Dependency theory again (Kelsey Hunter, Week 8 Dialog)

I wrote previously about the relationship I saw between dependency theory and constructivism, and now I will write again about a few points on Dependency theory, mainly because it intrigues me. Last year I took a class on North-South relations, a theory based class on economic development. Throughout the class we learned about the different theories of why nations are developed, "un"developed, and as Dependency theorists put it "under"developed. I find the distinction between "un" and "under"- developed to be one of great importance when discussing Dependency theory. Undevelopment is more or less how Modernization theory views countries that have not reached the development status of the modern Western post-industrial states. It is basically a status quo state of backwardness that is inherent in the state, its people, and its economy. Underdevelopment by contrast is a process. The Dependency theorists see underdevelopment as what happened to countries after they came in contact with the metropole. They believe the relationship between the metropole (First world, colonializers, Westerners, etc.) and the periphery (Third World, colonies, etc.) made the situation in the periphery worse than it was before. The relationship of dependence and the institutions that come along with it cause the periphery to become even more backward, benefits the metropole only, and creates a situation in which the periphery has no future chances of improving their lot.

The problem I see with Dependency theory however is that it does not offer solutions to the periphery states except to completely extract themselves from their relationship with their metropoles, which in effect would mean they would have to cut off ties with the world system completely. To me, this is extremely unpractical and as pointed out in the lecture notes is why Dependency theory can't account for the success of the Asian Tigers. (Although by some accounts, their development was in part due to a very inward looking strategy of government support and the like, but that is another thing all together.) I think when discussing development it is important to realize that neither Modernization nor Dependency theorists can offer all of the answers to the puzzle of developing.