Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:39:17.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependence, dependency, and power in the global system: a structural and behavioral analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

James A. Caporaso
Get access

Extract

Although there is already a huge literature on dependence in international relations, many fundamental conceptual issues remain unresolved. Is the pattern of dependence of advanced industrial states on one another different in kind or only in degree from the dependence of peripheral capitalist societies on other members of the global system? What are the essential components of dependence that one must identify before constructing an adequate measure of it? What is the relationship between dependence and power? Since the answer to the first question is that the two patterns of dependence differ in kind, the first order of business is to provide the grounds for this distinction. Dependence is the pattern of external reliance of well-integrated nation-states on one another while dependency, which is closer to the dependencia tradition, involves a more complex set of relations centering on the incorporation of less developed, less homogeneous societies into the global division of labor. The conceptual components of dependence are the size of one's reliance on another, the importance attached to the goods involved, and the availability of these goods (or substitutes) from different sources. The components of dependency are the magnitude of foreign supply of important factors of production (technology, capital), limited developmental choices, and domestic “distortion” measures. Finally, the concept of dependence is most easily integrated into bargaining analyses while dependency is more fruitfully applied to analyses of the structure of relations among societies.

Type
Part I
Information
International Organization , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Winter 1978 , pp. 13 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Some of the important works from these areas include: Galtung, Johan, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research (1971)Google Scholar; Amin, Samir, L'Accumulation a I'echelle mondiale capitaliste (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar; Bernstein, Henry, ed., Underdevelopment and Development: The Third World Today (Baltimore, Md.: Penquin Books, Inc., 1972)Google Scholar; Rosen, Steven and Kurth, James, eds., Testing the Theory of Economic Imperialism (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co., 1974)Google Scholar; Palloix, Christian, L'Economie mondiale capitaliste (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar; Cohen, Benjamin J., The Question of Imperialism: The Political Economy of Dominance and Dependence (New York: Basic Books, 1973)Google Scholar; Emmanuel, Arghiri, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Cotler, Julio and Fagen, Richard R., eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Senghaas, Dieter, ed., Imperialismus und Strukturelle Gewalt: Analysen uber abhängige Reproduktion (Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972)Google Scholar; and Senghaas, Dieter, ed., Peripherer Kapitalismus: Analysen uber Abädngigkeit und Unterentwicklung (Frankfurt, Germany, Suhrkamp Verlag, 1974).Google Scholar

2 Examples of Latin American literature in English, French, and German sources are: C. Furtado, “Elements of a Theory of Underdevelopment—the Underdeveloped Structures,” in Bernstein, ed., Underdevelopment and Development; Theotonio Dos Santos, “The Crisis of Development Theory and the Problem of Dependence in Latin America,” also in Bernstein, ed.; Santos, Dos, “The Structure of Dependence,” The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Vol. 60, No. 2 (05 1970)Google Scholar; Frank, Andre G., Development and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “Dependence and Underdevelopment in Latin America,” New Left Review (07–08 1972)Google Scholar; Cardoso, , “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Stepan, Alfred, ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Futures (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Cardoso, , “Les Obstacles Structurel et Institutionnels au Developpement,” Sociologie Et Societas Vol. 2, No. 2 (11 1970)Google Scholar; Cardoso, , “Bürgerliche Hegemonie und Wirschaftliche Unabhängigkeit: Strukturelle Wurzeln Der Politischen Krise Brasiliens,” in Furtado, Celso, ed., Brasilien Heme (Frankfurt, Germany: Atheneum Verlag, 1971)Google Scholar; Sunkel, Osvaldo “Transnational Capitalism and National Disintegration in Latin America,” Social and Economic Studies Vol. 22, No. 1 (03 1973)Google Scholar; Sunkel, , “National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America,” Journal of Development Studies (London, 10 1969)Google Scholar; Sunkel, , “Big Business and Dependencia,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 50, No. 3 (04 1972)Google Scholar; Sunkel, “Dependence and Structural Heterogeneity,” Institute for Development Studies, Sussex, mimeo, (no date). There are also a number of articles and books which appear only in Spanish to the best of my knowledge. Despite the fact that some of these works are acknowledged as important contributions, they were not taken into account here (because of the language barrier). Among these are Cardoso, Fernando H. and Faletto, Enzo, Dependencia Y Desarrollo En America Latina (Mexico, Siglo Veintiuno editores sa, 1971, third edition)Google Scholar; O'Donnell, Guillermo and Linck, Delfina, Dependence Y Autonomia (Buenes Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu editores, 1973).Google Scholar Caribbean political scientists and economists have also made important contributions. For an introduction to these, see the various selections in the special issue of Social and Economic Studies Vol. 22, No. 1 (03 1973),Google Scholar especially the contributions by Brewster and Girvan.

