[from a work in progress.SP] Notes on Development Theory Sam Pawlett Introduction Development theory took off after WWII with the first wave of decolonization. The problems facing the newly independent countries became of concern to intellectuals who wanted to understand the plight of the newly independent countries as well as rationalize imperialism. Such problems had in the past really only been the preserve of those working in the Marxist tradition because of the events and issues raised by the 1917 Russian revolution. Because of the small size of the Russian industrial working class and the agrarian nature of the economy, the Russian revolutionaries were concerned with problems of underdevelopment and the problem of building socialism in a backward country where Marx and his followers said that socialism would (not could) take place in advanced industrialized capitalist countries. Russian and German Marxists like Pleknakov and Kautsky argued that socialism could only be built on nations that had developed capitalist economies. Only a high level of productivity could support socialist social relations . . . The central concern of the U.S. and British governments and their intellectual servants were that the newly independent countries might fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. The USSR presented an alternative model of development since in 1917 it was in a similar position with a poor, technologically backward, mostly agricultural peasant society. The USSR had industrialized quickly through a period of "socialist primitive accumulation," had raised standard of living, advanced technologically and maintained a high degree of economic self-sufficiency. The hope for leaders of newly independent countries was that these countries could repeat the Soviet experience with a minimum of the immense costs suffered by the peoples of the USSR. The newly independent countries were to be kept out of the Soviet sphere so the raw materials, oil and cheap labor supply could come to benefit the U.S. and Britain. This was to be done through a mix of covert action, military intervention, a range of macroeconomic instruments especially including the World Bank and IMF. What is Development? Development theories are closely bound to the development of capitalism itself. The content of the theories themselves, reflect the degree of development of the productive forces and the state of the class struggle. The theory itself emerges as something to be explained, i.e. development theories are both the cause and effect of the reality they purport to explain. As Marx and Engels explained: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently, also control the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; hence of the relations which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."(GI,59) The classical economists including Marx had no conception of "development" as we speak of today, they only sought to understand pre-capitalistic economic formations as they led eventually to capitalism. At the time there were only capitalist societies and non or pre-capitalist societies. The issue was to explain how pre-capitalist societies became capitalist. Marx ridiculed the traditional notion of ‘original sin' in primitive accumulation where capitalist relations arise from frugal and hardworking individuals(the capitalist class) and lazy individuals (the proletariat.)(Capital V.1p873ff.) In Marx's view capitalism came into being through the seperation of workers from the means of production such that all they has to sell was their own labor. The full title of Adam Smith's most famous book "The Wealth of Nations" is "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". A concept of development is inherent in the title. Smith is interested in how nations become wealthy and stay that way. For Smith, the development of society occurs through the division of labor and the application of technology leading to an increase in the productivity of labor. Smith held a theory of value where he believed that the wealth of a nation is equal to what it produces each year. To increase wealth, one must increase production. Economic activity is the physical production of material goods. Further, productive work is such that allows only for the accumulation of material wealth and hence material wealth has value only in so far as it embodies human labor. So, in Smith's view, the key factor in increasing national wealth is an increasing amount of the workforce dedicated to productive work. In addition an increase in the division of labor will increase productivity. This is achieved through an expansion of international trade and the international market. One of Smith's key errors was to try and show that rent and profit contribute to value and thus show a harmony of interest among all classes of society. David Ricardo saw political economy as an investigation into "the produce of the earth is divided into three classes of the community, namely, the proprietor of the land, the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation and the laborers by whose industry it is cultivated." Ricardo, like Smith, defended a "labor theory of value" where the value of a commodity is the result of the amount of labor incorporated in it such that the amount of time taken to produce the commodity. So wages, profits and rent could only come out of the value created by the working class. In contrast to Smith who saw a harmony on interests among all three classes, Ricardo saw conflict between the capitalists and the landowners. Landowners benefit as population grows between from cultivating less fertile land with diminishing returns. This pushes up rents and increases the price of corn in the towns in turn pushing up wages. As a consequence, the profits of industrialists fall as value is transferred to the landowners. The manufacturers need to boost accumulation by lowering the price of food in order to lower labor costs. Development then for Ricardo is a process of self- sustained accumulation of capital; and growth that could only be arrested by the limitations of available land. Ricardo allowed for the free import of corn and raw materials in exchange for manufactures. "Let these be supplied from abroad in exchange for manufactured goods". Ricardo did not allow for shifting productivity over time. Marx and Engels on Development Marx and Engels (ME) views on development, colonialism and economically "backward" nations is controversial and depends to a large degree on which aspect and which particular text one wants to emphasize. Great consideration must be given to the time and