Saturday, May 22, 2010

theory of communication

Selective exposure theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
Selective exposure theory is a theory of communication, positing that individuals prefer exposure to arguments supporting their position over those supporting other positions, media consumers have more privileges to expose themselves to selected medium and media contents. People tend to engage in information that comforts and agrees with their own ideas and as a result, they avoid information that argues against their opinion. People don’t want to be told that they are wrong and they do not want their ideas to be challenged either. Therefore, they select different media outlets that agree with their opinions so they do not come in contact with this form of dissonance. Furthermore, these people will select the media sources that agree with their opinions and attitudes on different subjects and then only follow those programs.

"It is crucial that communication scholars arrive at a more comprehensive and deeper understanding of consumer selectivity if we are to have any hope of mastering entertainment theory in the next iteration of the information age. Essentially, understanding selective-exposure theory is a prerequisite for constructing a useful psychology of entertainment."

Bryant and Davies, 2006[1]

1 Foundation of theory
1.1 Propaganda study
1.1.1 The Evasion of Propaganda
1.2 Cognitive dissonance theory
1.3 Klapper's selective exposure
2 Selective exposure in entertainment theory perspective
2.1 Affective-dependent theory of stimulus arrangement
2.2 Selective exposure processes in mood management
3 Critiques
4 See also
5 References
6 Bibliography

[edit] Foundation of theory
[edit] Propaganda study
[edit] The Evasion of Propaganda
When prejudiced people confront anti-prejudice propaganda involuntarily, even though they might avoid the message from the first time, the process of evasion would occur in their mind. Cooper and Jahoda (1947) studied how the anti-prejudice propaganda can be misunderstood by prejudiced people. When the prejudiced reader confronted the Mr. Biggott cartoon, which contained anti-minority propaganda, their effort to evade their feelings and understand Mr. Biggott’s identification with their own identity would bring about misunderstanding. This kind of evasion occurs because of what individuals often face to accomplish uniformity in everyday life. There is a fear to be isolated from what they belong and also threat for shivering their ego. Therefore, the concept of selective exposure was in the same thread with small effect studies in mass communication in 1940s.

[edit] Cognitive dissonance theory
Before the selective exposure theory was put forward, Festinger(1957) published a book, Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, and explained the cognitive dissonance theory, which assumes that all human beings pursue consistency in their mind.

Basic Hypotheses
It is a state of mental unease and discomfort which helps explain selective perception. It is produced when new information contradicts existing beliefs, attitudes, social norms, or behaviors.
Many times people favor consonance because their ideas flow freely into one another and do not create an unbalance. [2]
The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.
When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information that would likely increase the dissonance. [3]
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory, which was one of the roots of selective exposure, explained people’s effort to reduce their dissonance of something against their existing beliefs. Nonetheless, his theory was broader enough to be elucidated in general social behavior, not just for selecting medium and media contents. Festinger suggested situations that raise the dissonance. Firstly, logical inconsistency brings about dissonance. If a person who believes it is not possible to build a device to leave Earth's atmosphere observes man reach the moon, their belief and experience are dissonant with each other. Secondly, cultural mores entail dissonance. A person pick up a chicken bone with their hands, and it is dissonant with what they believe is formal etiquette. At this point, culture defines what is consonant and what is dissonant. Thirdly, if specific opinion is included in a more general opinion, dissonance should be followed. A person, who has been Democrat, prefers Republican candidates for certain election. This situation creates dissonance, because “Being a Democrat” needs to be attributed to favoring Democratic candidates. Lastly, past experience causes dissonance. If a person is standing in the rain and not yet wet, these two cognitions would be dissonant, because they might know standing in the rain leads to getting wet through past experience. Festinger (1957) also suggests the ways of reducing dissonance. For reducing dissonance, one may change a behavioral cognitive element or change an environmental cognitive element. However, sometimes, behavior change and environmental change do not help reducing dissonance. Festinger, then, suggested adding new cognitive elements. If people cannot reduce dissonance, they might seek new information, which is consonant with their beliefs or attitude; therefore, people might actively seek new information that would decrease dissonance and avoid new information that would increase dissonance. This third explanation of reducing dissonance is similar with selective exposure, which mass communication reinforces the existing opinion.

Another example of the Cognitive Dissonance Theory can be found in the article entitled, “Theories of Persuasion,” by Daniel J. O’Keefe. It describes the different theories of persuasion and how media outlets use them to their advantage to influence their audience. The author’s example is that people donate to the Red Cross because they believe in what it stands for which represents consonance. However, on the other hand, the author suggests that a person who smokes and also believes it causes cancer, would be an example of dissonance and hypocrisy. Many times people try to sway against dissonance because it puts them in an uncomfortable position. Therefore, these feelings of consonance and dissonance lead to the “Selective Exposure Theory” because some believe that people will select the media sources that agree with their opinions and attitudes on different subjects and then only follow those programs. [4]
[edit] Klapper's selective exposure
Joseph Klapper (1960) considered mass communication do not directly influence people, but just reinforce people’s predisposition. Mass communications play a role as a mediator in persuasive communication.

Klapper's five mediating factors and conditions to affect people
Predispositions and the related processes of selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention.
The groups, and the norms of groups, to which the audience members belong.
Interpersonal dissemination of the content of communication
The exercise of opinion leadership
The nature of mass media in a free enterprise society. [5]

Three basic concepts
Selective exposure - people keep away from communication of opposite hue.
Selective Perception - If people are confronting unsympathetic material, they do not perceive it, or make it fit for their existing opinion.
Selective retention - Furthermore, they just simply forget the unsympathetic material.
Groups and group norms work as a mediator. For example, one can be strongly disinclined to change to the Democratic Party if their family has voted for Republican for a long time. In this case, the person’s predisposition to the political party is already set, so they don't perceive information about Democratic Party or change voting behavior because of mass communication. Klapper’s third assumption is inter-personal dissemination of mass communication. If someone is already exposed by close friends, which creates predisposition toward something, it will lead increase of exposure to mass communication and eventually reinforce the existing opinion. Opinion leader is also a crucial factor to form predisposition of someone, lead someone to be exposed by mass communication, and after all, existing opinion would be reinforced. Nature of commercial mass media also leads people to select certain type of media contents. Klapper (1960) claimed that people are selecting entertainment, such as family comedy, variety shows, quizzes, and Westerns, because of nature of mass media in a free enterprise society.

[edit] Selective exposure in entertainment theory perspective
Selective exposure is an instinctive activity of human beings. Early human beings needed to be sensitive to the sounds of animals. This kind of exposure was closely related with their survival from an external threat. Survival is still a very crucial matter for human beings; however, selective exposure is also important for human beings for other purposes, such as entertainment.

"Selective exposure designates behavior that is deliberately performed to attain and sustain perceptual control of particular stimulus events."

Zillmann and Bryant, 1985[6]
[edit] Affective-dependent theory of stimulus arrangement
Zillmann and Bryant (1985) developed affective-dependent theory of stimulus arrangement in the chapter of their edited book, Selective exposure to communication.

