The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd


  • José Gabriel Palma
Reference work entry


The focus of all ‘dependency’ analyses is the development of peripheral capitalism (or lack of it). One approach, begun by Baran, Sweezy and Frank, attempted to construct a theory of the practical impossibility of capitalist development in the periphery. A second emerged from the Structuralist School, especially Furtado, Pinto and Sunkel, and tried to reformulate the classical ECLAC analysis from the perspective of the obstacles to ‘national’ development. A third, initiated by Cardoso and Faletto, concentrated on studying ‘concrete situations of dependency’ – how the specific dynamic of different peripheral societies emerges from the interaction between their internal and external structures.


Baran, P. Capitalism Capitalist development Dependency Economic development Exploitation Frankfurt School Furtado, C. Harrod–Domar theory Imperialism Industrialization Lenin, V. I. Marx, K. H. Marx’s analysis of capitalist production Monopoly capital Multinational corporations Periphery Socialism Structuralism Surplus Underdevelopment 

JEL Classifications

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



 I am extremely grateful to Fiona Tregenna for many constructive comments.


  1. Amin, S. 1970. L’accumulation à l’échelle mondiale: critique de la théorie du sous-développement. Paris/New York: Anthropos/Monthly Review Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Baran, P. 1957. The political economy of growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, R. 1977. The origins of capitalist development: A critique of neo–Smithian Marxism. New Left Review 104: 25–93.Google Scholar
  4. Cardoso, F.H. 1972. Dependency and development in Latin America. New Left Review 74: 83–95.Google Scholar
  5. Cardoso, F.H. and Faletto, E. 1967. Dependencia y Desarrollo en América Latina. Mexico/Berkeley: Siglo XXI/University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Dos Santos, T. 1970. The structure of dependence. American Economic Review 60: 231–236.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, A.G. 1967. Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical studies of Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jay, M. 1996. The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923–1950. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kay, C. 1989. Latin American theories of development and underdevelopment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Laclau, E. 1971. Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America. New Left Review 67: 19–38.Google Scholar
  11. Lall, S. 1975. Is dependence a useful concept in analysing underdevelopment? World Development 11: 799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Owen, R., and B. Sutcliffe, eds. 1972. Studies in the theory of imperialism. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Palma, J.G. 1978. Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment? World Development 6: 881–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sweezy, P.M. 1946. The theory of capitalist development. London: D. Dobson.Google Scholar
  15. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world–economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Wallerstein, I. 1980. The modern world system II: Mercantilism and the consolidation of the European world-economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Warren, B. 1980. In Imperialism: Pioneer of capitalism, ed. J. Sender. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Gabriel Palma
    • 1
  1. 1.