the mileau in which ME wrote. Given the state of knowledge of non-European societies at the time, there is any way ME couldn't have been Eurocentric and diffusionist Marx termed his work " a Critique of Political Economy." While building on the insights of Smith, Ricardo and Mill as well as many other lesser knowns, he wanted to penetrate beneath the veil of appearances to lay bare the laws of motion of capitalism, to explain the operation of the capitalist market by the real social relations which lay in the process of production (Weeks). One must interpret Marx on development while considering his ideas as part of the materialist conception of history, though there is a question whether his concept of development can be reduced to historical materialism as some writers have done (e.g. G.A. Cohen). I think it is best to see development as one aspect of historical materialism because historical materialism is a theory that seeks to explain how all modes of production shift from one mode to another whereas the theory of development is concerned only with the capitalist mode of production. Broadly, one important aspect of Marx's theory of development is about the expansion of the productive forces i.e. concerned with the expansion of productivity. Marx is with Smith in this regard though he has a much different theory. Development is about the drive for capital accumulation i.e. the need for capital to appropriate the surplus value created by labor and to realize the surplus value through the selling of commodities in the market, thus allowing the process to be continued on an ever widening scale. Marx describes capital accumulation independent of any moral evaluation of it. To increase accumulation is to extract more and more surplus value. Given capitalist constraints on prolonging the working day, capitalists must try and reduce the value of labor power by increasing the productivity of labor by means of new technology and improved methods of production. The development of the productive forces also created crisis and instability through a tendency for the profit to fall, concentration of capital and thus heightened competition between capitals. (Larrain 42.) The limitations to the growth of the productive forces is the opposition of the working class to capitals imposition of the mechanisms aimed at growth in productivity and the struggles of workers to satisfy the needs that capital itself ha created. The class relations that create surplus value become the barriers to the realization of profit and subsequently to the accumulation of capital: the crisis in exchange relations is based in the crisis of production i.e. in the relations between classes. Capitalist relations of production act as a barrier to the expansion of valorization of capital. The relations of production are the barrier to the growth of the productive forces. This where foreign trade becomes of importance as a means of accumulation without a direct confrontation with the working class. This explains the universalizing tendency of capitalist social relations. Further foreign trade helps resolve the realization problem by creating new markets elsewhere in the world. Modernization Theory The first non-Marxian theory to emerge that showed how the peripheral nations could escape the poverty and technological backwardness of their economies was called modernization theory. It was called modernization because these theorists drew a Weberian ideal type distinction between traditional and modern societies. The social cement of traditional societies was things like caste, kin and birthright while the modern societies represented by North America and Europe had opposite institutions that allowed them to grow e.g. a special unique rationality. Modernization theory had a number of different versions each drawing on psychology, sociology, economics and politics. The most well known author in the economic modernization was W.W. Rostow. His book The Stages of Growth – A Non-Communist Manifesto argues that all societies go through a series of five stages as they evolve through history; traditional society, preconditions for take off, take off, road to maturity and the age of high mass consumption. This theory is a hangover from the ‘4 stages' theory pioneered in the Scottish enlightenment by the likes of Adam Ferguson (see Meekb for more.)Rostow thought that all the American and European countries had gone through these stages and had arrived in the era of mass consumption. Peripheral nations to develop must repeat Europe's experience, they must do "as the Europeans have done." The peripheral nations were stuck in stage 1 or 2. The main barrier to advancing to the next stage was a lack of technology. For Rostow, communism is a disease that intervenes between stages 1 and 2. To prevent this disease from permeating all the peripheral nations, Rostow argued that development assistance, aid and support for modernization should be given by the core countries to the periphery to prevent communist revolutions that had already occurred in Cuba and other places. The result was The Alliance of Progress for Latin America. Rostow's theory was to act as a surrogate for actual historical processes the so-called developed and modern societies had gone through. Rostow could not take actual history seriously since this would mean having to take on Marx and Engels something not possible for political reasons. His theory is ex post facto, prescriptive and hypothetical. Modernization theories assume that underdevelopment is an original state, which must throw off the shackles of traditionalism and adopt Western values. Like Max Weber, modernizers like Rostow and Hoselitz thought underdeveloped societies were as such because of the lack of western values like achievement motivation, entrepreneurship, hard work and thrift. Development thus requires programs that will instill these values. One of the problems here is that there is no explanation of how underdeveloped societies came to be that way. Without this knowledge, it is hard to identify obstacles and potential for future development. Further, the values that allow societies to develop are specific and unique to Anglo-America and must spread to "backward" regions. No analysis is given of the historical reasons why Europe developed and the peripheral nations did not. One of the most serious shortcomings of Rostow's theory is the inability to specify how a society goes from one stage to the next. He gives no account of structural and institutional change over time. There is no reason to suppose a society will go from one stage to the next. Further, no country