The modernization of dependence: a further note on Lesotho

A narrowly economic definition of development may distort the realities of backwardness, even where social and psychological variables are admitted. My own article on 'Conditions of non-Development in Lesotho'1 apparently does so: a number of Basuto, while tolerent of the analysis, have contested the pessimistic inference. I have since attempted to deal with this discrepancy by taking the sence of advance as seriously as I there took measurable improvements in GNP and/or in material standards of life.2 The following note recasts the case of Lesotho in terms of advance or sense of advance in autonomy. Much of the current plethora of 'development literature' could be classified according to the relationship seen, by each writer, between dependence and development. But there is little indication that either might be measured by otherthan-economic criteria, nor is there much agreement on the way they interact. At one extreme is the view that development leads a country out of dependence, that this effect is, indeed, both the function and purpose of development. At the other extreme it is argued that development increases dependence, inexorably fostering the development of underdevelopment by increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.3 I see two reasons for this polarization. First, the relationship between the two processes is neither inevitable nor predictable: it can only be discerned by empirically based analysis of the economic and political options and conditions pertaining in a particular case, and must be examined against the historical background of that case. Secondly and equally, the relationship depends on the definitions entailed. What is development? A few years ago it was fashionable to debate the necessary criteria;4 lately its meaning is largely assumed-despite the fact that its value load alters drastically with context. On the one hand 'development' is good for Africa. On the other, the 'developers' of