Development and Underdevelopment in the Third World ...

[Pages:234]DEVELOP}1ENT A.~1) UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN THE

THIRD wORLD: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN THE

THIRD WORLD: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

By EDHARD ALLAi'l' REECE, B. A.

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

McMaster University August'1983

Dedicated to my parents Thomas and Shirley Reece

ii

MASTER OF ARTS (1983) (Political Science)

Md1ASTER UNIVERS ITY Hamilton, Ontario

TITLE:

Development and Underdevelopment in the Third World: Theoretical Approaches

AUTHOR:

Edward Allan Reece, B.A. (McHaster University)

SUPERVISOR:

Professor Marshall Goldstein

NUMBER OF PAGES: 220, viii

iii

ABSTRACT

The aim of this thesis is to show that dependency theory, put forward by its proponents as a theoretical framework adequate to the problem of examining the dynamic of the process of development in the countries of the third world, while an advance on bourgeois formulations that preceeded it, remains problematical on the most fundamental of levels.

The thesis argues, in fact, that dependency theory must be rejected as an analytical framework for the reason that it locates the crucial determinant of uneven levels of development in the realms of circulation and of exchange, and not at the level of production.

It is my submission that dependency theory has been superceeded with the development of a perspective that has come to be known as the modes of production approach. Unlike dependency, the modes of production approach situates the problem of uneven development at the level of pI"oduction, and not in the realm of circulation.

The modes of production approach, the thesis argues, which theorizes the questions of deveiopment and underdevelopment, not in terms of the 'development of underdevelopment', a la dependency, but rather in terms of the articulation of the capitalist mode of production r,;rith non-, and primitive capitalist modes of production, thus remains an adequate theoretical perspective with which to address the question of the uneven levels of development which prevail on a "lQrld scale.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It remains my pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of many people to the successful completion of this work. First and foremost, I must thank my supervisor, Dr. Marshall Goldstein, for his continued insistence on the necessity of using an analysis that is at once historical, materialist and dialectical. I remain, therefore, his disciple, and am proud to be so.

I would like tc thank, as well, Dr. William Coleman and Dr. Carl Cuneo for their willingness to serve on my supervisory committee. I am especially indebted to Dr. Coleman, whose constructive criticisms of my original thesis proposal, and whose comments throughout the writing of the thesis were crucial in helping to shape the thesis in its final for~. Dr. Cuneo's timely intervention was especially appreciated. His insistence on attending my thesis defence while suffering through the agony of a slipped disc serves to amply illustrate his enduring commitment to scholarship.

Also deserving oT special mention are my colleagues in the Department of Political Sci.ence: Geoffrey Bourne, Stephen Dankowich, Tadeuz Kawecki, Gilbert Khadiagala and Antonio Vaccaro. As former inhabitants and freq;jent~rs of the 'red room!, they can, I am sure, recognize many of their own concerns and perhaps some of their own insights, as well, within the body of this thesis.

I T,vould also like to thank Joanna Sargent for her consistent support and encouragement, at many different levels, throughout the writing of this thesis. Without her, this thesis would not have been written.

Finally, I must thank Lori Hill, who typed this thesis.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . ? ?

iv

ACKNOHLEDGEMENTS

v

CHAPTER 1: DEPENDENCY THEORY

1

T. INTRODUCTION

2

i. Object of the Thesis

2

II. DEPEI\'DENCY THEORY

4

/

i. Paul Baran: The Political Economy of Growth

7

ii. Andre Gunder Frank: The Development of Under-

development . ? . . . . . . . . . . ? ? . . . .

1 -,

L.L

iii. Theotonio Dos Santos and Fernando Henrique Cardoso: Dependent Capitalist Development

. . . . 17

iv. Classes, or Nations? ?...

24

III. FEUDALISM, CAP ITALIS}1, AND HODES OF PRODUCTION IN

L\TIN AMERICA: LACLAU'S CRITIQUE.

29

I

IV. DEPENDENCY: THE PROBLEMA.TIC

i. The Ideological Content of Dependency Theory ii. Current Defences . . . . . .

iii. Some Tentative Conclusions

3"j

. . . .

40

42

49

CH.\PTER 2: THE THESIS OF UNEQUAL EXCHPu~GE

68

I. INTRODUCTION . ? . . . . . ?

69

II. ARGHIRI E}!}f-P..NUEL: THE CRISIS OF UNEQUAL EXCHANGE .

70

i. Again: Classes or Nations? . . . ? . . ? . ?

-"I~

ii. Methodological Questions and Assumptions .

74

III. IMY~\NUEL WALLERSTEIN Ah~ 1.JORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

80

IV. SANIR AMIN: ACCmnJLATION ON A t,;rORLD SCALE

87

...... Amin's Larger Problematic

. . . . . . . . . .

39

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . .

95

. CHArTER

~ -oJ.

THE ARTICULATION OF MODES OF PRODUCTION

103

.. 1. INTRODUCTIGN . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

i. The Articulation of Modes of Production:Roots

in Althusser and Balibar . . . . . . . . ? .

106

vi

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download