GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD

During the colonial era, Africa, Latin America and Asia as well as other colonized territories in the world became oriented to the export of primary products (principally agricultural), under the control of metropolitan capital, and constituted as markets for imported manufactures from the same metropolitan countries. Foreign capital came in to construct social overheads - transportation facilities and utilities that would enhance the exploitation of the people and their natural resources, and for the maintenance of law and order. With their economic and military power, Europe (later joined by the United States) successfully controlled the underdeveloped countries for their material benefits. Today, governments of the underdeveloped countries and their entrepreneurs have no control over international markets for primary products, the prices of which fluctuate and quite often are manipulated by the rich and powerful nations. Such fluctuations almost always result in unfavorable terms of trade in relation to imports.4

Dependency relations have also shaped the social structure of underdevelopment. When the imperialist powers could no longer hold on to power in the formerly colonized territories [due to armed struggle] they were forced to surrender power. The imperialists, in some cases, made sure that they left the reins of power in "good hands" They handed power over to their internal collaborators. They did not hesitate to create and finance political parties in opposition to real nationalist ones; and they also rigged elections and used various other means to make sure that they handed over to those who would continue with the colonial policies in the nominally independent countries.5 Thus, a crucial problem of underdevelopment is that in this process of dependency there is a convergence of interest between the local or internal bourgeois and the external capitalist oligarchies. The internal compradors greatly benefit from their dependency situation and they are unlikely to sever such a lucrative relationship unless they are forced to do so. In the postindependence era these national bourgeois or compradors have strengthened their relationship with their international allies. Their investments are geared towards exports and activities complementary to foreign industrial capital. They have connived with foreign interests to rob their countries of the needed foreign exchange and have been involved in all sorts of unpatriotic activities that fail to aid economic development in their countries.6 The point is that the underdeveloped countries have played a definite role in the international economy, but their internal development has been severely curtailed or "conditioned" by the needs of the dominant economies within the world capitalist system.

In the underdeveloped countries, foreign factors of production such as capital and technology have become the main determinants of economic progress and socio-political life. While the same world market promoted the expansion of development in Europe and America, it has a tendency to limit development in the dependent countries. This historical dependency has been the rooted problem of the underdevelopment in the peripheral world. Some observers believe that the further the penetration of capitalism in the name of a new and respectable lexicon "globalization", the more underdeveloped the peripheral world. As Ira Katznelson, et al., have lamented: