Whether the Latin America Culture Is Underdevelopment - Article Example

Latin Culture Professor’s Name University The City and State Date Latin Culture The current difference in developed and developing countries has attracted numerous theory developments illustrated through history events. The dependency theory is one of the theories used to explain the difference between developed and developing countries. Dependency theory argues that resources basically flow from underdeveloped nations to a number of rich wealthy and developed nations. This means that poor or underdeveloped countries offer natural resource, cheap labor, and markets for developed nations. Developed countries thus have some form of dependency on these counties where interactions are at different levels including political, economic, cultural, and technological factors. Latin America is one of the most applied regions to justify the dependency theory. The theory suggests that Latin American underdevelopment is the result of the region’s links with the developed world. The following essay aims at critiquing this suggestion through the use of evidence from present and previous literature. There are many definitions to the dependency theory, but all of them have common features that explain the overall ideology of the concept. Dependency is firstly viewed as a clarification of the economic development of a country due to external influences in terms of economic, cultural, and political factors on a country’s development policies. The dependency theory also shares the assertion that there are two sets of nations in the world system including the developed/dominant and the periphery/center nations (Harrison, 1984). The dependent countries are the rich countries such as America and European nations while the center nations are those with low Gross National Products (GDP) such as Latin America, Africa, and Asian nations (Osorio, 2016, p. 93). Additionally, there is a mutual element of external forces that influence the dependency of developed nations. Multinational corporations, foreign assistance, and international commodity markets are some of the external forces that developed nations can use to represent their economic interest’s overseas (Kay & Gwynne, 2000, p. 51). Dependency theory also shares the affirmation that the interaction in terms of economic, political, and cultural issues between developed and underdeveloped nations reinforces the inequality patterns. Again, Wiarda (1999, p. 50), argues that the dependency theory is a historical process where developed nations of the current world have been dependent on underdeveloped countries. Therefore, there is increased inequality in terms of how trade between developed and poorer or developing nations is conducted. Most developed nations rely on the import of raw materials to meet the demand of industries. These raw materials are scarce in these countries and even if they are abundant, the demand is high due to increased industrialization. However, underdeveloped countries have abundant or just enough raw materials, but are not industrialized meaning there is reduced to no demand for most raw materials. This attracts international trade where developed countries have a higher hand in terms of representing or negotiating their interest. Developed nations such as Europe and America thus export raw materials at a depressed price while importing goods at higher prices to developing or periphery nations. For instance, Latin America has been a key exporter of rubber, silver, and bananas among others to America especially in the 19th and 20th century (Kay & Gwynne, 2000, p. 49). Moreover, Latin America has from a historical perspective imported more products from America than the goods it has exported to America. Developed nations are highly industrious, thus they produce manufactured goods in plenty. To ensure that these industries are running, they require new markets, thus the huge number of imports to underdeveloped countries. Therefore, the developed nations are dependent on poorer nations to acquire markets, cheap labor, and raw materials in order for their economies to perform effectively. A historical perspective on the development of Latin America better explains the basis of the dependency theory. Colonization is attributed to the under-development of Latin America as a construct of the dependency theory. European powers began their industrialization way back in the 18th century, fueling new industries, technologies, and products. The boom in industrial development was met with an increased demand for new markets as well as raw materials. Capitalism was increasingly pursued during the late 18th century and most of the 19th century. European nations colonized Latin America and exploited most of their raw materials to feed their industrial hunger for raw materials. For instance, in the 18th century, the Portuguese discovered gold in Brazil and used their new found wealth to purchase industrial products, technology, and education from the British, thereby driving their development. The colonial era is full of exploitative stages in raw materials and especially natural resources that have shaped the early 20th century state of Latin America. After the colonial era ended, due to the already established demand for raw materials and markets from industrialized nations, the nations applied other methods to continue the cycle of exploitation. Galeano & Belfrage (1997, p. 56), argue that in the 1950s through to the 1960s, Latin America experienced free-trade, neoliberal values, and foreign aid that were all for the benefit of developed countries. For instance, the United States used foreign aid to Latin American countries to acquire new markets while restricting the economic liberties of aid recipients. The U.S restricted countries receiving their aid from exporting to countries they believed to be incompatible