Abe Moland

10.14.2015
USP 616 Week 3 Abstracts
Andre Gunder Frank, The Development of Underdevelopment.
Frank provides an analysis of the means that the capitalist system has led to the
underdevelopment of some cities and economic development of others. The primary example he
uses to highlight the ways that capitalism shapes underdevelopment is through various
metropolis-satellite relations which withdraw necessary resources for development from
satellites to the world metropolis. This process is exemplified with accounts of Latin American
underdevelopment. Frank concludes with a series of hypotheses which are informed through this
development perspective and show potential for developing better economic policy if pursued by
researchers and analysts in the countries who have lagged in development.
Franks core argument seeks to disprove that an independently evolved dual society
between developed and underdeveloped cities exists in countries, and posits that the expansion of
the capitalist system had a far reaching hand through all strata of society and was highly
influential in creating todays conditions of development. Frank argues that the metropolissatellite model commonly found in Latin American colonialism served to drain capital and
economic surplus from satellites which limited their development. Frank discusses how
underdeveloped cities experience the most economic growth when their ties to their tethered
metropolis are weakest, such as the spurts experienced in Argentina or Brazil during the World
Wars. This metropolis-satellite dynamic is further strengthened through exemplification of how
satellites with the closest ties to their metropolis, therefore the most extorted, are the most
underdeveloped today, such as in Northeastern Brazil.

Frank provides insight into how the capitalist system can translate into a cities
development and growth pattern, which is useful when assessing a cities current and future
economic policies. He relies almost exclusively on examples for Latin America to support his
argument, and could strengthen his case by discussing ways in which colonialism affected
development in Africa or Southeast Asia. There are also several exceptions to his theory that he
points out throughout the argument that weaken his case, and would benefit from extrapolating
more to define the nuances of how those exceptions impacted development and why. Frank also
fails to incorporate cultural or political factors into his argument, relying solely on an economicresource dependency perspective.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Dependency and Development in Latin America.

Cardoso discusses the ways in which political and historical events are intrinsically
linked with economic discourse, and the impact these relationships have on development. He
presents the main points of Lenins characterization of imperialism, describing how capitalism
reached its ultimate stage of development via the movement of capitalism and production
process. Cardoso provides a glimpse of Latin American development and the ways in which it
fits Lenins characterization, and builds on his perspective by identifying the nuances that
corporations have in dependent capitalist development. These changes in Lenins theory give
insight to political consequences that may arise due to the fragmentation of interests within social
classes.
Cardosos core argument posits that development is not sheerly the result of capitalist
forces, but the sum reaction of historical, political, and economic events. The ownership over
production systems is a primary example Cardoso uses, highlighting the political ramifications of

corporations acting as self-sufficient production units challenging the traditional capitalist form
of production and influencing development. The concept of dependent capitalist development
highlights that foreign investment is compatible local development and has real political and
economic consequences which need to be addressed in tandem to resolve any type of social
struggle that results. This is seen in the internal fragmentation seen in countries like Argentina or
South Africa where a new type of dualism is created within social strata by parts of a countries
economy tapping into the global market, leaving others behind.
Cardoso provides several useful assumptions throughout his essay that provoke critical
thought that applies beyond the subject matter of the paper. He artfully integrates assumptions
made throughout the argument such as falling to ecological fallacy or the idea that one trend
cannot be generalizable to all strengthens the paper. Cardoso provides an understanding of how
interdisciplinary factors such as trade relations or capital flows impact the conclusions we are
able to draw on the nature of dependency of developing countries. Despite these strengths, his
argument still lacks perspective on cultural influences in the process of capitalist growth and
impact.