Basic Assumptions
people tend to minimize exposure to negative, aversive stimuli
people tend to maximize exposure to pleasurable stimuli.
After all, people try to arrange the external stimuli to maintain their pleasure, which ultimately let people select certain affect-inducing program, such as music, movie, or other entertainment program. In other words, people manage their mood by selecting certain kind of entertainment to exposure themselves; mood management theory was also rooted by this affective-dependent theory.

Furthermore, people will select media based on their moods. An example of this is if a person is happy they would probably select a comedic movie. If they are bored they might choose action and if they are sad they might select tragedy or a depressing romance. These attitudes and moods also convince people to watch different news outlets based on how they feel. People with conservative beliefs tend to watch Fox news and Democrats usually watch MSNBC.

1**A person with liberal beliefs, who comes home from a hard day at work will probably turn on MSNBC. They would not be in the mood to fight with a news station that has conservative beliefs constantly being portrayed. 2**A woman who just broke up with her boyfriend would probably not be in the mood to watch a romantic movie and would therefore tend to pick a movie that falls into the genre of tragedy.

[edit] Selective exposure processes in mood management

Excitatory Homeostasis - Tendency of individuals to choose entertainment to achieve an optimal level of arousal.
Intervention Potential - Ability of a message to engage or absorb an aroused individual's attention or cognitive-processing resources.
Message-Behavioral Affinity - Communication that has a high degree of similarity with affective state.
Hedonic Valence - Positive or negative nature of a message. [7]
[edit] Critiques
Possible influence by factors other than a person's emotional state.
Difficulty to measure long-term effect.
Overlook the importance of cognitive processes.
Not suit for information and education media.
Possibility that negative stimuli provide enjoyment by overcoming it

Selective perception may refer to any number of cognitive biases in psychology related to the way expectations affect perception.

For instance, several studies have shown that students who were told they were consuming alcoholic beverages (which in fact were non-alcoholic) perceived themselves as being "drunk", exhibited fewer physiological symptoms of social stress, and drove a simulated car similarly to other subjects who had actually consumed alcohol. The result is somewhat similar to the placebo effect.[citation needed]

In one classic study on this subject related to the hostile media effect (which is itself an excellent example of selective perception), viewers watched a filmstrip of a particularly violent Princeton-Dartmouth American football game. Princeton viewers reported seeing nearly twice as many rule infractions committed by the Dartmouth team than did Dartmouth viewers. One Dartmouth alumnus did not see any infractions committed by the Dartmouth side and erroneously assumed he had been sent only part of the film, sending word requesting the rest.[1]

Selective perception is also an issue for advertisers, as consumers may engage with some ads and not others based on their pre-existing beliefs about the brand.

Seymour Smith, a prominent advertising researcher, found evidence for selective perception in advertising research in the early 1960s, and he defined it to be “a procedure by which people let in, or screen out, advertising material they have an opportunity to see or hear. They do so because of their attitudes, beliefs, usage preferences and habits, conditioning, etc.”[2] People who like, buy, or are considering buying a brand are more likely to notice advertising than are those who are neutral toward the brand. This fact has repercussions within the field of advertising research because any post-advertising analysis that examines the differences in attitudes or buying behavior among those aware versus those unaware of advertising is flawed unless pre-existing differences are controlled for. Advertising research methods that utilize a longitudinal design are arguably better equipped to control for selective perception.

Selective perceptions are of two types:

Low level - Perceptual vigilance
High level- Perceptual defense

Two-step flow of communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
1 History and Orientation
2 Criticisms
3 References
4 External links

[edit] History and Orientation
The two-step flow model hypothesizes that ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders, and from them to a wider population. It was first introduced by Paul Lazarsfeld et al. in 1944[1] and elaborated by Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld in 1955[2] and subsequent publications.[3] Lowery and DeFleur argue the book was much more than a simple research report: it was an effort to interpret the authors' research within a framework of conceptual schemes, theoretical issues, and research findings drawn broadly from the scientific study of small groups [4] Unlike the hypodermic needle model, which considers mass media effects to be direct, the two-step flow model stresses human agency.

According to Lazarsfeld and Katz, mass media information is channeled to the "masses" through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others.

Based on the two-step flow hypothesis, the term “personal influence” came to illustrate the process intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s reaction to that message. Opinion leaders tend to be similar to those they influence—based on personality, interests, demographics, or socio-economic factors. These leaders tend to influence others to change their attitudes and behaviors. The two-step theory refined the ability to predict how media messages influence audience behavior and explains why certain media campaigns do not alter audiences’ attitudes. This hypothesis provided a basis for the multi-step flow theory of mass communication.[5]

[edit] Criticisms
The original two-step flow hypothesis—that ideas flow from the media to opinion leaders and then to less active sections of the population—has been criticized and negated by myriad consequent studies. Findings from Deutschmann and Danielson assert, “we would urge that the Katz-Lazarsfeld two-stage flow hypothesis, as a description of the initial information process, be applied to mass communication with caution”[6]. They find substantial evidence that initial mass media information flows directly to people on the whole and is not relayed by opinion leaders.

Furthermore, the two-step hypothesis does not adequately describe the flow of learning. Everett Rogers’ “Diffusion of Innovations” cites one study in which two-thirds of respondents accredited their awareness to the mass media rather than face-to-face communication. Similarly, critics argue that most of Lazarsfeld’s findings pertain to learning factors involved with general media habits rather than the learning of particular information. Both findings suggest a greater prevalence of a one-step flow of communication.

However, Lazarsfeld’s two-step hypothesis is an adequate description to understand the media’s influence on belief and behavior. Troldahl finds that media exposure is a first step to introduce discussion, at which point opinion leaders initiate the second-step flow. These findings also realize opinion leaders decisive role in the balance theory, which suggests that people are motivated to keep consistency among their current beliefs and opinions. If a person is exposed to new observations that are inconsistent with present beliefs, he or she is thrown into imbalance. This person will then seek advice from their opinion leader, to provide them with additional cognitions to bring them back into balance.

Cultivation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources. (February 2008)

Cultivation theory is a social theory designed in the 1950s and '70s to examine the role of television on Americans.

Developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross of the University of Pennsylvania, cultivation theory derived from several large-scale projects "concerned with the effects of television programming (particularly violent programming) on the attitudes and behaviors of the American public" (Miller, 2005, p. 281) Miller (2005) says, "The widespread influence of television ... was a concern for many scholars and policy makers. In the late 1960s, civil unrest, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other events convinced many that we had to know more about how television affects us" (p. 282).

Gerbner and his colleagues took a large role in the research projects, which included the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in 1967 and 1968 and the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior in 1972.

