Changes in the relative power position of different élites and classes were
expressed through the accumulation process, requiring that ‘the instruments
of pressure and defense available to the popular classes be dismantled’ so
that wage levels could be kept low. This included unions and political
organizations through which wage earners had defended their interests dur-
ing the populist period. In allowing the military to repress the working class,
parts of the bourgeoisie lost control of the political process, especially the
party system, elections, press freedom, and liberal education (Cardoso,
1973, pp. 146–59).
Cardoso identified different ‘patterns of dependence’ as accounting for
shifts in the relative power of different classes at this period of Brazil’s his-
tory. Moving beyond import substitution in an attempt to reduce depend-
ency meant moving away from a stage of development that in Cardoso’s
view was ‘significantly controlled by the local bourgeoisie’ (1973, p. 157).
The role of international monopolies became comprehensive, including the
remaining areas of primary exports, the private manufacturing sector and
even public enterprises such as the state oil monopoly PETROBRAS.
The political consequence of this economic realignment was an autocratic,
developmentalist, military–bureaucratic regime.
Dependency and economic performance
It is easier to judge the economic analysis underpinning neo-colonialism
and dependency interpretations of post-colonial history than to evaluate
their contributions to an understanding of Third World politics. The main
problem for students of Third World politics is that dependency theory does
not make a systematic attempt to demonstrate the political consequences of
dependency. It was predominantly an explanation of economic relations,
leaving political relationships to be derived from them. It has a distinct ten-
dency to see the state as epiphenomenal – that there is nothing to be
explained in terms of the state, social classes and movements, politics and
ideology other than as derivatives of the economy and without an independ-
ent role of their own. The state is merely a consequence of relationships and
power structures that lie elsewhere, namely in the economy (Leys, 1977,
p. 95; Goulbourne, 1979, pp. 11–17; Hoogvelt, 1982, p. 169).
Dependency theory could not explain how a number of dependent
economies have recorded impressive growth in per capita incomes.
Some countries, especially in East Asia, experienced significant industrial-
ization, growth in manufacturing, indigenous investment and technological
Neo-colonialism and Dependency 93