Underdevelopment Theory

• Definition:
Underdevelopment is not merely the absence or opposite of development. Rather, it is a
distinct condition characterized by economic stagnation, social inequality, and political
instability. It is shaped by a complex interplay of historical, structural, and systemic factors
that actively inhibit a country's economic and political progress. This theory asserts that
underdevelopment is a deliberate outcome of specific historical processes, particularly
colonial exploitation and integration into the global capitalist system under unequal terms.

• Key Thinkers:
Some of the most influential scholars associated with the theory of underdevelopment include
Paul Baran, who pioneered the concept in his work The Political Economy of Growth;
Andre Gunder Frank, who initially expanded upon Baran’s ideas before developing his
own Dependency Theory; and Walter Rodney, whose seminal work How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa remains a powerful critique of colonial exploitation and its enduring
impact on African nations.

• Core Ideas:

 Underdevelopment is historically produced: Proponents of the theory argue that

underdevelopment was not a natural state but a condition actively created through the
processes of colonialism, imperialism, and later neocolonialism. Colonizing powers
extracted resources, restructured economies, and disrupted indigenous political
systems in ways that made former colonies dependent and economically vulnerable
even after independence.
 Colonialism and exploitation: The wealth of colonial powers was built on the
economic exploitation of their colonies. Resources were extracted and exported
without reinvestment in local development, leaving behind societies with weak
institutions, inadequate infrastructure, and skewed economic structures.
 Unequal exchange and integration into the global economy: The international
economic system continues to benefit developed countries at the expense of
underdeveloped ones. Poor countries often export raw materials at low prices and
import finished goods at high prices, creating a cycle of dependency and economic
imbalance.
 Internal structural challenges: While the focus is on external causes, the theory also
acknowledges internal factors such as corruption, lack of investment in education
and health, weak institutions, and poor governance as contributing to persistent
underdevelopment. These internal issues are often viewed as legacies or consequences
of colonial rule and foreign intervention.
 Post-colonial struggles: Underdevelopment Theory has been particularly influential
in explaining why many newly independent countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America have struggled to achieve sustainable growth and political stability.

• Critique:

 Overemphasis on external factors: Critics argue that Underdevelopment Theory

tends to place too much blame on colonialism and international capitalism, often
underestimating the role of internal dynamics in shaping a country’s development
trajectory.
  Neglect of internal agency and reform: The theory can sometimes portray
developing nations as passive victims of historical forces, overlooking the
possibilities for internal agency, reform, innovation, and local resistance to
underdevelopment.
 Lack of predictive capacity: Underdevelopment Theory has also been critiqued for
its limited ability to explain why some formerly colonized countries (like South Korea
or Singapore) have successfully developed, while others remain economically
stagnant.

Underdevelopment Theory

• Definition:
Underdevelopment is not merely the absence or opposite of development. Rather, it is a
distinct condition characterized by economic stagnation, social inequality, and political
instability. It is shaped by a complex interplay of historical, structural, and systemic factors
that actively inhibit a country's economic and political progress. This theory asserts that
underdevelopment is a deliberate outcome of specific historical processes, particularly
colonial exploitation and integration into the global capitalist system under unequal terms.

• Key Thinkers:
Some of the most influential scholars associated with the theory of underdevelopment include
Paul Baran, who pioneered the concept in his work The Political Economy of Growth;
Andre Gunder Frank, who initially expanded upon Baran’s ideas before developing his
own Dependency Theory; and Walter Rodney, whose seminal work How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa remains a powerful critique of colonial exploitation and its enduring
impact on African nations.

• Core Ideas:

 Underdevelopment is historically produced: Proponents of the theory argue that

underdevelopment was not a natural state but a condition actively created through the
processes of colonialism, imperialism, and later neocolonialism. Colonizing powers
extracted resources, restructured economies, and disrupted indigenous political
systems in ways that made former colonies dependent and economically vulnerable
even after independence.
 Colonialism and exploitation: The wealth of colonial powers was built on the
economic exploitation of their colonies. Resources were extracted and exported
without reinvestment in local development, leaving behind societies with weak
institutions, inadequate infrastructure, and skewed economic structures.
 Unequal exchange and integration into the global economy: The international
economic system continues to benefit developed countries at the expense of
underdeveloped ones. Poor countries often export raw materials at low prices and
import finished goods at high prices, creating a cycle of dependency and economic
imbalance.
 Internal structural challenges: While the focus is on external causes, the theory also
acknowledges internal factors such as corruption, lack of investment in education
and health, weak institutions, and poor governance as contributing to persistent
underdevelopment. These internal issues are often viewed as legacies or consequences
of colonial rule and foreign intervention.
  Post-colonial struggles: Underdevelopment Theory has been particularly influential
in explaining why many newly independent countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America have struggled to achieve sustainable growth and political stability.

