Teoría de la dependencia: desarrollos y contribuciones de las Relaciones Internacionales

Actualmente varios investigadores han señalado que las Relaciones Internacionales (RRII) es una disciplina formulada principalmente a partir de la experiencia política europea moderna y los desarrollos filosóficos, sin embargo, se propone abordar asuntos internacionales. Varios críticos señalan que la naturaleza eurocéntrica de la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales (TRI), dentro de la historia de Europa, no puede dilucidar adecuadamente el pasado y el presente de las regiones no occidentales. En un intento de convertir las RRII en una disciplina netamente internacional, los especialistas de las regiones no occidentales han proporcionado sus propias definiciones locales (por ejemplo, conceptos, experiencias históricas, filosofías, etc.). Asimismo, se tiene como objetivo dar una mejor explicación de cada región. Aunque la Teoría de la dependencia de América Latina no es ampliamente reconocida como una TIR propia, este artículo argumenta que puede contribuir a ella. El artículo se divide en tres secciones. La primera sección desarrolla dos críticas al enfoque eurocéntrico de las RRII y sus teorías. La segunda presenta brevemente el pensamiento de los dependentistas (Fernando Henrique Cardoso y Enzo Faletto, Ruy Marini, y Samir Amin, aunque el último dependentista es franco-egipcio), así como CEPAL. Y la tercera argumenta que la Teoría de la dependencia podría contribuir a la TIR de tres maneras: (1) al reconocer que los problemas, y los intereses, no son homogéneamente universales, enfatizando la necesidad de dar soluciones locales para los problemas locales; (2) susceptibilidad a los actores no tradicionales, como las empresas multinacionales y los grupos económicos nacionales; (3) entendimiento del escenario internacional y constituido jerárquicamente por una rivalidad de la estructura centro-periferia.

1. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

2. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Beyond the West.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811406574.

3. Acharya, Amitav. “From Heaven to Earth: ‘Cultural Idealism’ and ‘Moral Realism’ as Chinese Contributions to Global International Relations.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 12, no. 4 (2019): 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poz014.

4. Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 3 (2014): 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171.

5. Adar, Gombe, and Rok Ajulu. Globalization and Emerging Trends in African States’ Foreign Policy-Making Process. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.

6. Amin, Samir. Imperialism and Unequal Development. New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1977.

7. Amin, Samir. Maldevelopment: Anatomy of a Global Failure. London: Zed Books, 1990.

8. Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam, eds. Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2015.

9. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case of Subaltern Realism.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (2003): 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00263.

10. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World.” In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Stephanie Neumann, 31–54. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

11. Ballestrin, Luciana. “América Latina e o Giro Decolonial”. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política 11 (2013): 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-33522013000200004.

12. Behera, Navnita. “Re-Imagining IR in India.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 92–116. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

13. Beier, Marshall. “Beyond Hegemonic State(ment)s of Nature: Indigenous Knowledge and Non-State Possibilities in International Relations.” In Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, edited by Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, 82–114. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

14. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

15. Bizzo, Luiza, and Vitor Lengruber. “African Union: Mbeki’s South Africa Policy for Africa.” Brazilian Journal of African Studies 5, no. 9 (2020): 169–187. https://doi.org/10.22456/2448-3923.97993.

16. Bruyneel, Kevin. The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.–Indigenous Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

17. Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

18. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “The Idea of “International System”: Theory Meets History.” International Political Science Review 15, no. 3 (1994): 231–255.

19. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “World History and the Development of Non-Western International Relations Theory.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 197–220. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

20. Cardoso, Fernando, and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1979.

21. Cardoso, Fernando. “Notas sobre el Estado Actual de los Estudios sobre Dependencia”. Revista Latinoamerican de Ciencias Sociales 4 (1972): 325-350.

22. Cardoso, Fernando. “The Future of Latin America in the Global Economy. An Interview with Fernando Henrique Cardoso.” International Development Policy 9 (2017): 16–22. https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.2348.

23. Carvalho, Maria. “Estruturas Domésticas e Grupos de Interesse: a Formação da Posição Brasileira para Seattle” [Domestic Structures and Interest Groups: the Formation of the Brazilian Position for Seattle]. Contexto Internacional 25, no. 2 (2003): 363–401. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-85292003000200005. [In Portuguese]

24. Cervo, Amado, and Clodoaldo Bueno. História da Política Exterior do Brasil [History of Brazil’s Foreign Policy]. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2002. [In Portuguese]

25. Chin, Christine. “Claiming Race and Racelessness in International Studies.” International Studies Perspective 10, no. 1 (2009): 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00361.x.