1 Definition
2 Testing the theory
2.1 Content analysis
2.2 Cultural indicators analysis
2.3 Cultivation analysis
3 Critiques and extensions
3.1 Weak and limited effects
3.2 Nature of television viewing
3.3 The cultivation effect
4 See also
5 References

[edit] Definition
According to Miller (2005: 282), cultivation theory was not developed to study "targeted and specific effects (e.g., that watching Superman will lead children to attempt to fly by jumping out the window) [but rather] in terms of the cumulative and overarching impact [television] has on the way we see the world in which we live".

Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli (1986) argued that while religion or education had previously been greater influences on social trends and mores, now "[t]elevision is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in history...Television cultivates from infancy the very predispositions and preferences that used to be acquired from other primary sources ... The repetitive pattern of television's mass-produced messages and images forms the mainstream of a common symbolic environment" (pp. 17 – 18).

Cultivation theory in its most basic form, then, suggests that exposure to television, over time, subtly "cultivates" viewers' perceptions of reality. This cultivation can have an impact even on light viewers of TV, because the impact on heavy viewers has an impact on our entire culture. Gerbner and Gross (1976) say "[t]elevision is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and behaviors. Its function is in a word, enculturation" (p. 175).

Stated most simply, the central hypothesis explored in cultivation research is that those who spend more time watching television are more likely to perceive the real world in ways that reflect the most common and recurrent messages of the television world, compared with people who watch less television, but are otherwise comparable in terms of important demographic characteristics (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, 2002).

Gerbner et al. (1986) go on to argue the impact of television on its viewers is not unidirectional, that the "use of the term cultivation for television's contribution to conception of social reality... (does not) necessarily imply a one-way, monolithic process. The effects of a pervasive medium upon the composition and structure of the symbolic environment are subtle, complex, and intermingled with other influences. This perspective, therefore, assumes an interaction between the medium and its publics" (p. 23).

Cultivation Theory (George Gerbner, 1960’s) is a top down, linear, closed communication model.

It regards audiences as passive, presenting ideas to society as a mass with meaning open to little or no interpretation. The ideas presented to a passive audience are often accepted, therefore influencing large groups into conforming behind ideas, meaning that the media exerts a significant influence over audiences. This audience is seen as very vulnerable and easily manipulated.

Cultivation Theory looks at media as having a long term passive effect on audiences, which starts off small at first but has a compound effect, an example of this is body image and the bombardment of images.

An advantage of this theory is that it is easy to apply to a wide range of texts and to a wide range of audience members, a disadvantage however is that it doesn’t look at the background, ethnicity, gender etc. of audiences.

In 1968 Gerbner conducted a survey to demonstrate this theory. From his results he placed television viewers into three categories; light viewers (less than 2 hours a day), medium viewers (2–4 hours a day) and heavy viewers (more than 4 hours a day). He found that heavy viewers held beliefs and opinions similar to those portrayed on television rather than the real world which demonstrates the compound effect of media influence.

An advantage to this study is that surveys are able to ask specific detailed questions and can be applied over different demographic groups. Disadvantages to this study is that survey questions can be interpreted incorrectly resulting in inaccurate answers and that participants of the survey may or may not be doing the survey voluntarily which could influence how they respond to the survey and the type of people being surveyed

Gerbner created the cultivation theory as one part of a three part research strategy, called Cultural Indicators. The concept of a cultural "indicator" was developed by Gerbner in order to be a more common idea of a social indicator. The first part of this strategy is known as the institutional process analysis. This investigates how the flow of media messages is produced and managed, how decisions are made, and how media organizations function. Ultimately, ias asked; What are the processes, pressures, and constraints, that influence and underline the production of mass media content? The second part of this strategy is known as message system analysis, which has been used since 1967 to track the most stable and recurrent images in media content. This is in terms of violence, race & ethnicity, gender, and occupation. It asked what are the dominant patterns of images, messages, and facts, values and lessons, expressed in media messages? The final part of the research study is the cultivation analysis. This asked what is the relationship between attention to these messages and audiences' conceptions of social reality? (Morgan, p. 70) and (Shanahan and Morgan p. 6 -7).

[edit] Testing the theory
Research about the effects of TV began with the investigation in the studies mentioned above and has been most often tested "through a comparison of the content of television and the beliefs people hold about the nature of the world" (Miller, 2005, 283).

Gerbner et al. (1976) say "Instead of asking what communication 'variables' might propagate what kinds of individual behavior changes, we want to know what types of common consciousness whole systems of messages might cultivate" because "the world of TV drama consists of a complex and integrated system of characters, events, actions, and relationships whose effects cannot be measured with regard to any single element or program seen in isolation" (p. 181).

Gerbner et al. (1976) say, "We believe that the key to the answer rests in a search for those assumptions about the 'facts' of life and society that television cultivates in its more faithful viewers. That search requires two different methods of research" (p. 181). They are content analysis and cultural indicators analysis.

[edit] Content analysis
The first step in cultivation research is content analysis: in short, the process of studying the subject matter on TV. For example, in 1969, Gerbner and his colleagues "began to chart the content of prime-time and weekend children's television programming, and Gerbner et al. (1986, p. 25) noted that 2,105 programs, 6,055 major characters, and 19,116 minor characters had been analyzed by 1984. Significantly, Gerbner et al. (pp. 25 - 26) noted the following patterns: " (Miller, 2005, pp. 283 – 284)

Men outnumbered women three to one on television
Older people and younger people are underrepresented on television
Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented on [American] television
Seventy percent of television characters are "middle class"
Crime is 10 times as rampant in the "television world"
[edit] Cultural indicators analysis
The second step in cultivation research is the cultural indicators analysis: the process of "assessing individuals' beliefs about what the world is like" (Miller, 2005, p. 284). This analysis involves surveys of individuals using factual questions about the world. "For example, an analysis of perceptions about violence might ask respondents about the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime. The forced-choice answer to these questions would include both a 'television response' (e.g., a 1 out of 10 chance of being a victim) and a 'non-television response' (e.g., a much smaller chance closer to the actual likelihood of being a victim)" (Miller, 2005, 284).

Miller (2005) says a separate measure (often at a different point in time) would be used to assess the overall viewing habits of the individual (p. 283).

[edit] Cultivation analysis
The final step in cultivation research is cultivation analysis: "a comparison between light television viewers and heavy television viewers. If heavy television viewers tended to provide answers that were more in line with the television response, researchers would have support for the cultivation hypothesis" (Miller, 2005, p. 283).

According to Michael Morgan, "a cultivation analysis should always begin by identifying the most common and stable patterns in television content, emphasizing the consistent images, portrayals, and values that cut across program genres. This is accomplished either by conducting a message system analysis or by examining existing content studies. In general system analysis illuminates four dimensions of content: existence (what is in the symbolic world?), priorities (what is important?), values (what is right or wrong, good, or bad, etc?), and relationships (what is related to what else, and how?). These dimensions illuminate the symbolic functions of how things work in the world of storytelling.

