The (Lost) Art of Black Political Economy, Part 3
Walter Rodney & The Dependency School
Welcome to The (Lost) Art of Black Political Economy, an ongoing series highlighting Black thinkers' intellectual contributions to the field of political economy. The works discussed will range from economic theory to policy to history. We hope you enjoy.
—
For our third installment in this series, we go international. While the combination of issues facing Black people in the United States is particular, the problems themselves are not unique. There is much to learn by reading abroad. First stop: Guyana. The South American (by location, Caribbean by culture) nation was the birthplace of the late historian and activist Walter Rodney. Dr. Rodney’s name has been revived in recent years, due in part to a reprinting of his works, including the 1972 classic, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. The book has informed many progressive and revolutionary minds about the history of colonization (and its remnants) on the mother continent.
Many of the book’s themes were also distilled in essay form. One particular piece, “Problems of Third World Development,”1 discusses the empirical and theoretical challenges Global South2 countries face when constructing their economic plans. It deals with the structure of the entire global system. That proverbial bird’s eye view is useful. Important insights are lost when one is too deep in the weeds. Dr. Rodney’s methodology contributed to the intellectual phenomenon known as the Dependency Theory school, an approach to studying the economic system, founded by Latin American scholars. This school of thought has several lessons for those studying economic development.
Core & Periphery: Mapping the Global Economy
“…I would suggest that if we are talking about the problems of development in the Third World, the major problem is the United States of America, because it crowns the whole structure of world imperialism.”
Walter Rodney, Problems of Third World Development
Dr. Rodney identifies two types of nations: the colonial powers and newly “independent” nations. The former group, which includes the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, comprises the core of the global economy.3 They were (and remain to a large extent) the richest (in monetary terms) and most industrialized nations on the planet. At the time Dr. Rodney was writing, the core nations controlled all international institutions, including the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Dialectically opposed to the core group are the periphery nations4. Representing the majority of the planet’s human population, these nations mostly occupy Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The periphery contains a disproportionate percentage of the world’s poor. By the 1970s, most of these nations were nominally free and sovereign. Upon closer inspection, the claim that these nations were able to chart their paths, free from interference, was dubious.
Several features keep the periphery nations ensnared in the plans of the core group. First is unequal trade. The premise is simple enough. Core nations design trade deals that favor them. Commodities sold to the periphery have prices set exclusively by the core nations. The periphery is essentially barred from competing with core nations, be it in value-added products or services. Within the world-system, the periphery is thus relegated to exporting raw materials (e.g., fossil fuels, rare earth metals, crops).
The people of these nations are a source of cheap labor and a market for products sold by the core. These unequal trade agreements are supported by a financial system that flows money away from the periphery, toward the core nations. Dr. Rodney notes that this money, which some consider profit, is in fact “capital.” These capital flows are historical:
“This began with the trade in slaves, while later it took the form of grossly unequal trade between Europe and the rest of the world. The most that can be said about European capital export is that Europe has been the centre for the redistribution and reallocation of capital that is produced throughout the world. Capital produced in, say, the Caribbean or in North America in the epoch of slavery, was shifted to Europe, and – at a later date – was redistributed from Western Europe to Eastern Europe; or capital that was obtained by forcing the Chinese to smoke opium was redistributed into the Indian sector of the British imperialist economy…”
The money sent from the core to the periphery through aid and loans is negligible compared to these capital flows. Another pillar of the core-periphery binary is the blockage of technology. Internally, indigenous technology was destroyed during the colonial period. This included both the products and the knowledge base. Externally, no new technology could enter the colony, except when the colonial power agreed. Technology was of particular importance to the core powers because it allowed,
“…for the imperialist countries to begin to adopt radically new strategies in terms of international division of labour and in terms of the kinds of political controls which they exercise over the Third World.”
One of those “kinds of political controls” was the socialization of an indigenous class from the periphery who identified with the core nations’ values and cultures. Education was the primary mechanism for socializing this group. This indigenous class (which Dr. Rodney calls the petty bourgeoisie) then became the rulers of the peripheral country after independence, in a process known as neocolonialism. The country’s political structure is then composed of indigenous figures, but remains tied to a colonial power. The doctor writes,
“The national government of the petty bourgeoisie has little control over production and is endowed with a very feeble political base.”
