Not every failed theory collapses due to flawed assumptions. Execution is just as important—sometimes even more so—than the theoretical framework itself. Political and economic theories are particularly vulnerable to failure because they rely heavily on the interpretations and whims of those in power. The theories most prone to dramatic collapse, however, tend to emerge from the developing world—not because these nations are inherently incapable, but because circumstances conspire against them. Chief among these factors is the way ‘developing’ leaders misinterpret and ultimately sabotage these ideas, often in a crude and self-serving manner.
Like most, if not all, developmental theories, Dependency Theory—first articulated in the early 1960s after gaining traction in the 1950s—ultimately failed. But before dissecting its failure, it is worth briefly outlining its core premise. The theory was rooted in economic nationalism and a rejection of dependence on former colonial powers. At the time, many newly independent nations soon discovered that their freedom was largely superficial—little more than ink on paper.
These newly liberated states remained economically ‘dependent’ on their former occupiers or, more broadly, on global power players. This dynamic persists well into the 21st century, undermining any claim that the theory’s assumptions were fundamentally flawed. Dependency Theory advocated for breaking free from economic reliance on major powers and prioritising national economic growth in line with the country’s strategic interests. Historically, and still today, dominant nations have continuously extracted wealth from weaker ones—whether through raw materials and unfinished goods, as the more conventional dependency theorists observed in places like Brazil, or through the exploitation of cheap labour, as radical Marxist dependency theorists argued in the case of Chile.
These were powerful, patriotic ideas, grounded in undeniable truths. Yet, in practice, they failed—no country managed to achieve economic success through their implementation. Worse still, these strategies deepened poverty rather than alleviating it. Despite the theory’s valid premises, its downfall stemmed from how it was applied. First, many of the nations that embraced it pursued an extreme form of economic isolation, withdrawing from global markets in an era when socialism was at its peak. Second, the theory’s most fervent advocates allowed their nationalism and hostility toward major powers to morph into reckless antagonism. Their inflammatory rhetoric lacked even the most basic diplomatic tact, ensuring conflict with global economic giants—battles that no small, developing nation could hope to win. Finally, the absolute power these leaders granted themselves proved fatal. Most of them came to power through non-democratic means—coups, revolutions, or other upheavals—rather than through popular mandate.
At the time, these leaders justified their unchecked authority as a necessity, arguing that rapid, sweeping reforms could not be bogged down by the sluggish, self-interested manoeuvring of conventional politicians. Many of them likely had good intentions in the beginning. But power is never permanent. Internal and external threats naturally emerged—ranging from local dissent to foreign adversaries with vested interests in these nations’ resources. Faced with opposition, these regimes clung ever more tightly to power, steadily eroding democratic rights under the pretext of national security. The right to vote and other basic freedoms were stripped away, paving the way for dictatorship—born out of fear, yet increasingly resembling a psychological disorder. At that point, the external economic oppressors were no longer the only enemies. Another had emerged from within: a regime so consumed by its paranoia that it had lost sight of reality. No theory—no matter how sound—could survive under such conditions. Because, as history has shown time and again, absolute power is absolute corruption.
This article is originally published by AlBorsa in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.