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.

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.