has ever developed by means of Rostow's stages. Modernization theory states that economic growth and development occur endogenously. This abstracts from the complex international and historical relations within which nations and geographical areas are imbedded, resulting in an impoverished explanation. To explain development, the modernizers prescribe the diffusion of Western values yet these values are of course external to the country under examination. Why then with such a poor theory, was it adopted? The answer is in realpolitik. Rostow's theory was a rationalization for U.S. foreign policy. The spread and reign of modernization theory had little to do with its intellectual power than with its close convergence with US state and corporate interests, coinciding with US imperialist interventions in the third world during the 50's and 60's. The best way to further development was through the continuation of imperialist policies since underdevelopment by definition occurs when societies resist imperialism. Modernization theory's decline came unsurprisingly, after the devastating American military-political defeat in Vietnam. Further, modernization theory acts as a theory of European superiority over non-European cultures. Economistic Approaches In the 1950's a school known as development economics arose. Its main adherents were Arthur Lewis, Simon Kuznets, Charles Kindleburger and E. Domar. These theorists were concerned almost solely with economic growth and how an underdeveloped society could foster economic growth and become less impoverished. These economists build formalistic models on how a country could grow. The main fault here is, again, a lack of historical process. The history of underdeveloped economies is the history of European expansion. Deflationary Approaches Deflationary approaches argue that the very concept of "development" is nonsensical and mistaken. The issues of most third world social movements from the 1979 Iranian revolution to the mass popular upheavals in S.Korea is not productivity growth or the growth of the productive forces but autonomy, freedom and self-government as well as exploitation and authoritarian social relations. The goal of the West in its dealings with the third world is wealth and domination not development. The focus is on financial or fictitious capital the fastest growing and most expansive sector today attracting the best university graduates. (Petras, Bernstein) The Analysis of ECLA Under the chair of the Argentinian economist, Raul Prebisch, The U.N. Economic Commission of Latin America pursued a critique of trade theory that would influence the dependency theorists. The process of development and underdevelopment was a single process, the core and periphery form part of a single world economy where disparities between the regions are reproduced through international trade and a series of asymmetrical relationships and causal processes. Prebisch's main target was the orthodox notion of comparative advantage first introduced by David Ricardo. Comparative advantage states that an economy should produce what it produces most efficiently even though it may not be the cheapest producer globally or absolutely. Prebisch put forth the argument the terms of trade of underdeveloped counties decline over time because the prices of imported manufactured goods rise relative to the raw materials exports of the importing underdeveloped countries. ECLA took into account historical factors in its core-periphery model. Colonialism. Mercantilism and the industrial revolution created a high productivity, high wage, manufacturing core and a raw materials producing periphery. ECLA concluded that if orthodox trade theory was correct, the prices of raw materials would rise faster than the manufactured goods because of demand. This was not the case as the peripheral countries were transferring value to the core countries. To rectify this situation, peripheral nations would have to increase the percentage of manufactured products in their economies through "import-substitution" i.e. replacing the manufactured imports with domestically produced goods. The state was to play a primary role erecting protectionist barriers so the whole industry would not have to face competition from the outside. Moreover, the state was to engage in industrial planning but not so as to replace business but to guide the private sector through giving incentives, disincentives, and relevant fiscal and monetary policy. The thought of ECLA came in for heavy criticism from the left and the right. The left emphasized the lack of analysis of class and capitalism as a whole. ECLA, for all its criticism of textbook theory, still remained wedded to capitalist development and the diffusion of "middle class" values from North to South. In its diffusionism, ECLA remained faithful to modernization theory. ECLA identified a number of causal factors in the transfer of value from south to north. There was a scarcity of workers in the north and a relative surplus of labor in the south. This situation kept prices of core manufactured products high while keeping the prices of products produced in the south low. Prebisch concludes that 1st world unionized labor exploits their comrades in the third world. This analysis bears some similarity to the Lenin/Trotsky idea that workers in the north are beneficiaries of imperialism as they are through organization and class struggle able to sucre a share of the spoils of imperialism. For ECLA, if there was perfect mobility of the factors of production as orthodox trade theory assumes, the surplus labor of the south would be absorbed into the labor markets of the north. Of course, this has never been the case with tight immigration laws, the costs of emigrating and social and cultural barriers to doing so. Further, northern protectionism cut world effective demand. Further, demand for industrial products grew rapidly while demand for raw materials fluctuated because of the amount of low wage low productivity countries competing to export the same items. This was because new products developed in the core were substituting for raw materials in e.g. plastics, improvements in technology made primary products decreases a proportion of total value. The right criticized ECLA for confusing the effects of recession with general historical deterioration of the terms of trade. ECLA was just criticizing the effects of a recession in the peripheral countries, using as recession as the base of normal economic activity and ignoring upswings assuming that the low points are the chronic condition of the country or region under consideration. The usual arguments against protectionism and mercantilism were reproduced too; absence of competition made industries inefficient, their products poor, expensive and catered to a small elite of the domestic population. Further the state could be captured by "rent" seeking behavior. ECLA also produced influential analysis of the hyperinflation and import-substitution prevalent in Latin America in the 60's and 70's. Their analysis of the failure of import substitution can be summed up thus; 1) persistence of foreign exchange problems 2) inability of industrialization to give benefits to other areas of the economy. 