National Politics, International Dependency,

and Basic Needs Provision: A Cross-National

Analysis

BRUCE LONDON, Clark University

BRUCE A. WILLIAMS, University of Kentucky

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Abstract

In this article we investigate the impact of selected political and economic processes on
the well-being of domestic populations in samples of 41 to 110 nations. More specifically,
we assess the impact on basic needs provision of regime ideology, state strength,
multinational corporate investment, trade dependency, and position in the world
economy. Our analysis synthesizes a literature that has focused on either international
economic or intranational political processes but has not explored the relationship
between them. In particular, we extend the work of Moon and Dixon (1985) by
examining the impact on basic needs provision of both regime characteristics and state
strength, which they did investigate, and the penetration of multinational corporations,
trade dependency, and position in the world economy, which they did not.

Concern with basic needs provision originated with development economists in

the 1970s (cf. I.L.O. 1977; Hicks 1979; Hicks & Streeten 1979), when it had
become clear that economie growth in many nations was not associated with
improved living standards for most people, especially in less developed
countries (LDCs). In other words, there seemed to be a contradiction between
economic growth and the specific distribution of social resources, suggesting
that development should be measured in terms of social as well as economic
output. "Such a focus supplements attention to how much is being produced, by
attention to what is being produced, in what ways, for whom and with what
impact" (Hicks & Streeten 1979:577; emphasis in original). Thus much debate
turns on disagreement over who benefits from economic growth if and when it
occurs. In attempting to answer this question a number of scholars developed
indicators of basic needs provision that contain more information about the
distribution of social resources than do extant measures of either economic
growth or income inequality, and measurement of basic needs is now Been as an
important complement to these measures.

*Direct correspondence to Bruce London at the Departinent of Sociology, Clark University,

Worcester, MA 01610.

© The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, December 1990, 69(2):565-584
566 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

Quantitative research on basic needs (e.g., Dixon 1985; Moon & Dixon 1985)
has relied primarily on the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) developed by
Morris (1979), which combines measures of infant mortality at age one, literacy
rates, and life expectancy. It measures as directly as possible actual conditions
existing in the general population and may be seen as an indicator of the
outcome of political and economic processes operating within a given nation.
There is, however, serious debate over the reliability and validity of the
PQLI (see esp. Hicks & Streeten 1979:576-77). Indeed, definition and measure-
ment of terras such as "quality of life" or "basic needs" are always controversial
and resist scholarly consensus. Adopting an approach very different from that
of Morris, Estes (1984) developed the Index of Net Social Progress (INSP) by

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

combining 41 different indicators of the following dimensions: education
progress, health status, women s status, defense effort, economic growth,
demographic conditions, political stability, political participation, cultural
diversity, and welfare effort. The INSP differs from the PQLI both theoretically
and methodologically. Rather than identifying a small number of theoretically
predefined indicators, as the PQLI does, the INSP defines basic needs as an
essentially multidimensional concept and employs a large number of indicators
that are factor-analyzed and weighted to produce a single index. While the two
indices are highly correlated (see below), 1 their theoretical interpretations differ.
In contrast to the PQLI, the INSP measures the inputs of political and economic
processes in addition to actual population conditions. The INSP may be seen as
a measure of effort, especially by government, to provide basic needs, whereas
the PQLI measures only results. 2
We conduct parallel analyses using both composite indices of basic needs in
an attempt to explore the possibility that relationships might change with the
measures chosen. If the results of these parallel analyses are mutually suppor-
tive, confidence in the findings will be enhanced. If they are not, careful
attention must be devoted to explanation and interpretation of the discrepancies
(see London & Williams 1988).

The Determinants of Basic Needs Provision

Inquiry into the determinants of basic needs provision is an extension of the

more general and highly charged debate over the impact of economic and
political processes on economic growth and domestic well-being. Defenders of
free-market capitalism argue that private markets allocate the scarce resources
of societies best, maximizing levels of economic growth and standards of living.
No matter how well-intentioned, government spending is undertaken at the
expense of the private sector and tends to slow economie growth and to lower
living standards. Although government redistribution of resources aimed at
correcting the inequalities created by private markets may reduce income
inequality, it is likely to slow economic growth and ultimately to leave everyone
worse off in absolute terms. This problem is particularly severe in the least
developed nations, where dramatically increased income inequality may have
to be tolerated before substantial economic growth and reductions in :inequality
can occur. In such nations, the temptation for government to reduce inequalities
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 567

through redistribution is severe, despite its long-term drawbacks. 3 Thus some

scholars argue that rapid economie growth is best achieved through limited
government and maximum reliance on private-market forces.
Leftists — specifically, Marxist theorists — argue that private-market
capitalism leads to uneven and distorted development. Though certain sectors
may benefit (in particular, the capitalist classes), others are left behind, and
standards of living may actually decline for the majority of a nation's popula-
tion. Marxists contend that such inequality is a necessary result of capitalist
development. Reformists argue that government expenditure can play a positive
role in economie growth by redistributing income from those who have
benefited from development to those who have not. Indeed, some theorists