Once those patterns are identified, the goal is to ascertain of those who spend time watching television are more likely to perceive the real world in ways that reflect those particular messages and lessons. That is, cultivation analysts develop hypothesis about what heavy viewers would be expected to think about some topic or issue, if they think about it in terms of the way it is presented on television. (Morgan, p. 73)"

[edit] Critiques and extensions
The main critiques of cultivation theory include:

[edit] Weak and limited effects
"Some of the earliest (and continuing) critiques of cultivation theory noted the relatively small effects that were found for cultivation processes and the fact that these effects were further diminished when controlling for a number of relevant demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, education). For example...Hirsch (1980) concluded that 'across most of the attitude items reported by the Annenberg group...the effect of television viewing is clearly minimal when the responses of nonviewers and extreme viewers are analyzed separately'...(and) a recent analysis of cultivation research (Morgan Shanahan, 1997) found an average effect size for cultivation effects to be only .01" (Miller, 2005, p. 286).

Gerbner et al. (1986) respond by saying, "If , as we argue, the messages are so stable, the medium is so ubiquitous, and accumulated total exposure is what counts, then almost everyone should be affected. Even light viewers live in the same cultural environment as most others who do watch television. It is clear, then, that the cards are stacked against finding evidence of effects. Therefore, the discovery of a systematic pattern of even small but pervasive differences between light and heavy viewers may indicate far-reaching consequences" (p. 21).

Gerbner et al. (1986) continue by suggesting that evidence of even the smallest effects can make a difference when he says "after all, a single percentage point difference in ratings is worth millions of dollars in advertising revenue..." (p. 21).

One of Gerbner's main faults with the theory is that, in his defense of it, he has thrown out the empirical notion of falsifiability. If he has a counter-argument for every challenge to Cultivation Theory and doesn't explain what data could prove it false, then it cannot be a theory in the true social scientific sense.

Two ways "in which cultivation theorists have extended their theory to account for small effects and differences in effects among subgroups" (Miller, 2005, p. 286) are the concepts of mainstreaming and resonance, added to the theory.

Mainstreaming "means that television viewing may absorb or override differences in perspective and behavior that stem from other social, cultural, and demographic influences. It represents the homogenization of divergent views and a convergence of disparate viewers (p. 31)" (Miller, 2005, 286).
Resonance "is another concept proposed to explain differential cultivation effects across groups of viewers. The concept suggests that the effects of television viewing will be particularly pronounced for individuals who have had related experience in real life. That is for a recent mugging victim or someone who lives in a high crime neighborhood, the portrayal of violence on television will resonate and be particularly influential" (Miller, 2005, 286).
[edit] Nature of television viewing
Critics also question the part of the theory that says "Compared to other media, television provides a relatively restricted set of choices for a virtually unrestricted variety of interests and publics. Most of its programs are by commercial necessity designed to be watched by nearly everyone in a relatively nonselective fashion" (Gerbner et al, 1986, p. 19).

This suggestion has been met with opposition, especially since the widespread use of cable television, TiVo, and the like.

Several critics have suggested that changes in these assumptions might lead to better predictions about the cultivation effect. (Miller, 2005)

[edit] The cultivation effect
Miller (2005) says "Several critics have been levied against the link between viewing patterns and resultant views of the world" (p. 287). They have suggested the extension of cultivation theory by differentiating between first-order and second-order cultivation effects.

"First-order cultivation effects refer to the effects of television on statistical descriptions about the world" (Miller, 2005, p. 287). For example, "a first-order effect would suggest that heavy viewers would overestimate the likelihood of being the victim of a crime" (Miller, 2005, p. 287).
"Second-order cultivation effects refer to effects on beliefs about the general nature of the world" (Miller, 2005, p. 287). For example, "a second-order effect would suggest that heavy viewers would be more likely to view the world as a mean or scary place" (Miller, 2005, p. 287).
"Cultivation theorists have appreciated this distinction but never developed the implications of the distinctions on a theoretical level" (Miller, 2005, p. 287).

"In more recent years, the discussions regarding cultivation theory have been somewhat more measured and more concerned with extending the theory in a useful way (e.g., Hawkins & Pingree, 1980; Potter, 1993) (Miller, 2005, p. 286).

Agenda-setting theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
The agenda-setting theory is the theory that the mass-news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them.[1] Agenda-setting theory’s main postulate is salience transfer. Salience transfer is the ability of the mass media to transfer issues of importance from their mass media agendas to public agendas.

1 History
1.1 Foundation
2 Functions
3 Diffusion
4 The Accessibility Bias
5 Cognitive Effects Model
6 Characteristics
7 Levels of agenda setting
8 Usage
9 Strengths and weaknesses of theory
10 See also
11 References
11.1 Notes
11.2 Further reading

[edit] History
[edit] Foundation
The media agenda is the set of issues addressed by media sources and the public agenda which are issues the public consider important.[2] Agenda-setting theory was introduced in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their ground breaking study of the role of the media in 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3] The theory explains the correlation between the rate at which media cover a story and the extent that people think that this story is important. This correlation has been shown to occur repeatedly.

In the dissatisfaction of the magic bullet theory, McCombs and Shaw introduced agenda-setting theory in the Public Opinion Quarterly.[3] The theory was derived from their study that took place in Chapel Hill, NC, where the researchers surveyed 100 undecided voters during the 1968 presidential campaign on what they thought were key issues and measured that against the actual media content.[3] The ranking of issues was almost identical, and the conclusions matched their hypothesis that the mass media positioned the agenda for public opinion by emphasizing specific topics.[4] Subsequent research on agenda-setting theory provided evidence for the cause-and-effect chain of influence being debated by critics in the field.

One particular study made leaps to prove the cause-effect relationship. The study was conducted by Yale researchers, Shanto Iyengar, Mark Peters, and Donald Kinder. The researchers had three groups of subjects fill out questionnaires about their own concerns and then each group watched different evening news programs, each of which emphasized a different issue. After watching the news for four days, the subjects again filled out questionnaires and the issues that they rated as most important matched the issues they viewed on the evening news.[5] The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between media agenda and public agenda. Since the theory’s conception, more than 350 studies have been performed to test the theory. The theory has evolved beyond the media's influence on the public's perceptions of issue salience to political candidates and corporate reputation.[6]

[edit] Functions
The agenda-setting function has multiple components:

Media agenda are issues discussed in the media, such as newspapers, television, and radio.
Public agenda are issues discussed and personally about members of the public.
Policy agenda are issues that policy makers consider important, such as legislators.
Corporate agenda are issues that big business and corporations consider important, including corporations.
These four agendas are interrelated. The two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting are that the press and the media do not reflect reality, they filter and shape it, and the media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

[edit] Diffusion
The media uses diffusion to spread ideas and aid in its agenda setting. Opinion Leaders and boundary spanners are very important to the media at using their networks to pass on the flow of information.

