EDITORIAL FOR VOL 48, 2021, ISSUE 167 – SPECIAL ISSUE

Samir Amin and beyond: the enduring relevance of Amin´s approach to political economy

Ushehwedu Kufakurinani
Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven
Maria Dyveke Styve

In moments of great uncertainty there is refuge to be found in the work of intellectual titans like
Samir Amin. After the sad news of his passing in August 2018 in Paris, aged 86, we began thinking
about how best to explore the enduring relevance of his analysis and concepts to make sense of
contemporary crises. As we face the prospects of devastating long-term social and economic
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amin’s work inspires thinking that combines rigorous
research with a commitment to radical change. In one of his latest writings, Amin (2018, 10)
implores that the “challenge today is [...] not to attempt moving out of the crisis of capitalism, but
to start moving out of capitalism in crisis.” Indeed, from the cyclical depressions through history
to COVID-19 induced lockdowns throughout the world, capitalism has been in incessant crises.
Amin’s ability to weave together thorough analysis of the polarising effects of capitalism with
concrete political projects for an international radical left makes his work particularly relevant in
our quest to understand capitalism, its particularities across the world, and oppositions to it. There
is a younger generation of scholars that is particularly hungry for Amin’s perspectives, one that
came of age in a time where the universities have been thoroughly marketised and moulded by
neoliberal processes, and where intellectual production and debates are not necessarily embedded
within social struggles. The pertinence and analytical heft of Amin’s critique of capitalism may be
particularly important in the contemporary period marked by the interconnected crises related to
COVID-19, Black Lives Matter, the climate emergency, and looming debt crises across the
periphery. In the years ahead, confronting these multiple and intertwined crises will require the
kind of commitment to combining research with political engagement that Amin demonstrated.

This special issue seeks to stimulate critical engagement with Amin’s work from a range of
perspectives, and to show how his concepts and ways of thinking continue to inspire today. We
are not offering any definite answers or a comprehensive overview of Amin’s wide-ranging and
vast intellectual oeuvre. Rather we want to open up a space, across disciplines and generations, to
reflect on how Amin’s work challenges our thinking, and how his approach and concepts can be
used, critiqued and expanded in various contexts. For Samir Amin’s account of his personal
journey and how and why his Marxism develops in the way it does see his two volume
autobiography (Amin 2006; 2019a).

Amin pushes us to think creatively in structural, temporal, and political ways that often defy
disciplinary boundaries. The combination of truly global perspectives with analysis that is finely
contextualised within particular geographical locations, and mindful of the complex nature of
political conflicts and different class interests, makes his contributions to dependency theory
especially rich. His ability to show how development and underdevelopment are inextricably
intertwined, or “two sides of the same coin” (Amin, 2018, 9), while pushing beyond any simple
dichotomies, makes his work inspiring to many of us that are critical of mainstream development

1
narratives. The articles in this issue illustrate precisely how some of Amin’s key concepts allow
for a type of analysis that can weave together a critical and structural longue durée approach with
an examination of social, economic and political conditions that are rooted in a particular place
and time. It is also clear from the contributions in this issue that Amin’s (2018) insistence on the
embedded nature of imperialism in contemporary capitalism continues to be an inspiration, as is
his notion of delinking in order to promote national sovereign projects (Amin 1990).

The Enduring Relevance of Amin’s Approach

As we demonstrate in this special issue, Samir Amin’s work opens up many interesting entry points
from which to explore the contemporary world. While he developed many concrete concepts (law
of worldwide value, unequal exchange, eurocentrism - to name but a few!) and shed light on many
concrete issues (e.g. barriers to autonomous industrialisation, monetary dependence,
decolonisation), we believe his method of inquiry is the aspect of his work that is the most enduring
and that holds the most promise for driving radical political economy in his spirit forward.

In line with this, we highlight four key methods of inquiry that are of fundamental importance: 1)
thinking structurally, 2) thinking temporally, 3) thinking politically, and 4) thinking creatively.

Thinking structurally

At a time when much of social science has come to be centered around either methodological
individualism or methodological nationalism – the notions that individuals and nation states,
respectfully, are the most relevant units of analysis – , Amin’s attention to global structures, that
underpin an international system of exploitation, is a much needed contrast. We would like to draw
attention to two key structures of importance for Amin, namely the structure of the global economy,
and the structural prejudice of eurocentrism which distorts social theories.

Taking the structure of the global economy as a starting point led Amin to explore concepts such
as core-periphery relations, imperialism and unequal exchange. Amin (1974) recognised that the
global capitalist system is polarising and that the polarisation between the centre and the periphery
was a key part of this. Note that Amin went beyond thinking only in core-periphery terms - which
dependency theorists are often critiqued for - as he identified a range of classes of importance
across both the core and periphery, including the imperialist bourgeoisie of the core, the proletariat
in the core, the dependent bourgeoisie of the periphery, the proletariat of the periphery, the
peasantries of the periphery and the oppressive classes of the non‐capitalist modes of production
(Amin 2010, see also Ghosh in this issue).

Moreover, it is easier to understand the complexity and the systemic nature of the structures that
Amin points to, by taking a holistic and transdisciplinary approach. This led him to argue:

“The only possible science is the science of society, for social reality is one: it is never
"economic" or "political" or "ideological," etc., even though social reality can be
approached, up to a certain point, from a particular angle—that of any one of the
traditional university disciplines (economics, sociology, political science).”
Samir Amin, 1974: 5.

2
This is why this special issue does not limit itself to economic analyses, but cuts across disciplinary
boundaries to draw on insights from history, politics, gender studies, and decolonial studies. It is
also important to note that thinking structurally does not mean thinking deterministically. While
Amin was ‘capable of a very high level of abstraction’ and some could see his characterisations as
sweeping (Ghosh, this issue: p xx), he was always ready to adapt his categories and understandings
as the world changed, and his understanding of how outcomes were shaped was first and foremost
dialectic - which led him to critique World Systems Theory for being static and for prioritising
global relations over domestic (Kvangraven 2017).

Macheda and Nadalini apply structural thinking in their article for this special issue, as they show
how Amin’s work offers a theoretical basis to demystify narratives about how China opened up to
the global economy. Their investigation into how China was able to integrate itself into the global
economy without abandoning its strategy of delinking from imperialism opens up space for further
research and theorising about how different strategies for national development can be anti-
imperialist. Furthermore, Fatimah Musthaq’s and Ndongo Samba Sylla’s articles in this special
issue apply a structural way of thinking about financial and monetary dependencies. Mushtaq
explores how Amin’s work on imperialist rent can be extended to understand financial
dependencies and hierarchies in a financialised global economy, while Sylla explores Amin’s
approach to the monetary mechanisms and functioning of the banking sectors in peripheral
countries which contribute to keeping them underdeveloped, with a specific focus on the CFA
Zone.

Identifying eurocentrism as a structural prejudice allowed Amin (1988/2009) to show how social
theories disguise the imperialist and racist foundations of the capitalist system. This is important
because it allows us to see that the Enlightenment values and promise of rationality and
universality are actually heavily biased and founded on a colonial and racist project. This is key
for understanding why societies cannot develop by imitating the West. While Amin critiques how
European claims to universalism were intimately tied to conquest and ideas about superiority, he
also advances the idea that other humanist forms of universalism are possible and necessary; “at
the level of the elaboration of a universal human project allowing the supersession of the historical
limits of capitalism itself” (Amin, 2009, 102).

Generally, eurocentrism has been taken as an important starting point for scholars who build
further on Amin as well as critics. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (this issue), for example, revisits Marxism and
decolonisation via the legacy of Amin to re-evaluate Amin’s critical Marxist political economy in
the context of epistemology, to unmask racism and the trans-historic expansion of colonial
domination. Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s exploration of how this shapes patterns of domination and
decolonial endeavours, demonstrates the rich discussions that can be engaged with about
epistemology, decoloniality, decolonisation and eurocentrism using Amin as a starting point. This
is particularly relevant now as many social science disciplines are finally forced to reckon with
their colonial origins and consider what decolonising the curriculum and the university means.

