Financialization in Peripheral Countries: Insights from the Marxist Dependency Theory

Abstract

This article examines the contributions of Marxist dependency theory (MDT) to the understanding of “peripheral financialization.” It emphasizes the theory’s relevance in addressing the distinct characteristics of dependency, situating MDT within its theoretical, political, and historical contexts alongside its fundamental categories. Contemporary contributions to the analysis of financialization within this framework are explored, highlighting how this process reinforces dependent countries’ subordinated position in the global economy. In this sense, financialization marks a new stage of dependency, intensifying the structural transfer of value and aggravating the superexploitation of labor. These contributions point to an understanding of peripheral financialization that not only acknowledges the particularities of capitalist development in the periphery but also maintains a direct link to class exploitation.

JEL Classification: B2, F3

Keywords

Marxist dependency theory financialization peripheral financialization

1. Introduction

Financialization is one of the marking features of contemporary capitalism and is theorized from various perspectives (Palludeto and Felipini 2019). Broadly, these studies explore the dominance of finance over the “productive sector,” the role of financial institutions and markets, and the increasing participation of financialized wealth in households and families. In this context, a growing body of literature has examined financialization in peripheral economies through the lens of “financial subordination” (Alami et al. 2022; Bonizzi et al. 2022), proposing that financialization manifests differently in these contexts. As part of the effort to further understand peripheral financialization, revisiting scholars who have long analyzed the structural specificities of Latin American capitalism—most notably the theorists of the Marxist dependency theory (MDT)—is essential.

This article explores what contributions the MDT literature offers to understanding peripheral—or, more accurately, dependent—financialization. By critically summarizing contributions concerning this topic, this study seeks to broaden the discourse on peripheral and subordinate financialization by introducing theoretical insights grounded in a perspective shaped by the intense political struggles of Latin America in the latter half of the twentieth century.¹ This approach can enrich the broader discourse on financialization and highlight the relevance of MDT for contemporary analyses of capitalism. Crucially, this article aims to advance the discussion of financialization within MDT—as claimed by Reis and Antunes de Oliveira (2021)—a theme that remains underexplored in its contemporary literature and has room for further developments.

The article is structured as follows. The next section briefly revisits the origins and development of MDT, situating it theoretically, politically, and historically. The following section focuses on key categories within MDT: dependency, transfer of value, and the superexploitation of labor. Next, the discussion turns to how contemporary literature engages with these concepts to analyze peripheral financialization. The article concludes with final remarks.

2. The Theory

The body of work commonly referred to as MDT (Marini 2022; Dos Santos 1970; Bambirra 2013) emerged in Latin America within the social sciences and humanities during the 1960s and 1970s, through the works of Ruy Mauro Marini (1932–97), Vânia Bambirra (1940–2018), and Theotônio Dos Santos (1936–2018), the main authors of this tradition. All three were Brazilian, but at the time, spent most of their lives across other Latin American countries, notably Mexico and Chile. During those decades, Marini, Bambirra, and Dos Santos sought to analyze the social, political, and economic realities of Latin America from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, with Lenin’s (2021) theoretical-methodological understanding of imperialism at its core. In this sense, MDT complements Lenin’s theory of imperialism by examining and theorizing the same phenomenon—the relationship between imperialist and peripheral countries—but from the perspective of the periphery, introducing theoretical innovations and specificities (Amaral 2012: 27).

Politically and theoretically, the 1959 Cuban Revolution was a pivotal moment for Marini, Bambirra, and Dos Santos. It demonstrated that a socialist revolution could take place outside the core of capitalism and that fully developing the productive forces of a given social formation was not a prerequisite, a perspective central to many Latin American communist parties’ approach to development and revolution (Bambirra 1978; Katz 2020; Wasserman 2017). This historical context, therefore, enabled these authors to develop an alternative and specific understanding of capitalism in peripheral countries.

