¹ The concept of “control” as used here has been discussed in Rosenau, James N., “Calculated Control as a Unifying Concept in the Study of International Politics and Foreign Policy,” pp. 197–237Google Scholar in Rosenau's, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press, 1971)Google Scholar and in McDonald, Neil A., Politics: A Study of Control Behavior (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

² Thus, relations of “dependence” exist when “A” controls the behavior of “B” regularly and predictably whereas relations of “interdependence” exist when “A” controls “B” about as regularly and predictably as “B” controls “A.” Viewed somewhat differently, “B” is “dependent” upon “A” when “A” can affect “B's” behavior across a wide variety of issues whereas “A” and “B” are “interdependent” when they can affect the behavior of each other in most issue-areas. “Independence” would represent a situation without control or issue-area interaction.

³ Marx, Karl, Capital, 3 vols. (New York: International Publishers, 1967)Google Scholar and Aron, Raymond, Peace and War, trans, by Howard, R. and Fox, A.B. (New York and Washington: Praeger, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴ A discussion of the Westphalia system may be found in Morse, Edward L., Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp. 22–46.Google Scholar Morse's analysis of international relations today contrasts sharply with Wallerstein's as presented in his work cited in note 5.

⁵ In this context, “worldwide” means that the system of economic relations was spatially larger than any single political unit, unlike the political economies of world empires such as Rome. Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1974).Google Scholar

⁶ Dehio, Ludwig, The Precarious Balance: Four Centuries of the European Power Struggle (New York: Knopf, 1962).Google Scholar

⁷ The Chief of the Transfer of Technology Division, UNCTAD, Patel, Surendra J., has provided some interesting, albeit crude, data in this regard in his article, “Collective Self-Reliance of Developing Countries,” Journal of Modern African Studies 13 (December 1975): 569–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ This figure is a slightly modified version of one presented by Professor Ann Seidman in a panel on “Discussion on Dependence,” November 5, 1976, at the Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Boston.

⁹ As described for the case of US penetration of Latin America and Africa in: Covert Action in Chile, 1963–1973, Staff Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, US Senate, 94th Congress, 1st. Session, December 18, 1975 (Washington: G. P. O., 1975); Lowenthal, Abraham F., “The United States and Latin America: Ending the Hegemonic Presumption,” Foreign Affairs 55 (October 1976): 199–213Google Scholar; Schechter, Daniel, “Un nouveau champ d'action pour les Etats-Unis,” he Monde Diplomatique, No. 262 (01 1976): 15–17Google Scholar; Lake, Anthony, The ‘Tar Baby’ Option: American Policy Toward Southern Africa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Oudes, Bruce, “The CIA in Africa,” Africa Report (07–08 1974)Google Scholar; and Lemarchand, Rene, “The CIA in Africa: how central? how intelligent?” Journal of Modern African Studies 14 (09 1976): 401–26.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Patel, p. 575.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Compare, for example, the points of view found in Holt, R. and Turner, J., The Political Bases of Economic Development (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1966)Google Scholar; Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; and Wallerstein, The Modern World System.

¹³ There is, of course, considerable variety among “dependency” theorists and there is thus no orthodoxy among them. The impact of their work is cumulative rather than doctrinal. Our bibliography of dependency theorists runs to over one hundred citations. Representative general statements are: Barrat-Brown, M., Essays on Imperialism (1972)Google Scholar; Amin, S., he developpment inegal (Paris: Minuit, 1973)Google Scholar; Santos, T. Dos, Underdevelopment and Development (Harmonsworfh: Penguin Books, 1973)Google Scholar; Santos, T. Dos, “The structure of dependence,” American Economic Review, 60 (05 1970): 231–36Google Scholar; Emmanuel, A., Unequal Exchange (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Furtado, C., Development and Underdevelopment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Frank, A.G., “The development of underdevelopment,” Monthly Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (09 1966): 17–31Google Scholar; Myrdal, G., Economic Theory and Under-developed Regions (London: Duckworth, 1957).Google Scholar For specific references to Latin America and Africa, see the bibliographies of the papers cited in the next section.

