Kay on AGF Reputations NPE

7/27/2019 Kay on AGF Reputations NPE

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kay-on-agf-reputations-npe 1/16

REPUTATIONS

Andre Gunder Frank: ‘Unity inDiversity’ from the Development of Underdevelopment to the World System

CRISTOBAL KAY

The purpose of this article is to critically review the work of Andre Gunder Frank.This is no easy task given the prolific and controversial nature of his life work. Hismain distinction is as a paradigm breaker and a paradigm maker. Frank is one of the founders of contemporary world system theory. He coined some memorableexpressions such as the ‘development of underdevelopment’ and ‘Re-Orient’.Indeed, these two concepts highlight two distinct phases in his work. His firstphase is characterised by his writings on dependency theory and his initialunderstanding of world system theory broadly in line with Amin, Arrighi andWallerstein. His second phase is distinguished by what he considers to be the‘Eurocentric’ interpretation of world system theory of Wallerstein and others aswell as by his critique of his own earlier work. While some of Frank’s analysesand assertions proved to be wrong, he provided much inspiration to a new gener-ation of scholars and activists, some of whom provided the necessary empiricalevidence and theoretical rigour lacking in parts of Frank’s work. But he excelledin his mission of providing the big picture, asking the unimaginable questions and

exploring hitherto inconceivable interrelationships.

Keywords: Frank, dependency theory, world system theory, globalisation, LatinAmerica, Asia

Introduction

Andre Gunder Frank can be considered as one of the founders of contemporaryworld system theory. He was certainly one of the most prolific and controversial

Cristobal Kay, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box

29776, 2502 LT The Hague, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1356-3467 print; ISSN 1469-9923 online/11/040523-16# 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13563467.2011.597501

New Political Economy, Vol. 16, No. 4, September 2011



social scientists of his time. He published over 40 books and over 400 journalarticles and contributed around 170 chapters to books. His work appears in30 languages and is widely cited all over the world.1 The wide variety of topicson which he wrote can be gauged from the diverse disciplines of the journalswhich published his articles. He reflected on past and contemporary events incountries all over the world and was invited to give talks across the continents.He lived and worked in several countries, in the Americas as well as in Europe.In short, he was a global citizen.

Frank’s main distinction was as a paradigm breaker and a paradigm maker.2 Hecoined some memorable expressions such as the ‘development of underdevelopment’and ‘Re-Orient’ (his preferred way of spelling it). Indeed, these two concepts highlighttwo distinct phases in his work. His first phase, which Frank himself refers to as‘Frank I’, is characterised by his writings on dependency theory and his initial under-standing of world system theory broadly speaking in line with Amin, Arrighi and

Wallerstein (Frank 2000: 227). His second phase, ‘Frank II’, emerged in the late1980s and is closely linked to his increasing divergence from Wallerstein on the ques-tion of the world system as well as to his own critique of his ‘Frank I’ work. His firstphase starts dramatically with the publication in 1966 of his path-breaking article on‘the development of underdevelopment’ (Frank 1966) and is also distinguished byhis devastating critique of the sociology of development (Frank 1967a).3 Hissecond phase is notable for his critique of what he considers to be the ‘Eurocentric’interpretation of world system theory. The key book of this period is ‘ReOrient’published seven years before his death and his last major publication (Frank 1998).4

During his professional life he never settled for long in one place. Born in Berlin in

1929, he and his parents moved to Switzerland in 1933 as political exiles fromHitler’s Germany. In 1941 he went to the USA and in 1957 he received his PhD ineconomics from Chicago University. In the early 1960s he travelled to LatinAmerica taking up appointments in the University of Brasilia and the NationalAutonomous University of Mexico. During his travels he met Marta Fuentes, aChilean left-wing political activist and feminist, whom he married in 1962 andwith whom he shared a concern for social justice. After a couple of years at theGeorge Williams University in Montreal he returned to Latin America in 1968where he was appointed professor at the University of Chile. In 1973 he left Chileafter the military coup d’e tat which overthrew the socialist government of Salvador

Allende and returned to Berlin as a political exile after an absence of 40 years. Hespent a semester at the Latin American Institute of the Berlin Free University. Hethen became a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg nearMunich, moved in 1978 to the School of Development Studies in the University of East Anglia and in 1981 to the University of Amsterdam where he stayed until hisretirement in 1994 at the age of 65. He then worked at several universities in NorthAmerica. He died in 2005.

‘Development of underdevelopment’ and ‘the underdevelopment of sociology’

The early 1960s to the 1970s was the period of Frank’s most radical politicalengagement and of his greatest popularity, especially among students and in

C. Kay

524



Latin America in particular. In certain left-wing circuits, especially those suppor-tive of the Cuban revolution and the guerrilla struggles, he acquired almost a cultstatus. It was during the 1960s that he wrote his classical challenges to develop-ment theory. It was in a little known article, originally published in Portuguesein 1963, that he first formulated the daring idea that ‘[T]he countries which arepresently developed might at one time have been undeveloped, but were neverunder developed in the present sense of the term’(Frank 1969: 337, author’semphases). He subsequently developed this thesis in many articles and books,notably in his most widely cited article with the captivating title ‘The developmentof underdevelopment’: ‘The now developed countries were never under deve-loped, though they may have been undeveloped. . . . Yet historical researchdemonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historicalproduct of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satelliteunderdeveloped and the now developed metropolitan countries’ (Frank 1966: 18,

author’s emphases). Frank was very familiar with the orthodox theories of devel-opment having studied at the University of Chicago and had been briefly a visitingresearcher at the MIT’s Center for International Studies. In those institutions hemet and came across the ideas of Milton Friedmann, Bert Hoselitz, ManningNash, Benjamin Higgins, Walt Whitman Rostow, among others. Frank’s thesisdirectly contradicted the prevailing orthodox view.

The other article by Frank which had an enormous impact, especially on soci-ologists and anthropologists, is entitled ‘The sociology of development and theunderdevelopment of sociology’, a strong and comprehensive critique of a soci-ology of development dominated at the time by modernisation theory (Frank

1967a). He rejected its dualism, unilinearity, the Cold-War inspired ‘stages of growth’, the notions of traditional society and modern society, ‘and the analysisof development through neo-Parsonian social pattern variables and neo-Weberiancultural and psychological categories’ (Frank 1991a: 23). Furthermore, he arguedthat ‘this new sociology of development is found to be empirically invalid whenconfronted with reality, theoretically inadequate . . ., and policy-wise ineffectivefor . . . underdeveloped countries’ (Frank 1969: 21). Common to all these develop-ment theories is the assumption that underdevelopment is an original state. Frank (1969: 41) profoundly disagreed: ‘Indeed, the economic and political expansion of Europe since the fifteenth century has come to incorporate the now underdeve-

loped countries into a single stream of world history, which has given rise simul-taneously to the present development of some countries and the presentunderdevelopment of others’. Moreover, he charged Rostow and others thatthey ‘have examined the developed countries as if they had developed in isolationfrom this stream of world history’ (Frank 1969: 41).

Frank’s emblematic articles ‘The development of underdevelopment’ and‘Sociology of development and underdevelopment of sociology’, circulatedwidely among students, scholars and activists critical of the capitalist systemand concerned with the plight of the so-called Third World. These writingsinspired radical political, social and solidarity movements in several countries.Indeed these two articles represented a paradigm shift. As Foster-Carter (1976:175) remarks: ‘Frank’s great merit is to have, at a certain time and place, statedthe new paradigm with such brute force that no one could possibly confuse it

Andre Gunder Frank: ‘Unity in Diversity’

525



with anything else’. Frank’s background in Chicago University, one of the hotbedsof modernisation theory as well as of monetarism and the (in)famous neoliberal‘Chicago school of economics’, lent his critique a special force.5 While some aca-demics viewed Frank as a ‘renegade’ from Chicago economics others consideredhim, ‘the archetypal Western radicalized intellectual, who at the time dominateddevelopment thinking . . ., the orthodox Chicago economist who abruptly becamea Latin American revolutionary figure’ (Toye 1993: 127).

This critical spirit was to remain a central feature of Frank’s character through-out his lifetime. He revelled in criticism, liked to be a contrarian and consideredsome criticisms as a badge of honour citing them profusely. He was at heart an‘Einzelga nger ’ (lone wolf, outsider) although he shared his ideas with MartaFuentes and valued her views, as well as collaborating with her in some joint pub-lications. He particularly cherished his association with Samir Amin, GiovanniArrighi and Immanuel Wallerstein, the so-called gang of four, despite subsequent

profound disagreements. In his later life he also collaborated with Barry Gills withwhom he edited a couple of books and wrote a few joint articles. The ideas of PaulBaran and Paul Sweezy, his travels through Latin America, his marriage to MartaFuentes and his engagement with several intellectuals and activists in the regioncertainly kindled and nurtured his critical mind.

Latin American influences

It is, however, his Latin American experience which had a crucial influence onFrank, often more than is usually acknowledged. In 1960, soon after the revolu-

tion, Frank travelled to Cuba for the first time. He visited Cuba on several otheroccasions in 1967, in 1968 as an invited delegate to the International Congressof Intellectuals in Havana, in 1972 as a jury member of the Casa de las Ame ricas(Cuba’s premier cultural organisation) and in 1981 to the Second Congress of Third World Economists. Influenced by Cuba’s revolution and by Latin America’srevolutionary movements it is perhaps unsurprising to find Frank expressingsupport for revolutionary and socialist change in his writings of the time. Forexample, in a book review written in 1964 he proclaims that: ‘All non-socialistsocieties, . . ., are fully integral and integrated parts of the imperialist systemand their liberation from its exploitative and underdeveloping effects is possible

only under a Marxist-Leninist strategy of combating imperialist capitalism inall non-socialist societies’ (Frank 1969: 221). Furthermore, he encouraged anthro-pologists (and others) to follow the revolutionary example of Che Guevaraand was ahead of the time in advocating that anthropologists should analysetheir own societies ‘for a political movement that promotes the necessary socialchange of that society’. Moreover, Frank (1969: 143) declared that ‘the anthropol-ogist can become a real partisan – an intellectual revolutionary rather than a revo-lutionary intellectual’. To cap it all the first sentence in one of his books, publishedin 1969, reads:

These essays were written to contribute to the Revolution in LatinAmerica and the world, and they are collected here in the hope thatthey may help others to contribute more to the Revolution than the

C. Kay

526



author has been able to. The essays arise out of the author’s attempt. . . to assimilate the Latin American Revolution and the inspirationit finds in the Cuban Revolution, whose tenth glorious anniversarywe celebrate while writing these lines. (Frank 1969: ix)

Who would write such a sentence today? Times have certainly changed!Reviews of Frank’s oeuvre generally fail to emphasise the importance of the

influence of Latin America’s revolutionary experience and its intellectuals onhis writings. This influence is acknowledged by Frank (1991a: 25–6) when, forexample, he wrote that: ‘Much of the historical material and many of the ideasin this manuscript were derived and then reformulated from other Latin Americanwriters’.6 Later he also wrote that:

increasingly in the company and mutual influence of such Latin

American friends as Alonso Aguilar in Mexico, Anıbal Quijanoof Peru, Edelberto Torres of Guatemala, Enzo Falleto [sic] andLuis Vitale of Chile, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ruy MauroMarini, and Theotonio dos Santos of Brazil, and others, theauthor has sought to distil a new theoretical formulation of under-development from this historical and contemporary experience.(Frank 1969: xvii)7

Clearly, Frank knew and interacted with many of the most distinguished LatinAmerican intellectuals.