3 A classic in the field of foreign economic policy, insofar as it lucidly illustrates the linkages between national goals and the structure of a state's international trade, is Hirschman's, Albert O.National Power and Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1945)Google Scholar; more recent contributions include Morse, Edward L., “The Politics of Inverdependence,” International Organization Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring 1969)Google Scholar; Cooper, Richard N., The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the Atlantic Community (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968)Google Scholar; Oran Young, R., “Interdependencies in World Politics,” International Journal Vol. 24, No. 4 (Autumn 1969)Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., “The Myth of National Interdependence,” in Kindleberger, Charles P., ed., The International Corporation: A Symposium (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1970)Google Scholar; and Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “World Politics and the International Economic System,” in Bergsten, C. Fred, ed., The Future of the International Economic Order: An Agenda for Research (Lexington, Mass.: DC. Heath and Co., 1973).Google Scholar Also see Hansen, Roger D., “The Crisis of Interdependence: Where Do We Go From Here?” in U.S. and World Development: Agenda for Action 1976 by Hansen, Roger D. and the staff of the Overseas Development Council (New York: Praeger Publishers Inc., 1976)Google Scholar; Goulet, Denis, “World Interdependence: Verbal Smokescreen or New Ethic?” Overseas Development Council development paper 21 (03 1976)Google Scholar; finally, it may be important to note the frequency with which the theme of interdependence appears in the Department of State document United States Foreign Policy: An Overview (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1976).Google Scholar

4 For examples of psychological and socio-psychological contributions see Gergen, Kenneth J., The Psychology of Behavior Exchange (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969)Google Scholar; Emerson, Richard M., “Power-Dependence Relations,” American Sociological Review Vol. 27, No. 1 (02 1962)Google Scholar; and Emerson, Richard M., “Operant Psychology and Exchange Theory,” in Burgess, Robert L. and Bushell, Don Jr, eds., Behavioral Sociology: The Experimental Analysis of Social Processes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).Google Scholar For examples from sociology in which dependence is interpreted within a broader context of sociological theory, see Blau, Peter M., Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964)Google Scholar and Burns, Thomas, “A Structural Theory of Social Exchange,” Sartryck Ur Acta Vol. 3 (1973).Google Scholar For contributions from organizational theory, see Tannenbaum, Arnold S., “Control in Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 2 (09 1962)Google Scholar; Aiken, Michael and Hage, Jerald, “Organizational Interdependence and Intraorganizational Structure,” American Sociological Review Vol. 33 (1968)Google Scholar; and Jacobs, David, “Dependence and Vulnerability: An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 19, No. 1 (03 1974).Google Scholar

5 “The Goal of an Atlantic Partnership,” address by President Kennedy, John F. at Independence Hall on 07 4, 1962, in Department of State Bulletin Vol. 47, No. 1204 (07 23, 1962).Google Scholar

6 Moynihan, Daniel P., “The United States in Opposition,” Commentary Vol. 59, No. 3 (03 1975).Google Scholar

7 “Le Canada ‘far West’ de 1' Europe?” La Suisse, (October 22, 1974): 1–2.Google Scholar

8 Carr, E.H., The Future of Nations: Independence or Interdependence (London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1941).Google Scholar

9 Baehr, Peter R., “Small States: A Tool for Analysis?”, World Politics Vol. 27, No. 3 (04 1975): 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Carr, , The Future of Nations, p. 27.Google Scholar

11 ” New York Times, Section IV (05 18, 1975), p. 3.Google Scholar

12 “Xenophobic Albania Not Likely to Change,” p. 3. For a more extensive and scholarly analysis of Albania's international position, see Griffith, William E., Albania and vhe Sino-Soviet Rift (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963).Google Scholar Griffith's analysis pays special attention to diplomatic factors in the Soviet Union and the Balkans, particularly Soviet and Yugoslav attempts to absorb Albania into Yugoslavia.