¹⁴ Foster-Carter, Aidan, “From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting paradigms in the analysis of underdevelopment,” World Development 4 (03 1976): 167–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ An Eastern European example is Szentes, Tamos, The Political Economy of Underdevelopment (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1971),Google Scholar while a core area Marxist analysis is provided by Kay, Geoffery, Development and Underdevelopment: A Marxist Analysis (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For a philosophical attempt to apply Raws', John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974)Google Scholar to the problem of underdevelopment see Beitz, Charles R., “Justice and international relations,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 4 (Summer 1975): 360–89.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Mazrui, Ali A. and Patel, Hasu, Africa in World Affairs: The Next 30 Years (New York: Viking Press, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁸ From a personal communication by Professor Caporaso to the senior author, September 27, 1976.

¹⁹ Dependency theories claim to explain whole centuries of the history of Third World countries, and studies based on post World War II data such as ours cannot claim to “test” this historical dimension. On the other hand, these theories also contain short- to medium-term policy prescriptions, such as the nationalization of financial institutions—banks and insurance companies. The effects of such actions are not predicted to take centuries to appear. Therefore, as long as conventional, Marxist, and dependency theories continue to recommend public policies, they are open to empirical evaluations such as ours.

²⁰ Jackman, Robert W., Politics and Social Inequality: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1975),Google Scholar particularly pp. 4–9 and 203–08. Our thanks to Professor Carol Thompson for bringing this book to our attention.

²¹ It is true that scholars working within different paradigms such as the conventional, Marxist, and dependency approaches often talk past one another because they use different vocabulary and concepts, e.g., “modernization” and “need to achieve” vs. “mode of production” and “imperialism” vs. “unequal exchange” and “departicipation.” See Aidan Foster-Carter. It is also true that each approach can be subjected to an ideological critique that explicates the social, cultural, and political factors that account for why an individual or group of scholars works within a particular paradigm, e.g., most Western scholars do conventional economics and political science because they are bourgeois intellectuals in bourgeois societies and most East European scholars do Marxist studies for equally obvious reasons. See Tipps, Dean C., “Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: a critical perspective,” pp. 62–88Google Scholar in Black, C.E., ed., Comparative Modernization: A Reader (New York: Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar The first problem makes cross-paradigm research difficult, particularly in the areas of concept definition and operationalization, but not impossible. Moreover, as Tipps correctly notes, neither the first nor the second criticism says anything at all about the truth content of the competing theories. Only rigorous empirical research of a case study, comparative, and statistical sort can address the explanatory and predictive adequacy of competing theoretical statements.

²² Our philosophy of science is clearly a “non-separatist” sort. See Rudner, R., Philosophy of Social Science (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966)Google Scholar and Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs,” pp. 91–196Google Scholar in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

²³ Lakatos, pp. 116–32. In brief, our approach to dependency is to treat it as a positive social theory containing certain propositions that, when suitably operationalized, can be empirically evaluated and whose truth content as measured by some criterion, such as R², can be compared to the truth content of statements derived from competing approaches, such as conventional and Marxist economics. Unfortunately, in our view, many exponents of the dependency paradigm do not treat it as a positive theory but as an ideology whose truth is assumed or illustrated by apt examples rather than systematically evaluated via qualitative and quantitative comparisons. In this regard, see Nove, Alec, “On reading Andre Gunder Frank,” Journal of Development Studies 10 (April-July 1974): 445–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Ray, David, “The dependency model of Latin American underdevelopment: three basic fallacies,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 15 (February 1973): 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ A theorist who does consider both capitalist and social imperialism is Galtung, Johan, “Conflict on a global scale: social imperialism and sub-imperialism—continuities in the structural theory of imperialism,” World Development 4 (March 1976): 153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Ray, pp. 7–10.

²⁷ Ibid., pp. 10–13.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 13–18.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 6.