One of the merits of Frank was that he listened to and learned from LatinAmerican social scientists and thinkers during his time in the region. His encoun-ters with the Latin American reality and their organic intellectuals gave him adeeper understanding of the problems of underdevelopment. It further radicalisedhis ideas and intensified his commitment to the poor. Such openness to LatinAmerican thinkers and their ideas was unusual in those days among US socialscientists, where a sense of superiority, if not arrogance, often clouded their jud-gement. Frank did not impose a US-centric view on the region but rather immersedhimself in the writings of Latin American historians and social scientists. While heused his new learning to critique some of his professors and colleagues in the

USA, he did not spare some of his new Latin American acquaintances either.Whatever the extent of the influence of Latin American intellectuals on Frank,it has to be recognised that none of them produced the paradigmatic shift whichFrank so spectacularly accomplished. That is indeed Frank’s exclusive achieve-ment. Furthermore, his writings of the time were a major influence in transformingLatin American studies in the USA and to a lesser extent in Europe. A whole gen-eration of students in the 1960s and 1970s embraced his paradigmatic critiques of orthodox development and area studies, which opened their eyes to the richness of Latin American social thought and encouraged them to view Latin America andother regions of the underdeveloped world not from the centre but from the per-iphery.8 It is in my view no exaggeration to say that Frank and the dependencyschool, whatever their failings, started a process of decolonisation of knowledge,both in the South and the North.


527



Dependency theory

In the English-speaking world, Frank is often credited as being the originatorof dependency theory. But this would be wrong. This misunderstanding partly

arises from the fact that Frank wrote in English and English translations of theLatin American dependency scholars only appeared several years after Frank had already been established as the father of dependency theory. Furthermore,there are several strands within dependency theory, Frank being closer to theMarxist than to the structuralist position.9 While Frank can be considered asone of the leading lights within the Marxist position, several other authors contrib-uted to it. Locating Frank within the Marxist strand of the dependency school is,however, also problematic. On coming under fire from some Marxists, Frank himself claimed never to have been a Marxist10 but this is somewhat disingenuousas he was closely linked to many Marxists and influenced by them as well as sup-

portive of social movements and political parties who proclaimed to be Marxist.Without being in any way megalomaniac, Frank probably saw himself as beingin a school of his own.11

Dependency theory has been much criticised, in particular Frank’s version.When Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1972: 94), a key dependency author, coinedthe term ‘associated-dependent development’ he clearly wanted to dissociatehimself from Frank’s ‘development of underdevelopment’ for its stagnationistimplications, among other reasons.12 For Cardoso foreign investment and tradewith the developed countries while furthering a dependent relationship can leadto economic development in the developing world, albeit of an uneven andunequal kind. It may also have negative social and political consequences forthe majority of its citizens, particularly the poor, but this depends on theoutcome of social struggles within each country. Where Frank sees uniformityCardoso sees differences. Hence Cardoso’s view of dependency was more openand less deterministic than Frank’s.

Surprisingly much of the criticism of Frank’s dependency theory came from theleft perhaps because the right dismissed it outright.13 In the early 1970s around 100critiques had already been directed totally or partially at Frank’s writings and by1990 this had increased to over 200 critiques. Frank was accused of being a ‘theoristof an anarchistic left, provocateur, diversionist, confusionist, divisionist . . . pseudo-marxist’ as well as being an ‘ideologist of terrorism in Latin America’ for some and

a ‘cat’s paw of the CIA’, for others (Frank 1991a: 36).David Booth (1973: 77) posed the challenging question: ‘Rather than twist the

concept of underdevelopment out of recognition, would it not be better to abandonit altogether?’ For John Taylor (1974: 8) the notion of underdevelopment is inher-ently teleological. Meanwhile Jairus Banaji (1980: 518) railed against ‘the sloganof “national liberation” which Frank claims to advocate can be the expression of . . . the tired and worn-out radicalism of a “progressivist” petty-bourgeoisie whichpicks up the discarded slogans of national capitalism and imagines it is therebyfighting for revolutionary socialism’. Despite the deluge of criticisms directedat Frank, Foster-Carter (1976: 175–6) has a valid point when asking the question:

‘Why is Frank so great and so awful?. . .

What is in danger of being forgotten isthat it was only because of Frank that we can now supersede him!’

C. Kay

528





relations of production. In turn, this criticism is linked to the critique aimedspecifically at Frank that he neglected to undertake a class analysis or, if he did,it was deficient (Roxborough 1976; Bernstein and Nicholas 1983). The detailsof this debate do not need to concern us here except to point out that it has impli-cations for Frank’s dependency analysis. Critics argued that it is the internalrelations of production and class relations that determine the external relationsof exchange and hence the character of the dependency relations and not viceversa as Frank maintained.16 Hence the charge that Frank was a ‘circulationist’instead of a ‘productivist’. The dispute was more a matter of emphasis as bothsides agreed that there is (for some a dialectical) relationship between the internaland the external factors.

It is ironic that after so many tears were shed and so much ink was spilled onthese issues, Frank (1978a: 253) reached the startling conclusion that ‘The analy-sis of a single process of accumulation and the development of a single world

capitalist system renders the question of the internality or externality of thedetermination, at least of this process itself, irrelevant and unanswerable’. Thisstatement is only valid insofar one accepts the existence of a single world capitalistsystem. Frank later continues to dispute his critics by arguing that ‘The predomi-nance of “internal” relations of production over “external” relations of exchange isrendered more questionable, in turn, if we consider the necessary connection of both these relations for the realization of, and therefore for the expanded reproduc-tion and accumulation of, capital, with successive relations and modes of pro-duction’ (Frank 1978a: 253, author’s inverted commas).

The final irony revealed itself some years later when Frank I had made the tran-

sition to Frank II and argued that we should ‘dare to abandon (the sacrosanct belief in) capitalism as a distinct mode of production and separate system’ (Frank 1991c:185). Thus, he argues that it is best to abandon concepts like modes of production,feudalism, capitalism, socialism and any supposed transition between them for‘their lack of real or “scientific” basis’ and because they obscure more ‘the funda-mental continuity of the underlying world system than they supposedly clarify’(Frank 1996: 44). Furthermore, these concepts are ‘derived from narrow “societal”or even national blinkers’ and hence have ‘continued to divert our attention awayfrom the much more significant world systemic structures and processes’. He con-cludes that these relentless discussions ‘have led us down the garden path and

diverted us from analyzing the real world’ (Frank 1998: 330–1).

World accumulation and crisis

Latin America was one decisive turning point in Frank’s life: personally, intellec-tually and politically. His exile following the coup in Chile in 1973 markedanother. His return to Germany and subsequent residence in England and TheNetherlands began a transitional phase which shifted his interests away fromLatin America towards the world economy. During the late 1970s and early1980s he published five books on the problem of world accumulation andthe world economic crisis. These books reflect his life-long ambition alreadyexpressed in 1965 to develop ‘a theory and analysis adequate to encompass thestructure and development of the capitalist system on an integrated world scale

C. Kay

530



and to explain its contradictory development which generates at once economicdevelopment and underdevelopment’ (Frank 1967b: 11). He had already begunworking on the first of these books in the early 1970s while he was at theCentro de Estudios Socio-Economicos of the University of Chile.17 This set of books form a certain unity. In the first book, Frank (1978a) dates the origins of the world system around 1500, initially centred in Europe and increasinglyglobal. This was more or less in line with the analysis of Immanuel Wallersteinand other world system theorists. In the fifth book, Frank (1981) reflects on themost recent world economic crisis of the time.18

In these five books, Frank addresses the crisis in the North and the South as wellas that of the socialist countries. Some authors credit him for being one of the firstanalysts to have predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union. Despite his continu-ing prolific output, these books generated relatively little interest. Perhaps the debtcrisis of the 1980s, the end of the Third World liberation struggles, the waning of

the student movements and the increasing malaise in the socialist countries dimin-ished their potential readership. Furthermore, other concerns impinged on the con-sciousness of people such as environmental and gender issues about which Frank had little to say. In a way, the Frank I period came to an end with a collection of hisessays written between 1968 and 1983 (Frank 1984). The collection ranges over alarge number of issues and contains one of his key articles which was originallyentitled ‘Dependence is dead, long live dependence and the class struggle: ananswer to critics’ but which is revealingly abbreviated to ‘An answer to critics’,which was indeed the key purpose of the article.19

Reorientation and Eurocentrism

From the mid-1980s Frank extended, deepened and reassessed his analysis of theworld system. Latin America had by then faded away and he no longer uncondi-tionally supported the Cuban revolution nor proclaimed the socialist revolution asthe way to escape from underdevelopment. After the premature death of Marta in1993 and his retirement from the University of Amsterdam in 1994, he moved toToronto where in 1996 he completed his ‘best book’, ReOrient.20 While the book resonated in Europe and the USA it went unnoticed in Latin America.21 Whereasin his early writings, Frank had directed his savage critiques towards the orthodox

theories of development, in his later writings it is largely Frank against the world,as he challenges practically all received historiography and social theory, includ-ing Marx, Polanyi, Braudel and Wallerstein. I think that Frank felt most at home inthe position of critical outsider although, despite firing off right, left and centre, hewished to retain the friendship of those who had been close to him. Whetherhe succeeded in this is difficult to say. It is likely that some friendships were nolonger close as before.22 If Frank II was critical of most social sciences fromhis single-minded world system perspective, he was also honest, courageousand consistent in his self-critique of Frank I as mentioned earlier.

His Frank II phase starts with a couple of articles published in 1990 and culmi-nates with his ReOrient book in 1998.23 He develops the thesis that the currentworld system did not emerge in the 1500s as he had originally argued but thatit had existed for five thousand years. Moreover, he argues that the rise of


531



Europe after 1500 was a hegemonic transfer from East to West within the sameworld system rather than the formation of a new world system. Contrary to theviews of his contemporaries Amin and Wallerstein, as well as those of his prede-cessors Adam Smith and Karl Marx in the past, there was no qualitative break around 1500.24 Frank II, not unlike Frank I, argued that the main cause for therise of the West lies in external factors, i.e. principally events in Asia, and isonly partly due to factors within Europe. He singled out Wallerstein’s thesisthat the modern world system started around 1500 in Europe for special criticism,seeing it as a ‘short-sighted Eurocentric perspective’ and arguing that his analysisis contradictory (Frank 1991c: 179). Frank concluded his article by insisting on thesystemic continuity and by stressing the unity in diversity – a phrase that he oftenrepeated throughout his work and became the slogan which perhaps best encapsu-lates his mission and, for better or worse, his legacy.

Wallerstein replied that there was no single historical world system before 1500

as there was no integrated production system and that trade alone does not make asystem. Furthermore, he highlights his different conceptualisation of the worldsystem. ‘He [AGF] speaks of a “world system”; I speak of “world-systems.” Iuse a hyphen; he does not. I use the plural; he does not. He uses the singularbecause, for him, there is and has been only one world system through all of historical time and space. For me there have been very many world-systems’(Wallerstein 1991: 191). Furthermore, Wallerstein (1991: 192) denies being Euro-centric as his ‘analysis “exoticizes” Europe. Europe is historically aberrant’.

Frank (1992) complained that few researchers were writing world history orinternational history (as he understood it) and few therefore were able to appreci-

ate the centrality of Asia. Moreover, so as to understand the past, present andfuture history of the world it was necessary to develop a ‘holistic global world per-spective’ (Frank 1998: 29). He thus made it his mission to begin to fill this gap aswell as to encourage other researchers to do so.25 His ReOrient book appeared atan opportune time just as China was re-emerging as a major global economicpower and becoming the new workshop of the world. While his writings duringthe Frank I period dealt with an enormous variety of topics his writings duringthe Frank II period are more focused on his new-found mission. His mainthemes for analysis continued to be the processes of capital accumulation, thecore-periphery structures, the changes in hegemony and the political economic

cycles and to trace them as far back in history as possible. Besides attacking Euro-centric history, in ReOrient Frank also reasons that it was Asia’s decline thatfacilitated Europe’s industrial revolution. Hence the prime cause of the industrialrevolution and the rise of the West do not lie in its own internal dynamics but areexplained by the internal changes in another part of the world system, e.g. Asia.Thus, European colonialism no longer seems to be an important factor in the emer-gence of the West, which is surprising given Frank’s earlier stress on colonialismin the development of Europe.

Frank’s thesis that a world system was already being formed about five thou-sand years ago has been much contested and for good reasons. While his argumentthat Asia had been the dominant economic power for a far longer historical periodthan Europe and the West is valid and his Eurocentrism critique levelled at muchof historiography and beyond may be justifiable, his proposition about the world

C. Kay

532



system is partial. His five thousand year conception seems to drain away theenquiry into change and systemic transformation. The only transformationseems to be the shift from one centre to another, from the East to the Westwhich according to Frank happened only by 1800. According to Frank abouttwo-thirds of the world population were living in Asia in 1750 and they accountedfor an estimated four-fifths of world production (Frank 2000: 227). Whether torefer to the period before the sixteenth century as constituting a world system isvery questionable given the limited trade and other economic relations betweenthe East and the West. Furthermore, social, cultural and political relationsbetween those two regions of the world were even more marginal. Hence itdoes not make much sense to conceptualise this as a world system (McNeill1996). Such an all-embracing and eternal view of the world system offers littlehope for anti-systemic movements and conveys a probably unintended conserva-tive message.

Conclusion: differences and continuities between Frank I and Frank II

Frank’s own distinction between two phases of his work is a useful analyticaldevice. Frank II certainly abandoned Frank I Eurocentric interpretation of theworld system. Thus, in his book ReOrient he revised his earlier core-peripheryand world accumulation analysis. He also abandoned capitalism as a central expla-natory category. This had far-reaching implications which Frank did not fullyanalyse. For example, it means that contrary to his famous thesis on the develop-ment of underdevelopment, it is no longer capitalism which generates and repro-

duces underdevelopment in the periphery but the changing nature of the worldsystem. Furthermore, socialism is no longer a real alternative for overcomingunderdevelopment.26 Indeed, Frank may be credited for being one of the first ana-lysts to have predicted the demise of ‘real existing socialism’ in Eastern Europe asrather than being in a transition to communism they were in a transition to capit-alism (Frank 1983: 345). Frank II mentioned that alternatives are possible butthese remain largely unspecified and vague although he does stress that worldsystem history is quite clear about what will not work.

Contrary to his earlier view, Frank (1991a: 58) now argues that delinking doesnot lead to development and especially in this era of globalisation and the increas-

ing interdependence of the world economy is impossible to achieve. Retrospec-tively Frank now admits that he and the dependency theorists never fullyanswered the question of how a non-dependent and autonomous developmentcould be achieved and whether it would lead to genuine development. He con-siders this to have been the Achilles’ heel of his work (Addo 1996: 141). In hisview, dependency theory remained trapped within a nation-state conception of development.27 While Frank I was ambiguous about his relationship toMarxism, Frank II clearly rejects Marxism for its Eurocentrism. From beingone of the major polemicists in the debates on modes of production, he nowrejects the concept of mode of production altogether for understanding the trans-formations of economies and societies.

While Frank II differs from Frank I, there is a key continuity throughout hisintellectual journey. Since the mid-1960s he already argued that to understand


533



the transformation processes of a country or a region, it is necessary to use a worldsystem perspective (Frank 1969: 231). It is no exaggeration to say that he was aworld system theorist avant la lettre and its key founder. For example, in his1965 article he writes that ‘the historical development of this world system gen-erated the development of the monopolizing metropolis and the underdevelop-ment of the monopolized satellites’ (Frank 1969: 240). The relentless extractionof an economic surplus from the periphery and its appropriation by the centrereproduces the unequal nature of the world system. Phrases like ‘capitalism isembodied and developed as one single capitalist system’ and ‘this single world-embracing system’ are repeated in multiple variations throughout most of hiswork and reach their most extreme formulation with his idea of the five thousandyears single world system in his later period.