3) the limited absorption of surplus labor 4) growing inequality in income distribution 5) growing power of foreign capital over strategic industries. 6) 5) reduced autonomy. Dependency Theory There are many different dependency theories, some only bearing a superficial resemblance to one other. Andre Gunder Frank's theory is probably the best known and certainly the most commented on. Dependency theory has received short shrift among scholars and activists because its best theorists came from Latin America and a lot of their work has not been translated into English. Broadly, dependency theorists can be divided into two groups the reformists and the Marxists. Reformists would be Cardoso and Faletto, Sunkel, Furtado, Jaguaribe, Ferrer and Pinto. Marxists would be Marini, Dos Santos, Frank, Braun, Bambirra, Quijano, Torres-Rivas, Vasconi, Aguilar, Garcia, Baran and Sweezy. The Marxists might better be called neo-Marxists since they challenge the classical Marxist notion that capitalism will develop all nations as it spreads throughout the world. Marxists advocate socialist revolution to overcome dependency while reformists advocate economic nationalism and measures aimed at gaining economic self-sufficiency. Dependency theories usually contain some of the following claims: 1) The social, economic and political conditions prevalent in UDC's is not an original state of affairs but is the result of the same historical process that developed the core countries. 2) The prime causal factor in this historical process was capital seeking opportunities for profit and possibilities for capital accumulation. 3) (2) occurs where costs and risks are lowest and the return on investment is highest. A consequence of this process was surplus removal from the UDC's to the core countries where these capitalists are based. The structure of the UDC's economy becomes subordinated to the profit taking needs of core countries and is bound up with the need to accumulate capital by these core countries resulting in an external orientation of the UDC's, e.g. export of primary commodities and import of manufactures. The UDC's economy is marked by monoculture and low productivity. 4) Local initiatives to pursue autonomous development are blocked and the domestic market is small due to low incomes. 5) Social classes emerged in the UDC's who have class interests in common with the bourgeoisie of the core countries leading to alliance of these class which, amongst other things, further blocks attempts and opportunities for autonomous development in the UDC countries. 6) These processes are self-perpetuating and the structures produced by these processes are self-reproducing. 7) The differences in wealth, productivity between the core and periphery is due to asymmetries in political power. 8) These asymmetries cannot be overcome within the present capitalist system. Dependency and Marxism There have been many criticisms made of dependency theories ranging from Popperesque non-testability/falsifiability to detailed empirical criticisms. The strongest criticisms of dependency theory have been made by Marxists. Dependancy theory was on the receiving end of some harsh criticisms that I will let speak for themselves; "dependance is an eclectic combination of orthodox economic theory and revolutionary phraseology" (Kay), "dependancy theory can neither claim empirical verification nor theoretical validity."(Weeks), ....(KAY 174) 1) Dependency theory is full of circular reasoning. Consider Frank's thesis that UDC's experience the most development the weaker their ties are to the core countries. However, development is defined as self-sustaining industrial growth so UDC's without self-sustaining industrial growth remain or become underdeveloped. Underdevelopment and development are defined as symmetrical opposites such that circularities are produced because the explanation is contained in the definition of the terms. (Larrain) 2) Dependency shares assumption and hence faults of modernization theory. Both theories provide ideal types and consider the relation of the UDC's to it. Modernization argues that the UDC's will develop by repeating the historical process of the core countries and dependency insists on the impossibility of such a process. (Leys) 3) Dependency theory has explained out of existence and importance class struggle in the core countries. 4) Dependency theorists do not properly theorize capitalism. Capitalism is seen as a system of market exchange, commodity production and profit none of which are unique to capitalism rather than through the social relations of production. (Alavi) 5) Dependency theory is static, mechanical and economistic. Static because dependency is taken as a given rather than considering the possibility that it might be declining. Mechanical because dependency is produced because of logic and mechanisms making it seem that dependency is inevitable. Economistic because the structures of underdeveloped societies are seen to always be the result of economic processes. Class struggle, the state, culture, politics and ideology are always the result of economic processes.(Leys) 6) Dependency underestimates the possibility of capitalist development in the UDC's represented by Taiwan and S.Korea which represent types of capitalist development.(Amsden) 7) Dependency theorists make the case for socialism by showing that capitalist development is impossible in the UDC's. However as capitalism development creates improvements, the case for socialism disappears. Socialism becomes less a movement of the working class and more a movement for national modernization. The solution to the problems of the third world is autarky and not socialism. 8) Dependency theorists make a fetish out of national development that is no longer possible due to globalization. Achieving development will require a forfeit of sovereignty. 9) Dependency theory is marred by a lack of empirical evidence. The hypotheses of the theory may be explained by unique national and local factors. 