MDT gained some prominence in academic circles in the Global North in the early 1970s but faced increasing criticism, particularly from Latin American scholars, by the latter half of the decade (Dos Santos 2000: 38–41). Additionally, its dissemination in Brazil, the home country of MDT’s classical authors, was impeded by the Brazilian military dictatorship (1964–1985), a restriction that persisted into the 1980s. Despite Brazil’s redemocratization in 1988, MDT did not experience a significant resurgence. In the mid-1990s, the rise of neoliberalism in Brazil—embodied in the policies of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a (not Marxist) dependency theorist himself and one of MDT’s fiercest critics, who even actively boycotted Marini’s work—alongside the global ideological momentum following the collapse of the Soviet Union further marginalized MDT (Nunes 2023; Prado 2011).² Decolonial thought gained prominence in Latin America during this period, also contributing to the sidelining of MDT (Amaral and Traspadini 2023).

Nevertheless, MDT’s literature began to experience a revival in the 2000s, driven by the global economic crises of the late 1990s, the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath, as well as the rise of several left-wing governments in Latin America, a moment known as the “Pink Tide.” These developments prompted critical scholars to revisit MDT’s capacity to analyze the various determinations of dependency and the specificities of dependent capitalism, a revival that continues today (Carcanholo 2013). Amid this renewed interest, many studies have reevaluated classical works and core concepts, while others—in a more innovative direction—have sought to address gaps in MDT’s classical works, particularly concerning race, gender, and financialization (Souza 2023; Costantino and Laterra 2017; Raposo et al. 2022; Antunes de Oliveira 2021; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021).

3. Key Categories

At the core of MDT’s thought lies the understanding that Latin American capitalism is dependent on central capitalism—that of imperialist countries—making it, therefore, a dependent capitalism. This means that dependent countries, even if formally independent, remain subordinated to imperialist countries. Such subordination is manifested not only in an economic sense but also in the political and social spheres (Antunes de Oliveira 2019: 6; Selis 2018: 177–178). From this perspective, dependent capitalism is neither “underdeveloped” nor in a preliminary stage of capitalist “development” already attained by imperialist countries. Rather, it has distinct characteristics precisely because it is dependent. In other words, it is a sui generis capitalism, with its own specificities and internal contradictions shaped by its dependent relationship with core countries. This subordination stems from Latin America’s integration into global capitalism, a process dating back to colonization. In this sense, the complex structure of dependency is constantly modified and re-created to ensure that dependent countries remain in their subordinate position. As a result, the development of their productive forces does not overcome dependency; rather, it tends to deepen its contradictions. According to MDT theorists, the only way to break free from dependency is by abolishing its underlying relations of production—a transformation that can only be achieved through socialist revolution (Bambirra 2013; Dos Santos 1970; Marini 2022).

In addition to the notion of dependency, two other categories are central in MDT’s theoretical framework: the transfer of value from the periphery to the center (i.e., the imperialist countries) and the superexploitation of labor. The transfer of value originates from the historical formation of the international division of labor and persists because of the productivity gap between the periphery and the center. In exchanges of the same type of commodities, higher productivity in core countries leads to lower production prices compared to those in dependent countries. Consequently, core countries can sell these commodities at the same market price as the dependent countries but with extraordinary profits. On the other hand, in exchanges of different types of commodities (e.g., raw materials on one side and industrial goods on the other), a distinct dynamic emerges, reflecting their unequal positions in the international division of labor. Core countries, by having the ability to produce goods that dependent countries cannot, establish a production monopoly that enables them to sell these goods to the periphery at prices above their value. As a result, dependent countries transfer part of the value they produce to the core without equivalent compensation, a process that intensifies as the productivity gap between them widens (Marini 2022: 127–128). In other words, imperialist countries produce commodities “as if they embodied more labor than they actually contain—capturing wealth that flows to them beyond what they themselves generate” (Luce 2018: 36, my translation). This transfer of value happens not only through trade but also through financial and technological mechanisms, as discussed in the following section (Luce 2018: 51).

