Dependence Development: Cordoso, Senghass and Menzel

 Dependent development is an area of dependency theory which is  mainly concerned with the efforts made to export primary resources from countries which are resource-rich but industry-poor. In this articles, we shall look at selected theories
that emerged within the Neo-Marxist tradition. But before that it may be useful
briefly to refer to the empirical background to the criticism raised against
the original mainstream theories within both traditions.

First,
it should be mentioned that the cumulated knowledge about the economic
situation in the less developed countries had uncovered such a complex and
multifaceted picture that it had become increasingly difficult to use the
somewhat simplified conceptual framework and analytical models. In particular,
it had proved impossible to conceive of the Third World as a large group of
countries with uniform economic structures, development conditions and
potentials. This applied where these countries were described as
underdeveloped, as dual economies, as satellites, or as peripheral societies.

Next,
it should be stressed that actual changes in the less developed countries in
general implied greater and greater differentiation — accentuation of existing,
and emergence of new, differences between the developing countries. To
illustrate, they reacted and had to react in very dissimilar ways so the
so-called oil crisis in 1973 and 1979, just as they reacted very differently to
the continued stagnation in the world economy at the beginning of the 1980s.
Because of this process of differentiation, it became increasingly inadequate
to treat the Third World as a homogenous group of countries.

One
of the few common traits that persisted was that economic progress almost
everywhere remained limited to small geographic enclaves, to certain narrowly
limited sectors, and so small prosperous social groups. The phenomenon has been
characterized as `Singaporisation’ — after the city state of Singapore, which,
although surrounded by backward and poor areas, experienced unusual economic
progress as early as the 1960s and 1970s. However, even a common feature like
‘Singaporisation’ created problems for the classical theories, because it
signified general tendencies very

different
from those envisaged in the theories. ‘Singaporisation’ corresponded poorly
with the expectations of the modernization theories. It was contrary to these
theories that development and modernization could be encapsulated and distorted
to such a degree. Neither did this fit with the experiences garnered from the
industrialised countries.

At
the same time, the classical dependency theories were unable to explain the
extensive industrial development which in fact occurred in many Third world countries.
They faced particular problems when trying to understand and explain why, in
countries like South Korea and Taiwan, even relatively close links had been
forged between agriculture industry, and between the various industrial
sectors. This was in direct contradiction to the main thesis on the obstructing
and blocking impact on close association with the world market and the rich
countries: South Korea and Taiwan were among those countries most closely liked
to the global capitalist structures and the centres of accumulation in the
highly industrial countries.

These
and many other factors prompted many development researchers and people who
were actively engaged in development work to start looking seriously for other
theories and strategies. The relatively closed theories, which at the same time
treated the developing countries as a homogenous group had had their day. In
their place appeared a number of more open theories which also, in a systematic
manner, took into account the differences between the many countries of the
Third World. Many of these theories focused on specific aspects of reality,
special development problems, and selected factors. One example could be
proposition regarding the role of transnational companies in Latin American countries;
another could be natural resource management in Western Africa and its impact
upon economic performance.

The
new wave of theories appeared partly as a criticism of the classical dependency
theories; others took their point of departure in the modernization theories,
but elaborated these considerably further, several of the new theories had
little or more intellectual relationship or affinity with either or these two
earlier schools of thought.

The
Brazilian social scientist, F.H. Cardoso, was one of those who took his
starting point in the original Latin American dependency theories (Cardoso and
Faletto, 1979). However, he rejected the notion that peripheral countries could
be treated as one group of dependence economies. In addition, he rebutted the idea
that the world market and other external factors should be seen as more
important than intra-societal conditions and forces, as some of these theories
had asserted. Cardoso claimed instead that the external factors would have very
different impacts, depending on the dissimilar internal conditions.