26. Chipaike, Ronald, and Matarutse Knowledge. “The Question of African Agency in International Relations.” Cogent Social Sciences 4, no. 1 (2018): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1487257.

27. Chong, Alan. “Southeast Asia: Theory Between Modernization and Tradition?” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 117–147. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

28. Cohen, Raymond, and Raymond Westbrook. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

29. Coulthard, Glen. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

30. Do Nascimento, Abdias. Brazil: Mixture or Massacre? Essays in the Genocide of a Black People. Dover: First Majority Press, 1989.

31. Do Nascimento, Abdias. “Quilombismo: An Afro-Brazilian Political Alternative.” Journal of Black Studies 11, no. 2 (1980): 141–178.

32. Du Bois, William E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

33. Du Bois, William E.B. “Black Africa Tomorrow.” Foreign Affairs 17, no. 1 (1938): 100–110. https.doi.org/10.2307/20028906.

34. Du Bois, William E.B. “Inter-Racial Implications of the Ethiopian Crisis: a Negro View.” Foreign Affairs 14, no. 1 (October 1935): 82–92. https.doi.org/10.2307/20030704.

35. Du Bois, William E.B. “Worlds of Color.” Foreign Affairs 3, no. 3 (1925): 423–444. https.doi.org/10.2307/20028386.

36. Escudé, Carlos. El Realismo de los Estados Débiles. Buenos Aires: GEL, 1995.

37. Escudé, Carlos. El Realismo Periférico. Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1992.

38. Filho, Clayton, Rodrigo Gonçalves, and Ariane Déa. “The National Development Plan as a Political Economic Strategy in Evo Morale’s Bolivia: Accomplishments and Limitations.” Latin American Perspectives 37, no. 4 (2010): 177–196.

39. Furtado, Celso. “Development and Stagnation in Latin America: A Structuralist Approach.” Studies in

40. Comparative International Development 1 (1965): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02800594.

41. Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

42. Grovogui, Siba. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006.

43. Guimarães, Samuel. Quinhentos Anos de Periferia: uma Contribuição ao Estudo da Política Internacional [Five Hundred Years of Periphery: a Contribution to the Study of International Politics]. Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Universidade/UFRGS/Contraponto, 2001. [In Portuguese]

44. Hage, José. “A Teoria da Dependência: Uma Contribuição aos Estudos de Relações Internacionais” [The Dependency Theory: a Contribution to International Relations Studies]. Revista Política Hoje 22, no. 1 (2013): 106–136. [In Portuguese]

45. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968.

46. Inoguchi, Takashi. “Japan, Korea, and Taiwan: Are One Hundred Flowers about to Bloom?” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 86–102. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

47. Jones, Branwen. “‘Good Governance’ and ‘State Failure’: the Pseudo-Science of Statesmen in Our Times.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by Alexander Anieves, Nivi Manchanda and Robbie Shilliam, 62–80. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2015.

48. Kanet, Roger. “Russia in the New International Order: Theories, Arguments and Debates.” International Politics 49, no. 4 (2012): 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.6.

49. Kang, David, and Xinru Ma. “Power Transitions: Thucydides Didn’t Live in East Asia.” The Washington Quarterly 41, no. 1 (2018). 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2018.1445905.

50. Kang, David. East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.

51. Kelly, Liam. Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005.

52. Kvangraven, Ingrid et al. Dialogues on Development. Volume 1: Dependency. New York: Institute for New Economic Thinking, 2017.

53. Lander, Edgardo, ed. A Colonialidade do Saber: Eurocentrismo e Ciências Sociais. Perspectivas LatinoAmericanas [The Coloniality of Knowledge: Eurocentrism and Social Sciences. Latin American Perspectives]. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2005. [In Portuguese]

54. Leichtova, Magda. Misunderstanding Russia: Russian Foreign Policy and the West. Surrey: Ashgate, 2014.

55. Le Melle, Tilden. “Race in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 10, no. 1 (2009): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00359.x.

56. Lengruber, Vitor. “Russia’s ‘Civilizational’ Foreign Policy (2012-2018): A Neo-Eurasianist Explanation.” In Russia in the Asia-Pacific Conference Proceedings, 248–249. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Federal University, 2020.

57. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

58. Mandela, Nelson. “South Africa’s Future Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5 (1993). 86–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045816.