Whatever one’s view about his conception of the world system, it is undoubt-edly the case that his writings on the international political economy and the world

system have generated enormous controversy and encouraged a wealth of newresearch. While Frank’s work is no longer cited as often now as during his life-time, his oeuvre continues to influence debates and generate new reflections. Itwill continue to do so due to his pioneering contribution to international politicaleconomy and world system theory.28

Since his early writings Frank constantly searched for ‘unity within diver-sity’ instead of ‘diversity within unity’ of the multiple historical processes.Frank seemed to argue that there is, there can be and there will be unity indiversity. Frank defended himself against the accusation that his work wastoo concerned about unity by replying that he also tried to explain how this

same unity generated diversity within it. To what extent Frank imposes aunity on our understanding of the diverse historical transformations of the inter-national political economy which does not exist is a question which will con-tinue to be debated.

While some of Frank’s analyses and assertions were wrong he provided muchinspiration to a new generation of scholars and activists, some of whom providedthe necessary empirical evidence or even the theoretical rigour lacking in Frank’swork. But he excelled in his mission of providing the big picture, asking the unim-aginable questions and exploring hitherto inconceivable interrelationships. In thistask he was willing to take risks and expose himself to an avalanche of criticisms

as well as ridicule not only from the orthodox academic establishment but alsofrom those supporting his ideals for a more just world and even from hisfriends. However, Frank opened new avenues for research and provided foodfor debates, often fierce, often ideologically inspired, sometimes leading toblind alleys but always questioning, reflecting and challenging conventionalwisdom. This is his most enduring legacy.

Notes

I am grateful to Nicola Phillips for inviting me to write this feature article for the journal as well as to Colin Hayfor his comments. I remain indebted to Diana Kay for her expert editing. They are in no way responsible for any

remaining shortcomings of the article.

C. Kay

534



1. Information obtained from Frank’s website, which is hosted by the Robinson Rojas Archive. Available from:

www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/pubs_new.html#SUMMARY [Accessed 7 April 2011]. Frank’s publi-

cations, original manuscripts, interviews, correspondence, etc. for the period 1953–1994 have been depos-

ited in archives at the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam. The table of contents can be

accessed at www.iisg.nl/archives/en/files/f/10769523.php.2. I am borrowing here a phrase from Jan Nederveen Pieterse (2005: 383).

3. Frank wrote the article in 1963 and submitted it to several journals that all refused to publish it. This lengthy

article was published in 1971 as a book with the same title by Pluto Press in London.

4. Over 50 reviews of the book were already published by 2001.

5. Frank (1976) would publish an angry attack on two of his professors at Chicago University: Milton

Friedmann, the high priest of monetarism and the neoliberal ‘Chicago School of Economics’ and Arnold

Harberger for their support to, and involvement as advisors with, the neoliberal reforms of General Pinochet’s

military government in Chile (1973–1990).

6. Frank refers here to his manuscript On Capitalist Underdevelopment (Frank 1975), which he wrote in 1963

but was only published in 1975. He mentions specifically Sergio Bagu, Caio Prado Jr., Celso Furtado and

Anıbal Pinto.

7. Frank (1969: 95) also acknowledges the help of ‘Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Rodolfo Stavenhagen,

Latin American sociologists whose life and work in underdeveloped society have been so fruitful’ in the

preparation of one of his early papers. Decades after Frank wrote this acknowledgement Cardoso became

president of Brazil (1995 –2003).

8. The Latin American Studies Association (LASA), which was founded in the 1960s in the USA, was not

immune to the influence of Frank and the dependency school. After some initial struggles within LASA,

it became much more receptive to the ideas of radical Latin American thinkers.

9. I have discussed these various strands of the dependency school in Kay (1989).

10. As Frank (1991a: 37) writes: ‘Indeed, a lively but fruitless debate ensued over whether I am an Orthodox

Marxist, a Neo-Marxist, or neither. My answer has always been “none of the above”, for I never laid

claim to any of these labels, nor did I wish to assent to or dissent from any such’.

11. Frank (1991b: 150) disliked any labelling or pigeonholing of himself, especially by others.

12. On this point see also Warren (1980: 113 and 161– 2).

13. I have dealt elsewhere with the debates and critiques of dependency theory, see chapters 6 and 7 in Kay(1989). For a review by Frank of the book, see Frank (1990a). For a comment on my book by one of the

key contributors to dependency theory, see Dos Santos (1996: 170).

14. A key debate on modes of production took place between Maurice Dobb and Paul Sweezy and others in the

early 1950s which were published in Science and Society. This debate was reproduced, with additional con-

tributions, in Hilton (1976).

15. An earlier version of Laclau’s article was published in Spanish in 1968. For an overview of the mode of pro-

duction debate see, Foster-Carter (1978) and Kay (1989: 157–62).

16. This controversy mirrors the debate between Dobb and Sweezy on whether it is the transformation of the

internal relations of production and the related class struggle which drove the transition from feudalism to

capitalism in Europe or whether it was the external relations of circulation and commercial expansion

which was the prime mover of the transition process, see Hilton (1976). See also Dobb (1980: 11–12)

where he relates my arguments in Kay (1980) to Frank’s thesis and to his own view on the debate.17. Between 1971 and 1973 we were colleagues at CESO.