So
decisive were the internal conditions, according to-Cardoso, that he would not
rule out the possibility of extensive capitalist development in some dependent
economies. Indeed, he did observe, in his own thorough analyses of Brazil that
significant capitalist growth had occurred, though without creating auto
centric reproduction and followed by marginalization of large segments of the
population. When Cardoso referred to internal conditions, attention was drawn
not only to economic structures but also to the social classes, t4ie
distribution of power in the society, and the role of the state. His analyses
thus reflected systematic’ attempts at combining economics and political
science.

In
contrast to Frank Cardoso regarded the national bourgeoisies of the dependence
societies as potentially powerful and capable of shaping development. These
classes could be so weak that they functioned merely as an extended arm of
imperialism. But the national business community and its leaders, under other
circumstances — as in the case of Brazil — act so autonornou0/ and effectively
that national, long-term interests were taken into account and embodied in the
strategies pursued by the state.

The
kind of development and societal transformation that could be brought about in
even the most successful peripheral societies did not col respond to the
development pattern in the centre countries. The result was not auto centric
reproduction, but rather development in dependency (as opposed to Frank’s
development of dependency). Or as Cardoso himself characterized it: dependent,
associated development — that is development dependent on, and linked to, the
world market and the centre economies.

In
the further characterization of dependent development, Cardoso used, to a large
extent concepts and formulations that resembled those of Amin. He thus
emphasized the unbalanced and distorted production structure with its greatly
over-enlarged sector manufacturing luxury goods exclusively for the benefit of
the bourgeoisie and the middle class. Moreover, he high=lighted the absence of
a sector that produced capital goods and the resulting dependency on machinery
and equipment imports from the centre countries. But in contrast to Amin, Cardoso
was very careful about generating. He would rather talk specifically about
Brazil than about the peripheral countries in general.

In
a similar way, Cardoso was reluctant to recommend general strategies, for a
large number of dependent countries. Regarding Brazil, he pointed to a
democratic form of regime as the most important precondition for turning
societal development in a direction which would benefit the great majority of
the people. Socialism was not on the agenda, and introducing it was in any case
not as unproblematic as claimed by Frank and Amin.

Parallel
to Cardoso’s efforts to adjust the classical dependency theories to the more!
complex reality of Brazil, a number of German development researchers, under
the leadership of Dieter Senghass and Ulrich Menzel, carried out a series of
extensive historical studies of both centre and peripheral societies. The
result was systematic and elaborate differentiation within both categories of
counties (Senghass, 1935; Mjoset, 1993). Their point was that when the centre
countries were subjected to closer investigation, it turned out that they too,
like the peripheral societies, revealed very different individualized
structures and patterns of transformation. There were great differences for
instance, between the Nordic and France or Germany.

Based
on their historical studies Senghass and Menzel arrived at dissolution of the
dichotomy between centre and periphery. In its place they put a number of
patterns of integration into the world economy and the resulting development
trajectories. In addition, they reached the conclusion that the international
conditions by themselves could not explain why a given society managed, or did
not manage, so break out of the dependency trap. Far more important were the
internal socio-economic conditions and political institutions in determining
whether the economy in a given country could be transformed from a dependent
export economy to an auto centric, nationally integrated economy.

From
a number of country studies Senghass and Menzel extracted a list of conditions
which, in Europe at least, could explain the occurrence or auto centric
development. The important socio-economic variables included a
relatively egalitarian distribution of land and incomes; a high level of
literacy; and economic policies and institutions that supported
industrialization and industrial interests. The political variables included
extensive mobilization of farmers and workers; effective democratization to
weaken the old elites; and partnership between the bureaucracy, industrial
interests and the new social movements.

Senghass and Menzel,
when they initiated their ambitious research programme, essentially wanted to
find out how much could be learned from the over a century and a half of
European experiences that would be of relevance to understanding the basic
preconditions for the transformation of dependent, peripheral economies into
auto centric economies. There is little doubt that they have produced highly
adequate documentation concerning he intra societal conditions, but here is
also little doubt that their approach can be further enriched by more
systematically taking into consideration the basic changes in the world
capitalist system which have impacted heavily upon contemporary centre —
periphery relationships.