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

argue that such expenditures, because they forestall mobilization of the
discontented, may be a requirement of regime stability. While many question
even the possibility of sustained, balanced growth under capitalism, others
argue that it cannot occur without substantial government expenditures.
Moon and Dixon (1985) make an important contribution to this literature by
examining the impact on basic needs provision of regime ideology, level of
democracy, and state strength (government expenditures as a proportion of
GNP) in 116 nations. As conservative theorists predict, they find (controlling for
level of economie development) a negative relationship between state strength
and basic needs provision. This relationship, however, masks an interaction
between regime ideology and state strength: streng right-wing regimes tend to
depress basic needs provision, whereas streng left-wing states tend to enhance
it. Furthermore, level of democracy is a consistent positive predictor of basic
needs provision.
These are important findings because they contradict the assumptions of
conservative theorists that "big government," because it competes with private-
sector investments, tends to retard a population s well-being. Government
spending per se does not determine slow economie growth; rather, ideology as
it affects the policies governments pursue with public funds is of primary
importance. Streng left-wing regimes are able to better allocate a nation s
resources, at least in terms of the factors measured by the PQLI used by Moon
and Dixon.
Though they break new ground, Moon and Dixon do not consider certain
factors that may significantly affect their results. Specifically, they do not
examine the effect on basic needs provision of the relationship between
international economie and intranational political variables. Thus they do not take
into account a growing body of work by dependency/world-system theorists
that suggests that the functioning of the international economy and a natiori s
position in it significantly affect the provision of basic needs.
To test competing predictions about the international determinants of
national growth, scholars have attempted to measure the empirical relationship
between levels of dependency (cf. Chase-Dunn 1975) or world-system position
(cf. Snyder & Kick 1979) and economie growth in developing nations. Central to
this literature is the benchmark work of Chase-Dunn (1975), who has found
foreign penetration of peripheral nations associated with not only slow
economie growth but also greater income inequality. Though there are many
problems with measures of inequality, particularly in developing nations, these
568 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

findings suggest that penetration of foreign capital, while benefiting a small

elite, may actually lower the quality of life for much of the population,
regardless of the effect such investment has on overall economic growth 4 .

Dixon's (1985) work is also relevant in this regard. Using data for 72 LDCs
from 1960 to 1980 to assess the effect of trade concentration dependency on
economic growth and basic needs, he argues that measures of welfare perfor-
mance (i.e., basic needs) must be examined alongside conventional indicators of
economic performance, such as GNP and income inequality, because the latter
"reflect only potential welfare, not actual achievement" (p. 764). Furthermore,
the possibility that trade dependency has both indirect (through its impact on
the general economy) and direct effects (independent of economic factors) on

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

welfare can only be examined by juxtaposing analyses of basic needs provision
with those of economic growth. He finds that trade concentration dependency
"does have a weak depressing effect on growth but no direct influence on basic
needs" (p. 764).
Though much, but by no means all, of the quantitative analysis of these
issues supports a dependency/world-system perspective, it has been criticized
for ignoring the interaction of international economic and intranational political
processes. Chirot (1981:259) notes that dependency and world-system theorists
shifted the focus of analysis from the study of "modernization" toward that of
"international power relations." He asserts that "this neglects internal causes of
social change just as surely as the earlier modernization theorists ignored the
importance of world politics and unequal exchange between different econo-
mies." By rejecting the interval focus of conventional theorists, dependen-
cy/world-system proponents have generally concentrated exclusively upon a
staté s position in the world economy, ignoring undeniably important internal
characteristics of peripheral nations (e.§., regime characteristics and ideology as
examined by Moon and Dixon [19851).
The consequence of failing to consider both international economic and
intranational political factors as determinants of basic needs provision may be
highlighted by comparing the findings of London and Williams (1988) with
those of Moon and Dixon (1985). Though London and Williams do examine the
impact of levels of political protest (largely negligible) on basic needs provision,
they focus primarily upon dependency and world-system position without
including the important political variables examined by Moon and Dixon. While
the latter find a strong positive relationship between regime ideology, state
strength, democracy, and basic needs, the former find a strong negative
relationship between penetration by multinationals and basic needs. Comparing
these results suggests at least three possibilities. First, the findings of London
and Williams may be misleading because multinationals tend not to invest in
nations with strong left-wing regimes: their measure of penetration may simply
be a surrogate for regime ideology and state strength. Second, Moon and
Dixon's findings may be misleading. If left-wing regimes tend to keep mul-
tinationals out, it may be this and not regime ideology or state strength per se
that accounts for the relationship they report. Further, because they do not
examine the significante of world-system position (i.e., they examine all nations
in a single analysis), one cannot be sure of the stability of these findings across
groups of core, peripheral, and semiperipheral nations. Finally, both sets of
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 569

findings may be accurate but incomplete because international economie and

internal political processes exert simultaneous independent effects on basic
needs provision.
It seems clear that analysis of the dynamics of basic needs provision would
profit from simultaneous consideration of both intranational political and
international economie processes. Analysts who investigate either the political
or the economie determinants of basic needs provision clearly imply, albeit
without explicitly theorizing, certain relationships between economie and
political processes. As we have seen, however, those who have attempted to
empirically test competing theoretical claims about the determinants of basic
needs provison have usually included either economie or political variables in