3
Thinking temporally

Thinking temporally was key for Samir Amin’s understanding of the world, and more specifically,
thinking in longue durée terms. Amin identifies himself as being a part of the school of global
historical materialism, in which he sees the historical spread of global capitalism as key to
understanding the polarisation between the core and periphery (Kvangraven 2017). This is an
important entry point for exploring contemporary problems, because it opens the door for
analyzing how imperialist relations have historically and contemporarily shaped the possibilities
for development in the Global South. In this issue, Jayati Ghosh lays out how Amin’s approach to
imperialism remains relevant across key axes such as technology, finance, and the search for and
effort to control new markets, despite changing global configurations such as the ‘rise’ of the
BRICS.

Perez's and Sylla’s articles in this special issue are also particularly good illustrations of how a
historical perspective is important for understanding contemporary problems. For example,
Perez’s explanation of the East Asian ‘miracle’ starts from how those countries developed
historically and geopolitically. Perez also demonstrates how China’s contemporary delinking must
be understood by starting from their attempt at socialist delinking in 1949, and the complex battle
between statist, capitalist, and socialist forces that played out since then. Similarly, Sylla’s article
shows how the colonial origins of the CFA is key for understanding how it operates today. Tracing
the history of the CFA also makes it painfully clear why defending the monetary status quo for
Amin amounts to defending the perpetuation of the old colonial order.

Thinking politically

In line with Marx’s (1988:65) famous phrase, interpreting the world is important, but ‘the point,
however, is to change it,’ Amin never shied away from admitting that his work was driven by
political ambitions to change the world. We find this inspiring and necessary at a time where the
economics field in particular likes to cloak itself in deceitfully ‘objective’ language, even though
knowledge production in the social sciences is necessarily ideological.

In Amin’s book on Delinking (1990), he provides a tangible and critical assessment of ways to
promote autonomous development in the periphery. Far from any call for autarky, delinking entails
“the refusal to submit national-development strategy to the imperatives of ‘globalization’” (Amin
1987, 435) and the promotion of popular and auto-centered development rather than unilaterally
adjusting to the demands of the global economic system. Both Perez’ and Macheda and Nadalini’s
articles in this issue, which center on delinking strategies, demonstrate how social science research
is often used for political ends given how Chinese and East Asian delinking strategies are often
misunderstood (or miscommunicated) in mainstream narratives about their ‘success’.

Thinking creatively

Finally, it is important to be creative in the way we apply Amin’s method to understand social
phenomena. Amin (2010) called himself a ‘creative Marxist’, by which he meant he would start
from, rather than to stop at Marx. We find this approach from Amin to be particularly relevant to
understand contemporary problems and especially from a Global South perspective. Starting from

4
Marx allows for an understanding of class struggle, exploitation, and the polarising tendencies of
capitalism, while going deeper into inequalities associated with imperialism, sexism and racism.
Amin started this work, but we believe it is relevant to go beyond Amin. Indeed, we find it relevant
to start from Amin, not to stop at Amin.

Beyond Samir Amin

Several contributions to this special issue take Amin as a starting point for further exploration and
theoretical development. Some also point in the direction of key critiques that have been leveled
at Amin’s work, notwithstanding his powerful and incisive theoretical and analytical interventions
on how developing economies relate with the North. We would like to first highlight key areas
where this special issue encourages going ‘beyond’ Amin’s original work in order to explore
contemporary problems or issues that Amin may have missed, before reflecting on how his work
will live on ‘beyond’ his own lifetime.

In terms of fruitful areas where Amin’s work can be extended, challenged, and further developed,
we focus on gender, ecological destruction, the role of the state in shaping autonomous
development, financialisation, and eurocentrism.

First of all, although Amin himself did not include gender in his analysis (indeed, his analysis had
glaring blind spots related to gender), his analysis can be enriched and extended to include gender
hierarchies and a fuller recognition of gender’s place in the mode of production. Catherine Scott’s
article in the special issue is crucial for opening this door to understanding both the limitations to
Amin and how gender can be approached from within his framework of analysis. She asks, for
example, how gender may be included in analyses of delinking and the importance of discussions
about relations in the households when considering how a revolution may occur.

