DEPENDENCY, INDUSTRIALIZATION AND

DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

1 have distinguished two main groups of theories within the

problematic of dependency. The first group which I have already
discussed in chapter 4 proposes a totalizing vision according to
which there is a single integrated world capitalist system which is
polarized into centre aixl periphery. The incorporation of the
periphery into the world capitalist system occurs by nieiins of trade
and this is at the same time the source of its exploitation through
unequal exchange. The transt’er of surplus from the periphery to the
centre explains the undcrdeve1opment of the former and, except for
Amin, the development of the latter. Hence these theories tend to be
stagnationist and do not conceive of any possibility of real
development occurring in the periphery. All that could exist is the
development of underdevelopment. The situation of being peripheral
is synonymous with poverty and backwardness. Dependency,
through unequal exchange. is in itself a sufficient explanation of
under- development.
The second gi‘oup of theories, which is my concern in this
chapter, conceives of dependency in adifferent way;
notasasufficientexplanation of underdevelopment but as a
conditioning situation which is mediated and altered in its effects
by internal economic and social processes. Although these theories
accept the conditioning influence of the world capitalist system they
focus their analysis on the internal Latin American processes and
their variability. They could be stagnationist (Sunkel; Furfado,
Hinkelammert) or allow for development (Cardoso. Faletto, Pinto),
they could be Marxist (Cardoso, Faletto, Hinkelammert) or non-
 DEPENDENCY, INDUSTRIALIZATION AN D DEVELOPMENT 147

yarxist (Pinto, 5unkel, Furiado), but in any case the obstacles to

or poSSÎbilities of development are studied in relation to intemal
processes and class struggles and not solely in relation to external
factors, however
¡yportant they may be. Furthermore, these theories tend not to give
too much importance to unequal exchange and the transfer of
surplus as a major cause of underdevelopment, although most of
them recognize its existence. Above all, these theories do not
confuse dependency with necessary underdevelopment. I shall
distinguish three currents within ihis group of dependency theories.
The ’structuralist’ (Pinto, Sunkel, Furtado), the theory of unbalanced
peripheries (Hinkelammert) and the lheory of ‘associated
dependent development’ (Cardoso, Faletto).

STRUCTURAL OBSTACLES TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The thought of Pinto, Sunkel and Furtado was formed within

ECLA’s intellectual tradition but towards the mid-1960s initiated a
process of reformulation of ECLA’s tenets in the context of a growing
pessimism about the Latin American prospects of development.
Thèse authors did notwantto draw any general conclusions aboutthe
viability of capitalism in the third world but empirically investigated
the obstacles which they thought led to the stagnation or l’nistration
of national development in Latin America. The titles of some of their
publications during this time are symptomatic. Pinto, for instance.
in Chile, a Case of Frustrated Development tries to show the stnictural
causes which have hindered the process of development in Chile from
1830 to 1953.' Furtado does the same for Latin America in general
and Brazil in particular in Undei’development and Stagnation.’ He
analyses both extemal obstacles and structural factors hindering
development. Sunkel, in his tum, in ‘Social change and frustration in
Chile’* argues that a rapid process of social change in Chile has not
led to the expected social results. The reason ties in certain basic
stnictures of Chilean society. Hence the label ‘structuralist’ which
thèse authors usually receive.
One of the first analyses to start this tendency was Pinto’s pioneering
study of Chile. His basic thesis throughout is the existence of a
cleavage or contradiction between a rapid social and political
expansion and a sluggish economic development. Using a metaphor
Pinto argues that Chile ‘stands out for an almost deformed
development of its head, meaning by that its institutionality, its
political organization, its structure of social relations, which seem to
stand on a rickety body, or at least, a
Thank you for using www.freepdfconvert.com service!

Only two pages are converted. Please Sign Up to convert all pages.

https://www.freepdfconvert.com/membership