An opinion leader is often someone who is thought of by others to know a significant amount of information on a topic or is an "expert". This could be anyone from a specialist in a certain field, a politician who is the head of a specific congressional committee, or a mom who is very active in the PTA. They are often at the center of a social network, more attentive to outside information and capable of influence. Since the opinion leaders are those in a social network who are most likely to watch the news or pay attention to the media, they are an extremely important tool at spreading information to the masses.

Boundary Spanners are those in a social network who can span across various social networks. They can be essential to the flow of novel information. Boundary spanners can be used by the media in setting its agenda by getting information and ideas to a variety of social networks, rather than just one.

A study showing the effects of diffusion was Project Revere. Sociologists at the University of Washington from 1951 to 1953 would drop leaflets from an airplane onto a town. They then would see how long it would take for the information to pass by word of mouth to those who did not get a leaflet. Their findings showed that children are very effective in the diffusion process, thus proving how easy it is for a child to be affected by the media.

[edit] The Accessibility Bias
This is a theory that states that information that can be more easily retrieved from memory dominates our judgments, opinions and decisions. So in simpler terms, when someone hears information repeatedly and frequently, they are more likely to remember it.

S. Iyengar's article titled "The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public opinion" looks at just this theory.

He states that "In the area of public affairs, readily accessible information is more frequently conveyed by the media than information that is less accessible, and is more up to date."

The Accessibility Bias is effective because people are cognitive misers. We have limited resources (such as time) and cannot learn about every single subject there is. We also like to use heuristics or "shortcuts" when it comes to learning about topics that we may not have an interest in or are not particularly educated in. This is why we turn to the media to gain this information. So if the media decides to show a certain topic more often than another it shapes the agenda and shapes what people remember and call back to at a later time.

[edit] Cognitive Effects Model
Early media effects studies done by Lazarfled and Berelson showed that political campaigns have very little effect on voters, but instead that those closest to them (family and friends) as well as cognitions.

Cognition is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem-solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning. (Defined by Psychology at

The Cognitive effect model found that the media has an indirect influence on an audiences' attitude. A viewer already has set ideas and opinions, the media cannot do much to change those. However by showing certain stories more often than others and shaping the agenda they can shape what an audience puts importance on.

If the media reports more on the economy than international news then people will have more information on the economy and think that the issue is more important than what else is going on around the world. This does not mean that the media has changed their opinion on either topic, simply changed how much they may think about the particular topic.

[edit] Characteristics
Research has focused on characteristics of audience, the issues, and the media that might predict variations in the agenda setting effect.

Research done by Weaver in 1977 suggested that individuals vary on their need for orientation. Need for orientation is a combination of the individual’s interest in the topic and uncertainty about the issue. The higher levels of interest and uncertainty produce higher levels of need for orientation. So the individual would be considerably likely to be influenced by the media stories (psychological aspect of theory).[2]

Research performed by Zucker in 1978 suggested that an issue is obtrusive if most members of the public have had direct contact with it, and less obtrusive if audience members have not had direct experience. This means that agenda setting results should be strongest for unobtrusive issues because audience members must rely on media for information on these topics.[2]

Quote on agenda setting- "The media doesn't tell us what to think; it tells us what to think about"- Bernard C. Cohen (1963)

[edit] Levels of agenda setting
The first-level agenda setting is most traditionally studied by researchers. In this level the media use objects or issues to influence the public. In this level the media suggest what the public should think about (amount of coverage). In second-level agenda setting, the media focuses on the characteristics of the objects or issues. In this level the media suggest how the people should think about the issue. There are two types of attributes: cognitive (subtantative, or topics) and affective (evaluative, or positive, negative, neutral). Intermedia agenda setting involves salience transfer among the media.Coleman and Banning 2006; Lee 2005; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996

[edit] Usage
The theory is used in political advertising, political campaigns and debates, business news and corporate reputation,[6] business influence on federal policy,[7] legal systems, trials,[8] role of groups, audience control, public opinion, and public relations.[6]

[edit] Strengths and weaknesses of theory
It has explanatory power because it explains why most people prioritize the same issues as important. It also has predictive power because it predicts that if people are exposed to the same media, they will feel the same issues are important. Its meta-theoretical assumptions are balanced on the scientific side and it lays groundwork for further research. Furthermore, it has organizing power because it helps organize existing knowledge of media effects.

There are also limitations, such as media users may not be as ideal as the theory assumes. People may not be well-informed, deeply engaged in public affairs, thoughtful and skeptical. Instead, they may pay only casual and intermittent attention to public affairs and remain ignorant of the details. For people who have made up their minds, the effect is weakened. News media cannot create or conceal problems, they may only alter the awareness, priorities and salience people attached to a set of problems.[citation needed] Research has largely been inconclusive in establishing a causal relationship between public salience and media coverage.

Uses and gratifications theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
The introduction to this date: December 2009 provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. (December 2009)

Uses and Gratifications Theory is a popular approach to understanding mass communication. The theory places more focus on the consumer, or audience, instead of the actual message itself by asking “what people do with media” rather than “what media does to people” (Katz, 1959) . It assumes that members of the audience are not passive but take an active role in interpreting and integrating media into their own lives. The theory also holds that audiences are responsible for choosing media to meet their needs. The approach suggests that people use the media to fulfill specific gratifications. This theory would then imply that the media compete against other information sources for viewers' gratification. (Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. 1974)

There are three main paradigms in media effects: hypodermic needle (i.e., direct, or strong effects), limited effects, and the powerful to limited effects. "Uses and Gratifications" falls under the second paradigm which reached its apex around 1940-1960, when studies helped realize that the first paradigm was inaccurate.

1 Basic model
2 Historical Development
3 Criticism
4 References

[edit] Basic model
This section's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (July 2009)

The Uses and Gratifications Theory follows a basic model. It is an audience-centered approach. When an audience actively seeks out media, they are typically seeking it in order to gratify a need. For example, in social situations, people may feel more confident and knowledgeable when they have specific facts and stories from media to add to conversation. By seeking out media, a person fulfills a need to be informed.

Social situations and psychological characteristics motivate the need for media, which motivates certain expectations of that media. This expectation leads one to be exposed to media that would seemingly fit expectations, leading to an ultimate gratification.

The media dependency theory, has also been explored as an extension to the uses and gratifications approach to media, though there is a subtle difference between the two theories. People's dependency on media proves audience goals to be the origin of the dependency while the uses and gratifications approach focuses more on audience needs (Grant et al., 1998). Still, both theories agree that media use can lead to media dependency(Rubin, 1982).

The media dependency theory states that the more dependent an individual is on the media for to fulfill needs, the more significant the media becomes to that person. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1976) illustrate dependency as the relationship between media content, the nature of society, and the behavior of audiences. Littlejohn (2002) also explained that people will become more dependent on media that meet a number of their needs than on media that touch only a few ones. Dependency on a certain medium is influenced by the number sources open to an individual. Individuals are usually more dependent on available media if their access to media alternatives is limited. The more alternatives there are for an individual, the lesser is the dependency on and influence of a specific medium.

