The Enduring Relevance of Structuralism for Understanding Contemporary International Development

What is it about?

There has been a lot of criticism of the idea of development, but these criticisms are usually based on superficial and simplistic understandings of the structural conditions of development and also a historical myopia of past contributions from the pioneers of the field of development studies, particularly from the structuralist school in early development economics. This is explained here in terms of centre-periphery analysis, which focuses on the asymmetries and constraints that structure the integration, lagging and subordination of the global South in the current world order through ongoing technological, industrial and financial dissemination. The precise forms of lagging and subordination have changed over time and context, in symbiosis with changes in the overall capitalist system, although the systemic principles remain pertinent. These can be evaluated according to three propositions: technological lagging; declining terms of trade; and pro-cyclical macroeconomic adjustment in the peripheries. Accordingly, global imbalances are better understood as an evolution of US-centred hegemony and the subordinated accommodation of ‘rising powers’ including China, rather than a weakening and rebalancing of US power vis-à-vis these ‘rising powers’, as per conventional interpretations. The possibility that we might be witnessing a reinvigoration of US hegemony — for a second time in the post-war era — is one that needs to be taken seriously, particularly if this becomes associated with a deepening of imperialism rather than emancipation.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

It is important because it is central to understanding the underlying structure of power relations in the world order, particularly with respect to rich countries and the rest.