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

their analysis. We attempt in our analysis to address some of these issues by
analyzing both political and economie determinants of basic needs provision.
The most efficient way to achieve this goal — one that ensures the com-
parability of our results with already published results — is to use Moon and
Dixon's model as a baseline for replication and to add to it measures of the
important international economie predictors suggested by London and Williams.

Data and Hypotheses

DEPENDENT VARIABLES: PQLI AND INSP

As noted above, we employ two different indices of basic needs provision in

our analysis. The Physical Quality of Life Index, used by Moon and Dixon
(1985), is computed for 1970 and taken directly from Morris (1979). 6 The Index
of Net Social Progress combines 41 different indicators of ten dimensions of
domestic well-being. The index is computed for 107 nations with ca. 1970 data
and taken directly from Estes (1984).'
Though they rely on different component measures, the two indices are
nevertheless highly correlated: for the entire sample of nations, the Pearson
correlation is .84; for all noncore nations (i.e., peripheral and semiperipheral
nations), it is .79; and for peripheral nations alone, it is .81. Despite these high
correlations, when employing both indices in a study of the econome deter-
minants of basic needs provision, London and Williams (1988) find that results
differ somewhat by index. Thus there is evidence that the two indices tap
somewhat different underlying dimensions of basic needs provision. Whereas
London and Williams do not explicitly analyze the reasons for these variations,
however, we attempt to in our analysis.
Aside from method of construction, the two indices differ most in the
degree to which their components reflect actual conditions in the general
population as opposed to the policy commitments of government. The PQLI is
composed entirely of the former sort of indicators (infant mortality, literacy
rates, and life expectancy) and may be characterized as an index of human
capital outcomes of both political and economie processes. The INSP, on the
other hand, includes indicators of government effort — including spending —
across a broad spectrum of policies (e.g., welfare effort, political stability,
education progress, defense effort) in addition to measures of the effect of such
effort.
570 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

We expect that because it includes variables directly manipulatable by

government, the INSP will be more sensitive than the PQLI to regime charac-
teristics (of the sort used by Moon and Dixon). Left-wing governments, for
example, may be able to devote greater resources to welfare policies than right-
wing regimes. This difference will be reflected in the INSP even if such
expenditures have little effect on actual conditions in the population (e.g., infant
mortality or life expectancy). Actual levels of population well-being are likely to
be a function of the economic conditions prevailing in the country. Hence, to the
extent that government efforts operate only indirectly (i.e., through their impact
on economic conditions) upon population well-being, we expect measures of
world economie positron and foreign penetration to be better predictors of the

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

PQLI than of the INSP.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Dependency
Many measures of dependency have been used in quantitative cross-national
research: trade dependency, such as export partner concentration and export
commodity concentration; foreign trade structure; debt dependency; and, of
course, investment dependency. However, a measure explicitly designed to
assess a nation's level of transnational corporate penetration taps the most
appropriate dimension of the complex process of dependency, given the
changing nature of international economie exchanges or core-peripheral relations
during the last two or three decades. Cardoso (1973), Cardoso and Faletto
(1979), and Evans (1979) argue that the tendency of transnational firms to invest
in industrial production in the periphery makes it necessary to draw a dis-
tinction between classical dependency (characterized primarily by peripheral
production of raw materials for core consumption) and a newly emergent form
of dependent industrialization (termed "the new dependency" by dos Santos
[1970]). Bornschier and Chase-Dunn (1985:51-52), for example, present evidence
that between the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s peripheral countries became less
dependent in terms of such indicators of classical dependency as export
commodity concentration and an index of vertical trade (which measures the
degree to which a country's trade is composed of raw materials rather than
manufactured goods). Their data show, however, that for the same period
"dependence on transnational corporate investment increased significantly...
[Thus] ... transnational corporations and international financial agencies have
been displacing traditional trade dependence as the main form of core periphery
domination" (Bornschier & Chase-Dunn 1985:51-52). Including an indicator of
multinational penetration may be crucial for investigating the effects of
international economie processes on basic needs provision, since it is one of the
changes in the world economy most frequently mentioned by dependency
theorists.
In this regard, note that Dixon (1985) does not use such a measure but
focuses instead on more traditional measures of trade dependency, which could
account for his finding that dependency has no direct influence on basic needs.
Indeed, a recent study of dependency and fertility (London 1988) finds a
measure of multinational penetration to be a significant predictor of LDC
fertility-rate change between 1965 and 1984, while two measures of classical
 National Polities and Basic Needs Provision / 571