The hypodermic needle model claims that consumers are strongly affected by media and have no say in how the media influences them. The main idea of the Uses and Gratifications model is that people are not helpless victims of all-powerful media, but use media to fulfill their various needs. These needs serve as motivations for using media.

[edit] Historical Development
Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began seeing patterns under the perspective of the uses and gratifications theory in radio listeners [1] Early research was concerned with topics such as children's use of comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike (Infante, Rancer, and Womack).[2][citation needed]). An interest in more psychological interpretations also emerged during this time [3] In 1974, Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch [4] realized that most Uses and Gratification studies were most concerned with: 1. The social and psychological origins of 2. needs which generate 3. expectations 4. of mass media or other sources, which lead to 5. differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in 6. need gratifications and 7. other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones [5] Blumler made some interesting points why Uses and Gratifications cannot measure an active audience. "The issue to be considered here is whether what has been thought about Uses and Gratifications Theory has been an article of faith and if it could now be converted into an empirical question such as: How to measure an active audience?" (Blumler, 1979).

It has not been done for these reasons. The notion of active audience has conflated an extraordinary range of meanings, including utility, intentionality, selectivity and imperviousness to influence.

Utility—Mass communication has uses to people.
Intentionality—Media consumption is directed by prior motivation.
Selectivity—Media behavior reflects prior interests and preferences.
Imperviousness—The lessened ability of media to influence an obstinate audience [6]

In 1948, Lasswell introduced a four-functional interpretation of the media on a macro-sociological level. Media served the functions of surveillance, correlation, entertainment and cultural transmission for both society and individuals [7]

In 1972, Blumler and Brown[citation needed] extended Lasswell's four groups 25 years later. These included four primary factors for which one may use the media:
Diversion—Escape from routine and problems; an emotional release.
Personal Relationships—Social utility of information in conversation; substitution of media for companionship.
Personal Identity or Individual Psychology—Value reinforcement or reassurance; self-understanding, reality exploration.
Surveillance—Information about factors which might affect one or will help one do or accomplish something (Severin and Tankard, 1997[citation needed]) [8]

Katz, Gurevitch and Haas (1973) saw the mass media as a means by which individuals connect or disconnect themselves with others. They developed 35 needs taken from the largely speculative literature on the social and psychological functions of the mass media and put them into five categories:

Cognitive needs—Acquiring information, knowledge and understanding.
Affective needs—Emotion, pleasure, feelings.
Personal integrative needs—Credibility, stability, status.
Social integrative needs—Family and friends.
Tension release needs—Escape and diversion (Severin and Tankard, 1997).

[edit] Criticism
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (July 2009)

Many people have criticized this theory as they believe the public has no control over the media and what it produces. It can also be said to be too kind to the media, as they are being 'let off the hook' and do not need to take responsibility for what they produce.

"The nature of the theory underlying Uses and Gratifications research is not totally clear," (Blumler, 1979) This makes the line between gratification and satisfaction blurred calling into question if we only seek what we desire or actually enjoy it. (Palmgreen,P., and Rayburn,J.D., 1985)

"Practitioners of Uses and Gratifications research have been criticized for a formidable array of shortcomings in their outlook -- they are taxed for being crassly atheoretical, perversely eclectic, ensnared in the pitfalls of functionalism and for flirting with the positions at odds with their functionalist origins," (Blumler, 1979).

The biggest issue for the Uses and Gratifications Theory is its being non-theoretical, being vague in key concepts, and being nothing more than a data-collecting strategy (Littlejohn, 2002; Severin and Tankard, 1997; McQuail 1994).

It seems that using this sociologically-based theory has little to no link to the benefit of psychology due to its weakness in operational definitions and weak analytical mode. Also, it is focused too narrowly on the individual and neglects the social structure and place of the media in that structure (Severin and Tankard, 1997).

Due to the individualistic nature of Uses and Gratification theory, it is difficult to take the information that is collected in studies. Most research relies on pure recollection of memory rather than data. (Katz, 1987). This makes self-reports complicated and immeasurable.

This theory has also been blasted by media hegemony advocates who say it goes too far in claiming that people are free to choose the media fare and the interpretations they want (Severin and Tankard, 1997). Other motives that may drive people to consume media may involve low level attention, a habit or a mildly pleasant stimulation. Uniform effects are not the kind of factor the Uses and Gratifications approach would predict (Severin and Tankard, 1997).

Dependency theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (March 2008)
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (May 2010)

relations theory
• Idealism
Liberal Peace Theory
Sociological liberalism
Interdependence liberalism
Institutional liberalism
Republican liberalism
• Realism
Classical realism
Neorealism (structural realism)
Offensive realism
Defensive realism
Neoclassical realism
Liberal realism ('English School')
• Marxism
World-systems theory
• Dependency theory
• Functionalism
• Critical theories
• Other approaches
International Ethics
Historical sociology
• Classifications

Politics portal
v • d • e
Dependency theory or dependencia theory is essentially a body of social science theories predicated on the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system".

The theory arose around 1960 as a reaction to some earlier theories of development which held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, that today's underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today's developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market. Dependency theory rejected this theory, arguing that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy, whereas the developed nations were never in an analogous position; they never had to exist in relation to a bloc of more powerful countries than themselves. Dependency theorists argued, in opposition to free market economists, that underdeveloped countries needed to reduce their connectedness with the world market so that they can pursue a path more in keeping with their own needs, less dictated by external pressures.[1]

1 Basics
2 History
2.1 Origins and predecessors
3 Other dependency theorists
4 Implications
5 Criticism
6 Further reading
7 See also
8 References
9 Links

[edit] Basics
The premises of dependency theory are that:

Poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labor, a destination for obsolete technology, and markets to the wealthy nations, without which the latter could not have the standard of living they enjoy.
Wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by various means. This influence may be multifaceted, involving economics, media control, politics, banking and finance, education, culture, sport, and all aspects of human resource development (including recruitment and training of workers).
Wealthy nations actively counter attempts by dependent nations to resist their influences by means of economic sanctions and/or the use of military force.
Dependency theory states that the poverty of the countries in the periphery is not because they are not integrated into the world system, or not 'fully' integrated as is often argued by free market economists, but because of how they are integrated into the system.

[edit] History
Dependency theory originates with two papers published in 1949 – one by Hans Singer, one by Raúl Prebisch – in which the authors observe that the terms of trade for underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports. This idea is known as the Singer-Prebisch thesis. Prebisch, an Argentinian economist at the United Nations Commission for Latin America (UNCLA), went on to conclude that the underdeveloped nations must employ some degree of protectionism in trade if they were to enter a self-sustaining development path. He argued that Import-substitution industrialisation (ISI), not a trade-and-export orientation, was the best strategy for underdeveloped countries.[2] The theory was developed from a Marxian perspective by Paul A. Baran in 1957 with the publication of his The Political Economy of Growth.[3] Dependency theory shares many points with earlier, Marxist, theories of imperialism by Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin, and has attracted continued interest from Marxists. Matias Vernengo, a University of Utah economist, identifies two main streams in dependency theory: the Latin American Structuralist, typified by the work of Prebisch, Celso Furtado and Anibal Pinto at the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC, or, in Spanish, CEPAL); and the American Marxist, developed by Paul A. Baran, Paul Sweezy, and Andre Gunder Frank.[4]

The theory was popular in the 1960s and 1970s as a criticism of modernization theory (the "stages" hypothesis mentioned above), which was falling increasingly out of favor due to continued widespread poverty in much of the world.

