Neo-Colonialism, Modernisation and Dependency. Ch.

II in Globalisation and the Post-Colonial order Ankie Hoog elt Indipendnces and Neo-Colonialism !ere the o"tcome o# pro#o"nd historical press"res and str"ggles that !ere engendered by the ery s"ccess o# colonialismas a hegemonic organi$ation o# international relations o# prod"ction !hich had permitted a ast acc"m"lation o# !ealth and progress in the !est. It is the ery s"ccess o# this pattern o# global acc"m"lation that bro"ght #orth its o!n contradictions, so press"res #or change and adaptation m"st be achie d to gi e contin"ity to the global acc"m"lation. %he imposition o# the international di ision o# labo"r "nder in#ormal empire and #ormal colonialism had the indirecrt e##ect o# layng the #o"ndations #or contin"ed control e en in absence o# political domination. Global &conomic Press"re - In the #irst period agric"lt"re had been passed into the possesssion o# #oreign plantation o!ners or had been directed to!ards the large-scale prod"ction o# e'port crops (cash crops), on the other hand long-term concessions #or mineral e'ploitation had been granted and mines had been estabilished as !holly o!ned s"bsidiaries o# metropolitan #irms. Capital market and market instit"tions had been set "p, and e'port*import trade !as #irmlyin the hands o# s"ch m"ltycommodities traders. In other !ords the incorporation o# A#rica in the net!orks o# the capitalist !orld-economy engendered the peri#erali$ation o# this continent in relation to the +estern co"ntris, in addition the colonial period had stabili$ed the capitalist instit"tions that no! co"ld had !orked !itho"t the political so ereignity. %he most important o# these the pri ate property that !as protected by a good deal o# international la! permitted the emergence o# Neo-colonialism as the s"r i al and contin"ation o# the colonial system in spite o# #ormal recognition o# political indipendence. %he neo-colonialism had many mani#estations among !hich the birth o# p"ppet go ernments, #oreign military bases, balkanisation b"t the main res"lt !as the relegation o# the A#rican co"ntries at the stat"s o# prod"cers and e'porters o# primary "nprocessed commodities in e'change #or man"#act"red cons"mer goods #rom the metropolitan co"ntries. %he terms o# te'change !ere "n#a o"rable to the primary prod"cers #rom a point o# ie! o# longterm price de elopment, so many co"ntries ne!ly becoming independent started to ask #or re#orms to de elop their prod"cti e #orces so the process o# decoloni$aion and the ideology o# de elopment and moderni$aion merged s"pported by a#rican eltes ed"cated to !estern al"es. Already in ,-./s, the leading branches o# metroplitan #irms !ere shi#ting #rom prod"ction o# cons"mer goods to the prod"ction o# prod"cer goods (capital goods), so the a#rican co"ntries became #rom market o"tlets o# cons"mer goods to place that attracted the s"pply o# machines and e0"ipment goods. 1o as the pro#its contin"ed to be reali$ed in reso"rces sector a ne! #orm o# acc"m"lation ( s"rpl"s e'traction) marked the neo-colonial period2 the tecnological rent. %he absence o# competition engendered s"per pro#its #or the monopolist sellers o# technology that had been in ited to help them locally !hat had been pre io"sly imported. Domestic %ensions - 1oon the class that had been coopted to !estern ethic ( e ol"3s) disco ered the contradictions bet!een !hat &"ropean ideologists sa! o# their society and c"lt"re2 #reedom, e0"ality and brotherhood and the hipocritical, oppressi e, racist instit"tions o# e"ropean colonialism. %he a!akening nationalist spirit and independence created a momentary alliance bet!een this class and the masses o# peasants and "rban poors that the colonial strategy o# di ide et impera had care#"lly separated. 4"t th"is alliance pro ed temporary and #ragile as 5anon sho!ed in Pitt#alls o# national conscio"sness2 the national bo"rgeoisie #ind his national historical mission that o# the agent o# e"ropean bo"rgeoisies, as it has no aim in trans#orming the nation, so it became a 6comprador7 bo"rgeoisie.