dependency (foreign trade structure and commodity concentration) are not

significant.
Following Moon and Dixon (1985), our study is essentially cross-sectional,
focusing on ca. 1965-1970 data. And, since the shift to the new dependency was
only in its early stages at this time, we examine the effects of indicators of
classical dependency on basic needs in addition to those of multinational
penetration. In other words, we treat the appropriateness of different measures
of dependency as an empirical question by examining several series of equations
that each include different measures of dependence.
We measure investment dependency, or the penetration of an LDC's
economy by multinational corporations, ca. 1967.8 This measure is an indicator

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

of transnational corporate penetration, computed by taking the square root of
the product of (a) the stock of capital controlled by foreign direct investment as
a proportion of the total capital stock of the country and (b) the stock of capital
controlled by foreign direct investment divided by the total population of a
country. Thus the investment dependency measure estimates the shares of both
a nation's capital and its labor controlled by core-based transnational cor-
porations. It is logged to correct for skewness.
If the logic of neoclassical economie theory is correct, one would expect to
find a positive relationship between multinational penetration and our depen-
dent variables. In this view, countries best able to attract foreign capital should
experience greater economie growth and, concomitantly, increased levels of
basic needs provision. On the other hand, if dependency theorists are correct,
multinational penetration should be associated with lower levels of basic needs
provision: the distorted development argument. If our arguments are correct
about the underlying dimensions of basic needs tapped by the two indices,
penetration would be expected to have a greater effect than regime characteris-
tics on the PQLI and a lesser ene on the INSP.
To test if a measure of the new dependency is more appropriate than
measures of classical dependency, equations are examined that substitute
measures of foreign-trade structure and commodity concentration in exports in
1965 for the measure of multinational penetration. Foreign-trade structure is the
composition of a nation's total foreign trade measured by the degree traded
goods are processed (Bornschier & Heintz 1979:109-12). Low scores indicate high
export of raw materials and high import of processed goods, i.e., classic trade
dependency. Hence finding significant positive regression coefficients for
foreign-trade structure would support dependency theory.
Commodity concentration is the value of a nation's most important export
commodity measured as a percentage of its total exports (Bornschier & Heintz
1979:97-98). According to dependency theory, high levels of such concentration
are expected to inhibit the ability of nations to compete in world markets. Thus
significant negative coefficients for commodity concentration would also support
dependency theory.

World-Systern Position
To examine the effect of world-system position on the determinants of basic
needs provision, we run each of our analyses on three separate samples of
nations: all nations for which data are available (the approach adopted by Moon
572 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

and Dixon) 9; all noncore nations — all nations classified as peripheral or

semiperipheral in Bollens (1983) revision of Snyder and Kick's (1979) measure
of world-system position; and all nations classified by Bollen as peripheral.' o
A basic assumption of those working within the worid-system framework
is that different developmental dynamics operate in countries depending upon
their position in the world economy. In contrast, neoclassical economics tends
to place little emphasis on such differing positions. From the former perspective,
economic growth and basic needs provision would be expected to be much
more adversely affected by the penetration of foreign capital in noncore nations
than in core ones. Bornschier and Chase-Dunn (1985) relate position in the
world economy to our measures of investment dependency and the new

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

dependency: "A particularly strategie aspect of the relationship of individual
countries to the structurè of the world-economy is whether or not a country
takes part in the control of that economy by being an important headquarters
location of transnational corporations" (1985:13). Yet only a small number of
core nations serve as headquarters to transnationals. Though these nations are
also penetrated by multinational investment, the impact of such investment is
positively influenced by their core position and control over investment derived
from the presence of corporate headquarters within the boundaries of state
authority. Noncore nations, which are also penetrated by multinationals, do not
exercise control over these firms and thus suffer adverse consequences. Finally,
socialist countries, though integrated into the world economy, have been little
penetrated by transnationals 11
Because of disagreement in the literature about the effect of position in the
world system, it seems prudent to test any set of results by analyzing stability
across core, peripheral, and semiperipheral nations. 12

State Strength
As we note above, one of our primary purposes is to compare the impact of
regime (political) characteristics and economic variables on basic needs
provision. To insure comparability with other work, we take our measures of
regime characteristics from the analysis of Moon and Dixon. Indeed, as
emphasized above, our work is essentially a replication of Moon and Dixon's
that adds an international dimension to their models.
While some conservative theorists argue that an increase in the size and
strength of government is undertaken at the expense of the private sector, many
other scholars view government spending as an important corrective to the
undesirable effects of private-market activity. In this view, increased state
strength is associated with greater levels of basic needs provision 13
Following Moon and Dixon, we use as an indicator of state strength the
percentage of the GNP accounted for by central government expenditures
averaged over the three-year period 1969-1971 (U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency 1980). We log this measure to control for skewness 14