In this sense, transfer of value within international circulation disrupts capital accumulation in dependent countries, creating the need for compensation. Therefore, to offset the surplus value drained externally, the bourgeoisie in these countries resort to the superexploitation of labor as a compensatory measure. Put differently, to make up for the value extracted by core countries, they escalate domestic exploitation (Amaral 2012: 55). The superexploitation of labor is enacted through three mechanisms: (1) the increase in labor intensity, (2) the extension of the working day, and (3) the reduction of workers’ consumption below its normal limit (Marini 2022: 130). All these mechanisms have in common the fact that they assault the worker’s vitality, both physically and mentally, and their essential feature is that “the worker is denied the conditions necessary to replenish his labor power that has been worn away” (Marini 2022: 132). It can be said that workers are affected by these mechanisms in two distinct ways: on one hand, through direct physical strain, caused by intensified work and extended hours (the first and second mechanisms); on the other, through an indirect impact on their well-being, as wages are set below the minimum necessary to sustain their metabolic, psychological, and social needs, as well as those of their family (third mechanism) (Marini 2022).

It is important to notice that this dynamic makes the presence of a vast reserve army of labor essential in the periphery. While this is a structural feature of capitalism as a whole (Marx 2013), in dependent societies its size must be necessarily greater to compensate for the accelerated depletion of labor power caused by superexploitation, ensuring a continuous supply of workers to sustain value production (Marini 2022: 139).

Thus, the categorical pair of value transfer and labor superexploitation share a causal relationship, in which the intensification of the former also intensifies the latter (Leite and Alves 2024). These two phenomena are at the core of dependency and remain observable today; despite conjunctural changes at lower levels of abstraction, dependency structurally persists, and so do these manifestations.

4. Dependent Financialization

According to contemporary MDT literature, the spread of financialization to the periphery of capitalism marks a new phase in the periodization of dependency (Amaral 2013; Amaral and Duarte 2010; Carcanholo 2008; Paulani 2021; Raposo et al. 2022; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021). This new phase is named in several ways, such as “financialized dependence” (Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021) but also as the “new coil in the spiral of dependency” (Raposo et al. 2022) or “dependency 4.0” (Paulani 2021).

Regarding the historicity of financialization in dependent capitalism, this literature identifies that the spread of financialization to dependent countries has reinforced their subordinate position in the global economy since the start of this process. This began in the 1970s when several Latin American countries incurred foreign debt as a result of increased international liquidity, which was driven by the need to recycle petrodollars. In 1979, dependent financialization was effectively initiated with the Volcker Shock; from that moment on, debts incurred throughout the decade soared, triggering the Latin American countries’ external debt crisis. The rolling over of these debts created a continuous need to attract external capital, which would then be supplied with financialized forms of investment, particularly as fictitious capital. The 1980s and 1990s marked a transition to a more intense phase of financialization in the periphery. In this context, many dependent countries implemented neoliberal counterreforms (such as capital market liberalization, financial deregulations, and privatizations) that, in sum, facilitated the reproduction of financial and fictitious forms. These measures, grounded in the diagnoses of the Washington Consensus and imposed by international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank—whether as conditions for debt renegotiation or the acquisition of new loans—were deemed necessary to curb inflation. At the same time, the maintenance of high interest rates further fueled the advance of financialization (Amaral 2013; Amaral and Duarte 2010; Paulani 2021; Raposo et al. 2022).

In this new phase of dependency, a key feature is the central role of public debt in driving financialization. Persistent indebtedness is sustained through high interest rates, which attract global investors (Brettas 2017; Martins 2018; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021). This contrasts with the dynamics seen in core countries, where financialization is majorly centered in capital markets and is supported by low interest rates (Brettas 2017: 64). The “maximal” state also plays a crucial role in managing public funds to ensure the maintenance and reproduction of spaces for financialized accumulation, as well as the continual implementation of neoliberal counterreforms (Raposo et al. 2022: 177).