Geopolitical 8elations 9 As the :1 sec"red its control o er ;atin america since the prom"lgation o# Monroe Doctrine in ,<=>, they, a#ter ha ing sacri#ied American li es in the ca"se o# its e"ropean allies, demanded a price %he ne! International &conomic ?rder "ndr :1 hegemony. International instit"tions !ere created to sec"re the stability o# the international economy, "nder the principles o# :1 hegemony 2 IM5, +4 (,-@@), GA%% (,-@A, NA%? (,-@<) and the %r"man Doctrine Point @ (,-@A) :nderde eloped Co"ntry "nder the protection o# :1 to a oid that these co"ntries !o"ld enter in the socialist area. In the point #o"r programme o# De elopment Aid appling "ncritically the moderni$ation theory to less-de eloped co"ntries to de elop their reso"rces and keep them o"t o# comm"nist !orld. &conomic and technological aid !as at #irst a means, b"t it !as soon realised that the transplantation o# capital and technology to thirld !orld !o"ld nor bear #r"it "nless it !as accompained by !ider and consistent social, c"lt"ral and political changes. 1o according to the moderni$ation theories !hen traditional instit"tions or al"es did not #it, they !ere considered dys#"nctional to the process o# de elopment and regarded as problemsB #"rthermore these ad ocated the con ergence o# less-de eloped societies to the !estern model, b"t also strenghtened the ill"sion o# independence and o# so ereignity o# the national de elopmental state. ?n the other side Dependency theorists percei ed societies as not indpendnt b"t as a part o# a !hole that !as the capitalism as a !orld system that span accross nations and places them at di##erent positions according to their str"ct"ral place in a historically de eloped international di ision o# labo"r. According to the classic theory o# imperialism that looked at the ca"ses o# imperialism ( the merge o# #inance capital !ith the ind"strial capital ) the capitalism o!erseas !o"ld e ery!ere !ork "p the same tension and class con#lict (bet!een bo"rgeoisie and proletariat) that !as already doing at home. ?ne e'ception amongst classical mar'ists !as ;eon %rotsky !ho #orm"lated in ,-=/ the "nicity o# the !orld-system in his ;a! o# Combined and :ne en De elopment. He arg"ed that as the internationali$ation o# capital, the capitalism de elops as a !orld system and !orld history becomes a contradictory b"t concrete totality. In this totality co"ntries de elop in an "ne0"al or "ne en manner in relation to one another, this more comple' and less deterministic ie! o# the historical e ol"tion :ndrde elopment is not d"e to an original state as claimed by moderni$ation theorista b"t the res"lt o# the same !orld historical process in !hich the no! de eloped capitalist co"ntries became de eloped. %he essence o# the dependency theory is the contention that as a res"lt o# penetration by colonial capital a distorted str"ct"re o# economy and society had been created in the colonial co"ntries !hich !o"ld reprod"ce economic stagnation and e'treme pa"perisation o# the masses. C %he distorted str"ct"re o# economy implied2 ,) %he s"bordination o# the economy to the str"ct"re o# ad anced capitalist co"ntries 9 :N report obser ed that almost -/D o# the e'port earnings o# the DCs deri ed #rom primary prod"ction and one-hal# o# these co"ntries earned more than ./D o# their e'port re en"es (incomes) #rom a single primary commodityB =)&'ternal ?rientation that does it mean dependency on o erseas markets, #or capital and technology so"rcing and #or prod"ction o"tlets. %his dependency !as e'acerbate by e'treme concentration o# dependency on #e! co"ntries as a res"lt o# contin"ing linkages !ith the colonial mother co"ntry. %he empirical indicators that re#lect s"ch concentrations !ere2 trade partner concentrationsB aid donor concentrationsB e'port prod"ct concentrationsB militari trade partner concentrationsB o!nership o# #irms o# colonial mother co"ntry. %he distorted str"ct"re o# society implied ,) a class alliance bet!een #oreign capital and comprador elite (mercantile and landed) =) the e ol"tion o# e'treme patterns o# social ine0"ality !hich in t"rns restricts and distorts the domestic market.

%his imposed the block o# internal social trans#ormation in o erall economic stagnation and pa"perisation. %he dependency theory placed the ca"se o# contin"ed "nderde elopment in the legacy o# a distorted str"ct"re o# economy and society that is re#erred to peripheral society*economy. %he str"ct"re o# a peripheral economy denied a"tocentric de elopment that is a process o# de elopment !hee the !hole cycle o# prod"ction, reprod"ction o# capital, realisation o# capital and alori$ation o# capital and the relation bet!een prod"cer goods and cons"mer goods are contained !ithin the national economy. %he international di ision o# labo"r in ol ed a trans#er o# al"e #rom poor co"ntries to rich beca"se o# "ne0"al terms o# e'change o# commodities traded 9 Prebish and 1inger liberal !riter that challenged the 8icardo theory o# international trade and ad anrages comparati e2 ,)Income inelasticity o# demand #or #oods#"## =)1"bstit"tions o# ra! materials by ind"strial prod"cts (sinthetics) >) A declining ratio o# ra! material inp"ts to ind"strial o"tp"ts %his !ie! !as shared by Imman"el 9"ne0"al &'ange- depended #rom the di##erential in the !ages, ha didnEt gi e importance to #actor o# demand in e'plaining the !orsening terms o# trade o# poor co"ntries. He said "ne0"al e'ange donEt occ"rr bet!een commodities b"t bet!een co"ntries, applyng the mar'Es labo"r theory o# al"e to int. &'change he arg"ed that tha le el o# !ages depends on historical and social conditions and e0"alisation o# !ages is "nlikely to occ"rr beca"se o# the immobility o# labo"r #actor 9 Amin added the matter o# the time employed to prod"ce a commodity