13 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, “Projet De Constitution Pour la Corse,” in The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Vol. 2, Introduction and notes by Vaughn, C.E. (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1915), p. 308.Google Scholar

14 Rousseau, , “Projet Pour La Corse,” p. 308.Google Scholar

15 Ibid.

16 At this point in the paper, I am using the term “dependence” in a generic sense, to refer to both dependence (a shorthand for dependence-interdependence) and dependency (a shorthand for dependence-autonomy). After these initial distinctions are made, I will limit myself to the specific use of dependence.

17 The tendency within American sociology and political science, at least those portions affected by an empiricist orientation, would be to “disaggregate” the concept of dependency and treat each of these sub-concepts individually, i.e., measure each separately and explore the empirical relations between each component and theoretically related variables.

18 Lall, Sanjaya, “Is ‘Dependence’ a Useful Concept in Analysing Underdevelopment?” World Development Vols. 3, 11, and 12 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Alker, Hayward R. Jr. with Coucri, Nazli, Analyzing Global Interdependence, Vol. 3, Methodological Perspectives and Research Implications (Center for International Studies, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.: 1974), p. 54.Google Scholar

20 Emerson, , “Power-Dependence Relations,” p. 32.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 See the cogent argument by Jacobs, David, “Dependency and Vulnerability,” pp. 45–59.Google Scholar

23 Santos, Dos, “The Structure of Dependence,” p. 231.Google Scholar

24 Brewster, Havelock, “Economic Dependence: A Quantitative Interpretation,” Social and Economic Studies Vol. 22, No. 1 (03 1973): 91.Google Scholar

25 Cardoso, , “Associated-Dependent Development,” p. 163.Google Scholar

26 Lall, “Is ‘Dependence’ a Useful Concept?”

27 Cardoso, “Les Obstacles Structurels et Institutionnels au Developpement.”

28 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Faletto, Enzo, Dependency and Development in Latin America, preface to the American edition, (no date), p. 11.Google Scholar

29 Kaufman, Robert R., Chernotsky, Harry I., and Geller, Daniel S., “A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency,” Comparative Politics Vol. 7, No. 3 (04 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Chase-Dunn, Christopher, “The Effects of International Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study,” American Sociological Review Vol. 40 (December 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, “The Consumption of Dependency Theory,” mimeo (1976).Google Scholar

32 Brewster, , “Economic Dependence: A Quantitative Interpretation,” p. 92.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., p. 91.

34 Ibid., p. 93.

35 Sunkel, Osvaldo, “Dependence and Structural Heterogeneity,” p. 13.Google Scholar

36 Sunkel, , “Dependence and Structural Heterogeneity,” p. 19.Google Scholar

37 Keohane, and Nye, , “World Politics and the International Economic System,” p. 122.Google Scholar

38 Ibid.

39 I am referring primarily to Harsanyi, John C., “Measurement of Social Power, Opportunity Costs, and the Theory of Two-Person Bargaining Games,” in Singer, J. David, ed., Human Behavior and International Politics (Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally & Co., 1965), pp. 378–85Google Scholar and Harsanyi, John C., “Measurement of Social Power, in n-Person Reciprocal Power Situations,” in Bell, Roderick A., Edwards, David, and Wagner, R. Harrison, eds., Political Power (New York: Free Press, 1969).Google Scholar

40 Harsanyi, , “Measurement of Social Power, Opportunity Costs,” p. 380.Google Scholar

41 Alker, , “Political Capabilities in a Schedule Sense: Measuring Power, Integration and Development,” in Alker, H.R., Deutsch, K.W., and Stoetzel, A.H., eds., Mathematical Approaches to Politics (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973), pp. 307–73.Google Scholar

42 Alker, , “Political Capabilities in a Schedule Sense,” p. 308.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., p. 311.