As a result, the transfer of value is intensified through financial and fictitious forms—such as interest, dividends, debt service amortizations, as well as payments for the use of knowledge-commodities—gaining greater relative importance compared to other means of exchange (Amaral 2013; Amaral and Duarte 2010; Carcanholo 2008; Oliveira and Filgueiras 2020; Paulani 2021; Raposo et al. 2022). In other words, in this phase of dependency, transfer flows related to the profitability of capital as property (rent-seeking), and not as capital in function (invested in industry, trade), intensify (Paulani 2021: 26).

This impacts the superexploitation of labor, as it demands a higher level of compensation in “internal” accumulation compared to “external” losses (Amaral and Duarte 2010: 134). Nogueira (2016: 77) argues that with the predominance of fictitious capital over productive capital, growing difficulties in generating value or social wealth occur. In response, the superexploitation of labor increases. Similarly, the rise in the organic composition of capital, driven by technological innovations, reduces value production, further intensifying superexploitation as a compensatory alternative (Martins 2018: 477). Financialization also impacts the superexploitation of labor through the so-called “financial expropriation,”³ that is, by the way in which financialized expenses within families—growing and becoming more common with financialization—further reduce the already precarious consumption levels of workers, compromising the reproduction of the physical, psychological, and material conditions necessary for replenishing their labor power degradation (Raposo et al. 2022; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021).

It is argued that financialization unfolds differently in dependent countries compared to its manifestation in core countries (Amaral 2013: 90; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021). One aspect of specificity would be the growing external vulnerability of peripheral countries formed by this process. This vulnerability arises from their structural dependence on attracting capital to correct balance of payments imbalances, exacerbating external strangulation and fiscal fragility (Amaral and Duarte 2010). Another fundamental distinction is related to the subordinate position of Latin American currencies in the hierarchy of the global monetary and financial system. With the dollar occupying the dominant position and the United States acting as a capital importer, peripheral economies must maintain large international dollar reserves—both to shield themselves from fluctuations in the global economy and to reduce the costs associated with profit and dividend transfers—and sustain high interest rates to attract international capital (Nunes 2023; Paulani 2021; Raposo et al. 2022; Reis and Antunes de Oliveira 2021).

It is evident how this is a complicated dynamic, as “the price of access to international capital signifies an increasing impairment of the new value produced domestically with the remuneration of such capital, which, in turn, generates an increase in the need for these same foreign savings to maintain the balance of external accounts, and so on” (Paulani 2021: 31). Amaral and Duarte’s (2010) observations further describe this vicious cycle. When interest rates are raised to attract short-term fictitious capital, domestic debt increases, and productive investments and domestic consumption are discouraged. The continual deterioration of these conditions underscores the growing necessity to maintain fiscal surpluses—to cover debt interest and amortizations, and to restore confidence in the ability to meet these obligations—thereby reducing the capacity to promote public spending in essential areas. In this context, excessive reliance on financial and fictitious revenue makes these states highly susceptible to fluctuations in the global economy. When crises occur, all the mentioned dynamics are aggravated in a short period because of the panic triggered by capital flight (Amaral and Duarte 2010: 132–133).

Paulani (2021) argues that the main consequence for dependent countries trapped in this cycle is not merely the increase in value transfer, but the “constant coercion that these countries suffer, in the global competition for investments, as to the form of management of their macroeconomic policy. Only ‘well-behaved’ countries, those that ‘do their homework,’ are given consideration” (Paulani 2021: 31). This dynamic weakens the state, as its sovereignty and autonomy are undermined (Amaral and Duarte 2010). This means that in addition to the transfer of value, there is the reproduction of a process of subordination that is essential for maintaining the normal functioning of economic policies.

Still concerning the differentiation and specificity of financialization in dependent capitalism, Raposo et al. (2022: 178) argue that the continuous sustaining of capitalist accumulation in fictitious forms generates a structural tendency toward crises. In the context of dependent capitalism, these moments become even more severe as a result of the increased external vulnerability characteristic of this contemporary stage of dependency. Notable examples include the financial crises in Mexico in 1994, Brazil in 1999, and Argentina in 2001. In these situations, there was a decrease in value production, leading to an aggravation of the superexploitation of labor as a response, intensifying existing inequalities in these societies.