10) Dependency theorists practice functional and teleological explanation. That the core countries benefit from the current socio-economic structures explain the origin and persistence of these structures.(Booth) 11) Related to 9) dependency theory is false because industrialization and development is taking place in the third world albeit unevenly.(Warren) 12) the notion of underdevelopment is an impossibility since capitalist nations from the outset have all been interdependent.(Bernstein) Dependency theory fell from its position of intellectual hegemony with the end of the Vietnam War and the decline of public opposition to imperialism and a turning inward to national, economic and professional interests among intellectuals. The emergence of high growth third world countries that were immersed in the world market diminished the attraction of dependency although I think these countries confirmed some of the claims of the dependentistas. Anti-third world rhetoric emanating from the imperialist core and "blaming the victim arguments." The emergence of OPEC as a power bloc gave the image of a third world in control of its destiny. Let's start with objection 6). Amsden argues that the experience of S.Korea and Taiwan falsifies both dependency theory and neoclassical economics and has forced a reworking of the concept of imperialism. According to ‘stagnationist'dependency theory, capitalist development is not supposed to take place in the peripheral nations. At the same time neoclassical economics states that growth and development will not take place unless nations follow the orthodox prescriptions of "getting the prices right" and submitting to the will of international capital markets. However, as Amsden convincingly shows, S.Korea and Taiwan did grow and develop through a type of capitalism and did so by violating many if not all of the prescriptions of neoclassical economics. As Amsden argues, S.Korea exerted strong central control over its economy. S.Korea deliberately got the prices wrong i.e. did not allow international market forces of supply and demand to set prices for key resources, foreign exchange and capital. Starting with dictator Park Chung Hee is 1961, S.Korea nationalized all the banks giving the state control over domestic interest rates, the allocation of foreign loans– targeting them to specific industries and firms. Foreign lenders required government guarantees of repayment in case of default thus giving the Korean state power to determine which firms could borrow from abroad. (Amsden p26). Because the inflation rate exceeded that of currency depreciation, real interest rates on long-term loans was negative through the 70's and 80's. As Amsden summarizes: "In all late industrializing countries Japan, Korea and Taiwan included not only have governments failed to get relative prices right, they have deliberately got them wrong in order to stimulate investment and trade. They have subsidized the price of capital and exports. The faster growth of E.Asian countries is attributable less to freer markets than to the institutions that have allowed subsidies to be allocated more effectively elsewhere. Consequently, any analysis of disparate growth rates among late industrializing countries requires an institutional approach" Amsden S.Korean and Taiwan grew and developed along classic protectionist/mercantilist lines. We can see this if we compare what the Mercantilists (and their followers like Friedrich List) said with how their ideas worked in Asia in practice. "Every Government ought to be thoroughly acquainted with, and steadfastly pursue the Interest of the country. Good Politicians by dextrous Management, laying heavy impositions on some Goods, or totally prohibiting them, and lowering the Duties on others, may always turn and divert the Course of Trade which way they please...But above all, they'll keep a watchful Eye over the Balance of Trade in general and never suffer that all the Foreign Commodities together, that are imported in one Year, shall exceed in value what of their own Growth or Manufactures is in the same exported to others. Note that I speak now of the Interest of those Nations that have no Gold or Silver of their own Growth." Mandeville, p115,1714 "That caeteris paribus, the rich industrious country would always undersell the poor one ; and by that means attract the trade of all poorer countries to itself;-- but it is equally true that if either of these poor countries hath any peculiar produce of its own, it may prohibit its exportation till it be wrought up in complete manufacture. It is true likewise, that all of them have it their power to load manufactures of the rich country from entering their territories, with such high duties as shall turn the scale in favour of their own manufactures ...Thus it is, in my poor apprehension, that the rich may be prevented from swallowing the poor." Tucker 1758 "Infant trade, taken in a general acceptation, may be understood to be that species, which has for its object the supplying the necessities of the inhabitants of the country; because it is commonly antecendent to supplying the wants of strangers. A considerable time must of necessity be required to bring a people to a dexterity in manufactures. The branches of these are many;... People do not perceive this inconveniency, in countries where they are already introduced; and many a projector has been ruined for want of attention to it." Steuart. "Do as you see others do before you. This is an advantage which an established industry has over another newly set on foot; and this I apprehend to be the reason why we see certain manufactures, after remaining long in a state of infancy, make in a few years a most astonishing progress." Steuart. [Hudson p80] Falling Dominoes S.Korea went from a candidate member of the OECD to a recipient of the largest bailout in the history of the multilateral institutions. How and why did this happen? I think a solid argument can be made that the high rates of growth in Japan, Korea and Taiwan are confirmations rather than falsifications of certain aspects of dependency theory. The cases of these three countries is closer to what Cardoso and Faletto called "associated dependant development." C/F make the point that construction of generic models does no justice to the explanation of developing economies. Each country must be considered separately due to the unique historical situation in which each country developed or maldeveloped. During the E. Asia crisis the countries collapsed for different reasons. There was also a tendency for economists to construct a regional mode l of "late