Talk:Dependency theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject International development, which is building a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to International development, including such areas as Appropriate technology, Microfinance, and social issues related to development. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks and discuss the project.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Dependency theory, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Africa and Asia not Countries 2 Question about adding in refrence to absolute advantage 3 Implicit POV in dependecy theory article and other comments 3.1 Popularity of the Theory of Dependency 4 dependency theory influence on policy 5 dependency theory in communication studies 6 sources to cite on influence of dependency theory on communication studies 7 Did I just read correctly? "Discredited"? 8 India Cited as a disproving example 9 Moving article

[edit] Africa and Asia not Countries

"Countries as far apart as Africa and Asia, just as Poland from 1795 - 1918, did not constitute national states during the formative Industrial Revolution."

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.106.222 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about adding in refrence to absolute advantage

I'm not quite sure what the protocol is for editing an article like this where there appears to me to be an error in analysis regarding comparative advantage. The article reads:

This is countered, however, by the argument that the conditions of globalization makes comparative advantage all the more sound. The two assumptions that the theory makes a leap on, zero transportation and communication cost, looks more like reality in the global marketplace.

First, this and the preceeding paragraph are not attributed, i.e. who is making the argument and counter argument?

Second, the difference between absoute advantage and comparitive advantange is not at all pointed out, i.e, as a banker friend of mine wrote regarding comparitive advantage: "free flow of capital across national boundaries, seeking profit maximization without any context of national interest or community is totally at odds with what both Ricardo and Adam Smith experienced and presumed," because it leads to Absolute Advantage not comparative advantage. Here's a quote from Ricardo regarding this:

"Experience, however, shows, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations" - David Ricardo, "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation".

All this being said, anybody have any suggestions on the proper way to introduce these arguments into the actual article?

Eric Harris-Braun 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

i believe Import Substitution Industrialisation is also a related concept? Alveolate 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implicit POV in dependecy theory article and other comments

I have a few points of critique that I may correct when I get around to it.

1) I'm not sure if considering Prebisch within the tradition of Dependency theory is correct -- What I have read indicates he was a forerunner or antecedent of dependency theory, but not a part of it. Dependency theory emerged in the mid-late 1960s as far as I know. He deserves to be in the article and to have his relevance fleshed out, but it should be clarified that "dependency theory" had not been invented as a category when he gained prominance in 1959.

2) I dont know if saying Dependency theory has three camps makes sense - at the time were there in fact defined camps? Perhaps that sentence should be removed and we should write sections for the main intellectual currents that emerged under the banner of the "dependency theory."

3) We should include a section talking about how Dependency theory challanged and debunked many of the principles of Modernization theory.

4) The section entitled "Practical Failure" seems to me to contain an implicit anti-dependency POV. I think its fair to say that Dependency didnt stimulate practical policy choices, but that doesnt negate its importance. Also, Prebisch's claims about declining terms of trade, and other insights made by the Dependency theorists have been borne out.

overall I feel like the article needs a ton of work for such an important theory

-- In response to 4: It is very important to note in an intellectual record if a theory has failed to live up to it's empirical predictions.

-- In that case you should also note that it was quite openly and systematically discredited for political not scientific reasons in the 1980s (this is well documented, e.g. in Preston, Herman & Schiller's (1989) Hope and Folly, U of Minnesota Press; and in Cees Hamelink's and Kalle Nordenstreng's research). (Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Originalexplorer 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of the Theory of Dependency

Whether the theory is acurate or not, it is widely believed as true in the third world. I lived in Argentina for a long time, and it is an article of faith that the reason Argentina is poor is because it is being exploited by the US. Dullfig 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Supported: "We stopped saying that 'the United States is rich while Latin America is poor,' and instead began thinking that 'the United States is rich BECAUSE Latin America is poor.'" Rodriguez and Murphy in Journal of Communication 4:2 Dec. 1997,p. 27 Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dependency theory influence on policy

this article should be linked to the NIEO and NWICO articles. dependency theory was a major influence in UN politics from the mid 1960s-mid 80s. Research (e.g. Vincent et al. 1999), suggests that the US, UK and Singapore left the UNESCO at least partly in response to the NAM movement's relative success in pushing the dependency perspective at the UN. (Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] dependency theory in communication studies

- (notes/work in progress)

dependency theory has been very influential in the field of communication studies, especially the areas of in the political economy of communications and development communication. influential thinkers here include Antonio Pascali, Beltran, Armand Matellart, and Paulo Freire. latin american proponents of the dependency theory were called dependistas.

is also the origin of the cultural imperialism theory (should link to that article)

there is also a christian (catholic) strand in dependency thinking - liberation theology.

there's also a cultural dimension: "oppression we found is not only economical oppression..." Rodriguez and Murphy in Journal of Communication 4:2 Dec. 1997 218.123.95.58 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, overall this article makes it sound like white men from Europe invented dependency theory. agree with comment above that it needs a lot of work, including slimming fluff and better sources.

(Bine maya 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] sources to cite on influence of dependency theory on communication studies

- Sources to cite include texts online by beltran, including a recent interview by alfonso gumucio dagron, macbride update (ed. by Kalle Nordenstreng) (will add proper citations when I get around to it. 218.123.95.58 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did I just read correctly? "Discredited"?

I noticed that the third word of this article is "discredited". Is this on purpose? If it is, then I guess I'm going to have to throw stuff from my Third World Politics course out of my brain. If not, then please fix it. --TcDohl 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India Cited as a disproving example

India is citied as a reason for disproving depnedency theory, on the basis that once its economy was opened it experienced growth, however avoids the issue of whether it was a result of the previous policies that made it so attractive once its economy was opened, one of the reasons often cited for India's economic rise is the skilled pool of labor, but the factors that led to that pool arose during the period where the economy was less open, perhaps an examination of that needs to be added to the critique of dependency theory, since that would support the idea that early in its life a nation is better off mainataining a closed structure, and only opening once it can adequately compete on the global market (somewhat like Hamilton's idea that the US needed to build up its own industrial base, rather than relying on the industry of europe).

[edit] Moving article

If everyone is okay with it, I would like to move this article to Dependency Theory, with the second word capitilized. --Justpassin (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)