novel and the manner in which we link it to its surrounding culture. Its exploration reveals the methods with which we trace our histories, what we choose to include and exclude the positions from which we do so. ARead MoreIdentity And The Search For The Self Among The Sub Continental Diaspora10173 Words   |  41 Pageswhich a person’s idea of him/herself is in congruence with the role he/she is performing. The corresponding degree to which one invests effort in the role and the ultimate degree to which one succeeds in enacting the role that describes salience with one’s identity. Identity Salience is important â€Å"because the salience we attach to our identities influence how much effort we put into each role and how well we perform in each role†. (Desrochers and Thompson.) Thus, it is understood that Identity Salience