industrialization" which reified these countries economic structures (Hart-Landsberg). The E.Asian economies were dependant, on the OECD countries, on the flows of money, technology, military assistance and legitimating ideologies. The importance of external financial assistance in staving off catastrophe reveals this dependency. However, at the same time each country was autonomous in the sense that its national base of social and political power was such that the state could regulate consumption, trade patterns and discipline labor and capital. This type of dependance is different from classical dependancy theory in that national structures are not wholly determined by their external relations with core countries. The class relations internal to each country is the result of historic class struggle and external relations where the United States wanted Korean and Taiwan to be showcases for capitalism in the face of the challenge from socialist China, Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam. (Bernard p183) E.Asia was able to foster the greatest growth rates in capitalist history resulting in a reduction in the levels of absolute poverty and was able to industrialize the fastest with the possible exception of Stalinist USSR. The collapse of the E.Asian model was a result of the contradiction between the forms of dependance and the autonomous development of the state. One of the problems was the low cost financing of the conglomerates (Chaebol) resulting in massive debt/equity rations. Because of the status of the Chaebol as massive pillars of the economy and industrialization made the state ensure that the Chaebol did not go bankrupt. Thus the state had to finance their debt. Further, the Chaebol were built on the principle of building capacity rather than profitability. Dependency Theory Summed Up Dependency theory was the first set of ideas to come out of the third world, explaining why in fact in there is a first and third world. While no definitive version of dependancy theory exists, these theorists made enormous contributions to understanding the world. Dependancy stimulated a wealth of empirical and theoretical research on the third world and in particular its relations to the world economy and the core nations. Many of the strengths and weaknesses of dependancy theory arise from its scope and ambition in trying to create a new paradigm that was historical, interdisciplinary and total. Dependancy demolished modernization theory and the theory of classical imperialism which claimed that capitalism would develop all societies as it diffused out of Europe. The key strength of the dependentistas was insisting that the dynamics of third world countries must be examined in relation to the dynamics of the core, imperialist countries. Internal and External relations are seen as a dialectical unity. Since 1492, core and periphery have become increasingly interrelated in a complex social, cultural, economic and political totality. Dependancy analysis showed how the so-called advanced or modern can reproduce the poverty and low productivity of the peripheral regions and how modern capitalism can create new forms of backwardness. A new form (well not new but of increasing importance since the early 80's debt crisis) has been debt dependance and the dependance of the periphery on incoming flows of transnational flow of money and investment.(Surin)Some country facing withdrawals of foreign portfolio capital will face pressure on its exchange rates and its balance of payments. Moreover, such pressure causes instability such that the country will have problems with macroeconomic management; runs on the currency, interest rate hikes, foreign reserve squeeze. This instability make sit difficult for the UDC to pursue an independent fiscal and monetary policy necessary to help raise standards of education, health and social welfare which in turn are important in raising productivity. Dependance on cash flow from abroad has resulted in the inability of UDC's to maintain a high level of real domestic investment. All foreign exchange earnings must go to paying off the debt. The debt is denominated in US dollars so is not subject to ebbs and flows of the business cycle i.e debt service is price inelastic it is not responsive to changes in price and income levels. Debt service has become a structural fact of life that can only be ameliorated through rescheduling or cancellation. The former is a highly political process involving the IMF and the US treasury. The latter involves total exclusion from the world economy such as was imposed in Cuba after 1962 and the USSR after 1917. Debtor nations must, therefore, capitulate to the policies of creditor-industrial governments. Michael Hudson puts it thus: "This means that they must export raw materials demanded by the creditor nations. They must curtail their rates of population growth to minimize consumption of their own resources. They must submit to monetraist austerity blocking new investment in social infrastructure and domestic industries to work up their own raw materials into finished whose loans dovetail into these government programs." p307 As we have seen in the discussion of Asia, these creditor nation/IMF policies directly contravene what has been learned through economic history in developed countries and the ex-Asian tigers. Development theory should take as its starting point the polarization of the core and peripheral countries where peripheral countries have failed to achieve parity with the core countries. The theory must be historical to show how current uneven resource endowments have come to be that way rather than taking, as orthodox economics does, resource endowments as given. The leading elements of international cost structure and trade patterns have long historical and political roots. Yesterday's poorer countries like Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan ameliorated their conditions by doing what the U.S. and U.K., have done– take control of their own destiny and shape their market relations to promote greater self-reliance and upgrade the quality of their land, labor and capital. However, the crisis in E.Asia may signify the end of state led development and structural development theory. The core countries have been able to reinforce their position by establishing positive feedback mechanisms starting with high wage industrialization and further ennobled by the broad array of international diplomacy and aid programs. The aid programs have acted as a board of directors of the industrial creditor countries subsidizing world economic polarization and obsolescence.