Many dependency theorists advocate social revolution as an effective means to the reduction of economic disparities in the world system.

Poor nations are at a disadvantage in their market interactions with wealthy nations. There are several aspects to this. One is that a high proportion of the developing nations' economic activity consists of exports and imports from the developed nations—in many cases with only one or a few developed nations. By contrast, only a small proportion of the economic activity of the developed nations consists of trade with the developing nations; a developed nation's trade consists mostly of internal trade and trade with other developed nations. This asymmetry puts a poor nation in a weak bargaining position vis a vis a developed nation. There are also historical aspects: the poor nations are almost all former colonies of the developed nations; their economies were built to serve the developed nations in a two-fold capacity: as sources of cheap raw materials and as highly populous markets for the absorption of the developed nations' manufactured output.

According to Vernengo, the Latin American Structuralist and the American Marxist schools had significant differences but agreed on some basic points:

[B]oth groups would agree that at the core of the dependency relation between center and periphery lays the inability of the periphery to develop an autonomous and dynamic process of technological innovation. Technology – the Promethean force unleashed by the Industrial Revolution – is at the center of stage. The Center countries controlled the technology and the systems for generating technology. Foreign capital could not solve the problem, since it only led to limited transmission of technology, but not the process of innovation itself.[5]
Baran and others frequently spoke of the international division of labour – skilled workers in the center, unskilled in the periphery – when discussing key features of dependency.[6]

Baran placed surplus extraction and capital accumulation at the center of his analysis. Development depends on a population's producing more than it needs for bare subsistence (a surplus). Further, some of that surplus must be used for capital accumulation - the purchase of new means of production - if development is to occur; spending the surplus on things like luxury consumption does not produce development. Baran noted two predominant kinds of economic activity in poor countries. In the older of the two, plantation agriculture, which originated in colonial times, most of the surplus goes to the landowners, who use it to emulate the consumption patterns of wealthy people in the developed world; much of it thus goes to purchase foreign produced luxury items—automobiles, clothes, etc. -- and little is accumulated for investing in development. The more recent kind of economic activity in the periphery is industry—but of a particular kind. It is usually carried out by foreigners, although often in conjunction with local interests. It is often under special tariff protection or other government concessions. The surplus from this production mostly goes to two places: part of it is sent back to the foreign shareholders as profit; the other part is spent on conspicuous consumption in a similar fashion to that of the plantation aristocracy. Again, little is used for development. Baran thought that political revolution was necessary to break this pattern.[7]

In the 1960s, members of the Latin American Structuralist school argued that there is more latitude in the system than the Marxists believed. They argued that it allows for partial development or "dependent development" – development, but still under the control of outside decision makers. They cited the partly-successful attempts at industrialisation in Latin America around that time (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico) as evidence for this hypothesis. They were led to the position that dependency is not a relation between commodity exporters and industrialised countries, but between countries with different degrees of industrialisation. In their approach there is a distinction made between the economic and political spheres: economically, one may be developed or underdeveloped; but even if (somewhat) economically developed, one may be politically autonomous or dependent. More recently, Guillermo O'Donnell has argued that constraints placed on development by neoliberalism were lifted by "the military coups in Latin America that came to promote development in authoritarian guise" (Vernengo's words, summarising O'Donnell, 1982).[8]

The importance of technology, multinational corporations, and State promotion of technology were emphasised by the Latin American Structuralists.

Fajnzybler has made a distinction between systemic or authentic competitiveness, which is the ability to compete based on higher productivity, and spurious competitiveness, which is based on low wages.[9]

The third-world debt crisis of the 1980s and continued stagnation in Africa and Latin America in the 1990s caused some doubt as to the feasibility or desirability of "dependent development". [10]

Vernengo (2004) has suggested that the sine qua non of the dependency relationship is not the difference in technological sophistication, as traditional dependency theorists believe, but rather the difference in financial strength between core and peripheral countries – particularly the inability of peripheral countries to borrow in their own currency. He believes that the hegemonic position of the United States is very strong because of the importance of its financial markets and because it controls the international reserve currency – the US dollar. He believes that the end of the Bretton Woods international financial agreements in the early 1970s considerably strengthened the United States' position because it removed some constraints on their financial actions.[11]

"Standard" dependency theory differs from Marxism, in arguing against internationalism and any hope of progress in less developed nations towards industrialization and a liberating revolution. Theotonio dos Santos described a 'new dependency', which focused on both the internal and external relations of less-developed countries of the periphery, derived from a Marxian analysis. Former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso wrote extensively on dependency theory while in political exile, arguing that it was an approach to studying the economic disparities between the centre and periphery. The American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein refined the Marxist aspect of the theory, and called it the "World-system." It has also been associated with Galtung's Structural Theory of Imperialism.

"The inflow of capital from the developed countries is the prerequisite for the establishment of economic dependence. This inflow takes various forms: loans granted on onerous terms; investments that place a given country in the power of the investors; almost total technological subordination of the dependent country to the developed country; control of a country's foreign trade by the big international monopolies; and in extreme cases, the use of force as an economic weapon in support of the other forms of exploitation."
— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary [12]
With the economic growth of India and some East Asian economies, dependency theory has lost some of its former influence. It is more widely accepted in disciplines such as history and anthropology[citation needed]. It also underpins some NGO campaigns, such as Make Poverty History and the Fair Trade movement.

[edit] Origins and predecessors
Dependency was said to be created with the industrial revolution and the expansion of European empires around the world, due to their superior military power and accumulated wealth. Some argue that before this expansion, the exploitation was internal, with the major economic centres dominating the rest of the country (for example: Southeast England dominating Britain, or the Northeast United States dominating the South and West). The establishment of global trade patterns in the nineteenth century allowed capitalism to spread globally[citation needed]. The wealthy became more isolated from the poor, because they gained disproportionately from imperialistic practices[citation needed]. This minimized the dangers of domestic peasant revolts and rebellions by the poor[citation needed]. Rather than turn on their oppressors as in the French Revolution or in various communist revolutions, the poor could no longer reach the wealthy and thus the less developed nations became engulfed in regular civil wars[citation needed]. Once the imperialist rich nations established formal control, it could not be easily removed[citation needed]. This control ensures that all profits in less developed countries are remitted to the developed nations[citation needed], preventing domestic reinvestment, causing capital flight and thus hindering growth[citation needed].

