Global South Development Patterns: The Dependence Theory Research Paper

Introduction

The effectiveness of the dependence theory in explaining development patterns in the global south depends on the political structure and stability and the ability of the citizens to participate in the economic inclusion of the respective countries. This paper will seek to defend this argument by drawing a comparison between South Africa and Singapore. According to Kvangraven, the basis of the modernization theory was the belief that developing countries coming into contact with Western European and North American societies would cause the former to appreciate modernization.¹ Consequently, they would start gravitating towards modernization and embracing social, political, and economic features that characterized Western Europe and North America.² Conversely, there were no hopes by the 1960s of developing countries escaping the cage of underdevelopment. As a result, the modernization theory came under question.

Following criticism of the modernization theory, a counterclaim was advanced, suggesting a structural difference between the advanced countries of the global north and south. Intellectuals drawn from Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Argentina developed a structuralist thesis based on this claim, arguing that the structural differences between the global north and south implied that the latter required different modernization recipes.³ This side of the global divide mostly produced foodstuff, cash crops, and raw materials exported to Western Europe and North American countries at meager prices. As a result, it created a dynamic that ensured the continued impoverishment of the former colonies, causing their modernization to remain just a dream.⁴ This argument formed the dependency theory basis, emphasizing the importance of having a holistic view of imperialism’s complexity and role in shaping postcolonial states.

Dependency Theory and the Cases of South Africa and Singapore

Both South Africa and Singapore were under British colonialism before gaining their independence. Thus, under ceteris paribus, one would expect that the effects of colonization in the two nations would be identical. However, that is not the case since these two countries have varying factors, including natural resources and political, economic, and social structures. The history of independence of Singapore differs substantially from that of South Africa, which was characterized by racial segregation against nonwhite South Africans under the apartheid system between 1948 and 1994.⁵ On the contrary, Singapore institutionalized constitutional progress characterized by the election of the ministers and legislative assembly. Thus, the locals ran the country except for controlling foreign policy and defense that was still under Britain.⁶ Consequently, Singapore could determine the use and distribution of her resources with reduced overbearing from Britain. Thus, while the political system in South Africa deepened the dependence of nonwhites on the Whites and the global north, Singapore enforced self-reliance and a fairly uniform distribution of resources.

The socioeconomic structures of South Africa and Singapore depict the difference in the effectiveness of using dependence theory in addressing the development pattern in global south countries. In South Africa, the country’s wealth and economic inclusion are largely skewed in favor of the descendants of the former colonialists decades after escaping colonization.⁷ The market capitalization of the leading mining companies in south Africa in 2022 reveals that Anglo-American Platinum, with its roots in the global north, controls the largest market share of the mining industry at 378 billion rands.⁸ Consequently, South Africa’s natural resources are still not under the control of indigenous people, negatively impacting the uniform development of the country. This system contrasts with the case of Singapore, whose wealth and economic systems are largely under the control of natives. While Singapore lacks the endowment of natural resources as in the case of South Africa, its seaport has been the main economic driver since the times of colonialism.⁹ Contrary to South Africa, Singapore took full charge of the port, driving its operations and ensuring maximum benefits to the natives. Other main sectors of the economy, such as electronic manufacturing and financial services, are also largely run by natives as opposed to the case of South Africa. Consequently, it is easier for Singapore to address her challenges without over-relying on the global north, which is not the case with South Africa.

The inequalities within the South African economy regarding the opportunities available for Whites versus nonwhites have drawn the government into instituting measures to address them, slowing down the embracing and advancement of new ideas. On the contrary, Singapore does not have the burgage of her former colonizer dominating the market. The general ownership of mining firms in South Africa is largely in favor of the descendants of the colonialists. In an attempt to overturn the inequality within the mining industry, the 2002 Mining Charter capped the black people’s ownership in every mining firm to at least 26%, and it was achieved in 2014, with coal mining recording the highest at 47.2% black ownership while the diamond mining the lowest at 26%.¹⁰ In 2017, there was a charter revision, capping the minimum number of black people’s ownership in mining firms at 30%.¹¹ While these efforts bear fruits, South Africa is still struggling with a challenge Singapore did not have to face. Thus, escaping it placed Singapore in a comparatively advantaged position relative to South Africa.

Unlike South Africa, Singapore is not endowed with natural resources or wonders. Over the years, Singapore has progressively moved on from the dependency theory and emerged as an industrialized economy, playing effectively in the global league.¹² Singapore was never endowed with natural resources that were transferred to the global north, as was the case with South Africa. It is also true that the transfer of human capital from Singapore to the developed world as enslaved people for cheap labor was not the case in other global south countries, especially in Africa.¹³ Consequently, the colonialists left Singapore at a relative vantage point compared to South Africa.