Furthermore, Carcanholo (2008: 261–62) points out a particular result in the combination of fictitious accumulation and superexploitation of labor in dependent capitalism, generating what he calls “virtuous accumulation” and “blocked accumulation.” When the surplus value generated by the superexploitation of labor is primarily appropriated by productive capital, it accelerates capital accumulation, resulting in what is referred to as virtuous accumulation. Conversely, when this surplus value is predominantly appropriated in financial and fictitious terms, it leads productive capital to shift away from production and toward the fictitious sphere. This, therefore, reduces the production of value, lowering the productive rate of profit, which characterizes a blocked capital accumulation. An example of this dynamic was the experience of Latin American countries in the 1990s:

In the few periods when fictitious capital was functional to capital accumulation, accelerating its rotation and financing productive investments, the economies presented minimal growth. However, for most of the period, the region exhibited a dynamic of blocked capital accumulation, in such a way that the increase in the rate of surplus value through the super-exploitation of labor did not translate into a faster pace of capital accumulation, because the financial appropriation by fictitious capital reduced the profit rates of productive capital, the main incentive for capital accumulation. The decade, more than a lost decade for the region, as it became known, combined the super-exploitation of labor with blocked capital accumulation. (Carcanholo 2008: 262, my translation)

Oliveira and Filgueiras (2020: 374) draw attention to the relationship between knowledge-commodities, financialization, and dependency. Historically, the very financing of knowledge and information markets in the 1980s was carried out with the help of the great financial liquidity available throughout the 1970s. Beyond this contribution of financialization to technology markets, there is an inverse contribution. As they argue:

Financialization itself is fueled by the growth of the “immaterialization” of company assets. This logic is essentially as follows: the greater the reduction in labor costs and the greater the monopoly price-setting power—this dual capacity reaches its peak with knowledge-commodities—the higher the company’s profitability, which in turn creates the basis for greater appreciation of its financial assets. This is an “endless” spiral: the greater the liquidity provided by financial markets, the greater the ability to invest in intangible assets protected by Intellectual Property Rights. (Oliveira and Filgueiras 2020: 374, my translation)

Therefore, a highly profitable feedback loop emerges between knowledge-commodities and fictitious capital, progressively deepening financialization and the commodification of knowledge. Since a significant share of globally utilized knowledge-commodities is monopolized by companies based in imperialist countries, their absorption by dependent economies results in a transfer of value. In this case, this transfer intensifies from the 1980s onward, propelled by the production of knowledge-commodities driven by financial markets. In other words, the relationship between knowledge-commodities, financialization, and value transfer is not entirely direct; it involves how financialization propels the dominance of such commodities, which increasingly aggravates the transfer of value from peripheral countries, which do not have monopoly over their production (Oliveira and Filgueiras 2020: 361–62).

The authors also point out that “the Knowledge Economy renews and deepens the dependent nature of peripheral capitalism and ends up historically reproducing the process of super-exploitation of labor” (Oliveira and Filgueiras 2020: 362, my translation). Although they do not address the relation between the “Knowledge Economy” and the superexploitation of labor in detail, based on Paulani (2022), it is possible to outline a notion of how this dynamic works. Starting from the understanding that there is an intertwined relationship between income-knowledge and financialization, the author argues that the so-called “platform economy”—composed of companies based on apps such as Uber—intensifies the superexploitation of labor in the periphery (Paulani 2022: 94). In other words, once again—in a not so direct way—it is pointed that financialization intensifies aspects of dependency; in this case, the superexploitation of labor is aggravated through specific forms of knowledge-commodities. This occurs because these platforms appropriate cheap labor in the periphery without formal employment ties, subjecting workers to intense and extended working hours with low pay, a combination that appears to encompass the three forms of superexploitation pointed out by Marini (2022).