³⁰ O'Brien, Philip J., “A critique of Latin American theories of dependency,” pp. 7–27Google Scholar in 1. Oxaal, Barnett, T. and Booth, D., eds., Beyond the Sociology of Development (London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975),Google Scholar and Alec Nove, “On reading Andre Gunder Frank.”

³¹ Nove, p. 455.

³² Ibid.

³³ Frank, A.G., Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (London: Penguin Latin American Library, 1971), p. 11.Google Scholar

³⁴ Nove, pp. 448–53.

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 446 and 452.

³⁶ Robinson, Joan, Economic Philosophy (London: Pelican, 1964), p. 46.Google Scholar

³⁷ O'Brien, pp. 11–12. We share O'Brien's judgment here. Dependency does not represent a theory in any meaningful sense of that term, but it is “a framework of reference” or “paradigm” within which “various heterogeneous phenomena are analysed to see how they link and interact with each other to form a total system.” Ibid. This is exactly the point of view argued by Duvall in his essay in this issue.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 19 and 24.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 24.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 25.

⁴¹ Lall, Sanjaya, “Is ‘dependence’ a useful concept in analysing underdevelopment?”, World Development 3 (November 1975): 799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Ibid., p. 808 and from a letter to the senior author from Professor Lall, August 24, 1976.

⁴³ Ibid., p. 800.

⁴⁴ Ibid., pp. 801–07.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 807–08.

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 809.

⁴⁷ Weisskopf, Thomas E., “Dependence as an explanation of underdevelopment: a critique,” Paper presented at the Sixth National Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Atlanta, Georgia, March 1976.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ lbid., pp. 3–4.

⁴⁹ Schmitter, Philippe E., “Desarrollo retrasado, dependencia externa y eambio politico en America Latina,” Foro International 12 (December 1971): 135–74.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Given that Schmitter's matrix was 20 countries by 102 variables, this was a dubious procedure, at best. Nevertheless, the resulting factors make a lot of sense even though they are a function of the variety of raw indicators inputed into the factor analysis.

⁵¹ Schmitter, pp. 170–73.

⁵² Ibid., pp. 154–55.

⁵³ Kaufman, Robert R., Chemotsky, Harry I., and Geller, Daniel S., “A Preliminary test of the theory of dependency,” Comparative Politics 7 (April 1975): 303–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 312. Kaufman et al., unfortunately do not compare their results to Schmitter's, and the factor analyses are quite different. However, their second and third factors appear to be similar to Schmitter's trade dependency and private investment dependency.

⁵⁵ Ibid., pp. 316–28.

⁵⁶ Lall, p. 807.

⁵⁷ Szymanski, Albert, “Dependence, exploitation, and economic growth,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 4 (Spring 1976): 53–65.Google Scholar The quotations are found on page 53. We should note at this point that an article we have not yet seen is reported by Szymanski, p. 54, as having correlated measures of economic dependency with Latin American growth rates and “found mixed evidence in favor of the dependency theory.” Stevenson, Paul, “External economic variables influencing the economic growth rate of seven major Latin American nations,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 9 (November 1972): 347–57.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Szymanski, pp. 57–59. With an N of 19, rho must equal ±. 38 to be significant at the. 05 level in a one-tailed test of significance and must equal ±. 55 at the. 01 level.