(Hudson 430) The dependentistas have been criticized for their overdue attention to problems of unequal exchange and deteriorating terms of trade which detracts from the central issue of development and underdevelopment; the class struggle within society.. Unequal exchange occurs when core countries transfers part of the economic surplus from the periphery.. No doubt this does occur and hampers the periphery's ability to accumulate capital but the ability of a country to generate and retain its surplus is a product or function of the internal mode of production and the internal state of the class struggle. Unequal exchange sets the exploitation between nation states where exploitation is a class phenomenon. The external relations of a state are in part a function of the internal class relations embedded in the world economy. A country's relations with the world economy are a product of the class struggle within that particular country. Neo-Liberalism The third world debt crisis of the early 1980's signaled the end of import-substitution industrialization and its intellectual backing of structuralist development theory. In its place rose the neo-liberal model, a combination of laissez faire with monetarism. The ascendancy and eventual hegemony of neo-liberalism also came in a series of historic defeats for the left world wide. The death of Mao and the move towards markets and integration into the world economy in China and Vietnam, the overthrow of the USSR and its client states. The defeat of the guerrilla movements in Latin America, the isolation of Cuba and the FSLN government in Nicaragua. The continuing collapse and move rightward of nationalist governments in Africa like Mozambique, Kenya, Angola and the rightward march and stubborn refusal of the South African national liberation forces–the ANC and SACP–to pursue an alternative to neo-liberalism. The ascendancy of neo-liberal capitalism worldwide is the product of a class struggle in specific historical locations. Intense politico-military and ideological struggles created the political and economic basis of the triumph and supremacy of global capitalism. The triumph of the free market is the product of state violence in the third world and state sponsored decimation of the working class struggle in the core countries. The decline of the left was the result of defeats in crisis situations. I think the military coup in Chile in 1973 was pivotal. The lessons drawn by the left in the face of the coup were different in Latin America and Europe. Latin American revolutionaries drew the conclusion that a peaceful transition to socialism was impossible and could only be won through military struggle. In Europe, particularly in Italy and France where Communist Parties were the strongest, the lesson was the no elected government could afford to antagonize the domestic capitalist class making class colaborationism and the search for market solutions the dominant paradigm(Eurocommunism). In both instances, the result was the same: revolutionary defeat. But, I would add, not after heroic struggles against incredible odds in Latin America and Asia. The triumph of capitalism is again through, polarization, stagnation, creating the conditions for a return to revolutionary marxism and communism as people realize that no reform of capitalism is possible without a systemic rupture in capitalism's logic. Appendix:Globalization "Globalization" is a term that has in come into being since the end of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc communist nations in the early 1990's. The term has had a meteoric rise with the growth of the economic and (hence)political power of international business. Related is the end of nation-based Keynesianism– social democratic policies of regulating the economy and the functioning of an effective welfare state such that everyone in society can claim some benefit in national productivity increases. Globalization is the shift towards monetarism and laissez faire economic and political philosophy among the ruling classes – once considered crank philosophies. Together with these shifts has been a massive one-sided class struggle waged against the working classes of the world. Partisans explain these shifts not by the victorious right wing in the national class struggles but by the growth of international business and transnational corporations and the integration of global markets. The power of international business has undermined the effectiveness of the nation state in its ability to regulate capital and foreign exchange markets as well as the economy as a whole. With the growth of international business scope has come the transnationalization of production and productive systems leading to a transnational ruling class. This transnationalization,as it were, of production has led to geographical dispersion of capital accumulation to different parts of the world. Capital has moved from internationlization to being transnational such that capital has no national base and thus cannot be fought on an national base. A corollary of transnationalization is growth in foreign direct investment both productive and portfolio in many geographically diverse areas. The transnationalization of capital has given the global ruling class more power over labor. Capital is free to roam the globe searching for the cheapest labor and sunk costs, playing national labor forces off against one another leading to falling wages a global "race to the bottom." The core=periphery distinction has lost importance with the transnationlization off production where both core and peripheral working classes must compete for international business. The ruling classes who control the states in the peripheral countries now have interests in common with the ruling classes of the core countries such that ruling classes can co-operate in ruling the world. The interests of the ruling classes in the third world lie in integrating into the world economy. Any attempt at reversing globalization is met with the cry "there is no alternative." Of course there is an alternative in capitalism's dialectical opposite – socialism -- but it is an alternative that will require a lot of education, organizing, dedication and sacrifice. Noone has ever thought otherwise. Globalization has spawned some fruitful though at times repetitive debates among left intellectuals and activists. The Monthly Review and its regular contributors like Ellen Meiksins Wood, Doug Henwood, David Mcnally,Harry Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, William Tabb, Michael Lowy, Aijaz Ahmad, Leo Panitch, James Petras and others have taken opposition to this defeatist form of globalisation. I will briefly summarize some of their main points below and add a few observations of my own. 1) Capitalism has always been, more or less, a global and integrated system. 