The spread of the threat of communism worked in favor of Singapore, benefiting from the global north, which was not the case for South Africa. The geopolitical climate a few years before the start of the Asian Miracle came to be a reality that pitted the democracy and communism ideals against each other.¹⁴ The United States was determined to isolate the threat of communism. Thus, to effectively achieve their goal, the United States committed to bolstering the economy of Singapore, which was highly vulnerable to communist ideals. The United States believed that the spread of communism hinged on economic inequality, prompting it to invest in Singapore and other Asian countries to create allies.¹⁵

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is impossible to refute the effectiveness of the dependency theory in explaining the influence it has on the development pattern in the majority of the global south countries. However, the net impact of the theory on the country is also influenced by several factors, including political, social, and economic structure. The main differences explaining the influence of the dependency theory in South Africa and Singapore are based on the natural resources and political factors existing within the two countries.

References

Alami, Ilias, Carolina Alves, Bruno Bonizzi, Annina Kaltenbrunner, Kai Koddenbrock, Ingrid Kvangraven, and Jeff Powell. “International financial subordination: a critical research agenda.” Review of International Political Economy (2022): 1-27. Web.

Asongu, Simplice, Uduak S. Akpan, and Salisu R. Isihak. “Determinants of foreign direct investment in fast-growing economies: evidence from the BRICS and MINT countries.” Financial Innovation 4, no. 1 (2018): 1-17. Web.

Kvangraven, Ingrid Harvold. “Beyond the stereotype: Restating the relevance of the dependency research program.” Development and Change 52, no. 1 (2021): 76-112. Web.

Lawhon, Mary, and Yaffa Truelove. “Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways, and possibilities for more global urban studies.” Urban Studies 57, no. 1 (2020): 3-20. Web.

Legare, Cristine H., Michael T. Dale, Sarah Y. Kim, and Gedeon O. Deák. “Cultural variation in cognitive flexibility reveals diversity in the development of executive functions.” Scientific reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 1-14. Web.

Lewis, Colin M. “Capitalism, Imperialism and the Emergence of an Industrialized Global Economy.” Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives, 1200–2000 (2022): 127.

Miller, Jennifer M. “Neoconservatives and Neo-Confucians: East Asian Growth and the Celebration of Tradition.” Modern Intellectual History 18, no. 3 (2021): 806-832. Web.

Pérez, Francisco. “East Asia has delinked–can Ethiopia delink too?” Review of African Political Economy 48, no. 167 (2021): 102-118. Web.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The present state of the debate on world inequality. Routledge, 2019.

Footnotes

1. Kvangraven, Ingrid Harvold. “Beyond the stereotype: Restating the relevance of the dependency research program.” Development and Change 52, no. 1 (2021): 76-112. Web.
2. Lawhon, Mary, and Yaffa Truelove. “Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways, and possibilities for more global urban studies.” Urban Studies 57, no. 1 (2020): 3-20. Web.
3. Wallerstein, Immanuel. The present state of the debate on world inequality. Routledge, 2019.
4. Lawhon, Mary, and Yaffa Truelove. Urban Studies 57, no. 1 (2020): 3-20.
5. Legare, Cristine H., Michael T. Dale, Sarah Y. Kim, and Gedeon O. Deák. “Cultural variation in cognitive flexibility reveals diversity in the development of executive functions.” Scientific reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 1-14. Web.
6. Miller, Jennifer M. “Neoconservatives and Neo-Confucians: East Asian Growth and the Celebration of Tradition.” Modern Intellectual History 18, no. 3 (2021): 806-832. Web.
7. Alami, Ilias, Carolina Alves, Bruno Bonizzi, Annina Kaltenbrunner, Kai Koddenbrock, Ingrid Kvangraven, and Jeff Powell. Review of International Political Economy (2022): 1-27.
8. Asongu, Simplice, Uduak S. Akpan, and Salisu R. Isihak. Financial Innovation 4, no. 1 (2018): 1-17.
9. Lewis, Colin M. “Capitalism, Imperialism and the Emergence of an Industrialized Global Economy.” Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives, 1200–2000 (2022): 127.
10. Lewis, Colin M. Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives, 1200–2000 (2022): 127.
11. Lewis, Colin M. Evolutions of Capitalism: Historical Perspectives, 1200–2000 (2022): 127.
12. Kvangraven, Ingrid Harvold. “Beyond the stereotype: Restating the relevance of the dependency research program.” Development and Change 52, no. 1 (2021): 76-112. Web.
13. Pérez, Francisco. “East Asia has delinked–can Ethiopia delink too?” Review of African Political Economy 48, no. 167 (2021): 102-118. Web.
14. Miller, Jennifer M. “Neoconservatives and Neo-Confucians: East Asian Growth and the Celebration of Tradition.” Modern Intellectual History 18, no. 3 (2021): 806-832. Web.
15. Wallerstein, Immanuel. The present state of the debate on world inequality. Routledge, 2019.