44 Harsanyi, , “Measurement of Social Power, Opportunity Costs,” p. 232.Google Scholar

45 In the following section, I am indebted to the suggestions of Joseph Nye.

46 Galtung, Johan, “Appendix: World Social Goals,” mimeo, Oslo (no date), p. 5.Google Scholar

47 Keohane and Nye refer to this same basic dichotomy in their distinction between a “process-level” and “structure level,” the former having to do with “short-term allocative behavior” and the latter concerning “how the institutions, fundamental assumptions, and ‘rules of the game’ of political systems support or undermine different patterns of allocation for economic activity, as well as in the converse— how the nature of economic activity affects the political structure.” See Keohane and Nye, “World Politics and the International Economic System,” p. 117.

48 See the classic article by Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., “Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review Vol. 57 (1963).Google Scholar In addition, the book by Vidich, Arthur and Bensman, Joseph, Small Town in Mass Society (New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1960),Google Scholar while not resting explicitly on a non-decisional framework, is a superb example of the ways in which resources and valuables are distributed in a town characterized by the nearly total absence of explicit politics (i.e., open conflicts among parties to resolve public disputes through either authoritative or non-authoritative means).

49 See Halperin, Morton H. and Kanter, Arnold, eds., Readings in American Foreign Policy: A Bureaucratic Perspective (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Co., 1973),Google Scholar particularly the introductory article by Halperin and Kanter, “The Bureaucratic Perspective: A Preliminary Framework,” and Allison, Graham H., “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review Vol. 63, No. 3 (09 1969).Google Scholar Also see Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations,” in World Politics Vol. 27, No. 1 (October 1974).Google Scholar

50 Keohane, and Nye, , “Transgovernmental Relations,” p. 41.Google Scholar

51 I do not want to get involved in the question of whether or not these “systemic” properties can ultimately be reduced to sets of characteristics describing the individual component units. For an excellent introduction to the major issues involved in this question, see Brodbeck, May, “Methodological Individualism: Definition and Reduction,” in Brodbeck, May, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan Co., 1968).Google Scholar

52 See Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict, and Schelling, Thomas C., Arms and Influence (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

53 Rapoport, Anatol, Fights, Games and Debates (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1960),Google Scholar and Rapoport, , Strategy and Conscience (New York: Schocken Books, 1969).Google Scholar

54 Hopmann, P. Terrence, “Bargaining in Arms Control Negotiations: The Seabeds Denuclearization Treaty,” International Organization Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 This literature is much too large and well-known to justify extensive citation. However, for a good example of how the state-as-actor focus may be effectively used, one should consult the various works of Robert C. North and his associates on the Stanford Studies in Conflict and Integration. For a statement of the Project's early work, see Zinnes, Dina A., North, Robert C., and Koch, Howard E. Jr, “Capability, Threat, and the Outbreak of War,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1961).Google Scholar A later report on the Project's work is found in Holsti, Ole R., North, Robert C., and Brody, Richard A., “Perception and Action in the 1914 Crisis,” in Singer, J. David, ed., Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York: Free Press, 1968).Google Scholar One of the most recent and comprehensive accounts of the ways in which national decision makers respond to threats and hostility, measured both in terms of the verbal and physical behavior (e.g., verbal threats and troop mobilization respectively) of other national decision makers, is provided by Holsti's, Ole R.Crisis, Escalation, War (Montreal, Canada: Queen's University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

56 Hoffmann, Stanley, Gulliver's Troubles, or the Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968);Google ScholarHoffmann, Stanley, “Discord in Community: The North Atlantic Area as a Partial International System,” in Wilcox, Francis O. and Haviland, H. Field Jr, eds., The Atlantic Community: Progress and Prospects (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1963)Google Scholar; Kissinger, Henry, “Central Issues in American Foreign Policy,” in Kissinger, , American Foreign Policy (New York: Norton, 1974),Google Scholar particularly Sections 2 and 3 on “The Limits of Bipolarity,” and “Political Multipolarity” respectively. Finally, Rosecrance's, RichardAction and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, and Co., 1963),Google Scholar provides a concrete analysis of the diplomacy of the European state system in the context of distinctive historical eras.