5. Concluding Remarks

As noted in the introduction, financialization remains undertheorized within MDT. Nevertheless, this article demonstrates that certain contributions offer valuable starting points for further theoretical development, with the potential to significantly enrich insights about financialization in the periphery.

The findings emphasize how financialization marks a new stage of dependency, consolidated in the 1990s. A historical account of this process shows how financialization intensified the dependent aspect of peripheral capitalism. In this sense, this process manifests itself with specificities in the dependent countries, altering the composition and intensifying the structural transfer of value to the center. This, in turn, exacerbates the superexploitation of labor, as the two are causally linked. It takes on new dimensions under financialization, particularly linked with the mechanism of financial expropriation. In general, these dynamics point to a worsening of inequality, pauperization, and labor exploitation in peripheral economies—which, importantly, disproportionately affect women, Black, and Indigenous populations in the region (Antunes de Oliveira 2021).

Crucially, this article demonstrates how MDT contributes to the study of peripheral financialization by highlighting its subordinate history and specificities, as well as the connection between large-scale financialization processes and their detrimental effects on direct daily struggles of dependent societies through the categorical pair of value transfer and the superexploitation of labor. Expanding these insights would not only benefit MDT literature but also contribute to the broader literature on peripheral and subordinate financialization.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Débora Nunes and RRPE’s editor, Enid Arvidson, for their feedback and support. This article presents selected findings of a research conducted as part of the author’s master’s degree dissertation in International Relations at the Federal University of Bahia, under the supervision of Prof. Luiz Filgueiras, whose support the author gratefully acknowledges as well.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: It was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES; Finance Code 001).

ORCID iD

Francisco Luiz de Andrade Neto

1

That said, when the article refers to “periphery” or “dependent countries,” it specifically points to Latin America, aligning with the methodological and analytical scope of MDT.

2

It is important distinguish MDT from other peripheral perspectives about Latin American capitalism, especially Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto’s (1979) Weberian-institutionalist version of dependency theory and from the work of theorists associated with the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in the 1950s and 1960s. In this sense, see , section 2.

3

The notion of financial expropriation in MDT literature is based on Lapavitsas’s (2009) understanding of this phenomenon. In this regard, financial expropriation is a general feature of financialization, not restricted to the periphery. Although contemporary MDT literature identifies a connection between financial expropriation and the superexploitation of labor, its theoretical status within the theory is under debate, particularly regarding whether financial expropriation constitutes, in dependent countries, a new mechanism of super-exploitation or not (Nunes 2023; Amaral and Duarte 2023; ).

Author Biography

Francisco Luiz de Andrade Neto is a PhD student at the International Relations Graduate Program of the Federal University of Bahia (PPGRI-UFBA). His research interests include Marxist dependency theory, International Relations theory, uneven and combined development, and psychoanalytical approaches in International Relations.

References

Alami

Ilias

Alves

Carolina

Bonizzi

Bruno

Kaltenbrunner

Annina

Koddenbrock

Kai

Kvangraven

Ingrid

Powell

Jeff

. 2022. International financial subordination: A critical research agenda. Review of International Political Economy 30 (4): 1360–86.

Amaral

Marisa Silva

. 2012. Imperialism and dependency theories: The necessary update in light of financialization [Teorias do imperialismo e da dependência: a atualização necessária ante a financeirização do capitalismo]. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Economics, Administration, and Accounting at the University of São Paulo. Accessed at: https://doi.org/doi:10.11606/T.12.2012.tde-09102012-174024.

Amaral

Marisa Silva

. 2013. Brief comments on theories of imperialism and dependency in light of the financialization of contemporary capitalism [Breves considerações acerca das teorias do imperialismo e da dependência ante a financeirização do capitalismo contemporâneo]. Pensata 3 (1): 80–96.