To preserve what little power they do have, the neocolonial political class restricts democratic processes. In turn, the masses rebel, pushing for better material conditions and greater influence in national concerns. Mass rebellion in the periphery can take many paths, but all too often it ends in military coups and dictatorship.
As the Third World moved from colonialism to neocolonialism, the linkages between sectors within a country and the connections between countries were broken. For Dr. Rodney, this meant that “within the Third World there is no cohesion with respect to production and exchange.” Before colonialism, these civilizations were a system in and of themselves. Now they had been consumed, like a school of fish by a whale, to serve foreign interests.
Neocolonialism, combined with the economic tactics of unequal trade, capital flows, and technology blockage (and others), defined the imperialist system. It was imperialism that hindered development in the Third World. And it was morphing. Using the dialectical materialist method, Dr. Rodney analyzed how imperialism responded in the second half of the 20th century to anti-colonial struggles. This transformed imperialism meant new phenomena. One was “growth without development.”
Some nations in the periphery were experiencing growth in their gross national product (GNP)5 and per capita income6. There were two issues with this, though. The growth rates weren’t as high as mainstream (Dr. Rodney calls them bourgeois) economists suggested as indicative of proper “economic growth.” If that weren’t bad enough, the growth rates reported by these countries didn’t translate to improved material conditions for the masses.
Jamaica served as a case study. While their gross domestic product (GDP)7 was increasing, the housing supply fell; malnutrition and protein deficiency grew worse; and fewer people could afford new clothes and shoes. Nations like Jamaica couldn’t combat this arrangement because imperialism had already improved its response to nationalist, anti-colonial struggle. Proposed solutions to Third World economic development, in turn, further entrenched these nations in the imperial system. Take tourism, for instance. National investment efforts in the Caribbean prioritized beaches over farms, hotels over factories. The result of this, according to Dr. Rodney, was that,
“Several islands in the Caribbean have been transformed into backwaters of the world economy; they are no longer central to the development of the world economy, because they have lost the priority that they had a long time ago when Sugar was king. It is a relatively simple task to transform them into cesspools, which is what the tourism economy is all about.”
The same was increasingly true on the African continent. Instead of beaches, East African nations like Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda became “wildlife republics.” The tourist money, coming mainly from the core nations, produced a dynamic where “the animals assumed priorities higher than human beings.”
Those peripheral nations that could not compete as tourist destinations imported a new imperialist element: the branch plant economy. Whereas previously, colonial powers would crush all efforts at industrialization in a peripheral country, by the ‘60s and ‘70s, they’d turned over a new leaf. Well, not quite. What the core nations did was build factories for established international corporations in the periphery. The products made in these factories, however, are non-essential. Dr. Rodney mentions the ‘beer factory’ as the primary example of this type of industrialization. Says he,
“Quite apart from the fact that I don’t know of beer as having developed any nation, one has to realize the fallacy on which the claims are based. The underlying notion is that industrialization per se is the answer to underdevelopment.”
This industrialization strategy is called import substitution—building a domestic industry (or in this case, a domestic branch of a foreign industry) instead of purchasing the product or service abroad. Import substitution doesn’t work in isolation. At any historical moment, only a select few products and services ensure economic growth that benefits the masses. For the Third World, those products and services were inaccessible. This was intentional. The periphery had to remain just that—an afterthought in the world-system. Core nations thus proclaimed that they were no longer hindering progress for the Third World, while still keeping those nations trapped at the bottom. It was a stroke of (evil) genius.
Under the latest imperial order, even nationalization efforts had to be scrutinized. It wasn’t enough for a peripheral government to take ownership of a gold mine or a tomato factory. If tied to the same system, it would produce the same results as if those businesses were under direct foreign control. The periphery would not develop, nor meet their people’s needs. But herein lay the beginnings of a solution.