57 See, in particular, Noel, Émile, “Comment Fonctionnent les Institutions des Communautes Européenes” No. 51, Les Documents Communautés Européene (Paris: Bureau D'Information Des Communautés Européennes, 1968)Google Scholar; and Coombes, David, Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community: A Portrait of the Commission of the E.E.C. (London, England: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1970).Google Scholar

58 Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 52.Google Scholar

59 Hirschman, , National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. See particularly pp. 85–155.Google Scholar

60 Kissinger, , American Foreign Policy, pp. 51–97.Google Scholar

61 Kissinger, , The Troubled Partnership (New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc. 1965), pp. 3–30.Google Scholar

62 Lipsey, R., “The Theory of Customs Union: A General Survey,” Bhagwati, Jagdish, ed., International Trade (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1969).Google Scholar

63 Haas, Emst B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964).Google Scholar See especially Chapter 13, pp. 429–58.

64 This definition is nearly identical to the one offered by Nye, Joseph S. and Keohane, Robert O. in “Transnational Relations and World Politics,” in Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., eds., International Organization Vol. 25, No. 3 (Summer 1971): 332.Google Scholar There are a large number of examples in this category. The special issue of International Organization edited by Keohane and Nye provides diverse applications as does the mushrooming literature on the multinational corporation. For an excellent study of the role of business and industrial enterprises within the EEC, see Meynaud, Jean and Sidjanski, Dusan, L'Europe Des Affaires: Role Et Structure Des Groupes (Paris: Payat, 1967).Google Scholar

65 In some of the early literature this distinction was not sharply made. Both private international relations and sub-governmental politics were treated together as challenges to the unified state-as-actor approach. See, for example, Wolfers, Arnold, “The Actors in International Politics,” in Romani, Romano, ed., The International Political System (New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1972);Google Scholar and Rosenau, James N., ed., Linkage Politics (New York: Free Press, 1969).Google Scholar See also the excellent article by J. David Singer, “The Global System and Its Subsystems: A Developmental View,” in Rosenau, ed., Linkage Politics. A systematic examination of what is implied by this distinction is carried out by Keohane and Nye, “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations.”

66 Johan Galtung, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.”

67 Davis B. Bobrow and Robert T. Kudrle, “Theory, Policy and Resource Cartels: The Case of OPEC,” University of Maryland and University of Minnesota, mimeo (no date).

68 See footnote 2.

69 Santos, Dos, “The Crisis of Development Theory and the Problem of Dependence in Latin America,” p. 73.Google Scholar

70 Jonas, “Dependency and Imperialism.”

71 Cardoso, , “Dependent-Capitalist Development in Latin America,” p. 94.Google Scholar

72 Jalée, Pierre, The Pillage of the Third World (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968), p. 15.Google Scholar

73 Quoted in Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” The Economic History Review second series, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1953): 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Semmel, , The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Sideri, S., Trade and Power: Informal Colonialism in Anglo-Portuguese Relations (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Rotterdam University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

76 See Martins, Luciano, “The Multinational Corporation, ‘National Economies’ and Intercapitalist Competition (A Political Analysis),” Paris, mimeo (08 1974).Google Scholar See also “The Politics of U.S. Multinationals in Latin America,” in Cotler, and Fagen, , eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

77 Hymer, Stephen, “The Multinational Corporation and the Law of Uneven Development,” in Bhagwati, Jagdish N., ed., Economics and World Order: From the 1970's to the 1990's (New York: Macmillan Publishing House, 1972).Google Scholar

78 Cotler, and Fagen, , “Introduction: Political Relations Between Latin America and the United States,” in Cotler and Fagen, eds., Latin America and the United States, p. 3.Google Scholar

79 Cotler, and Fagen, , “Introduction,” p. 7.Google Scholar