with its economic interests or from exporting goods that could compete with its alternatives (Galeano & Belfrage, 1997, p. 56). This trend increased to include other major commodities especially in agriculture such as sugar, coffee, and bananas. Furthermore, this continued through history where the rise of multinational corporations led to increased trading between Latin America and developed countries. In the 1980s most Latin American nations started trading most of their main local raw materials and resources such as cotton, coffee, sugar, and rubber to developed countries that gave then enough capital or wealth to industrialize their nations to a certain point. Nonetheless, most of these industries were a partial boom that enhanced the economy for only a limited time (Sotelo, 2014, p. 539). This was the result of the increased rise of multinational corporations in the West or the developed countries. Most corporations moved to poorer countries seeking to reduce labor and raw material costs. For instance, textile multinationals camped in the cotton growing regions of Latin America to exploit the cheap labor and raw materials. The result of the whole cycle since colonialism to around the 20th century is an ever growing gap in terms of standards of living, wealth, wages, and overall development of infrastructure and industries between developed and developing countries. Currently, the most developed nations have the highest living standards with Latin America still facing poor living standards. The bottom line is that the dependency theory has a historical significance that can be explained from the age of colonialism to what is being experienced currently. Although the dependency theory based on the historical development of Latin America explains why Latin America remains underdeveloped, it still illustrates some weaknesses in tying these underdevelopments to links with developed countries. According to Chilcote, (1974, p. 4), the underdevelopment of Latin America can only be explained as its own failure rather than the links or influence of developed nations. A key weakness of the dependency theory is that Latin America was in no position to integrate itself in the world system without the influence of the developed or western nations. This is because, despite having unlimited amounts of natural resources as well as raw materials, they could not absorb or utilize them to industrialize their nations (Chilcote, 1974, p. 4). Therefore, developed countries applied both open and competitive influences to integrate Latin America in to the global system. Thus, it is not the sole result of developed nations that Latin America is underdeveloped, it is the slow response to a changing world where nations refused to recognize the need to integrate into the world system. Moreover, the dependency theory has been criticized as a vague explanation to the current underdevelopment of Latin America. This is because it only compares the economic status and relations between rich and poor nations. However, it ignores the complex interconnections of politics and culture in evaluating the differences between center and peripheral nations (Grosfoguel, 2000, p. 347). The dependency theory is only fixated in the differences of the center and peripheral in terms of how center nations influenced peripheral nations resulting in the underdevelopment of the peripheral. However, the theory does not assess the political and cultural aspects surrounding peripheral or underdeveloped countries. After the end of colonization, Latin America and other poorer countries embarked on developing their nations after acquiring freedom (Kay, 2011, p. 45). One of the main features of this time in history is the rejection of the western style of development. The western way of development, which was mainly a capitalist style was viewed as exploitative and most nations had different agendas. The political context of Latin America through history especially in the 19th and 20th century was shaped by increasingly weak and disorganized governments (Grosfoguel, 2000, p. 356). There has been a trend of dictatorship and clear declaration of western distaste in terms of culture, politics, and economics. Latin American nations have enjoyed freedom for decades, but have not yet achieved much to uplift their economic status, which is viewed as its own failure. This is because currently, the trade relations between the U.S and Latin America have declined remarkable from about 50% in the 1980s to about 18% in 2003 (Lomnitz, 2012, p. 350). This implies that the continued underdevelopment in some Latin American nations today cannot be blamed on external relations to developed nations. The political development of Latin America through history has been increasingly vulnerable to internal forces and struggles for power and control. Most Latin American nations have experienced increased conflict due to political tensions between differing parties. Dictatorial regimes have also spread across Latin America over the history of its development (Lomnitz, 2012, p. 352). Again, issues such as corruption are evidently higher in poorer or underdeveloped countries than in most developed countries. This means that Latin America’s underdevelopment is as a result of its inability to develop robust governments with the commitment to developing their nations to the status of developed countries. In the past decade, some countries in Latin America such as Mexico and Brazil are economically stable than compared to other Latin countries such as Chile (Sabatini, 2012, p. 10). Therefore, Latin America was weak in terms of external relations in politics, culture, and economic means, thus resulting in their vulnerability to external forces who acted on their own interest. To reinforce the argument of how Latin America failed by its own to develop or prosper, Latin American politics, economy, and