9_Law and State_Volume 17

5 2 Johann Hellwege
tion, the major point, in the present context, is the similarity of the
phenomena11.
Just as Soviet imperialism cannot be justified by condemning U.S.
imperialism in Latin America, so the reverse is also true: American imperialism
cannot be made to seem a natural event by referring to similar
contemporary phenomena. An incriminating weakness of dependenria
theories is, however, their failure to recognize both versions. In this way
dependencia precipitately becomes a political rallying cry like fascism or
imperialism. Thus dependencia theory, under certain circumstances, can
fulfil a thoroughly significant political function, but as a scientific theory
it loses credibility when it refuses to take cognizance of non-capitalist
dependency. Similarly, Marxist imperialism theory, due to its ideological
predispositions, is reluctant to deal with non-capitalist imperialism. If,
on the other hand, one resolves to recognize the existence today of at least
two forms of imperialism, then it follows that the common denominator
of the two kinds of imperialism mentioned here is rather less likely to
be capitalism than presumably an unequal distribution of power. In this
case the question of possible alternatives can no longer be solved simply
by a negation of the world capitalist context; but on the other hand, more
realistic alternative strategies become more readily possible, as will be
shown.
Dependencia approaches, as a rule, begin with the assumption that
private foreign investment in every case has an exploitative character and
is inimical to Latin American development, or at most can facilitate
dependent development” (Cardoso). This all too crude simplification of
an extremely complex situation is in general inadequately and misleadingly
grounded. If, by contrast, as in the works of Cardoso and others,
the analysis includes carefully differentiated effects of different foreign
investments, the dependencia concept loses its specific declarative value
and could be replaced by the everyday notion of dependency.
Valid objections can be raised against the treatment of foreign private
investments as a monolithic phenomenon whose effects are in every case
inimical to economic development. The foreign so-called extraction enterprises
are known to have adaptive effects on national economies. Much
can be said in favour of regarding these more as indigenous investments
of the industrial countries which geographically happen to be located
abroad1-. On the other hand, however, it is an entirely open question
whether, e. g., Latin American governments are exonerated from blame
when, despite admittedly limited domestic capital formation and the
multiplicator effect of such foreign enterprises, they all too frequently
accept expenditures, tariffs, etc. - which often have been received in