Amaral

Marisa Silva

Henrique Evangelista Duarte

Pedro

. 2010. Neoliberalism and the dialectic of fictitious capital: The formation of a new pattern of dependency [Neoliberalismo e dialética do capital ﬁctício: a constituição de um novo padrão de dependência]. Leituras de Economia Política 13 (1): 111–38.

Amaral

Marisa Silva

Evangelista Duarte

Pedro Henrique

. 2023. Super-exploitation of labor: A methodological proposal of analysis [Superexploração da força de trabalho: uma proposta metodológica de análise]. Serviço Social & Sociedade 146 (3): 1–19.

Amaral

Marisa Silva

Traspadini

Roberta

. 2023. The theoretical void in Latin American critical thought: Dependency theory as its highest expression [O vazio teórico no pensamento crítico latino-americano: a teoria da dependência como ápice da elaboração sobre o continente]. Anais do XXVII Encontro Nacional de Economia Política. Accessed at: https://enep.sep.org.br/uploads/1308_1647106039_ArtigoSEP_COM-Identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_pdf_ide.pdf.

Antunes de Oliveira

Felipe

. 2019. The rise of the Latin American far-right explained: Dependency theory meets uneven and combined development. Globalizations 16 (7): 1145–64.

Antunes de Oliveira

Felipe

. 2021. Who are the super-exploited? Gender, race, and the intersectional potentialities of dependency theory. In Dependent Capitalisms in Contemporary Latin America and Europe, eds. Aldo

Madariaga

Palestini

Stefano

, 101–30. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

Bambirra

Vânia

. 1978. Dependency Theory: A Counter-Critique [Teoria de la Dependencia: una anticrítica]. México, DF: Era.

10.

Bambirra

Vânia

. 2013. The Latin American Dependent Capitalism [O capitalismo dependente latino-americano]. Florianópolis, Brazil: Insular.

11.

Bonizzi

Bruno

Kaltenbrunner

Annina

Powell

Jeff

. 2022. Financialised capitalism and the subordination of emerging capitalist economies. Cambridge Journal of Economics 46 (4): 651–78.

12.

Brettas

Tatiana

. 2017. Dependent capitalism, neoliberalism, and the financialization of social policies in Brazil [Capitalismo dependente, neoliberalismo e financeirização das políticas sociais no Brasil]. Temporalis 17 (34): 53–76.

13.

Carcanholo

Marcelo Dias

. 2008. Dialectics of peripheral development: Dependency, super-exploitation of labor, and economic policy [Dialética do desenvolvimento periférico: Dependência, superexploração da força de trabalho e política econômica]. Revista de Economia Contemporânea 12 (2): 247–72.

14.

Carcanholo

Marcelo Dias

. 2013. The current critical revival of Marxist dependency theory [O atual resgate crítico da teoria marxista da dependência]. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde 11 (1): 191–205.

15.

Cardoso

Fernando Henrique

Enzo

Faletto

. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

16.

Costantino

Agostina

Laterra

Patricia

. 2017. The Marxist theory of dependency from a feminist perspective: An analysis of abortion laws worldwide [La teoría marxista de la dependencia desde una mirada feminista: un análisis sobre las leyes sobre aborto en el mundo]. Cadernos Cemarx 10 (1): 151–74.

17.

Dos Santos

Theotônio

. 1970. The structure of dependence. The American Economic Review 60 (2): 231–36.

18.

Dos Santos

Theotônio

. 2000. Dependency Theory: Assessments and Perspectives [A Teoria da Dependência: Balanços e perspectivas]. Florianópolis, Brazil: Insular.

19.

Katz

Claudio

. 2020. Dependency Theory 50 Years Later [A Teoria da Dependência 50 anos depois]. São Paulo, Brazil: Expressão Popular.

20.

Lapavitsas

Costas

. 2009. Financialised capitalism: Crisis and financial expropriation. Historical Materialism 17 (2): 114–48.

21.

Leite

Leonardo

Alves

Mattheus

. 2024. Unequal exchange, terms of trade deterioration, and super-exploitation: What are the causal links? [Troca desigual, deterioração dos termos de troca e superexploração: quais os nexos causais?] Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Política 68 (1): 43–71.