⁵⁹ Nove, pp. 452–53. Indeed, one might observe that if the initial foreign investment did not promote economic activity, how could profits be earned which were then repatriated at a later date? This was exactly the problem encountered by much foreign investment in tropical Africa prior to World War II. See Charles Wilson, “The economic role and mainsprings of imperialism,” pp. 68–91 in Duignan, Peter and Gann, L.H., eds., Colonialism in Africa, 1870–1960, Volume 4: The Economics of Colonialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For example, the “introduction,” pp. 1–47 of Harris, Richard, ed., The Political Economy of Africa (New York: Halsted Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Green, Reginald H. and Seidman, Ann, Unity or Poverty? The Economics of Pan-Africanism (Baltimore: Penguin, 1968)Google Scholar; Amin, Samir, he developpement du capitalisme en Côte d'lvoire (Paris: Minuit, 1967),Google ScholarAmin, , “Development and structural change: the African experience, 1950–1970,” Journal of International Affairs Vol. 24, No. 2 (1970): 203–23Google Scholar; Amin, , “Underdevelopment and dependence in black Africa: origins and contemporary forms,” Journal of Modern African Studies, 10 (December 1972): 503–24Google Scholar; Amin, , Neo-Colonialism in West Africa (New York: Monthly Review, 1973)Google Scholar; Amin, , Accumulation on a World Scale (New York: Monthly Review, 1974)Google Scholar; Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System, Wallerstein, , “Dependence in an interdependent world: the limited possibilities of transformation within the capitalist world economy,” African Studies Review, 17 (1974): 1–26,Google ScholarWallerstein, , “The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (09 1974): 387–415,Google Scholar and Wallerstein, , “Class and class conflict in Africa,” The Monthly Review 26 (February 1975): 34–42.Google Scholar

⁶² Vengroff, Richard, “Neo-colonialism and policy outputs in Africa,” Comparative Political Studies 8 (July 1975): 234–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Vengroff, Richard, “Dependency and underdevelopment: an empirical test,” Journal of Modern African Studies (December 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ It is unfortunate that the author did not apply some clustering technique, such as factor analysis, to his fifteen dependency indicators in order to more properly test his first hypothesis of the interconnectedness of political, economic, and military dependency.

⁶⁵ Vengroff, Richard, “Dependency, development, and inequality in black Africa,” paper read to the Annual Meetings of the African Studies Association, Boston, November 3–5, 1976.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Jain, S., Size Distribution of Income (Washington: The World Bank, 1975).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Specifically, , Amin, , “Underdevelopment and dependence in black Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies 14 (March 1976): 25–10.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ McGowan, Patrick J., “Economic dependence and economic performance in black Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies 14 (March 1976): 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁹ Stallings, Barbara, Economic Dependency in Africa and Latin America. (Beverly Hills: Sage Professional Paper in Comparative Politics, 1973).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Kalleberg, Arthur L., “The logic of comparison: a methodological note on the comparative study of political systems,” World Politics 19 (October 1966): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Griffin, K.B. and Enos, J.L., “Foreign assistance: objectives and consequences,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 18 (April 1970): 313–27Google Scholar; Iyoha, Milton Ame, “Inflation and ‘openness’ in less developed economies: a cross-country analysis,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 22 (October 1973): 31–38Google Scholar; Chenery, Hollis and Moises, Syrquin, Patterns of Development, 1950–1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975);Google ScholarStoneman, Colin, “Foreign capital and economic growth,” World Development 3 (January 1975): 11–26Google Scholar; and Bonshier, V., “Abhaegige industrialisierung und einkommenentwicklung,” Schweizerishe Zeitshrift fur Socziologie 1 (1975): 67–105.Google Scholar

⁷² Tyler, William G. and WQgart, J. Peter, “Economic dependence and marginalization: some empirical evidence,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 15 (February 1973): 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Ibid., p. 41.

⁷⁴ R. Dan Walleri, “Economic imperialism as a cause for retarded economic development in the third world,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 1975 and Walleri, , The Political Economy of International Inequality: A Test of Dependency Theory (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Political Science, August, 1976).Google Scholar We are grateful to Dr. Walleri for providing us with a copy of his dissertation.

⁷⁵ Galtung, Johan, “A structural theory of imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research, No. 2, (1971): 101–02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁶ GNPpc loaded highly in both cases. Walleri, “Economic imperialism,” Appendix III.

⁷⁷ Ibid., p. 24.

⁷⁸ Ibid., pp. 27–30.

⁷⁹ Chase-Dunn, Christopher, “The effects of international economic dependence on development and inequality: a cross-national study,” American Sociological Review 40 (December 1975): 720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁰ ln a letter to the senior author, Professor Chase-Dunn reports that his sample is “mostly Latin America,” October 6, 1976.

⁸¹ Investment dependence and debt dependence are correlated at the. 63 level, Chase-Dunn, p. 728.