Secondly, in a historical moment where we cannot speak about autonomous industrialisation

without considering ecological destruction, the need to explore how the two are interrelated and
both shaped by imperialism is more important than ever. Max Ajl’s article in this special issue
starts from Amin’s theories of ecology to make broader analyses of the currents of ecological
dependency that developed out of North African dependency analysis. He shows how Amin’s
theoretical framework can be connected to that of Mohamed Dowidar, Fawzy Mansour and
Slaheddine el-Amami and their advancement of the case for smallholder-centred national
development. Given the urgent need to tackle climate change, its imperial characteristics, and the
uneven geographical impacts of the destruction it causes, Amin’s framework serves as a useful
starting point for thinking about ecological unequal exchange. As Ajl writes, ‘If Amin could not
see the entirety of the necessary developmental path, he still illuminated its borders with a brilliant
radiance...’ (p. xx).

Furthermore, given the partial retreat and limited autonomy of the peripheral state in the context
of the increasing power of international finance (Patnaik 2018), Amin’s view of the state’s power
to delink and stimulate auto-centric industrialisation must be scrutinised. We appreciate Ndlovu-
Gatsheni’s contribution here, as he takes Amin as a point of departure while also somewhat
diverging from Amin’s political orientation towards the nation state. He points to Amin’s
commitment to a polycentric world as a departure point towards de-imperialisation,
deracialisation, depatriarchisation, decorporatisation, detribalisation and democratisation, where

5
the core is the internationalism of the people, not of the states. This is important in light of recent
critiques of Amin’s conceptualisation of delinking as a process that holds the state as the locus of
change (e.g. Robinson 2011).

Similarly, Fatimah Mushtaq’s work adapts Amin’s categories to a financialised global economy,
as she explores how imperialist rent is not limited to labour arbitrage but also includes financial
arbitrage. Her article thus provides ‘an updated understanding of dependency in the context of
financialisation,’ (p. X) as she centers financial factors to demonstrate how they contribute to
reproducing global inequalities and the periphery’s subordinate position. This is of particular
relevance given the important role that capital flows, interest rates, and exchange rates play in
reproducing subordinate relations today.

What’s more, Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s work on decoloniality (in this issue and beyond) shows the need
for decolonial knowledge production in order to break with eurocentric approaches, which is
especially important given that Amin’s work on Eurocentrism has itself been criticised for
demonstrating economic reductionism (e.g. Mazama 1995). This is yet another area where we
believe Amin opens the door for important reflections and debates about how racism,
eurocentrism, and capitalism are intertwined, but that we must move beyond his initial reflections
to broaden the debates about how racism and imperialism shape society.

Amin’s work was published in the very first issue of ROAPE in 1974. It was a powerful
intervention that set out his model of the global accumulation of capital. He was interviewed for
this journal in 2014 and again in 2017 when he stressed the continued need for socialist analysis
of the continent. Both discussions with Amin highlighted his immense knowledge of global
dynamics of capitalism, how they were impacting on Africa, what lessons could be learnt from
comparative experiences of underdevelopment, including his many trips to China and crucially,
how Africans were struggling to develop alternative agendas for development. That was something
that had been at the core of his life and for 30 years he was the Director of Third World Forum,
Dakar where he helped set practical and intellectual agendas for socialist transformation on the
continent engaging with the recognition, among other things, that the revolutionary forces for
social transformation would likely emerge from peasants and small holder farmers rather than an
industrial working class (Amin & Bush 2014; Amin & Zeilig 2017, see also ROAPE 2018). We
therefore see ROAPE as being a natural home for this issue, and we are very grateful to the ROAPE
editors for their fantastic support in bringing it to fruition.