18. The other three in between books are Frank (1978b, 1980a, 1980b).

19. See Frank (1977). It was originally published in Spanish in 1972 with the same title in Sociedad y Desarrollo,

2, 217–34, which was the journal edited by CESO. It was subsequently published in about a dozen journals.

In this article, he lists over 120 books chapters and articles which engage with his writings.

20. This assessment is Frank’s own (Frank 1998: v). His book ReOrient was much influenced by Janet Abu-

Lughod’s thesis on the thirteenth century world system and by Jim Blaut’s critique of Eurocentric history,

see also Watts (2006: 95).

21. ReOrient was published in Spanish 10 years after its publication in English. Furthermore, it was published by

a non-commercial university publisher and in Spain rather than in Latin America.

22. Amin, Arrighi and Wallerstein each wrote very critical reviews of Frank’s ReOrient book which were all

published in Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 22 (3), 1999, 291–371. He was annoyed that ‘his friends’

kept him in the dark and that they did not invite him to write a reply to be published in the same issue,


535

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/pubs_new.html#SUMMARY

http://www.iisg.nl/archives/en/files/f/10769523.php

http://www.iisg.nl/archives/en/files/f/10769523.php

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/pubs_new.html#SUMMARY



see his ‘Response to Gang of 3 ReOrient Reviews’ in his website: www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/

reorient_response.html [Accessed 11 June 2010].

23. These articles also signal the start of his collaboration with Barry Gills. The two articles are Gills and Frank

(1990) and Frank (1990b). Furthermore, Frank and Gills (1993) jointly edited a book and were co-authors of

about half a dozen chapters and articles.24. Frank even charges Smith and Marx for leading him astray in his earlier writings (Frank 1991c: 177).

25. In a public polemic with David Landes, who had recently published his acclaimed book (Landes 1998), Frank

in typical confrontational mode replied to Landes: ‘You say I write bad history, I grant you I write bad

history. If only, because this is the very first time that anyone had even tried to analyze the world

economy between 1500 and 1800 and how it generated the rise of the West and the fall of the East.

Whereas, you write no history at all. All you do is . . . keep repeating the same litany about the importance

of the European cultural values and so forth. There’s no world history of any kind and no economic analysis.’

Cited from p. 12 in Past Seminars, 2 December 1998, ‘ReOrient’ vs. ‘The Wealth and Poverty of Nations’:

Two Views of the World Economy in History. Available from: www.worldhistorycenter.org/ [Accessed

3 April 2010].

26. While Frank I had high hopes on Cuba’s socialism, Frank II admits the failure of Cuba’s economic devel-

opment which endangers the sustainability of the enormous social achievements of the revolution (Frank

1991a: 20–1).

27. See Frank’s 1990 interview by Tony Simmons in ‘Andre Gunder Frank: Practical Strategies for Social

and Economic Development’. Available from: http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/44/57

[Accessed 3 March 2006].

28. See, for example, the conference programme organised to assess his work: ‘Andre Gunder Frank’s Legacy of

Critical Science’, University of Pittsburgh, April 11–13, 2008. Available from: www.worldhistorynetwork.

org/agfrank-details.php[Accessed 30 January 2009]. For publications see, among others, Lauderdale (2008),

Chew and Lauderdale (2010), Mayer (2010) and Manning and Gills (2011).

Notes on Contributor

Cristobal Kay is emeritus professor of international development studies and rural development at the Inter-national Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague and Professorial Research Associate at the Department

of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London.

His most recent book, co-edited with Haroon Akram-Lodhi, is entitled Peasants and Globalization: Political

Economy, Rural Transformation and the Agrarian Question (Routledge, 2009).

References

Addo, H. (1996), ‘Developmentalism: a eurocentric hoax, delusion, and chicanery’, in S.C. Chew and

R.A. Denemark (eds), The Underdevelopment of Development: Essays in Honor of Andre Gunder

Frank (London: Sage).

Banaji, J. (1980), ‘Gunder Frank in Retreat?’ Journal of Peasant Studies, 7 (4), pp. 508–21.

Bernstein, H. and Nicholas, H. (1983), ‘Pessimism of the Intellect, Pessimism of the Will? A Response to GunderFrank’, Development and Change, 14 (4), pp. 609–24.

Booth, D. (1973), ‘Andre Gunder Frank: an introduction and appreciation’, in I. Oxaal, T. Barnett and D. Booth

(eds), Beyond the Sociology of Development (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Cardoso, F.H. (1972), ‘Dependency and Development in Latin America’, New Left Review, 74, pp. 83–95.

Chew, S.C. and Lauderdale, P. (eds) (2010), Theory and Methodology of World Development: The Writings of

Andre Gunder Frank (London: Palgrave).

Dobb, M. (1980), ‘Prologo’, in C. Kay ed., El Sistema Sen orial Europeo y la Hacienda Latinoamericana (Mexico

City: Ediciones Era, 1980) , pp. 11–12.

Dos Santos, T. (1996), ‘Latin American underdevelopment: past, present and future. A homage to Andre Gunder

Frank’, in S.C. Chew and R.A. Denemark (eds), Underdevelopment of Development (London: Sage).

Foster-Carter, A. (1976), ‘From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting Paradigms in the Analysis of Underdeve-

lopment’, World Development , 4 (3), pp. 167–80.Foster-Carter, A. (1978), ‘The Modes of Production Controversy’, New Left Review, 107, pp. 47–78.

Frank, A.G. (1966), ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review, 18 (4), pp. 17–31.