⁸² Paukert, Felix, “Income distribution at different levels of development,” International Labor Review 108 (1973): 97–125.Google Scholar

⁸³ Chase-Dunn, , “The effects of international economic dependence,” p. 735.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Wallerstein, The Modern World-System; “The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system”; and Rubinson, Richard, “The world economy and the distribution of income within states: a cross-national study,” American Sociological Review 41 (August 1976): 638–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁵ Suggesting that social science on a global scale manifests dependency structures too. However, such a point, which identifies a genuine problem, is irrelevant to the truth content of the findings reported in these eleven papers.

⁸⁶ Kay, Development and Underdevelopment, but especially Warren, Bill, “Imperialism and capitalist industrialization,” New Left Review No. 81 (09–10 1973): 3–44Google Scholar and Sklar, Richard L., “Postimperialism: a class analysis of multinational corporate expansion,” Comparative Politics 9 (October 1976): 75–92.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Raymond Duvall, et al., “A formal model of ‘dependencia’ theory: structure, measurement, and some preliminary data,” Paper presented to the Edinburgh Congress of the International Political Science Association, August 16–21, 1976.

⁸⁸ McGowan, , “Economic dependence and economic performance”, –31.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid., p. 35.

⁹⁰ We are indebted to Professor Phillip L. Beardsley of the Maxwell School, Syracuse University, for persuasively arguing this point to us.

⁹¹ For discussions of partial correlation analysis and causal inference see Blalock, Herbert M. Jr, Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Research (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964), pp. 3–94Google Scholar; Blalock, , Social Statistics, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1972), pp. 433–50Google Scholar; and Garson, G. David, Political Science Methods (Boston: Holbrook Press, 1976), pp. 357–61.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., and Alker, Hayward Jr, Mathematics and Politics (New York: Macmillan Co., 1965), pp. 116–29.Google Scholar

⁹³ As summarized by Lall and Weisskopf.

⁹⁴ Cardoso, F.H., Politique et developpment dans les societes dependantes (Paris: Anthropos, 1971)Google Scholar; Cardoso, F.H. and Faletto, E., Dependencies y desarrollo en America Latina (Mexico City: Siglo XXI Editores, 1969)Google Scholar; Cardoso, F.H., “Dependency and development in Latin America,” New Left Review (July-August 1972): 83–95Google Scholar; Cardoso, F.H. “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Political Implications,” pp. 142–76Google Scholar in Stepan, A., ed., Authoritarian Brazil (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Cardoso, F.H., “Industrialization, Dependency, and Power in Latin America,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 18 (1972–73): 79–95.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Writings in addition to Nove and Lall that either argue or imply this point of view are: Zartman, I.W., “Europe and Africa: Decolonization or Dependency?,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 2 (January 1976): 325–43Google Scholar; Cohen, B.J., The Question of Imperialism (New York: Basic Books, 1973)Google Scholar; and Bauer, P. T., “The Economics of Resentment: Colonialism and Underdevelopment,” The Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1969): 51–71.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Our countries are: Benin, Burundi, Cameroun, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Peoples Republic, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Malagasy Republic, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somali Republic, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Upper Volta, Zaire, and Zambia.

⁹⁷ McGowan, pp. 37–38.

⁹⁸ See Jacobson, A. L. and Lalu, N. M., “An empirical and algebraic analysis of alternative techniques for measuring unobserved variables,” pp. 215–42Google Scholar and Sullivan, J.L., “Multiple indicators: some criteria of selection,” pp. 243–69Google Scholar in Blalock, H.M. Jr, ed., Measurement in the Social Sciences (Chicago: Aldine, 1974).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ But see Vengroff, “Dependency, development, and inequality,” which found no positive relationships between dependency and inequality for 14 of our cases.

¹⁰⁰ Hance, William A., The Geography of Modern Africa, revised 2nd edition, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), p. 611.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Strangely enough, Hance does not define the concept he measures, ibid., pp. 611–18. Also note that to the extent that this concept incorporates prior successful economic performance, our analysis is biased in favor of dependency theory T₁.