Achieving Third World Power
“…I will suggest that the real issue at the moment – and for the foreseeable future – is not an economic issue but a political one.”
Walter Rodney, Problems of Third World Development
Disengagement. De-linking. A new system. This was the path for Third World nations to follow. Import substitution, foreign aid, tourism—all these were false promises. What was needed was for Third World nations to rebuild their economy as a “logical integrated whole.” All sectors of the economy needed to communicate and plan together. Mining provides the raw materials for industry. Industry develops the agricultural sector with new machinery and scientific processes. Agriculture feeds the masses. The masses work in all three sectors. A self-reinforcing loop. On top of this, Third World nations needed to reconnect with each other. But first, the vestiges of imperialism must be eliminated.
Revolutionary scholars and activists have a unique role to play here. They must analyze the contradictions within their society. Uncritical adoption of Marxism was not enough. Neither was copying the Soviet Union and China as models. Colonial and imperial oppression had restructured Third World societies, with new social classes. Neocolonialism meant a new ruling class. Younger generations escaped their fate by moving to the city for education and job opportunities. Rifts were formed. Each nation had unique challenges. Unfortunately, many Third World nationalists obscured these contradictions during their power grab.
The neocolonial ruling classes are not even true capitalists. Unlike their European and North American masters counterparts, neocolonialists do not innovate. They developed no industry; no institutions. They were more interested in flaunting a Mercedes-Benz than competing with them. Ultimately, they adhered to orders from the core nations.
System-building is for the bold. The neocolonial class, by their actions, demonstrated a profound lack of self-confidence. True decolonization is not just political or economic, but mental as well. Democratic processes, including democratic ownership, would allow the boldest to step forward while strengthening the collective’s mental fortitude. From this bold vision will emerge “political leverage,” as Dr. Rodney calls it. The good doctor offers some guiding questions,
“What are the forces existing in the society and how does one begin to organize to confront the recognized enemy? How does one begin to reach the masses, who are essentially peasant masses, with a very small minority of workers in the traditional (industrial) sense of the word?”
Understand the society. Distill core insights. Educate the masses. Reconcile the contradictions. Take power. Forge a new world. This is the work of revolution.
—
Dr. Walter Rodney was hounded mercilessly by governments across the world for his activism. He was banned from the University of the West Indies (UWI) for radicalizing students. Time was spent teaching at the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, where he experienced African revolution up close and personal. The majority of his most famous works were written during this period. He would return to his native Guyana, looking to continue the struggle. In 1980, he was assassinated. Some believe the Guyanese government, led by nationalist President Forbes Burnham, to be directly involved.
His legacy endures through the Walter Rodney Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to spreading his work and continuing his research efforts. Dr. Rodney remained a radical optimist to the end. For him, the impact of colonialism and imperialism did not dehumanize its victims, but its perpetrators. As material conditions worsened, he believed the masses would rebel, producing the conditions for revolution. In the increasingly fractured world of today, new opportunities are present. New rebellions are underway. Let us use this moment to advance a more humane world.
The essay is published in the recent book Decolonial Marxism: Essays from the Pan-African Revolution, a collection of essays written during the 1970s. It is available for purchase here.
I use the terms “Third World” and “Global South” interchangeably. They reference the same(ish) group of countries, but in different historical contexts. The Third World label is a vestige of the Cold War (First World = America and its allies, Second World = Soviet Union and its allies, Third World = everyone else). The term Global South has emerged more recently to counter this hierarchical typology.
The terms “core” and “periphery” were developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, cited as the inventor of world-systems analysis (a primer on the theory can be found here). This sub-discipline builds on the dependency theory that Dr. Rodney contributed to. Dr. Rodney himself preferred the term metropoles instead of core nations. I will stick with core, as it is more widely used today.
In addition to the periphery, there are also the semi-periphery nations. During Dr. Rodney’s time, these would include the Soviet Union and China. Today, they include China (still), Russia (still), India, and a few others.
GNP is the monetary value of goods and services produced by citizens of a particular country, both domestically and abroad. A full definition is here.
You stay on it 💐💐💐
I’m still slow reading part 1 & 2.