2) The globalizers limpid response of "there is no alternative" is an admission of failure and shows a crude dichotomy between Soviet style communism and global capitalism. 3) Globalized capitalism has little and fragile support from a minority whose interests lie in global economic integration. Such little support hardly warrants the triumphalist rhetoric of the globalizers. 4) Advocates of globalization show a lack of class and historical analysis in the shaping of market relations. 5) Global capitalism has arisen because of various state's ability to neutralize political opposition often through brutal violence as well as more subtle forms of co-optation and indocrination. 6) Globalization is essentially a continuation of the past based on the deepening and extension of exploitive class relations into previously outside capitalist relations. 7) The asymmetric relations of the global market ensure that a minority of vountries benefit from trade and investment with a majority of countries. 8) Investment goes to a select few countries. 9) Globalization is simply just the ideological and cultural hegemony of capitalist ideas and culture. Bibliography. Albo, Gregory "A World of Opportunity" in Socialist Register 1997 Amsden,Alice *Asia's Next Giant*, Oxford 1989 Amsden, Alice "Imperialism" in the New Palgrave Marxian Economics ed.Milgate and Eatwell Amsden,Alice, "Global Fordism or Dependancy" in New Left Review 217. Amin.Samir *Eurocentrism*, MR Press Amin Samir, *Maldevelopment* Zed Books,1988. Amin Samir, *Re-reading the Postwar Period* MR Press 1994 Amin, Samir, *Empire of Chaos*MR Press 1993 Alavi&Shanin eds. *Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies.* MR Press 1984 Baran,Paul *The Political Economy of Growth*,MR Press 1957 Caroso, F.H.& Faletto,Enzo *Dependency and Development in Latin America* Berkeley 1979 Cardoso,F.H. "Dependency and Development in Latin America" New Left Review 74 Bernstein, Henry "Sociology of Underdevelopment or Underdevelopment of Sociology?" in Alavi and Shanin eds. Bulmer-Thomas,Victor, *The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence.* Cambridge 1994 Blaut,Jim "Evaluating Imperialism" Louis Proyect Webpage Blaut,Jim "Robert Brenner in the Tunnel of Time" Ibid Blaut,Jim "Euro-Marxism" Ibid Blaut,Jim, "A Null Hypothesis" Ibid Brenner,Robert "A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism" in Alavi&Shanin eds. Burkett,Paul&Hart-Landsberg Martin, "East Asia and The Crisis of Development Theory", J of Contemporary Asia v28#4 Burkett, Paul&Hart-Landsberg Martin "Alternative Perspectives on Late Industrialization" Economic Geography forthcoming Hart-Landsberg,Martin *The Rush to Development*, MR Press,1993 Hart-Landsberg,Martin "The Asian Crisis,Causes and Consequences" Against the Current,73 Hart-Landsberg,Martin "The Use and Abuse of Japan" Socialist Register 1994 Hay,Rod Website Kay, Cristobal *Latin American Theories of Development* Routledge,1995 Kagarlitsky,Boris *The Mirage of Modernization* MR Press 1994 Larrain,Jorge *Theories of Development* Polity 1992 Lowy,Michael *Theories of Combined and Uneven Development* Verso 1978 Hudson,Michael, *Trade,Development and Foreign Debt.* 2vols. Pluto 1991 Meek, Ron, *Studies in the Labor Theory of Value*. Harvester Wheatsheaf 1975 Meek,Ron,ed. *The Economics of Physiocracy* Meek,Ron ed. *Pre-Smithian Political Economy* Meekb, Ron *Social Science and the Ignoble Savage* Berboglu,Berch *The Internationalization of Capital* SUNY 1990 Berboglu, Berch *Theories of Underdevelopment* SUNY 1993 Arrighi,Giovanni. *The Long Twentieth Century.* Verso 1994 Evans,Peter *Dependent Development.* Princeton 1989 Wade,Robert *Governing the Market* Princeton 1990 Wade,R.&Veneroso,F. *The Asian Crisis and the IMF Wall Street Complex* New Left Review 223 Wade&Veneroso. *The Battle Over Capital Controls* New Left Review 231 Weeks,John *The Law of Value and Underdevelopment*, Historical Materialism 2 Panitch,Leo *Globalisation and the State* Socialist Register 1994. Lebowitz,Michael "The General and Specific in Marx's Crisis Theory" Studies in Political Economy 1991 Lebowitz,Michael "Analytic Marxism and Marx's Crisis Theory" Cambridge Journal of Economics May,91 Radice,Hugo "Taking Globalization Seriously" Socialist Register 1999 Bernard,Mitchell "East Asia's Falling Dominoes" Socialist Register 1999 Wood, E.M. *The Origins of Capitalism* MR Press 1999 Burbach,R.&Robinson,W.I. Tabb, William "The East Asian Crisis" Monthly Review Tabb, William "Globalization is an Issue, The Power of Capital is The Issue" Monthly Review Smith Adam *The Wealth of Nations* 2vols Liberty Press Marx,Karl *Capital Vol.1* Vintage Marx,Karl *Capital Vol3* Vintage Marx,Karl *Theories of Surplus Value Vol 1* International Press Magdoff, Harry *Globalization To What End*, Monthly Review Pamphlet Magdoff, Harry *Imperialism* MR Press 1978 Robinson, Joan *Aspects of Development* Cambridge 1976 Bagchi,Amit *The Political Economy of Development* Cambridge 1984 Furtado,Celso *Underdevelopment in Latin America* Cambridge 1967 Frank, Gunder Andre *World Accumulation 1492-1789* MR Press 1978 Surin Kenneth "A Re-Examination of Dependency" Cultural Logic website Bello,Walden *Dragons in Distress* Food First 1992 Leys,Colin *The Rise and Fall of Development Theory*, Rostow, W.W. *The Stages of Economic Growth* Cambridge,1985 Schumpeter,J.M.*History of Economic Analysis* Viner,Jacob *Studies in International Trade*,1934 The New Palgrave *Invisible Hand* Petras,James "Globalization:A Critical Analysis" J of Contemporary Asia, 1999 Petras,James "Cultural Imperialism" J of Contemporary Asia Vol 27 no 5 Petras,James"Contradictions of Market Socialism in China" Parts I&II J of Contemporary Asia vol 8 no.1,2 Petras,James, Morley,Morris *US Hegemony Under Siege* Verso 1991 Targ, Harry ed. *Marxism Today* SUNY 1996 Ricardo,David *The Principle of Political Economy and Taxation* J.M Dent 1955 Prebisch,Raul *The Economic Development Of Latin America and Its Principal Problems*. U.N. 1950 Prebisch,Raul *Towards a Dynamic Developmental Policy for Latin America* UN 1963 Kitching,Gavin *Development and Underdevelopment in Histroical Perspective* Methuen 1988 Warren,Bill *Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism* New Left Books 1981 Clairmonte, Frederick *The Rise of Neo-Liberalism* Other India 1995 Dobb,M *Studies in the Development of Capitalism*, International Pubs. 1969