Neo-Marxist Theories of Underdevelopment and Dependency

Neo-Marxism
theories of underdevelopment and development appeared during the 1950s, partly
as a reaction against the growth and modernization theories, partly as the
outcome of a long-standing debate concerning the impact of imperialism. The
early Neo-Marxist theories were primary known as dependency theories., They
were to a large extent influenced by the Latin American structuralists and
their analyses of the trade relations between the economically backward
countries and the highly industrialised countries.

With
respect to the theoretical heritage from the debate on imperiali5rn, it may be
of interest to note that Marx had concerned himself with this issue as early as
the 1850s. In articles in publications such as the New York Tribute, Marx tried
to assess what would be the long-term impact on the European colonization of
South Asia. In this context, he arrived at the including local small-scale
manufacturing, and set in motion a significant exploitation of the colonial
areas; but on the other hand, he believed that the European penetration would
at the same time remove basic obstacles to British intervention as directly
promoting economic transformation. This applied especially to the building and
expansion of material infrastructure, the introduction of the plantation
economy monetization of commodity exchange, and the initial establishment of
modern industry with its commutant wage labour (cf. Marx and Engels, 1972).

In
other words, British rule implied destruction and exploitation in the
short-term perspective, but construction and creation and creation of essential
material preconditions for the colonial areas’ later transformation to
capitalism – and thus, according to Marx, genuine societal development. It may
be added that. Mar later toned down the constructive aspects of British rule in
South Asia. He further asserted that the British colonization of Ireland had
only destructive effects.

<

p style=”line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;”>The
interesting point in the present context is to note the wide span in Marx’s own
conceptions, because this span has paved the way for very different
interpretations within the Marxist research tradition. One of the theorists who
has championed the view that imperialism has promoted development in the Third
World is Bill Warreo. We shall look at his main argument later in this chapter.
But first we shall deal with the Neo-Marxist mainstream and focus on some of
the several theorists who have vehemently rejected this interpretation and
instead asserted that imperialism has actively underdeveloped the peripheral
societies — or a very least obstructed their development.

These theories — most
of whom may be regarded as proponents of dependency theory in one form or
another — have further claimed that not only imperialism and colonialism of the
past, but also contemporary forms of economic imperialism have impeded progress
throughout the Third World. They argue that economic domination, as exerted by
the high industrialised countries, is a much more important development
—impeding factor than all the internal conditions in the backward countries
that feature so prominently in the growth and modernization theories.