• Critique:

 Overemphasis on external factors: Critics argue that Underdevelopment Theory

tends to place too much blame on colonialism and international capitalism, often
underestimating the role of internal dynamics in shaping a country’s development
trajectory.
 Neglect of internal agency and reform: The theory can sometimes portray
developing nations as passive victims of historical forces, overlooking the
possibilities for internal agency, reform, innovation, and local resistance to
underdevelopment.
 Lack of predictive capacity: Underdevelopment Theory has also been critiqued for
its limited ability to explain why some formerly colonized countries (like South Korea
or Singapore) have successfully developed, while others remain economically
stagnant.

Dependency Theory

• Definition:
Dependency Theory is a critical framework that seeks to explain persistent global inequality by
emphasizing the exploitative relationship between wealthy (developed or “core”) nations and
poorer (developing or “peripheral”) nations. Unlike modernization theory—which views
development as a linear process that all countries can follow—dependency theorists argue that
underdevelopment in the Global South is not a stage to be overcome but a condition actively
maintained by the structural imbalances of the global capitalist system. According to this view, the
wealth of developed countries is built upon and sustained by the impoverishment of less developed
ones.

• Key Thinkers:
Notable scholars associated with this theory include Andre Gunder Frank, who was a leading critic of
modernization theory and a key architect of dependency thinking; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a
Brazilian sociologist and former president, who added nuance by introducing the concept of
“associated-dependent development”; and Samir Amin, whose analysis of global capitalism
highlighted the marginalization of peripheral economies and their limited autonomy in global
decision-making processes.

• Core Ideas:

 The global capitalist system is inherently unequal: Dependency theorists contend that
capitalism, on a global scale, is structured to benefit a small group of industrialized nations—
the "core"—while systematically exploiting the "periphery" or developing world. This
exploitation takes the form of unequal trade relations, resource extraction, and financial
dependence.
  Historical exploitation as a root cause: The theory highlights how colonialism laid the
groundwork for dependency. Colonies were incorporated into the global economy as
exporters of raw materials and importers of manufactured goods, creating an economic
structure that continues to benefit former colonial powers.
 Economic and technological dependence: Peripheral countries rely heavily on developed
nations for capital investment, advanced technology, consumer markets, and managerial
expertise. This dependence inhibits their ability to develop autonomous and self-sustaining
economies.
 Critique of globalization and neoliberalism: Dependency theorists are critical of free-market
globalization, arguing that policies such as trade liberalization, structural adjustment
programs, and foreign direct investment often exacerbate inequality and reinforce
dependency by locking developing countries into subordinate roles in global value chains.
 Cycle of underdevelopment: According to this perspective, economic growth in developed
countries often comes at the expense of developing ones. Peripheral nations become locked
into a cycle where they export low-value primary goods and import high-value
manufactured products, leading to trade deficits, debt accumulation, and constrained
development options.

• Critique:

 Determinism and lack of agency: One of the main criticisms of Dependency Theory is that it
can be overly deterministic, presenting a bleak and static view of the world system that
leaves little room for change or upward mobility. This perspective can obscure the ways in
which developing countries can (and have) exercised agency and achieved growth through
innovation, reform, or strategic integration into the global economy.
 Inconsistent with success stories: The theory struggles to fully explain the success of some
formerly dependent countries—such as South Korea, Taiwan, or China—that have managed
to transition from peripheral to semi-peripheral or core status through state-led
development, industrial policy, and strategic economic planning.
 Oversimplification of the "core-periphery" divide: Critics argue that the world economy is
more complex and dynamic than a strict binary. Countries may occupy shifting positions in
global hierarchies, and internal class structures, governance, and policy decisions within
countries also play crucial roles in shaping development outcomes.