C. Kay

536

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/reorient_response.html


http://www.worldhistorycenter.org/

http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/44/57

http://www.worldhistorynetwork.org/agfrank-details.php




http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/44/57

http://www.worldhistorycenter.org/





Frank, A.G. (1967a), ‘Sociology of Development and Underdevelopment of Sociology’, Catalyst , 3,

pp. 20–73.

Frank, A.G. (1967b), Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review

Press).

Frank, A.G. (1969), Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York: Monthly Review Press).Frank, A.D. (1972), Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment. Dependence, Class and Politics in Latin America

(New York: Monthly Review Press).

Frank, A.G. (1975), On Capitalist Underdevelopment (Bombay: Oxford University Press).

Frank, A.G. (1976), Economic Genocide in Chile (Nottingham: Spokesman Books).

Frank, A.G. (1977), ‘Dependence is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle: An Answer to Critics’,

World Development , 5 (7), pp. 55–70.

Frank, A.G. (1978a), World Accumulation: 1492–1789 (New York: Monthly Review Press).

Frank, A.G. (1978b), Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (London: Macmillan).

Frank, A.G. (1980a), Crisis: In the World Economy (London: Heinemann).

Frank, A.G. (1980b), Crisis: In the Third World the Third World (London: Heinemann).

Frank, A.G. (1981), Reflections on the World Economic Crisis (London: Hutchinson).

Frank, A.G. (1983), ‘Global Crisis and Transformation’, Development and Change, 14 (3), pp. 323–46.

Frank, A.G. (1984), Critique and Anti-Critique: Essays on Dependence and Reformism (London:

Macmillan).

Frank, A.G. (1990a), ‘Book Review of Kay (1989)’, Development and Change, 21 (3), pp. 560–62.

Frank, A.G. (1990b), ‘A Theoretical Introduction to 5000 years of World System History’, Review, 13 (2),

pp. 155–248.

Frank, A.G. (1991a), ‘The Underdevelopment of Development’, Scandinavian Journal of Development Alterna-

tives, 10 (3), pp. 5–150.

Frank, A.G. (1991b), ‘Latin American Development Theories Revisited’, European Journal of Development

Research, 3 (2), pp. 146–59.

Frank, A.G. (1991c), ‘Transitional Ideological Modes: Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism’, Critique of Anthropol-

ogy, 11 (2), pp. 171–88.

Frank, A.G. (1992), ‘The Centrality of Central Asia’, Studies in History, 8 (1), pp. 43–97.

Frank, A.G. (1995), ‘The modern world system revisited: re-reading Braudel and Wallerstein’, in S.K. Sandersoned., Civilizations and World Systems (London: Sage).

Frank, A.G. (1996), ‘The development of underdevelopment’, in S.C. Chew and R.A. Denemark (eds), Under-

development of Development (London: Sage).

Frank, A.G. (1998), ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Frank, A.G. (2000), ‘Immanuel and Me With-out Hyphen’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 6 (2),

pp. 216–31.

Frank, A.G. and Gills, B.K. (eds) (1993), The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand Years?

(London: Routledge).

Gills, B.K. and Frank, A.G. (1990), ‘The Cumulation of Accumulation: Theses and Research Agenda for 5000

Years of World System History’, Dialectical Anthropology, 15 (1), pp. 19–42.

Hilton, R. (ed.) (1976), The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (London: New Left Review Editions).

Kay, C. (1980), El Sistema Sen orial Europeo y la Hacienda Latinoamericana (Mexico City: Ediciones Era).Kay, C. (1989), Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment (London: Routledge).

Laclau, E. (1971), ‘Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America’, New Left Review, 67, pp. 19–38.

Landes, D.S. (1998), The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (New York: W.W. Norton).

Lauderdale, P. (2008), ‘In the Light of Andre Gunder Frank: Terror, Domination and Dependency’, Journal of

Developing Societies, 24 (1), pp. 1–94.

Manning, P. and Gills, B.K. (eds) (2011), Andre Gunder Frank and Global Development (London: Routledge).

Mayer, D. (2010), ‘Del subdesarrollo a la determinacion del conjunto sistemico: el vagabundaje intelectual de

Andre Gunder Frank’, in A. Galarza ed., Debates y Diagno sticos Sobre las Sociedades Coloniales Latinoa-

mericanas (Mar del Plata: Universidad Nacional).

Mcneill, W.H. (1996), ‘How to think about world history’, in S.C. Chew and R.A. Denemark (eds), Underdeve-

lopment of Development (London: Sage).

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2005), ‘Paradigm Making While Paradigm Breaking: Andre Gunder Frank’, Review of

International Political Economy, 12 (3), pp. 383–86.


537



Roxborough, I. (1976), ‘Dependency Theory in the Sociology of Development: Some Theoretical Problems’,

West African Journal of Sociology and Political Science, 1 (2), pp. 116–33.

Taylor, J. (1974), ‘Neo-Marxism and Underdevelopment – A Sociological Phantasy’, Journal of Contemporary

Asia, 4 (1), pp. 5–23.

Toye, J. (1993), Dilemmas of Development (Oxford: Blackwell).Wallerstein, I. (1991), ‘World System versus World-Systems: A Critique’, Critique of Anthropology, 11 (2),

pp. 189–94.

Warren, B. (1980), Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism (London: Verso).

Watts, M. (2006), ‘Andre Gunder Frank (1929–2005)’, in D. Simon ed., Fifty Key Thinkers on Development

(London: Routledge).

C. Kay

538

Documents

Kay on AGF Reputations NPE