Lim, Cheenee A.

POSC 3183

BPS 4-2 2013-02316-

MN-0

Seminar Paper: The Development of Underdevelopment by Andre Gunder Frank

This article challenges the dominant theory about underdevelopment. According to the author, the fact that most
guides to development policy are based on the historical experiences of advanced capitalist nations in Europe and North
America is problematic. Using Western-centric theories to understand and explain the underdevelopment of Latin
American countries is not befitting. To begin with, wealthy countries do not share the same history and experiences with
the poor ones. Moreover, the author assails the idea that underdeveloped countries are under the stage of pre-capitalism.
They will only industrialize and develop when they finally acquired the capitalist system. To counter this notion, he argued
that the underdevelopment of poor countries is actually a product of the historical development of capitalism. He further
evinced that the present underdevelopment of Latin America is the result of its centuries-long participation in the process
of world capitalist development. The metropolis-satellite structure is also discussed in this article. According to Frank, this
relationship is monopolistic and exploitative, where the development of metropoles demands the underdevelopment of its
satellites. To summarize his arguments, he formulated two hypotheses: 1) in contrast to the development of the world
metropolis which is no ones satellite, the development of the national and other subordinate metropoles is limited by their
satellite status; and 2) the satellites experience their greatest economic development and especially their most classically
capitalist industrial development if and when their ties to their metropolis are weakest. To support his hypotheses, he cited
examples from the experiences of Latin American countries. In the first hypothesis, it is revealed how the metropolis
prevents its satellites to genuinely and independently develop. The only kind of development that is allowed by the
metropolis to be experienced by its satellites is something that should not be self-perpetuating. On the second hypothesis,
the author argued that the regions which are the most underdeveloped and feudal-seeming today are the ones which had
the closest ties to the metropolis in the past. To really develop, poor states should break the chains that bind them to their
oppressors that hinder their development. In conclusion, there is no single theory that can be applied to understand the
development or underdevelopment of all countries. The history of wealthy states from the West does not reflect the past of
the underdeveloped Latin America. Same goes to the impact of capitalism to their respective countries. While developed
countries gained a lot from capitalism, underdeveloped ones continue to be oppressed and exploited by the former.

Upon reading this article, I noticed a few things. First of all, I think Franks theory is somehow similar to Marxism
when it comes to their view of the international economic order. Frank expressed his belief on the spread of capitalism
from one state to another, giving it a cosmopolitan character. Marx also said this on his Communist Manifesto. According
to him, the bourgeoisie is making a world after its own image, thus the emergence of global capitalism. They also agree
that the world is divided between the wealthy and the poor. Although, in Marxism the social strata is basically domestic
and is composed of the bourgeoisie (the ruling class/oppressor) and the proletariat (the working/oppressed class). In
contrast, Franks theory is based on the context of the international order. In the Dependency Theory, where one of the
proponents is Andre Gunder Frank, the developed states belong to the core while underdeveloped states belong to the
periphery. In this article, however, Frank used the term metropolis (core) and satellites (periphery) to distinguish the two
classes. Furthermore, both theories agree that there is an inequality between these conflicting classes. In this article, we
can see that the author believes that developed states benefit more from the present economic order by exploiting poor
countries. To maintain its status of power, the metropole (or the core) depends on its satellites (the periphery) to serve its
interests. Due to their advantageous position, the core states will never permit periphery states to achieve autonomous
development. To relate this to Marxism, we can look at the concept of Imperialism. According to Lenin, Imperialism is the
highest stage of capitalism. It occurs when a capitalist society provides low wages to workers which leads to their
underconsumption. This becomes a problem especially when there is an overproduction of goods. To solve this problem,
capitalists will have to look for an outlet of their surplus products. The search for sources of raw materials and consumers
of their surplus goods gives rise to imperialism. Like the metropolis-satellite structure, the relationship between the
imperialist and its colonies is oppressive. The imperialist buys cheap raw materials from its colonies and converts it into
industrial goods. The latter then buys the industrial/manufactured goods which are more expensive than raw materials. If
this situation continues, the colonies will only be trapped to serve the interests of the imperialist. The imperialist secures
its control on its colonies to ensure the continuity of their dependence and underdevelopment. To apply this on the context
of the Philippines, we can see how the United States is still practicing neo-colonialism. Although technically, the
Philippines is a sovereign state, the United States still manages to control its economy and prevent its autonomous
development. I think the semblance of Marxism and the Dependence theory ends here, though. Frank argued that in order
to achieve a genuine development, satellites should break its ties with its metropole and pursue an independent economic
growth. In contrast, Marxism believes that the only way to end oppression and inequality is to overthrow the present
capitalist system. Both theories agree that there is something wrong with capitalism but they have a different view with
regards to dealing with it. I personally agree to the solution proposed by the Marxist perspective. Though I agree with
Franks hypotheses and analysis, I still think that completely overthrowing the present oppressive system and replacing it
with a better one that is free from the monopolistic and exploitative character of capitalism is the solution to inequalities
and oppression.