The Race of the World Economy
Although the perspectives of modernization and dependency contradict each other on basically everything, one can see merit in both. The bias in both is obvious as well. Given the fact that modernization was an outside perspective and that dependency is an inside perspective, the biases of both could not be escaped. Of course, an outside opinion is often helpful, but who knows an issue better than one on the inside. An outsider looking who is not entrenched in the environment may not have all the facts before coming to a conclusion on what the solution should be. This would be like a new manager coming into a failing office, implementing change before getting to know the office workers themselves. That being said, the bias of an insider can keep a doctor from operating on a loved one, or a cop investigating the death of a family member. My reason for saying this is that although the bias of an outsider can get in the way of coming up with the right diagnosis, the same can be said about one on the inside of an issue. But is it possible to say that a combination of both is the solution? Is a combination even possible? Because they seem to disagree on everything but their arguments seem to hold water in some areas.
Modernization reeks of neo-imperialism and ethnocentrism. Blaming solely the region for their short comings from the perspective of the countries on top is not fair. Not all of modern societal values are constructive just as some traditional values impede economic explosions. One culture may have fostered innovation more quickly than another, but that doesn’t make one countries culture better than another. In international business, the cultural dimensions of Hofstede and Trompenaar are dimensions that sound very similar to the cultural dimensions defined by the modernization perspective, (these include achievement vs. ascriptive, particularism vs universalism, diffuse vs. specific, etc.) But that just means one needs to conduct business differently in countries with different societal values, not that they need to conform to western culture.
Dependency seems to shift the blame away from themselves to those with power. Blaming the problem on the world economy they stepped into, not the national vehicle they entered the race with. But this race does seem to be like a marathon that Latin America has just started while the western powers are making their final lap. So there is merit to the argument that the problem lies in the insertion of Latin America into the world economy. But as Fukuyama talked about, East Asia also started off the race late but they have closed the gap quickly. So one cannot look solely outward for the root cause of the gap between latin and North America, they need look inwardly as well for a solution.
The timing of the entering of the race and the vehicle entered into the race called “the world economy” seem to both be the issues involved in the gap that has developed in the contenders of this race. Neither the modernist view and the dependency view fully explain the issue, but possibly using them both can present a solution. And as Fukuyama briefly stated, as the world moves further and further into globalization, economies seem to be converging which is hope for Latin American economies in closing the gap.
I agree with your assertions on the modernization perspective. It seems unfair that Latin America’s underdevelopment is blamed on individual aspects. This blame seems to emanate from Western scholars and viewpoints, because rather than viewing Latin America as a separate entity, its development is viewed on how it compares to the West’s pattern of development. Moreover, in Fukuyama’s piece, Latin America is compared to East Asia’s developmental rise.
Do you think the dependency perspective addresses differing developmental patterns in different Latin American countries adequately? In choosing a perspective that answers the underdevelopment problem, it seems as though Latin America is subjected to unfair comparisons to the rest of the world. When it does not mimic the development patterns of the West, it is underachieving. I agree with your point that neither perspective provides a full explanation on underdevelopment but I think that the dependency perspective provides an adequate explanation. I don’t think both perspectives can be combined to provide an answer because they operate on different assumptions to produce vastly different conclusions. Your point about “outsiders” versus “insiders” was very insightful in my opinion. Moreover, I think that the modernization perspective depends solely on an outsider’s opinion which weakens the perspective.
I like the balance you strike with modernization theory and dependency theory. Neither theory fully explains the under-development, but also each theory gives us a perspective that holds partial validity.
I agree that modernization theory is ethnocentric towards the west and is an easy answer to avoid any culpability. Theorists do raise legitimate points though in that the domestic politics are critical to economic development. Look at Chile compared to Paraguay. While Chile holds the geographic advantage of the coast, they have implemented strong policies for development following Pinochet’s fall. It is a similar case in Argentina following the end of the dictatorship. Paraguay or many Central American countries fall to corruption scandals and less democratic institutions. There are many other factors at play, but domestic politics certainly matter.
Dependency theory offers an explanation but not a solution. The west had clear advantages at the start of its development and many of those were at the expense of the third world. Moreover, corporations and Washington Consensus polices can enable a race to the bottom if one is not careful. This is again where the importance of correct domestic policy matters greatly. Dependency theory will get populist votes, but it won’t lead to actual development despite its merits. Finally, I like the case of East Asia and development. They took a truly unique approach to economics, and it worked despite some issues of course. Charting their own path–not necessarily the western path–is the recipe for Latin American development.