Democracy and Regime Ideology

Moon and Dixon employ two additional indicators of regime characteristics.
First, a measure of the degree of democracy in a nation is used to test the
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 573

degree to which freely elected and open regimes respond to popular demands
for the provision of basic needs. Second, to assess the effect of ideological
orientations, independent of the way in which regimes are selected, Moon and
Dixon include a measure of the ideological norms of the ruling regime.
Again, we include in our analysis the same measures used by Moon and
Dixon. First, Bollen s (1980) index of political democracy is used to measure
degree of democracy. Varying between 0 and 100, this measure is a composite
index based upon six indicators: freedom of the press, government sanctions,
tolerance of political opposition groups, fairness of elections, methods of
selecting executives, and methods of selecting legislators. To lessen the effects
of sudden changes, this measure averages observations from 1960 and 1965. 15

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Second, to measure regime ideological norms, Blondel's (1969) classification of
regime ideologies into seven types is collapsed into three categories: leftist,
rightist, and centrist regimes. In the actual analysis, an effects coding procedure
is employed: left- and right-wing regimes are the two represented in the effect-
coded variables (left regime norms and right regime norms). 16

Level of Economic Development

As is standard in such analyses, we control for the great variation among
nations in existing levels of aggregate wealth. Following Moon and Dixon and
others, we use Morris's (1979) measure of 1970-1975 per capita GNP, which we
log to correct for skewness.

Findings

To insure the comparability of our findings, 17 we first compare our results with
the estimates reported by Moon and Dixon in their model of the political
determinants of basic needs provision. Table 1 (columns 1, 2, 3, 6, 7,10, and 11)
reports the results of this comparison for the basic model (without terms for the
interaction of state strength and regime norms). (Note that column 1 simply
displays the findings reported by Moon and Dixon.) For both indicators of basic
needs provision, parameter estimates (as measured by the standardized
coefficients) and explained variance are similar, despite slightly different sample
sizes (see Appendix for a list of the countries we include in our sample).
Indeed, even the subsamples of peripheral and noncore nations produce results
similar to those of Moon and Dixon. Columns 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13, which
introduce our measure of multinational corporate penetration, show evidence
that regime norms may be acting as a surrogate for penetration of multinational
corporations. In all six equations, regardless of the basic needs indicator,
penetration has a significant18 negative effect and regime norms (left and right)
are no longer significant. 19 As dependency theorists predict, controlling for level
of economic development, multinational penetration is significantly associated
with lower levels of basic needs as measured by both the PQLI and the INSP.
Further, introduction of the penetration measure does not dramatically affect the
impact of the index of democratization: regardless of the sample or index of
basic needs, democracy is associated with increased levels of basic needs.
Our findings must remain tentative with respect to the effect of world-
574 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

TABLE 1: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Development, State Strength,

Democracy, Regime Ideological Norms, and Investment Dependency

All Nations
Moon & Dixon
PQLI PQLI INSP PQLI INSP
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Level of development .72** •74** .78** •74** .75**
State strength -.12** -.11** -.13** -.12** -.11*
Democracy .24** .21** .14* .29** .20**

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Left regime norms .28** .25** .27** -.02 .04
Right regime norms -.24** -.23** -.23** .05 -.04
Investment dependency - - - -.31** -.23**
R2 na .72 .72 .78z .74fl9
Adj. R2 .71 .70 .70 .77 .72
N 116 110 100 102 99

*B is at least 1.5 times its standard error. **B is at least twice its standard error.

system positron. Recall that we expected, based upon this perspective, that the
effect of dependency upon transnational corporate investment would be more
adverse for peripheral and semiperipheral nations than for core ones. The
findings indicate that investment dependency is slightly more negative for all
noncore nations than for peripheral nations alone, indicating that the adverse
effects of penetration are greater for semiperipheral than peripheral nations.
This could indicate, if confirmed in other analyses, that the negative effects of
such investment dependency increase initially as nations are integrated further
into the world economy. Moreover, the dependency coefficients for the sample
of noncore nations are slightly more negative than for the entire sample,
indicating that, as the world-system approach implies, the impact of penetration
on core nations (included in the latter sample) is less adverse than on noncore
nations. While these patterns are generally constant throughout our analyses
(see Tables 2 and 3), they must be interpreted cautiously, given the small
magnitudes of the differences and our reluctance to run the regressions on core
nations alone because of the small sample size.
Recall also that we argued that multinational penetration would be
associated more strongly with the PQLI than with the INSP. Support for this
prediction is indicated in our examination of the increment to R2 attributable to
the penetration measure. 22 Though penetration is significant for both indicators
of basic needs (albeit less so for the INSP equations), the increment in explained
variance attributable to penetration is significant only for the PQLI equations
(columns 4, 8, 12). Thus, consistent with our predictions, while investment
dependency is significantly associated with both indicators of basic needs, its
effect is stronger with the PQLI.
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 575

