Global South

For decades, the global economy has promised convergence. The message has been straightforward: open your markets, liberalise your trade, attract investment, and prosperity will follow. Yet many nations across the Global South (primarily Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania) have followed this path and still find themselves burdened by persistent poverty, inequality, and dependence. To understand why, one must turn to dependency theory, a framework that shows how the structure of the global economy influences the condition of the poor in the developing world.

The Structure of Dependence

Dependency theory argues that the world economy is not a level playing field. It is a hierarchy of relationships between an industrialised “centre” and a resource-exporting “periphery.” Wealth flows from the periphery to the centre through trade, investment, and technology transfer, leaving developing nations structurally disadvantaged. The consequence is that poverty in these regions is not accidental or temporary but embedded in the very logic of global capitalism.

This imbalance ensures that while the industrial powers accumulate capital, technology, and political influence, the periphery remains trapped in low-wage manufacturing, commodity exports, and debt. In many developing countries, large portions of the population still lack access to the benefits of growth. Industrialisation occurs, but only superficially and is limited to sectors dependent on imported technology and foreign capital. The outcome is a dual economy: a small, modern elite connected to global markets and a large population living on the margins.

This structure reproduces itself generation after generation. It affects how governments plan, how policies are designed, and even how the poor view their own situation. When entire national budgets rely on the export of raw materials or the influx of foreign loans, the poor become collateral in the larger game of international economics. Every fluctuation in commodity prices, every interest rate hike, and every policy reform demanded by creditors ripples through households that live from harvest to harvest or paycheck to paycheck.

The Historical Roots of Underdevelopment

Dependency theory redefines poverty not as a failure to modernise but as a result of historical and structural connections to global capitalism. The underdeveloped world’s economic systems were designed to serve the needs of industrial powers. Profits, natural resources, and decision-making power flow outward, while debt, dependence, and inequality remain deeply rooted.

The relationship between rich and poor nations mirrors that between the urban and rural classes within them, where elites often act as intermediaries, maintaining global patterns of extraction. The accumulation of wealth at the top of developing societies also mirrors global inequality, further marginalising the poor domestically. Therefore, dependency operates on multiple levels (global, national, and local), ensuring that the same mechanisms that generate wealth for a few also produce poverty for the many.

Under colonialism, this structure was explicit. Colonies existed to enrich their metropoles, their parent state. After independence, the structure became more subtle but no less powerful. Aid, foreign investment, and trade agreements replaced direct rule, but the outcome remained the same: the ongoing extraction of value from the South to support prosperity in the North. The poor in developing countries became the invisible labour force of a global economy built on cheap inputs and expensive outputs.

Integration on Unequal Terms

One of dependency theory’s most lasting insights is that joining global markets does not ensure shared prosperity. Developing nations often enter the system on unequal terms, accepting low export prices, foreign ownership of industries, and dependence on imported goods. Even as economies expand, the pattern of inequality persists; the wealth created by labour and resources in the South benefits corporations and consumers in the North.

This inequality is not only economic but also political. Decisions regarding interest rates, investment, and trade terms are often made outside the borders of developing countries, within global institutions and corporate boardrooms. Such asymmetry deprives poorer states of sovereignty and restricts their ability to prioritise domestic welfare over international obligations. When debt repayment takes precedence over healthcare or education, the poor pay the price for dependency.

Financial, technological, and informational dependence all reinforce the same subjugation. The poorest are doubly marginalised, excluded from local opportunities and exploited by global structures that keep their countries reliant. For example, the technologies that boost modern productivity are owned by firms in developed countries, meaning that developing nations must pay for access even to participate in global markets. This creates a cycle where innovation deepens inequality.

Modern Faces of an Old Problem

In the twenty-first century, the nature of dependency has evolved. While Western powers once dominated global trade, new participants have emerged. South–South relationships, especially between Africa and Asia, are often praised as alternatives to old colonial hierarchies. However, they frequently perpetuate the same inequalities. Raw materials still flow outward; manufactured goods and loans still flow inward. The language of partnership masks ongoing imbalances.

