Mukangara, Daudi Rivelo
Description
This thesis first discusses the views of dependence theorists,
focusing on Frank, Amin, Cardoso and dos Santos. Frank asserts
that relations of production in Latin America and the rest of the
Third World are capitalist, and that capitalism does not generate
development in those countries, since it has not done so during the
long time it has structurally dominated them. Therefore reforms
within this dependence structure will bring neither autonomy nor
development. Only a socialist...[Show more] revolution may effect any real change.
U n d e rstan d in g the problems of un d e rd ev elo pm en t and
dependence in terms of the logic of the worldwide accumulation
process, Amin concedes that capitalism can be a source of
development in the 'centre' and in the 'periphery', but in reality
only a limited and skewed form of development occurs in the latter.
This is because of the Third World's limited control over the
accumulation process. Only a significant disengagement from
current global arrangements of production and distribution can
bring permanent benefits. Industrial production of essential goods,
as opposed to the export of primary goods, will help greatly but will
not be enough. Cardoso argues that although the structure of
dependence is primarily economic, it can be changed qualitatively by
social forces and political actions. In addition the structure is
continually modified according to time and place, and therefore
there is no reason to think that it can never change. Though
skeptical of current Third World industrialization, he believes that
real changes are possible through industrialization, dos Santos sees
the inflexibility of social and political, rather than economic forces at
both the local and global level as the major obstacles to change, and thus his solution, like that of Frank, focuses on a socio-political
revolution.
Critics of dependence are also discussed, showing in particular
that empiricist critiques of dependence fail to conceptualize the
problem, and that others, such as Warren, paint an erroneously rosy
picture of capitalist development in the Third World. A particularly
interesting critique of dependence through the "merchant capital"
thesis of Kay is also rejected, mainly for blaming the problems of
Third World development on a form of capital which ceased to
operate globally a long time ago, and for ascribing to capitalism only
a faultless progressive mission. Some of the critics of dependence,
however, remind us all in the process that the vital ingredients
required for development are capital and industrialization. This is
acknowledged, and it is combined with the awareness within the
dependence framework, of global structural constraints which also
manifest themselves locally, to map out what anti-dependence
programmes may look like.
Programs of an anti-dependence strategy may differ from each
other, and must be expected to be modified by the circumstances of
each country. But they must focus on industrialization, and on a
capital goods sector as the vital ingredient in a process of
development which undermines dependence. The general measure
of achievement for a country pursuing an anti-dependence strategy
is whether that country has set in train a process that is reducing
dependence and is more likely than not to eliminate it altogether.
The pre-independence situation in Tanzania fits the theoretical
thesis of the global incorporation and subordination of a Third
World country, as well as demonstrating a case of original
underdevelopment, which the incorporation did not change and even maintained. In 1961-1966 the Tanzanian leadership and others
in society had begun to accumulate some knowledge of the
incorporation and subordination. They then took some nationalist
economic measures, later perceived as important but inadequate in
confronting the unsatisfactory relationship with external economic
interests. In 1967 the Tanzanian leadership, which had also been
questioning the internal make-up of social relations and the way
they were likely to develop in the future, was finally able to translate
its ad hoc pre-1967 nationalist economic measures into a coherent
statement of intent for changing its relations with external interests,
and for confronting the internal social relations. The statement was
the Arusha Declaration of February, 1967.
Both the statement and the subsidiary or complementary policies
subsequent to it reflected not much more than a reaction to years of
economic neglect, a frustration with the slow pace of development,
and the limitation of decolonization. By being reactive, the policies
(the strategy, collectively) could not produce a document covering
all important areas of dependence. In time, its ideological
accompaniment, Socialism, became the more prominent and
acquired a life of its own, thereby affecting the ability to produce a
better formulation of some important aspects of the strategy.
In later years the strategy was defined in more specific terms in
relation to industry, identifying the type of industrialization best
suited to the struggle against dependence and underdevelopment,
and even following it up with a significant level of implementation.
Other aspects of the strategy were not adhered to due to constraints
of an economic nature, some predictable from the point of view of
theorists of dependence, and some not so predictable. Some
constraints merely modified the strategy in its practical application in Tanzania; others proved to be total barriers to aspects of the
strategy. Programmes of an anti-dependence nature are difficult to
implement, and, at the end of the period under study, there was
reason to doubt that the Tanzanian version would continue.
Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.