The end of the World War II introduced an era of economic expansion and polarization in the world (emergence of the Cold War), and it was in that light that American social scientists were encouraged to study the Third World nation-states with the intention to promote economic development and political stability in the Third World (So, 1990:17)1. However, scholars from countries targeted by this Modernization School of development started to develop their own theories, partly as a result of 'sub-optimal' results of policies based on the modernization theories, as well as concluding that imperialism in general "has actively underdeveloped the peripheral societies" (Martinussen, 1997:86) they are living in. Critique on the Modernization School first arose in Latin America as a response to the bankruptcy of the program of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). In short, the ECLA promoted protectionist policies together with industrialization through import subsidies, which, in practice, resulted in a brief economic expansion in the 1950s followed by economic stagnation (unemployment, inflation, declining terms of trade, etc.). (So, 1990:91). Overall, the failure of the ECLA and the resulting decline of the Modernization School theories, together with the crisis of orthodox Marxism2, gave rise to what is now referred to as Neo-Marxist Dependency Theories. Source: http://www.meteck.org/dependency.html ------------------------------------------ Neo Marxists don't like the practice of dependancy and wish to only practice it until they can sustain themselves in a new government.