Myths and Realities of Kenyan Capitalism

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Mostdiscussions about development in the periphery during the 1950s to the 1980s tended to fall into two main camps. Those in the so-called ‘dependency school’ maintained that indigenous bourgeoisies, unlike their metropolitan counterparts, could not lead the accumulation and transformation process while in junior partnership with foreign capital, which entrenched a system that transferred resources to metropolitan economies through, for example, the repatriation of profits, loyalty payments, and other licencing schemes. In other words, ‘real’ capitalism in the periphery was improbable, if not impossible. On the other hand, orthodox Marxists, liberal scholars, and, subsequently, ‘modified’dependentistas, held that foreign investments in the periphery need not forestall the emergence of transforming social forces, and that development was likely to be accelerated if/when some elements of the domestic bourgeoisie participated in joint ventures with international capital.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: