This article attempts to examine the set of propositions loosely known as the dependency model of Latin American underdevelopment. The dependency model attributes such underdevelopment to the economic expansion of highly developed capitalist countries, particularly the United States. The model was first elaborated by Latin American economists and has subsequently acquired numerous adherents in the United States, especially among younger political scientists.

The basic premise of the dependency model is that the economic development of Latin America has been determined and limited by the needs of the dominant economies in the world capitalist market. Because they are thus conditioned and limited, the Latin American economies are described as “dependent.”

The fundamental reality of Latin America during the 1970s will be the efforts of governments to reduce their countries' dependence on the developed world and thereby increase their autonomy within the international system. A salient aspect of this effort is and will be a redefinition of the role multinational corporations play in Latin American societies. Foreign investment will continue to play an important part in the economic life of the region, but the acceptable characteristics and behaviors of multinational corporations will differ substantially from those which were prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s.

The rationale for a restructuring of the relationship of Latin American economies with the system of international trade and investment is found in the writings of “dependence theorists” such as Theotonio Dos Santos (1970) and Osvaldo Sunkel (1972). In a sense, their approach can be seen as a development of the Prebisch thesis of the 1950s, which held that Latin American economies were being systematically diverted from attaining their true potential through the workings of the international trade mechanism.

One of the more recent and interesting contributions in the field of development has been the theory of dependence. This theory seeks to explain the most pressing problems of the less-developed world in terms of the relations between the developing and developed areas. Stagnation, unemployment, income inequality, and regional disequilibria are all seen as directly related to a less-developed country's position vis-à-vis the developed and capitalist world. Unfortunately, the theory of dependence has become something of a cause célèbre. It is either eagerly accepted or scornfully rejected as a matter of faith—primarily because of its political implications and overtones. Those who accept it embrace it willfully and rally to defend it against any possible detractors. Those who reject it generally choose to ignore it as either not serious or unworthy of careful attention and consideration.

UNCTAD III—the most recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, meeting in Santiago, Chile, during April and May 1972—provided added evidence of growing world concern about “multinational enterprise.” Expressly, numerous developing countries chose the occasion for official presentations clearly aligning themselves with earlier skeptics elsewhere. Not only did these countries question the presence, practices, and impact of multinational enterprise, but many continued on in their presentations with suggestions, direct or implied, for control measures and mechanisms. Indeed, so pervasive was the undercurrent of disillusionment and disturbance that even some developed countries saw fit to recognize the mood with assorted references, conciliatory or elaborative, in their own formal presentations.

With these ringing words, Colonel Henry L. Kincaide, at the 1913 Convention of the American Manufacturers Export Association, urged his fellow manufacturers into battle. The adversaries were England and Germany; the prize, world trade (Faulkner, 1924; Beard, 1934; Williams, 1959; LaFeber, 1963).

The speech came at an opportune time, because just three months later Congress was to pass the Federal Reserve Act and thus sanction a trade aid for which exporters had been lobbying for many years-the legal establishment of American branch banks in foreign countries (Chandler, 1911; Holmes, 1912; Bankers Magazine, 1913; Ring, 1913).

The Colombian political system has been characterized by a duality. On the one hand, there are recurrent fears-and these perceptions are held even by outsiders—that the political system is on the verge of total collapse and disruption. On the other hand, when measured in terms of the continuity and survival of the traditional civilian elite and the actual challenge posed by counter-elites, the Colombia system has been relatively stable. In effect, since the turn of the century, Colombia's ruling group has been renovated by the cooptation of new elements by the ruling elite. The bulk of these new members has been young individuals fairly well integrated within the values and norms of the establishment. Although some social change has occurred and there has been some upward mobility (for the best general treatment of Colombian twentieth-century politics, see Dix, 1967), the resilience of the Colombian upper class can be illustrated with two cases.

Recognition of the economic power of multinational corporations has stimulated speculation about the development of international political structures to regulate this power. A major difficulty in assuming that corporate expansion throughout the world will give rise to political phenomena of similar scope lies in the difference between international power based on corporate growth and international power based on the cooperation of nation-states. Whereas the economic internationalism of corporations is in general an expansion of power which has well-defined historical foundations in ideology and organization, the task of developing international political associations with power to enforce policy within a number of states entails at least a partial redefinition of traditional bases of political sovereignty. The former is growth of existing power; the latter is creation of a new form of power. There is no obviously necessary development from one to the other.