TABLE 1: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Development, State Strength,

Democracy, Regime Norms, and Investment Dependency (Continued)

All Noncore Nations Peripheral Nations

PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
.76** .76** .79** .74** .81** .76** .85** .74**
-.18** -.23** -.23** -.22** -.27** -.28** -.28** -.24**
.24** .14* .33** .22** .19** .20* .28** .29**

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

.27** .35** -.03 .07 .19* .23* .01 .04
-.27** -.29** .03 -.05 -.17* -.14 .01 .01
- - -.38** -.31** - - -.28** -.24*
.65 .62 •74Z .65` 5 .61 .58 .72x .61ns
.63 .60 .72 .63 .58 .53 .68 .56
93 84 85 83 59 53 55 53

x Increment to R2 p<.05 Z Increment to R2 p<.01 "a Increment not sig.

Table 2 further compares our results with those of Moon and Dixon by
introducing terms that measure the interaction between state strength and
regime norms: right regime * strength and left regime * strength. These equations
reproduce Moon and Dixon's most important findings by demonstrating that
the interaction between regime norms and state strength, not simply the size of
government, accounts for greater or lesser basic needs provision: strong left-
wing regimes are associated with higher levels of basic needs provision, strong
right-wing reqimes with lower levels. Once again, column 1 reproduces Moon
and Dixon's equation, and columns 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 indicate that, despite
slight differences in sample size, our results are similar for the entire sample of
nations, regardless of the dependent variable employed. The only difference
worth noting is that for the two regime norm coefficients (right regime norms and
left regime norms). When Moon and Dixon added the interaction terms to their
original equations, the two regime norm estimates actually changed signs
(1985:682; compare our Table 1, eq. 1, with Table 2, eq. 1). In our analysis the
signs do not change (compare Table 1, eq. 2, with Table 2, eq. 2). Moreover, our
findings of a positive left effect and a negative right effect are consistent in all of
the equations in Table 2 that exclude investment dependence. 23
Even when we break the sample down into noncore and peripheral nations,
the results remain largely consistent with those of Moon and Dixon, except that
the coefficient for strong left-wing regimes (left regime * strength) drops below
significance in the INSP equation for peripheral nations (column 11). But the
sign stays positive, and this finding may simply be a result of the smaller
sample size for this equation.
Columns 4, 5, 8, 9,12, and 13 add our measure of multinational penetration.
576 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

TABLE 2: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Political and Economie V'ariables

Including First-Order Interaction Terms and Investment Dependency

All Nations
Moon & Dixon
PQLI PQLI INSP PQLI INSP
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Level of development .72** •73** •75** •75** .73**
State strength -.07 -.06 -.07 -.07 -.07
Democracy .22** .20** .18** .27** .22**
Left regime norms -.20 .18** .19* -.06 .01

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Right regime norms •50** -.23** -.22** .02 -.07
Left regime * strength .45** .19** .23** .15** .20**
Right regime * strength -.71** -.27** -.28** -.22** -.25**
Investment dependency - - - -.27** -.19**
RZ n/a .76 .75 .81z .77fl9
Adj. R2 .75 .74 .74 .79 .74
N 116 110 100 102 99

*B is at least 1.5 times its standard error. **B is at least twice its standard error.

The penetration measure remains significant and negative for all equations
regardless of the dependent variable; at a given level of economic development,
multinational penetration is associated with lower levels of basic needs
provision. The terms for rightist and leftist norms are not significant, and state
strength is only significant for two equations - with the PQLI for noncore
nations (column 8) and with the INSP for peripheral nations (column 11). Most
importantly, in all equations the interaction terms remain significant.
Again, the positive impact of democracy on the provision of basic needs is
a stable finding throughout the anlaysis. Regardless of world-system position,
the index of basic needs used, or the inclusion of the multinational penetration
measure, level of democracy remains a significant positive indicator of basic
needs. Thus, where institutions of popular representation are present, regimes
make a greater effort at (as measured by the INSP) and achieve better :results in
(as measured by the PQLI) providing for the general well-being of the popula-
ion.
Examination of the increment to R2 attributable to investment dependency
again provides support for our argument that the PQLI is more likely to be
affected by economie variables than is the INSP. The increment for dependency
is significant for two of the three PQLI equations but for none of the INSP
equations.
Beyond these differences in the indices, the most significant finding to
emerge is the stability of both the international economic and intranational
political determinants of basic needs provision. 24 Our results remain re:markably
constant (in terms of the magnitude of the coefficients, significance levels, and
variance explained) regardless of the sample or index of basic needs provision.
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 577

TABLE 2: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Political and Economic Variables

Including Interaction Terms and Investment Dependency (Continued)