59. Marini, Ruy. Dialéctica de la Dependencia. México: Ediciones Era, 1991.

60. Mazrui, Ali. Africa’s International Relations: the Diplomacy of Dependency and Change. London: Heinemann, 1977.

61. Medeiros, Marcelo et al. “What Does the Field of International Relations Look Like in South America?” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 1 (2016): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600104.

62. Mignolo, Walter. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durnham and London: Duke University Press, 2011.

63. Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf, 1960.

64. Ngcoya, Mvuselelo. “Ubuntu: Toward an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism?” International Political Sociology 9, no. 3 (2015): 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12095.

65. Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. New York: International Publishers, 1966.

66. Ofuho, Cirino. “Africa: Teaching IR Where It’s not Supposed to Be.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 71–85. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

67. Oliveira, Amâncio, and Janina Onuki. “Grupos de Interesses e a Política Comercial Brasileira: a Atuação na Arena Legislativa” [Interest Groups and Brazilian Commercial Policy: Performance in the Legislative Arena]. Papéis Legislativo 8 ( 2007): 1–20. [In Portuguese]

68. Oliveira, Marcelo. Mercosul: Atores Políticos e Grupos de Interesses Brasileiros [Mercosur: Political Actors and Brazilian Interest Groups]. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2003. [In Portuguese]

69. Oluwaniyi, Oluwatoyin. “The Role of Multinational Oil Corporations (MNOCS) in Nigeria: More Exploitation Equals Less Development of Oil-Rich Niger Delta Region.” Brazilian Journal of African Studies 3, no. 6 (2018): 143–162.

70. Otusanya, Olatunde. “The Role of Multinational Companies in Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance: the Case of Nigeria.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22, no. 3 (2011): 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.10.005.

71. Ragionieri, Rodolfo. “The Amarna Age: An International Society in the Making.” In Amarna Diplomacy: the Beginnings of International Relations, edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, 42–53. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

72. Schoeman, Maxi. “South Africa: Between History and a Hard Place.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 53–70. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

73. Sergounin, Alexander. “Russia: IR at a Crossroads.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 223–241. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

74. Shkaratan, Ovsey. “The Eurasian Vector of Russia’s Development.” In the Eurasian Project and Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics, edited by David Lane and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, 25–37. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

75. Silva, André, and Isadora Silveira. “Da ALCA à CELAC: o Brasil e os Desafios da Integração Continental” [From the FTAA to CELAC: Brazil and the Challenges of Continental Integration]. Brazilian Journal of International Relations 1, no. 3 (2012): 425–447. https://doi.org/10.36311/2237-7743.2012.v1n3.p424-447. [In Portuguese]

76. Smith, Karen. “Contrived Boundaries, Kinship and Ubuntu: a (South) African View of ‘the International.’” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, 301–321. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2012.

77. Solovyev, Eduard. “Geopolitics in Russia – Science or Vocation?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 37, no. 1 (2004): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2003.12.009.

78. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

79. Tickner, Arlene, and David Blaney. “Introduction: Thinking Difference.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, 1–24. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2012.

80. Tickner, Arlene. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2003(a)): 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.404001.

81. Tickner, Arlene. “Latin America: Still Policy Dependent after all these Years?” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 32–52. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

82. Tickner, Arlene. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2003(b)): 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301.

83. Tsygankov, Andrei. Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

84. Tsygankov, Andrei. “In the Shadow of Nikolai Danilevskii: Universalism, Particularism, and Russian Geopolitical Theory.” Europe-Asia Studies 69, no. 4 (2017): 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2017.1335691.

85. Tsygankov, Andrei. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 762–775.

86. Valenzuela, Samuel, and Arturo Valenzuela. “Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment.” Comparative Politics 10, no. 4 (1978): 535–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/421571.

87. Van Wyk, Jo-Ansie. “South Africa’s Post-Apartheid Foreign Policy: a Constructivist Analysis.” Politeia 23, no. 3 (2004): 103–136.

88. Vigevani, Tullo, and Gabriel Capulini. Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times: the Quest for Autonomy from Sarney to Lula. New York: Lexington Books, 2009.

89. Viotti, Paul, and Mark Kauppi. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New York: Pearson Education, 2012.

90. Walker, Rob. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

91. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.

92. Zeleza, Paul. Rethinking Africa’s Globalization. Volume 1: The Intellectual Challenges. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.46272/2409-3416-2021-9-1-32-49