22.

Lenin

Vladimir

. 2021. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism [Imperialismo, estágio superior do capitalismo]. São Paulo, Brazil: Boitempo.

23.

Luce

Mathias Seibel

. 2018. Marxist Dependency Theory: Problems and Categories, a Historical Perspective [Teoria Marxista da Dependência: problemas e categorias, uma visão histórica]. São Paulo, Brazil: Expressão Popular.

24.

Marini

Ruy Mauro

. 2022. The Dialectics of Dependency. New York: Monthly Review Press.

25.

Martins

Carlos Eduardo

. 2018. Marxist dependency theory in light of Marx and contemporary capitalism [A Teoria Marxista da Dependência à luz de Marx e do capitalismo contemporâneo]. Caderno CRH 31 (84): 463–81.

26.

Marx

Karl

. 2013. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, volume 1: The Process of Production of Capital [O capital: crítica da economia política: livro 1: o processo de produção do capital]. São Paulo, Brazil: Boitempo Editorial.

27.

Nogueira

Camilla

Santos

dos

. 2016. The historical forms of the super-exploitation of labor and the dialectic of Latin American dependency [Las formas históricas de la superexplotación de la fuerza de trabajo y la dialéctica de la dependencia latinoamericana]. Cuadernos de Economía Crítica 3 (5): 61–82.

28.

Nunes

Débora Machado

. 2023. Imperialism in the financial capital era: Forgotten contributions from Marxist dependency theory. Review of Radical Political Economics 56 (1): 5–22.

29.

Oliveira

Elizabeth Moura

Filgueiras

Luiz

. 2020. The political economy of knowledge [A economia política do conhecimento]. Economia e Sociedade 29 (2): 359–83.

30.

Palludeto

Alex

Wilhans

Antonio

André Rodrigues

Felipini

. 2019. Overview of the financialization literature (1992–2017): A bibliometric approach [Panorama da literatura sobre a financeirização (1992–2017): uma abordagem bibliométrica]. Economia e Sociedade 28 (2): 313–37.

31.

Paulani

Leda Maria

. 2021. Dependency 4.0: Theoretical considerations and the Brazilian case. Latin American Perspectives 49 (2): 24–38.

32.

Paulani

Leda Maria

. 2022. Dependency revisited: Trade relations, the 4.0 phase, and the case of Brazil [A dependência revisitada: Relações de troca, a fase 4.0, e o caso do Brasil]. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Política 64 (3): 68–106.

33.

Prado

Fernando Correa

. 2011. The history of a non-debate: The trajectory of Marxist dependency theory in Brazil [História de um não-debate: a trajetória da Teoria Marxista da Dependência no Brasil]. Comunicação & Política 29 (2): 68–94.

34.

Raposo

Bruna

Filho

Niemeyer Almeida

Amaral

Marisa Silva

. 2022. The pattern of capital reproduction in dependent and financialized capitalism. Latin American Perspectives 49 (1): 166–81.

35.

Reis

Nadine

Oliveira

Felipe Antunes de

. 2021. Peripheral financialization and the transformation of dependency: A view from Latin America. Review of International Political Economy 30 (2): 511–34.

36.

Selis

Lara

. 2018. Clandestine Infiltration: The question of difference in Latin American thought [Infiltração clandestina: a questão da diferença no pensamento latino-americano]. Carta Internacional 13 (2): 171–94.

37.

Souza

Cristiane Luiza Sabino de

. 2023. The inseparability between racism and the super-exploitation of labor power in dependent capitalism [A indissociabilidade entre racismo e superexploração da força de trabalho no capitalismo dependente]. Serviço Social & Sociedade 146 (1): 16–35.

38.

Wasserman

Claudia

. 2017. Dependency Theory: From National-Developmentalism to Neoliberalism [A teoria da dependência: do nacional-desenvolvimentismo ao neoliberalismo]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: FGV Editora.