All Noncore Nations Peripheral Nations

PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
.73** .72** .78** .71** .79** .72** .85** .71**
-.08 -.10 -.14* -.12 -.12 -.19* -.13 -.18
.22** .17** .31** .22** .16* .23** .24** .30**

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

.15 .17 -.09 .01 .12 .18 -.06 .04
-.24** -.21* .02 -.06 -.22* -.22 -.04 -.08
.23** .32** .17* .26** .18* .11 .17* .07
-.30** -.31** -.22** -.26** -.36** .28* -.34** -.23*
- - -.31** -.22* - - -.21** -.21*
.70 .67 .76z .68n5 .68 .61 .76n5 .63'
.68 .64 .74 .65 .64 .55 .72 .57
93 84 85 83 59 53 55 53

X Increment to R 2 p<• 05 Z Increment to RZ p<. 01 n' Increment not sig.

Multinational penetration and the interaction of state strength and regime

norms are not surrogates for each other but rather exert independent and
consistent effects on basic needs provision. Thus strong right-wing and strong
left-wing regimes exert, respectively, significant negative and positive effects on
basic needs provision over and above the significant negative effect of mul-
tinational penetration.
Table 3 reproduces the models presented in Table 2 only (to save space),
with one basic change: measures of foreign-trade structure and commodity
concentration, respectively, are substituted for the measure of multinational
penetration. The pattern of results found in Table 3 is similar to that found in
Table 2 (see esp. equations 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13). Specifically, the interaction
terms and the measure of democracy are significant in most equations, and both
measures of classical dependency have significant or near significant, direct
harmful effects on basic needs provision in all but one of the equations. 25 The
addition of measures of foreign-trade structure and commodity concentration to
Moon and Dixon's original models, however, never yields a significant
increment to R2; in contrast, the addition of the measure of multinational
penetration provides a significantly better fit for some PQLI equations. This
could indicate that, even though both classical and new forms of dependency
had direct effects on basic needs provision ca. 1965-1970, the salience of the new
dependency was becoming apparent.
The overall findings indicate that the simultaneous inclusion of both
intranational political and international investment dependency variables
578 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

TABLE 3: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Political and Economic Variables

Including Interaction Terms and Measures of Classical Dependency

All Nations
PQLI INSP PQLI INSP
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Level of development .69** .71** .65** .66**
State strength -.09* -.06 -.07 -.05
Democracy .18** .19** .17** .18**
Left regime norms .10 .13 .09 .04

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Right regime norms -.09 -.19** -.13 -.12
Left regime * strength .12* .14* .11 .20*
Right regime * strength -.21** -.18** -.21** -.24:**
Foreign-trade structure .17** .06 - -
Commodity concentration - - -.23** -.151**

R2 .80' .78`9 .79m .7°ins

Adj. R2 .78 .76 .76 .72
N 87 84 83 80

*B is at least 1.5 times its standard error. **B is at least twice its standard error.

provides a significantly better fit, especially for the PQLI, than that provided by
roodels that include only one or the other. However, the stability of the
regression coefficients when such indicators are added also indicates that both
the findings of London and Williams and those of Moon and Dixon are reliable.

Conclusions

Our results add several theoretical and methodological insights to the study of
the determinants of basic needs. First, they increase confidence in the findings
of both dependency theorists, who have focused primarily upon economic
processes, and scholars like Moon and Dixon, who have focused primarily upon
political processes. When both economic and political variables are included in
the same analysis, the findings with respect to several dependency measures,
democracy, and the interaction of state strength and regime norms remain stable
and consistent. Confidence in the reliability of these results is heightened by
their stability across not only different subsamples but also alternative indices
of both dependency and basic needs provision. Further, differences we do find
in the variance explained by economic and political indicators are consistent
with our theoretical interpretation of these alternative indices, thus increasing
our confidence in their validity and our findings.
Despite stability in the coefficients for political variables, however, the
significant increase in the variance explained when multinational penetration is
added to the PQLI equations indicates that the inclusion of both economic and
political processes enhances the fit of the model. This seems to indicate that
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 579

TABLE 3: Regression of Basic Needs Indices on Politica! and Economie Variables

Including Interaction Terms and Classical Dependency (Continued)

All Noncore Nations Peripheral Nations

PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP PQLI INSP
(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
.72** .72** .68** .67** .78** .67** .82** .55**
-.18** -.13 .02 .07 -.17* -.15 .14 -.07
.24** .21** .19** .18* .16* .28** .08 .26**
.02 .08 -.17 -.29 -.05 .07 -.34 .00

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

-.08 -.18* -.02 .09 -.06 -.17 .14 -.19
.16* .23* .33* •57** .13 .04 .44* .12
-.20** -.20* -.38** -.47** -.27** -.17 -.58** -.34
.28** .13a - - .26** .18* - -
- - -.24** -.13b - - -.29** -.23*
.76" .68' .72m .63" .777 .7099 .75S .58n&
.72 .63 .67 .57 .72 .63 .69 .48
65 63 62 60 44 42 43 41

