© Emmanuel Ruiz. 1997.
Graduate Student/ Master of International Politics
School of International Service, American University.
One of the three theoretical perspectives that have been explored to understand African politics is known by the name of “dependency theory.” Scholars from the dependency school such as Baran, Amin, as well as Frank and Wallerstein, all questioned the gains from free trade argument.
The central argument of the dependency theory which was formulated as a critical response to the modernization theory, stressed that the wealth of the metropolis was a result of the poverty of the third world. Mahmood Mamdani indicates the deliberate dependency theorists intention to include the theory of original sin within a historical fact: “whereby capitalism, not only in its origin but also at every step in its development, must continue to be an external imposition.” (Mamdani 145) In other words, international trades’ transfer of wealth from the periphery to the core not only created stagnation, but extracted value from the developing countries.
This dependence theory, alias theory of underdevelopment, regards the development of capitalism in underdeveloped countries as a different process from that which the richer countries had experienced in the nineteenth century. The theory insists that the monopoly capitalists transfer surplus from the underdeveloped countries to the developed countries, hinders economic expansion, technological progress and social change. Joel Migdal captures the above phenomenon in this concise phrase, “these contemporary relationships of dependency, like the old ones, worked to the political-economic advantage of the developed West, and to the disadvantage of the underdeveloped Third World. (Migdal 300)
Perhaps the strongest argumentative claim offered by the dependency theory was to point out the degree of workers’ dependence with regard to their productive activity.
With regard to African politics, this theory has been said to be a reinterpretation of the
colonial legacy. The theory’s perspective clearly intended to define the colonial legacy as responsible for most African states economic stagnation. Its central premises portrayed the African
states as the historical victims of economic materialism. The dependency model professed that the bounce of trade was unfair, leading to consistent inequalities between two differing worlds, and two
systems with different historical background.
That may be, David Apter and Carl Rosberg demonstrate that the dependency theory that had originally emerged in response of South Americas’ states instabilities, was partly inadequate when applied to African states. They insist that, “dependency theory was good at showing how Africans became victims of imperialism but gave useless advice on how they were to extricate themselves from such conditions.” (apter& Rosberg 39) Many scholars along Apter and Rosberg claim that the theory emphasized too much on economical realities, rather than interpreting African political fragmentation, and expand the notions of class and power.
Consequently, The theory’s propositions did not include any political perspectives. In the words of Atul Kohli, “Yet it has been becoming increasingly clear, through the findings of these and other studies, that specific Third World governments and their chosen policies also bear much of the actual responsibility for both “success” and “failure” at development. (Kohli 301) He then adds, “the differential dynamics of development are being molded by the third World states - some effective and some not so effective - and not by international economic factors alone. (Kohli 301)
These hypotheses soon demonstrated the reductionist aspect of the dependency theory with regard to political concerns. This lacuna led to the development of another model, known as the state-centric model.
The state-centric theory was expected to supplement the dependency, as well as the modernization model. Its main contribution was vis-a-vis the state and the government. On the one hand, the state-centric response argued that states and governments are the symbols for control, holding the power to make choices. Those alternatives can ultimately increase the capacities of the society. The state-centric theory defined the state as being the largest sovereign authority unit in the world. On this account, it is a key factor determining the development occurring in that country. On the other hand, it made the fundamental assumption that 'politics, and governments in general, matters.'
Those arguments helped define the African experience by interpreting and studying the political actions that had been left aside by the dependency theorists. It is extremely important to indicate that this historical phase of stagnation was characterized by one-party states, and African patronage politics. The state-centric approach clarified that “those who control state power are in a position to take decisions of far-reaching socio-economic consequences.” (Kohli 302) As Kohli deducts that, “because political decisions usually manifest the interests and ideologies of the states authorities, states actions are thus political choices.” (Kohli 302) Thus, Kohli’s assertion regarding political autonomy proves that the logic of economical analysis is insufficient when studying African politics and society. There is an interactive and contingent process between the state’s legitimacy, capacity as well as autonomy, and its interaction with socioeconomic variables.
All things considered, The addendum of another model to the dependency theory provided us with a better understanding of the African experience. The state-centric theory underlined the relatively influential, and often coercive, use of power by the state’s government. Shortly after independence, most of the African states developed despotic regimes controlled by a small elite faction. As a result, the question of political reform, in terms of democratic political order was raised. Because the dependency theory solely underscored the development of underdevelopment in terms of economics, supplementing the state-centric theory was absolutely necessary in order to offer a broader economical, as well as political understanding of the African experience.
Apter, David E and Rosberg, Carl G. Political Development and the New Realism in Sub-Saharan Africa. University Press of Virginia. 1994.
Clapham, Christopher. Africa and the international System. Cambridge university Press. 1996.
Edwards, Chris. The Fragmented World: Competing perspectives on trade, money and Crisis. Methwen and Co. Ltd. 1985.
Mahmood, Mamdani. Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of late Colonialism. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 1996.
Migdal, Joel S. Kohli, Atul and Shue, Vivienne. State power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World. Cambridge University Press. 1994.