China’s engagement with Africa illustrates this dynamic clearly. Infrastructure projects and loans promise progress but often lead to new financial burdens and strategic dependencies. For many countries, options are limited: they trade one patron for another. The impoverished rarely reap the full advantages of these grand initiatives, as debt repayments, resource extraction, and elite contracts eat into national gains. When governments prioritise infrastructure repayment over social services, it is the rural farmer, the urban informal trader, or the unemployed youth who suffer the most.

Moreover, modern dependency encompasses not just physical resources but also data, technology, and information. Digital dependency now characterises the 21st century, where developing countries rely on imported software, foreign cloud storage, and global payment systems that collect data and profits abroad. The poor, whose livelihoods increasingly depend on mobile technology, remain consumers rather than beneficiaries of the digital revolution.

The Persistence of Structural Inequality

Dependency theory remains powerful because it explains why poverty endures even when national economies grow. The world’s economic order rewards those who control technology, capital, and finance, rather than those who supply labour and materials. This system creates prosperity for some precisely by maintaining others in subordination. Globalisation has not eliminated this imbalance; it has made it more complex and harder to challenge.

Critics of dependency theory argue that it underestimates national agency, but the evidence of ongoing inequality suggests otherwise. Even when some countries experience rapid growth, the advantages often concentrate among elites, leaving the poor behind. East Asia’s success stories, for example, show that states can navigate dependency strategically, yet they still remain vulnerable to global demand shocks and financial volatility.

The resilience of dependency dynamics is clear in global value chains. Production can now be spread across multiple countries, but control over design, branding, and finance remains concentrated in the centre. The periphery handles labour-intensive tasks, while the centre gains the intellectual and financial rewards. This hierarchy creates a global class divide, where workers in developing countries remain trapped in low-wage sectors, while capital owners in the developed world enjoy the benefits.

Breaking the Chain

If dependency is structural, how can the poor escape its hold? The answer lies in transformation, not isolation. Development that serves people rather than markets requires building domestic capacity, diversifying production, and taking control over national resources. For instance, investing in agro-processing or technology transfer can create local value chains that keep wealth circulating within national borders.

Regional cooperation can also be a solution. Initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) have the potential to expand markets, boost negotiation power, and encourage industrial diversification. However, these mechanisms must go beyond tariff reductions and aim to restructure production systems. Without such changes, integration risks increasing dependency on external demand.

Empowering the poor also means redefining development itself. Growth without equity only widens inequality. The focus must shift from GDP growth to human development, such as access to education, healthcare, housing, and social mobility. When people can fully participate in economic life, dependency loses its strongest pillar: exclusion.

Equally important is knowledge independence. Developing countries must build their own research institutions, support innovation, and protect local intellectual property. Ownership of technology shapes who controls the future. Without this autonomy, even well-intentioned development programmes risk becoming another form of external dependency.

A Modern Reassessment

Today’s global economy uses modern language: sustainability, inclusivity, and green transition. Yet, the old structures remain beneath the surface. Foreign aid still flows southward, while profits, data, and decision-making move northward. The poor stay caught between promises of progress and the limits of dependency.

Dependency theory challenges the comforting narrative that poverty is self-inflicted or accidental. It reminds us that global inequality is systemic, not moral. The poor are not poor because they lack effort or innovation; they are poor because the system is designed to benefit others more than them. Recognising this is not defeatism; it is the first step towards genuine reform.

As climate change, digital transformation, and global financial volatility reshape development, dependency theory regains renewed relevance. The poorest will bear the harshest consequences of these global shifts, yet they possess the least power to influence them. Understanding how dependency influences their condition is crucial for building an economy that serves humanity, not the other way around.

Dependency theory fundamentally serves both as a diagnosis and a call for change, urging a reorganisation of global relations to ensure development benefits rather than exploitation. Until that occurs, the plight of the poor will remain the most evident indicator of the true extent of global inequality.

I hope you found this article both insightful and enjoyable. Your feedback is greatly valued and appreciated. I welcome any suggestions for topics you would like me to cover or provide insights on. You can schedule a meeting with me through my Calendly at www.calendly.com/maxwellampong. Alternatively, connect with me through various channels on my Linktree page at www.linktr.ee/themax. Subscribe to the ‘Entrepreneur In You’ newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/d-hgCVPy.

**I wish you a highly productive and successful week ahead! **

♕ —- ♕ —- ♕ —- ♕ —- ♕

Send your news stories to [email protected] Follow News Ghana on Google News