¹⁰² Hance, ibid., pp. 614–15 and Hance, W.A., “Development Limitations and Opportunities in Tropical Africa,” Africa Report (January 1967): 45Google Scholar, and Hance, W.A., African Economic Development 2nd ed., revised (New York: Praeger, 1967), pp. 242–97.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ These eight indicators are coded 1 = poor or non-existent, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent.

¹⁰⁴ These three are coded 1 = very difficult, 2 = difficult, 3 = not very difficult, 4 = not difficult. Note that for Hance, “average man” represents the mass of the population; it is not a surrogate for per capita.

¹⁰⁵ Tufte, E.R., “Improving data analysis in political science,” World Politics, 21 (July 1969): 641–154Google Scholar; Abelson, R.P. and Tukey, J.W., “Efficient conversion of non-metric information into metric information,” pp. 407–17Google Scholar in Tufte, E.R. ed., The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970),Google Scholar and Labovitz, S., “The assignment of numbers to rank order categories,” American Sociological Review, 35 (1970): 515–24.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Weisskopf, p. 4.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., pp. 4, 5.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., p. 5.

¹⁰⁹ Sources are: Aidcon and Tradecon from Stallings, B., Economic Dependency in Africa and Latin America (Beverly Hills: Sage Professional Paper in Comparative Politics, 1972), pp. 20 and 28Google Scholar; Invesicon from UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Multinational Corporations in World Development (New York: U.N.D., 1973)Google Scholar ST/ECA/190; Fortrade from Adelman, I. and Morris, C.T., Society, Politics, and Economic Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), pp. 15, 126–28.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Weisskopf, p. 5.

¹¹¹ Ibid.

¹¹² Ibid.

¹¹³ Sources are: Commcon and Trade from Stallings, pp. 30, 58;lnvestpc and Invest from Reuber, G.L., Cookell, H., Emerson, M., and Gallis-Hammond, G., Private Foreign Investment in Development (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 275.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ McGowan, pp. 36–39 and Section II of this paper.

¹¹⁵ Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W., “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multimethod matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56 (March 1959): 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁶ Throughout the remainder of this paper we shall use the level of significance as a decision rule to distinguish between “large” and “small” correlations. We are not using it in a formal hypothesis testing sense.

¹¹⁷ That is, “dependency” may be like another so-called scientific concept, “race.” While race can be defined and measured by reference to blood types, gene pools, etc., as applied to humans it is a useless concept for it is not related to anything else of theoretical interest about human behavior!

¹¹⁸ Norman H. Nie, et al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), pp. 346–47. Tolerance is the proportion of the variance of an independent variable not explained by the independent variables already in the equation.

¹¹⁹ Since dependency involves highly constrained decision making, such “patterns” may not represent “policies” in that.. a choice was never made.

¹²⁰ As done, for example, in R. Harris, ed., The Political Economy of Africa.

¹²¹ But see Vengroff, “Dependency, development, and inequality.”

¹²² Kaufman, “A preliminary test.”

¹²³ Because economic development potential has this character, relatively short time-series (≤ 20T) are unlikely to record much variation in it, necessitating a cross-sectional approach. For discussions of this problem and positive evaluations of the utility of cross-sectional analysis see Hibbs, D.A. JrMass Political Violence (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1973), pp. 200–03Google Scholar; Kuh, E., “The validity of cross-sectionally estimated behavior equations in time series applications,” Econometrica, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1959): 197–214Google Scholar; and Kuh, E. and Meyer, J.R., “How extraneous are extraneous estimates,” Review of Economics and Statistics Vol. 39, No. 4 (November 1957): 380–93.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ But see Kay, Geoffrey B., ed., The Political Economy of Colonialism in Ghana: A Collection of Documents and Statistics, 1900–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972)Google Scholar which contains 47 tables of time series data for 1900–1960 on economic and related variables.

¹²⁵ Chase-Dunn, “The effects of international economic dependence.”