Modernisation Theory

• Definition:
Modernisation Theory is a developmental framework that suggests all societies follow a common,
linear path of progress from traditional to modern states. It posits that economic growth, political
stability, and social development arise through internal transformations such as industrialization,
urbanization, secularization, and education. According to this theory, modern Western societies
represent the ideal end-point of development, and other nations are expected to follow in their
footsteps by adopting similar institutions, values, and systems.

• Key Thinkers:
Several influential scholars helped shape and popularize Modernisation Theory in the post–World
War II era. Walt Rostow is best known for his model of linear economic development outlined in The
Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960). Seymour Martin Lipset explored
the relationship between economic development and democracy in his classic work Political Man,
arguing that higher levels of income, education, and industrialization support democratic stability.
Daniel Lerner, in The Passing of Traditional Society, emphasized the role of media and
communication in fostering modern values and national development.

• Core Ideas:

 Linear stages of development: The central assumption is that societies evolve through
predictable and sequential stages, starting from a traditional society and progressing toward
modern, industrial, and democratic societies. Rostow's model outlines five key stages:
1. Traditional society
2. Preconditions for take-off
3. Take-off
4. Drive to maturity
5. Age of high mass consumption
 Importance of internal transformation: Modernisation Theory emphasizes internal factors
as the primary engines of development, including investment in education, urban
infrastructure, industrialization, secularization, and rational-legal governance.
 Role of democratic and capitalist institutions: Development is often associated with the
adoption of liberal democratic institutions and free-market capitalism. The theory assumes
that democratic governance and capitalist economies foster political stability and individual
freedoms, which in turn reinforce development.
 Cultural shift toward modern values: It argues that traditional societies are characterized by
low levels of social mobility, religious authority, and communal identity. In contrast, modern
societies are viewed as achievement-oriented, secular, merit-based, and open to innovation
and change. Media, education, and communication are seen as tools for spreading modern
values and shaping a national consciousness.

• Critique:

 Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism: One of the most significant criticisms of Modernisation

Theory is that it idealizes Western countries as the universal model for development,
assuming that their historical experience is universally applicable. This view marginalizes the
diverse paths and cultural contexts of non-Western societies and imposes a normative vision
of development.
 Neglect of colonial and external factors: The theory largely ignores the impact of
colonialism, imperialism, and global power dynamics in shaping the economic and political
structures of developing nations. By focusing almost exclusively on internal factors, it fails to
account for the historical legacies of exploitation, dependency, and marginalization that
many countries face.
 Overly simplistic and deterministic: The linear model of development oversimplifies
complex social transformations and assumes that modernization is inevitable. In reality,
development is often non-linear, uneven, and influenced by a multitude of internal and
external variables.
 Risk of cultural erasure: By promoting a singular path toward modernity, the theory may
encourage policies that disregard local traditions, values, and institutions, potentially
undermining cultural diversity and self-determined development.

World System Theory

• Definition:
World System Theory is a macro-sociological approach that views the world not as a collection of
isolated nation-states, but as a single, integrated capitalist system characterized by a global division
of labor and hierarchical economic relationships. It posits that the world economy is structured into
a tripartite system: core, semi-periphery, and periphery, each with distinct roles, resources, and
levels of power. The theory seeks to explain global inequality and the persistence of
underdevelopment by analyzing the long-term structural dynamics of capitalism as it evolved from
the 16th century onward.

• Key Thinker:
The principal architect of World System Theory is Immanuel Wallerstein, who first articulated it in
the 1970s as an alternative to both modernization and dependency theories. In his influential work
The Modern World-System, Wallerstein challenged conventional political science frameworks by
introducing a historical and transnational lens to understand capitalism's development and global
influence.