To conclude, we hope this Special Issue will inspire more scholars to engage with Amin’s ideas
and also explore their relevance for emerging social and political problems. We believe it is
important to ensure that Amin’s thinking, both in terms of concrete theoretical developments and
in terms of thinking structurally, politically, temporally and creatively, survive beyond his lifetime.
To this end, the articles contained in this special issue show how Amin’s work continues to inspire
incisive scholarship on development, dependency and delinking in our contemporary world. In
particular, Amin’s methods of inquiry provide avenues towards doing research that transverses
disciplinary boundaries and that aims to interrogate the social world as a whole. Notwithstanding
important critiques of Amin’s work, the articles in this issue engage with his core concepts and
demonstrate both their potency and how they can be creatively expanded and built upon. Amin’s

6
legacy provides a lighthouse for those who not only want to understand the world, but
fundamentally change it, by combining rigorous scholarship with political commitment and action.

References

Amin, Samir.1974. Accumulation on a World Scale. Sussex: Harvester Press.

Amin, Samir. 1974a. ‘Accumulation and Development: a theoretical model’, Review of African
Political Economy 1, 9-26

Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral
Capitalism. Translated from the French by Brain Pearce. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Amin, Samir.1977. Imperialism and Unequal Development. New York, Monthly Review Press.

Amin, Samir. 1987. “A Note on the Concept of Delinking.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 10
(3): 435–44.

Amin, Samir. 1990. Delinking: Towards a Polycentric World. London: Zed Books.

Amin, Samir. 1988/2009. Eurocentrism (2nd Edition). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Amin, Samir. 2006. A Life Looking Forward. Memoirs of an Independent Marxist. London. Zed
Press.

Amin, Samir. 2010. The Law of Worldwide Value. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Amin, Samir. 2014. Capitalism in the Age of Globalization — The Management of Contemporary
Society. London: Zed Books.

Amin, Samir. & Ray Bush, 2014a. ‘An Interview with Samir Amin’ Review of African Political
Economy vol41, no.S1, S108-S114

Amin, Samir. & Leo Zeilig, 2017. ‘Revolutionary Change in Africa: An interview with Samir
Amin’ roape.net 16 March, https://roape.net/2017/03/16/revolutionary-change-africa-interview-
samir-amin/
Amin, Samir. 2018. Modern Imperialism, Monopoly Finance Capital and Marx Law of Value.
New York: Monthly Review Press.

Amin, Samir. 2019. "Keynote Address at the Second World Congress on Marxism: Beijing, PRC,
5–6 May 2018." Critical Sociology 45 (1):7-11.

Amin, Samir. 2019a. The Long Revolution of the Global South. Toward a New Anti-Imperialist
International. New York. Monthly Review Press.

7
Kufakurinani, Ushehwedu, Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven, Frutuoso Santanta and Maria Dyveke
Styve. 2017. Dialogues on Development Volume 1 — On Dependency. New York: Institute for
New Economic Thinking.

Kvangraven, Ingrid Harvold. 2017. “Samir Amin — A Dependency Pioneer.” In Dialogues on

Development Volume 1 — On Dependency, edited by Ushehwedu Kufakurinani, Ingrid Harvold
Kvangraven, Frutuoso Santanta and Maria Dyveke Styve, 12–17. New York: Institute for New
Economic Thinking.

Mazama, Ama.1995. “Review of Eurocentrism.”Journal of Black Studies, 25 (6):760-764.

Patnaik, Prabhat. 2018. “Reflections on contemporary capitalism.” In Sen, Sunanda and Maria
Cristina Marcuzzo (Eds) The Changing Face of Imperialism. New York and Oxford: Routledge.
Pages 15-36.

Review of African Political Economy 2018 ‘A Rebel in the Marxist Citadel: Tributes to Samir
Amin
https://roape.net/2018/08/21/a-rebel-in-the-marxist-citadel-tributes-to-samir-amin/

Smith, Sheila (1980) “The ideas of Samir Amin: Theory or tautology?” The Journal of
Development Studies, 17:1, 5-20.

Robinson, Andrew .2011. “Delinking”, An A-Z of theory Samir Amin (Part 2),
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-amin-2/ accessed 27 December 2020.