-
Chapter 3: Theories and Realities: What are the Causes of Backwardness?
- Central European University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
ChaPter three theories and realities: What are the Causes of backwardness? DanieL Chirot ever since the early nineteenth century, when a few West european economies began to progress much faster than others, scholars have posed the question why? that question remains as pressing today as ever. one theory that first gained credence in the late nineteenth century became especially popular with intellectuals and political elites in the less favored countries. it posited that the powerful countries were using the international trading system to systematically keep the weak ones poorer and less developed countries. Why such a theory should have found favor among elites in weaker and poorer societies is easily understood. in its blaming of outsiders and its portrait of an unjust, rigged international system, the theory offered these elites a convenient target for their frustrations and suggested a remedy, in the form of a map toward reform, that in no way belittled their own cultural inclinations. the idea that economic backwardness was a function of exploitation by the most developed nations was quickly adopted by theorists of all political persuasions. enrico Corradini, a theorist on the far right, proposed in 1910 that “proletarian” nations like italy had to struggle against “bourgeois” ones like France and Great britain to regain their rightful place, and this notion acquired prominence in Mussolini ’s thinking about fascism’s mission to restore italian greatness.1 Five years after Corradini’s proposal, a left-wing version appeared in nikolai bukharin’s book Imperialism and World Economy (1915). bukharin claimed that poor agrarian economies were as much a part of the capitalist system as rich industrial ones, and that it was necessary for the latter to exploit the former. lenin’s theory of imperialism in both its 1916 and 1939 versions similarly emphasized the theme of exploitation i4 globalization.indb 63 2011.01.05. 10:35 64 daniel Chirot in arguing that the colonial system, which subjected the poor agrarian world to economic dominance by powerful nations, was sustaining capitalism by draining enough surplus to allow capitalists to pay off their own working classes. it was the competition for vital colonies, lenin proposed, that had caused the First World War and that would ultimately bring about worldwide revolution.2 in subsequent decades the theory of exploitation was refined by both right- and left-wing economists. the romanian defender of fascist corporatism, Mihail Manoilescu, argued that a twisted, faulty development had been imposed on agrarian eastern europe. he proposed that nationalists should break the chains of economic dependency . his ideas subsequently became highly influential in shaping latin american dependency theory, particularly in argentina and brazil. it proved congenial to right-wing latin american nationalists, as well as to revolutionary thinkers on the left, for whom it provided the foundations of development theory.3 What right-wing, left-wing, or even more mildly reformist and protectionist versions of this theory such as the one put forward by the argentine raúl Prebisch all agreed about was that there was a world capitalist system, with a rich, developed, technologically sophisticated core and a poor, backward, systematically exploited and disadvantaged periphery that exported low-technology primary products. Prebisch argued that even a relatively wealthy country like argentina, which owed its prosperity to beef and grain exports, would lose out in the end because its very success blocked the development of more sophisticated industries, and because the overwhelming strength of the core economies would always result in the relative decline of primary product prices.4 in its mild form, such as that advanced by Prebisch, core–periphery or dependency theory proposed to remedy the inequality between advanced and peripheral economies through appropriate government stimulation of advanced industries in the peripheries and protectionist measures to insulate them against the more sophisticated industries of the core, at least until they had matured enough to compete on their own. at first it was thought that tariffs could accomplish this, but later, heavy state support for infant industries, as happened in Japan, and later south Korea, seemed more likely to produce desired results. a yet more radical version proposed outright state ownership as the ideal i4 globalization.indb 64 2011.01.05. 10:35 [54.163.200.109] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 01:14 GMT) 65 Theories and Realities: What are the Causes of Backwardness? method of developing advanced industrial strength. this approach appealed , and has continued to appeal, to nationalists who saw protectionism and state intervention as a way of making their nations...