• Core Ideas:

 A single interconnected global system: World System Theory asserts that no country exists
in isolation; all are integrated into a global capitalist economy where their economic
positions are defined by their roles in the international division of labor. As such, national
development or underdevelopment must be understood in relation to the broader world
economy.
 Core, semi-periphery, and periphery:
o Core countries are economically and technologically advanced. They dominate
trade, finance, and production of high-profit goods and services. These states
maintain control over global institutions and markets.
o Peripheral countries are dependent and underdeveloped, often providing raw
materials, cheap labor, and agricultural products to the core. They have weak state
institutions and are vulnerable to exploitation.
o Semi-peripheral countries occupy an intermediate position, serving as a buffer zone.
They may possess a mix of both core and peripheral characteristics and have some
capacity for industrialization and upward mobility.
 Unequal exchange and exploitation: The theory highlights structural inequality in global
trade and production systems. Core countries exploit peripheral ones through mechanisms
such as low wages, resource extraction, and trade imbalances, ensuring the continuous flow
of wealth from the periphery to the core.
 Historical evolution of capitalism: Wallerstein traces the rise of capitalism to the "long 16th
century", when European powers began expanding through colonization and maritime
trade. This period marked the birth of a global economic order where regions were
systematically integrated into the world system based on their labor and resource value.
 Systemic cycles and instability: World System Theory also accounts for periodic shifts in
global power, such as the rise and decline of hegemonic states (e.g., Britain in the 19th
century, the U.S. in the 20th), as part of the natural evolution of the capitalist world
economy.

• Critique:

 Structural determinism and limited agency: One of the most prominent critiques of World
System Theory is its heavy focus on structural constraints, which can obscure the role of
 human agency, leadership, innovation, and policy decisions within individual countries. This
makes the theory less adaptable for analyzing how some states have navigated or even
transformed their positions within the system.
 Difficult to apply empirically at local levels: While powerful in explaining global macro-
patterns, the theory is often seen as too abstract or generalized to be easily operationalized
in empirical studies of individual countries or regions. Critics argue that its grand scale of
analysis can overlook local contexts, internal class dynamics, or cultural specificities.
 Static categorization: The division into core, semi-periphery, and periphery can appear too
rigid or outdated in today’s world, where global power dynamics are increasingly multipolar,
and technological changes have disrupted traditional economic hierarchies.

Comparative Table

Key
Approach Main Focus Strengths Criticisms
Thinkers
Internal structural Baran, Highlights Ignores external
Underdevelopment
issues Rodney structural barriers dependency at times
External Frank, Critique of global
Dependency Too deterministic
exploitation Cardoso capitalism
Clear
Internal Rostow, Eurocentric, ignores
Modernisation development
transformation Lipset global inequality
pathway
World System Global capitalist Holistic global Too structural,
Wallerstein
Theory system approach complex


Conclusion

The four political economy approaches—Underdevelopment Theory, Dependency Theory,

Modernisation Theory, and World System Theory—offer distinct yet interconnected
lenses through which to examine the complex realities of global political and economic
development. Each framework provides a unique set of analytical tools for understanding
why some nations flourish while others face persistent struggles with poverty, inequality, and
political instability.

Underdevelopment Theory directs our attention to the historical and structural legacies of
colonialism and the internal challenges faced by post-colonial states. Dependency Theory
extends this by highlighting how the global economic system continues to perpetuate
inequality through external dependence and systemic exploitation. In contrast,
Modernisation Theory focuses on internal transformation, advocating for institutional
reform, industrial growth, and cultural shifts as pathways to development. Meanwhile, World
System Theory situates every nation within a broader, hierarchical global capitalist system,
emphasizing the interdependence and structural constraints of the modern world economy.

While each theory has its own strengths and limitations—ranging from Modernisation
Theory’s idealized Western model to the determinism often seen in structuralist approaches
like Dependency and World System Theories—no single theory offers a complete or
universally applicable explanation. Rather than viewing these theories as mutually exclusive,
a more holistic understanding of comparative politics emerges when we engage with
them collectively and critically. Together, they reveal the multifaceted nature of
development, where historical trajectories, economic dependencies, institutional capacities,
and global structures all intersect.

In today’s world—marked by rapid technological change, rising inequality, environmental

crises, and shifting geopolitical dynamics—political scientists must move beyond rigid
theoretical boundaries. By adopting a critical, interdisciplinary, and context-sensitive
approach, we can better grasp the nuances of political development across diverse societies.
This intellectual flexibility not only deepens our academic insight but also equips us to
engage more meaningfully with the real-world challenges faced by nations in both the Global
North and South.

As future scholars and practitioners, our role is not only to understand these theories but to
apply, adapt, and challenge them in light of emerging global realities.

Bibliography

 Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.

 Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System.
 Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist
Manifesto.
 Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America.