Three Dependency Explanations of Economic Growth: A Critical Evaluation

Three different dependency explanations of economic growth are evaluated through cross‐sectional regression analyses for 98 countries between 1960 and 1977, using logged GNPC, its square, gross domestic investment and the military participation ratio as control variables. Galtung's A Structural Theory of Imperialism seems to contain one useful predictor of economic growth, commodity concentration, which hurts the growth prospects of nations, but neither his vertical trade nor his partner concentration has any significant impact. Rubinson's state strength approach receives no support at all, since strong states, operationalized by government revenue/GDP, come closer to hurting than to promoting economic growth. Bornschier's investment dependency approach also fails to explain why some LDCs do so much better or worse than others. It is suggested that future research on linkages between the world system and the economic performance of LDCs might profit from broadening the research agenda to include power politics and its military participation effects in addition to political economy variables.