Dependency theory can trace its intellectual heritage to the long-running free trade debate, specifically various forms of economic nationalism and the school of mercantilism. An early statement of dependency theory is found in Henry Clay, architect of the American System, in an 1832 speech:

Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the recolonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.
——Henry Clay, "In Defense of the American System, Against the British Colonial System." 1832, Feb 2, 3, and 6.[13]
Similar sentiments were expressed by German American economist Friedrich List:

Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends—the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist.
—–Friedrich List
This theory is clearly indicates that how the developed county are exploiting the developing countries with the help international regime in the context of econy

Developing countries are the victim of international regime

[edit] Other dependency theorists
Two other early writers relevant to dependency theory were François Perroux and Kurt Rothschild. Other leading dependency theorists include Herb Addo, Walden Bello, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Enzo Faletto, Armando Cordova, Ernest Feder, Andre Gunder Frank, Walter Rodney, Pablo Gonzales Casanova, Keith Griffin, Kunibert Raffer, Paul Israel Singer, and Osvaldo Sunkel. Many of these authors focused their attention on Latin America; the leading dependaency theorist in the Islamic world is the Egyptian economist Samir Amin (Tausch 2003).

Later, world systems theory expanded on dependency arguments. It postulates a third category of countries, the semi-periphery, intermediate between the core and periphery. The semi-periphery is industrialised, but with less sophistication of technology than in the core; and it does not control finances. Capitalism in the periphery, like in the center, is characterized by strong cyclical fluctuations.

The rise of one group of semi-peripheries tends to be at the cost of another group, but the unequal structure of the world economy based on unequal exchange tends to remain stable (Tausch 2003).

Tausch (2003) traces the beginnings of World systems theory to the writings of the Austro-Hungarian socialist Karl Polanyi after the First World War. In its present form it is usually associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein.

Ever since the capitalist world system evolved, there is a stark distinction between the nations of the center and the nations of the periphery.

Former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, when he was still a social scientist, summarized his version of dependency theory as follows:

there is a financial and technological penetration by the developed capitalist centers of the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery;
this produces an unbalanced economic structure both within the peripheral societies and between them and the centers;
this leads to limitations on self-sustained growth in the periphery;
this favors the appearance of specific patterns of class relations;
these require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee both the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance.[14]
Tausch (2003), based on works of Amin from 1973 - 1997, lists the following main characteristics of periphery capitalism:

Regression in both agriculture and small scale industry characterizes the period after the onslaught of foreign domination and colonialism
Unequal international specialization of the periphery leads to the concentration of activities in export oriented agriculture and or mining. Some industrialization of the periphery is possible under the condition of low wages, which, together with rising productivity, determine that unequal exchange sets in (double factorial terms of trade < 1.0; see Raffer, 1987)
These structures determine in the long run a rapidly growing tertiary sector with hidden unemployment and the rising importance of rent in the overall social and economic system
Chronic current account balance deficits, re-exported profits of foreign investments, and deficient business cycles at the periphery that provide important markets for the centers during world economic upswings
Structural imbalances in the political and social relationships, inter alia a strong 'compradore' element and the rising importance of state capitalism and an indebted state class (Tausch 2003)
The analysis of development patterns in the 1990s and beyond is complicated by the fact that capitalism develops not smoothly, but with very strong and self-repeating ups and downs, called cycles. Relevant results are given in studies by Joshua Goldstein, Volker Bornschier, and Luigi Scandella (Tausch 2003).

Dependency theorists hold that short-term spurts of growth notwithstanding, long-term growth in the periphery will be imbalanced and unequal, and will tend towards high negative current account balances (Tausch 2003). Cyclical fluctuations also have a profound effect on cross-national comparisons of economic growth and societal development in the medium and long run. What seemed like spectacular long-run growth, may in the end turn out to be just a short run cyclical spurt after a long recession. Cycle time plays an important role. Giovanni Arrighi believed that the logic of accumulation on a world scale shifts along time, and that we again witness during the 1980s and beyond a deregulated phase of world capitalism with a logic, characterized - in contrast to earlier regulatory cycles - by the dominance of financial capital (Tausch 2003).

At this stage, the role of unequal exchange in the entire relationship of dependency cannot be underestimated. Unequal exchange is given, if double factorial terms of trade of the respective country are < 1.0 (Raffer, 1987, Amin, 1975). Labor in the export sectors of the periphery is being exploited, while monopolistic structures of international trade let the centers profit from the high prices of their exports to the world markets in comparison to their labor productivity.

[edit] Implications
While there are many different and conflicting ideas on how developing countries can alleviate the effects of the world system, several of the following protectionist/nationalist practices were adopted at one time or another by such countries:

Promotion of domestic industry and manufactured goods. By imposing subsidies to protect domestic industries, poor countries can be enabled to sell their own products rather than simply exporting raw materials.
Import limitations. By limiting the importation of luxury goods and manufactured goods that can be produced within the country, the country can reduce its loss of capital and resources.
Forbidding foreign investment. Some governments took steps to keep foreign companies and individuals from owning or operating property that draws on the resources of the country.
Nationalization. Some governments have forcibly taken over foreign-owned companies on behalf of the state, in order to keep profits within the country.
[edit] Criticism
Some free-market economists, such as Peter Bauer and Martin Wolf, writing primarily for non-economists, have argued that dependency theory leads to:[citation needed]

Corruption. Free-market economists hold that state-owned companies have higher rates of corruption than privately owned companies.
Lack of competition. By subsidizing in-country industries and preventing outside imports, these companies may have less incentive to improve their products, to try to become more efficient in their processes, to please customers, or to research new innovations.
Unsustainability. Reliance of industries on government support may not be sustainable for very long, particularly in poorer countries and countries which largely budget out of foreign aid.
Domestic opportunity costs. Subsidies on domestic industries come out of state coffers and therefore represent money not spent in other ways, like development of domestic infrastructure, seed capital or need-based social welfare programs. At the same time, the higher prices caused by tariffs and restrictions on imports require the people either to forgo these goods altogether or buy them at higher prices, forgoing other goods.
Proponents of dependency theory claim that the theory of comparative advantage breaks down when capital (including both physical capital, like machines, as well as financial capital) is highly mobile, as it is under the conditions of globalization. For this reason, it is claimed that dependency theory can offer new insights into a world of highly mobile multinational corporations.[citation needed]

This has been countered by the argument that the conditions of globalization actually make comparative advantage more sound. The theory of comparative advantage suggests that the gains from trade will be greater when transportation costs and information/communication costs are lower. Globalization has lowered these costs.[citation needed]

Market economists cite a number of examples in their arguments against dependency theory. The improvement of India's economy after it moved from state-controlled business to open trade is one of the most often cited (see also economy of India, Commanding Heights). India's example seems to contradict dependency theorists' claims concerning comparative advantage and mobility, as much as its economic growth originated from movements such as outsourcing - one of the most mobile forms of capital transfer.

No comments:

Post a Comment