DEPENDENCY THEORYto countries in the region. Dependency theory
quickly became an instrument for political com-
mentary as well as an explanatory framework as it
couched its arguments in terms of the conse-
quences of substituting cash crops for subsistence
farming and replacing local consumer goods with
export commodities destined for developed mar-
kets. Frank (1967, 1969), an early proponent, es-
tablished the premise for dependency theory; con-
temporary underdevelopment is a result of an
international division of labor exploited by capital-
ist interests.
Frank’s innovation was to incorporate the
vantagepoint of underdeveloped countries experi-
encing capital infusion into the discussion of the
dynamics of economic, social, and political change.
In so doing he discounted Western and European
models of modernization as self-serving, ethno-
centric, and apolitical. He asserted that explana-
tions of modernization have been disassociated
from the colonialism that fueled industrial and
economic developments characteristic of the mod-
ern era. However, much of the first wave of mod-
ernization might have been driven by intrinsic,
internal factors; more recent development has
taken place in light of change external to individu-
al countries. Central to Frank’s contention was a
differentiation of undeveloped from underdevel-
oped countries. In the latter, a state of dependency
exists as an outgrowth of a locality’s colonial rela-
tionship with ‘‘advanced’’ areas. Frank referred to
the ‘‘development of underdevelopment’’ and the
domination of development efforts by advanced
countries, using a ‘‘metropolis–satellite’’ analogy
to denote the powerful center out of which innova-
tions emerge and a dependent hinterland is held
in its sway. He spoke of a chain of exploitation—or
the flow and appropriation of capital through
successive metropolis–satellite relationships, each
participating in a perpetuation of relative inequali-
ties even while experiencing some enrichment.
Galtung (1972) characterized this same relation-
ship in terms of ‘‘core and periphery,’’ each with
something to offer the other, thereby fostering a
symbiotic but lopsided relationship. The effect is a
sharp intersocietal precedence wherein the domi-
nant core grows and becomes more complex,
while the satellite is subordinated through the
transfer of economic surpluses to the core in spite
of any absolute economic changes that may occur
(Hechter 1975).
Dos Santos (1971) extended Frank’s attention
to metropolis–satellite relationships. He maintained
that whatever economic or social change that does
take place occurs primarily for the benefit of the
dominant core. This is not to say that the outlying
areas are merely plundered or picked clean; to
ensure their long-run usefulness, peripheral re-
gions are allowed, indeed encouraged, to develop.
Urbanization, industrialization, commercialization
of agriculture, and more expedient social, legal,
and political structures are induced. In this way
the core not only guarantees a stable supply of raw
materials, but a market for finished goods. With
the bulk of economic surplus exported to the core,
the less-developed region is powerless to dissemi-
nate change or innovation across multiple realms.
Dos Santos distinguished colonial, financial-indus-
trial, and technological-industrial forms of depend-
encies. Under colonialism there is outright control
and expropriation of valued resources by absentee
decision makers. The financial-industrial dimen-
sion is marked by a locally productive economic
sector characterized by widespread specialization
and focus ministering primarily to the export sec-
tor that coexists alongside an essential subsistence
sector. The latter furnishes labor and resources
but accrues little from economic gains made in the
export sector. In effect, two separate economies
exist side by side.
In the third form of dependency, technologi-
cal-industrial change takes place in developing
regions but is customarily channeled and mandat-
ed by external interests. As the core extends its
catchment area, it maximizes its ascendancy by
promoting a dispersed, regionalized division of
labor to maximize its returns. International mar-
ket considerations affect the types of activities
local export sectors are permitted to engage in by
restricting the infusion of capital for specified
purposes only. So, for example, the World Bank
makes loans for certain forms of productive activi-
ty while eschewing others, and, as a result, highly
segmented labor markets occur as internal inequi-
ties proliferate. The international division of la-
bor is reflected in local implementation of capi-
tal-intensive technology, improvements in the
infrastructure—transportation, public facilities,
communications—and, ultimately, even social pro-
gramming occurring principally in central enclaves
or along supply corridors that service export trade
(Hoogvelt 1977; Jaffee 1985; So 1990). Dos Santos