With or Without dependency; Can the 3rd World survive?

In discussing depedency, Brazilian scholar Theotonio Dos Santos claimed that 3rd world countries cannot do without dependency nor can they do with it. In this paper, Nzau Musau discusses the claim and its basis.

In making this statement, Dos Santos is saying that the third world is inextricably and perpetually condemned to necessary dependency which guarantees survival but at the expense of stagnation. This statement is informed by a number of reasons which I will attempt to discuss below.
According to Dos Santos, third world countries cannot do without dependency because it provides the much needed capital which is very much wanting in those countries. This is caused by limited capital stocks and marginal incomes in the face of growing needs. Capital flight is also occasioned by heavy domestic borrowing leading to expensive capital within the borders. It therefore becomes inevitable that third world countries will be depended on the West for capital to develop their industries.

Third world countries must necessarily depend on the West for the expensive technologies which propel the western economies. Due to lack of capital, third world countries cannot afford to develop own technologies to propel their economies.

They cannot also afford to procure the Western technology either and therefore dependency is, again, inevitable if the countries are to develop. Technology in third world is very necessary when employed wisely. For instance, production of genetically modified foods in Africa can stave off the perennial food insecurity in the continent. Since the continent lacks enough capital to fund expansive GMO projects and spread the technology, it must necessarily depend on the West to do that. The West has accumulated surplus capital which would be idle anyway if it was not employed for this purpose.

The third world need depend on the west to turn over the bad legacy of mere providers of raw materials set by the colonialists. These countries must be able to process their raw materials into industrial products and add value to them to enable them compete in international market. And since such a venture is expensive, they need to depend on those countries which have the means and ways to enable this undertaking. Dependency seen in this light of creating a break from the cycle of dependency is positive and should actually be encouraged.

Dos Santos also bases his statement on necessity of dependency for third world on the fact that on the capitalistic reality of the world order at the moment. This implies that rich countries will continue to get richer and richer as they enjoy capital surplus while the poor will continue to get poor and poorer. Added to this is the hard fact that the international trading system largely suits the west.

If you were take the example of Europe and Africa, it will be noticed that individual African countries are disadvantaged in international trade where they individually bargain in the world market bilaterally while European countries approach the market through the EU bloc. Third world countries which are fragmented and economically non-viable must therefore depend on the developed economies for assistance.

The adverse effect’s of the colonial legacies of most of these developing countries is another factor that Dos Santos bases his argument on necessity of dependency. The nation-states bequeathed to new leaders of these countries by colonialists enjoyed very limited economic resource base, so little that self sufficiency is impracticable.

Their markets were also perpetually designed to be outside themselves. They did not have the capacity- and still do not, of fixing own prices for their goods. Moreover, labour is cheap, underpaid and domestic production discouraged. They must therefore look to the west for help and liberation from this sad state of affairs.

But as Dos Santos argues, third world countries cannot also survive with dependency. Like the analogy of bleeding a leech to fatten a heifer, third world countries in depending on the west design their own downfall or perpetual stagnation. They cannot survive with dependency because it condemns them to a perpetual begging position which is not sustainable.
Tolerance for this perpetual begging posture is expensive to the extent that developing countries are required to put in place economically hostile measures as conditions for obtaining capital. In this way, labour becomes cheap as machines take over, staff is laid off and multinational from the west are granted monopolies just to mention but a few.

They cannot do where they are condemned by the begging position to retain unfair trade agreements with the west just to keep in good books. Most developing countries as observed earlier on lack internal market and are locked in unfair trade arrangements of no benefit to them. They are required to open up their market for competition with products from larger economies in order to receive aid. Their unfinished products fetch little prices on the world market leading to lack of capital.

Largely because of limited capital stocks, developing countries are forced to accumulate loan after loan thus lacking any money or surplus for investment. This not only limits opportunities of growth but also diminishes existing ones where interest rates are pushed up the wall as domestic capital becomes more and more expensive. In such a case, capital is not only lost to the state but also to citizens. The net effect of lack of capital for citizens means that they cannot improve their lives by setting up businesses, investing in industry, education, agriculture and other essentials of human development.

According to Dos Santos, they cannot also do because some of the measures demanded of developing countries by the west like mechanization of labor lead to unemployment and end up undermining the very development they are seeking. Expertise to manage this mechanization or technology as it were is equally imported from the same west hence the leech-heifer analogy.

The economic pressures placed by dependency create a ripple effect in the socio-political state of third world countries. Political reforms demanded by the west lock the country in perpetual state of conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition. In this state of affairs, the country barely survives. The case of Zimbabwe is a classic one. Although there is a semblance of democracy as demanded by the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall in early 1989, the country is barely surviving.

The opposition has been stuck in endless power squabbles with the government and neither side seems to let up even as the economic fortunes of that country tumbles from bad to worse. In the mean time, Zimbabwe continues to receive foreign aid to fund its programmes even as inflation sky-rockets to unimaginable proportions.
The happenings in Zimbabwe although quite outstanding, represents the plight of many a third world country.

And so in conclusion, the import of Dos Santo’s statement is that although this dependency is a necessity, developing countries cannot also prosper with it. It fixes them to a situation where they cannot improve their lot but also which is unsustainable in the sense that it will not be long before they break up.