culture can be compared to those of prosperous or developed nations. In history, most developed nations applied open forms of government or the democratic form of government where the people voices were represented. The use of the constitutions allowed for enhanced abilities in eliminating some of the major impediments of development. For instance, in the U.S, its democratic political system enabled the country to pursue its interest through difficult situations to become a prosperous nation. The culture of democracy tends to focus development for the betterment of the whole public rather than conferring too much authority on the few. In the democratic system of government, the U.S was able to balance the interests of its citizens through increased sharing of power and decision making. However, the Latin American political history is rather the opposite. Increased conflict and dictatorial regimes focused on the wrong agendas as citizens lacked a voice to illustrate their interests. Besides, with power and authority concentrated on a few elites, who lacked the skills and knowledge of development, decision making was poor. Even the successes that some Latin American countries witnessed were short-lived as urbanization went from being a success to a nightmare (Romero-Lankao & Gnatz, 2013, p. 360). Latin America is one of the largest regions to grow its population by double digits over the past few centuries. However, almost a quarter of this population remains illiterate while another quarter remains unemployed. Overall, these statistics represents a cycle of increased internal failures to recognize the key elements of development. There is also evidence that Latin American scholars have contributed minimal knowledge to the arts, illustrating a biased development of the dependency theory. Scholars in Latin America have been inclined on a one-sided argument and ideology of the influence of external forces in its underdevelopment. Nonetheless, among the Latin American scholars and intellectuals there is infrequent self-criticism (Harrison, 1984). This is observed in most of the theorists who back the dependency theory including Raul Prebisch who initially proposed the theory that they do not recognize any internal forces within Latin America that could have potentially contributed to its underdevelopment. In comparison, scholars in most developed countries observe increased self-criticism where they support the ideology that external forces or the Western influence in Latin America resulted in the underdevelopment of Latin America (Harrison, 1984). Overall, the dependency theory may have been important and valid back in history when it was developed. However, the world has changed and new aspects have to be considered and evaluated to offer a balanced analysis of underdevelopment in Latin America. The historical development of the dependency theory does not recognize the issues of internal class and political struggles that can effectively offer a comprehensive analysis on developmental issues in Latin America. In conclusion, the dependency theory argues that the underdevelopment of Latin America is due to the region’s links with external forces. The main support for this evidence is the increased relations with developed nations that acquired increased amounts of raw materials and resources from colonial times. It has also been shaped by post-colonial relations where developed nations through different means accessed resources from Latin America as exports but at the expense of the region through access to cheap labor and costly imports. Nonetheless, this assertion has expired in terms of its validity as it ignores the internal forces that Latin America has undergone in a historical context. The dependency theory does not comprehensively illustrate a strong assentation based on the complex nature of relations between Latin America and developed nations as well as the internal forces in political, economic, and cultural aspects of Latin America. References Chilcote, RH 1974, 'Dependency: A Critical Synthesis of the Literature', Latin American Perspectives, no. 1, p. 4. Galeano, E, & Belfrage, C 1997, Open veins of Latin America : five centuries of the pillage of a continent / Eduardo Galeano ; translated by Cedric Belfrage, New York : Monthly Review Press, c1997. Grosfoguel, R 2000, 'Developmentalism, Modernity, and Dependency Theory in Latin America', Nepantla: Views from South, no. 2, p. 347. Harrison, LE, 1984, Latin America: The High Costs of the Dependency Theory Myth. Crisis Magazine. Available at: http://www.crisismagazine.com/1984/latin-america-the-high-costs-of-the-dependency-theory-myth [Accessed 28 May 2016]. Kay, C 2011, Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment, Routledge, Oxfordshire, England. Kay, C, & Gwynne, RN 2000, 'Relevance of Structuralist and Dependency Theories in the Neoliberal Period: A Latin American Perspective', Journal of Developing Societies (Brill Academic Publishers), vol. 16, no. 1, p. 49. Lomnitz, C 2012, 'Time and Dependency in Latin America Today', South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 347-357. Osorio, J 2016, 'Dialectics, superexploitation, and dependency: notes on The Dialectics of Dependency', Social Justice, no. 1, p. 93. Romero-Lankao, P, & Gnatz, DM 2013, 'Exploring urban transformations in Latin America', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 5, no. Open issue, pp. 358-367. Sabatini, C 2012, 'Rethinking Latin America', Foreign Affairs, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 8-13. Sotelo Valencia, A 2014, 'Latin America: Dependency and Super-Exploitation', Critical Sociology (Sage Publications, Ltd.), vol. 40, no. 4, p. 539. Wiarda, HJ 1999, 'Toward Consensus in Interpreting Latin American Politics: Developmentalism, Dependency, and `The..', Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 34, no. 2, p. 50. Read More