Increment to RZ is not significant. a B = 1.442(SEB) b B = 1.414(SEB)

variables that measure international economie and internal political processes

are not surrogates for each other but rather tap somewhat independent
processes that affect basic needs provision. In other words, national and
international dynamics are so interpenetrating in the modern world system that
any analysis that disregards the effect of either set of factors is seriously
deficient (see London & Smith 1988).
At a more general level, we find strong support for dependency theory. Our
results are also somewhat ambiguous with respect to our interpretation of
world-system theory's implications for our measure of dependency. While the
differences in the impact of the dependency measure between samples are in
agreement with this theory, these results must remain tentative pending more
direct testing. On the other hand, the tables do reveal a striking consistency in
the direction and magnitude of almost all independent variables across differing
samples. We find no support for the conservative arguments that smaller
government, right-wing government, multinational penetration, or trade
dependency actually result in increased well-being for the general population.
Finally, to us one of the more important and consistent results (both within this
analysis and between it and Moon and Dixon's) is the significant positive
impact of democracy on basic needs provision. Democratie institutions seem-
ingly do make a dramatic difference in the well-being of a nation s populace,
regardless of regime type, position in the world economy, or level of investment
dependency.
580 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

Notes

1. London and Williams (1988) report nonsignificant correlations of -.38 between the Gini index
of income inequality and the PQLI and -.20 between Gini and the INSP. These modest
correlations affirm that analyses of basic needs provision complement rather than simply
replicate analyses limited to income distribution alone.
2. Questions might also be raised about the desirability of combining separate indicators into
a single index of basic needs provision. If basic needs is a multidimensional concept, creation
of a composite index might mask important, complex, detailed, and potentially countervailing
relationships among the separate indicators (Nicks & Streeten 1979). London and Williams

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

(1988) analyze the determinants of many of the components of the two indices. Though they
find some differences in the determinants of the various indicators, the general consistency of
their findings suggests that employing composite indices is initially useful.
3. Olson (1982) applies a similar argument to developed nations, suggesting that the build-up
in stable political systems of large numbers of interest groups, all with established claims on
government resources, can ultimately slow economic growth dramatically.
4. For a comprehensive literature review, see Bomschier and Chase-Dunn (1985, esp. chap. 5).
5. For a notable exception, see Snyder and Kick's (1979:1011) explicit argument that develop-
ment is "a joint function of exogenetic and ontogenetic variables."
6. For the computation procedures, see Morris (1979:126-27).
7. For the computation procedures, see Estes (1984:17-42).
8. This measure is available for 103 nations in Bomschier and Chase-Dunn (1985:59-61). They
do not include 8 socialist countries in their analysis: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East
Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Poland, and the Sovjet Union. We follow Bornschier and
Heinz (1979), who, in their Zurich data set, list these 8 nations with a penetration score of 0.
9. There is a slight discrepancy between Moon and Dixon's sample of 116 nations and our
sample of 110. The six cases not included in our analysis are Angola, Burma, Congo, Guinea,
Luxembourg, and Mozambique. All except Burma are deleted because we could not compute
the state strength variable due to missing data for 1970. Moon and Dixon included these cases
by using data for the "closest available years" when it was not available for 1969-1971. We
delete these cases both because it seems the more conservative methodological strategy and
because Moon and Dixon do not make it clear which years they used. Burma is deleted
because the democracy measure for 1965 is missing. Rather than substituting the available 1960
measure (which we assume Moon and Dixon did; see note 15), we dropped this case because
a 1960 measure is much earlier than all other data points in the study. As our resu]ts indicate,
the Toss of six cases does not appreciably affect our ability to replicate Moon and Dixon's
findings.
10. Snyder and Kick (1979:1110, 1114) examine four types of international networks: trade
flows, treaty memberships, military intervention, and diplomatic relations. They "block model"
these networks and find nine "blocks" of nations, which are collapsed into the core, periphery,
and semiperiphery categories typical of world-system theory. Bolleri s (1983:473-76) revision is
based on a careful analysis of partial regression plots of residuals. He discovers six outliers,
argues that they represent a misclassification of countries in Snyder and Kick's procedures, and
supports his argument with historical data. As a result, Spain, Portugal, and South Africa are
reclassified from the core to the semiperiphery, and Taiwan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are moved
from the semiperiphery to the periphery.
11. Operating from a different perspective, Barnet and Mueller (1974) are much less sanguine
about the possibilities for controlling multinational investment decisions, even in core nation
states.
12. Ideally, we would test the differing impact of multinational penetration by directly
comparing core, peripheral, and semiperipheral nations. But the very small number of core
nations that operate as headquarter sites for multinationals (about a dozen, according to
Bomschier and Chase-Dunn [1985]) makes this statistically unfeasible. Consequently, we can
only indirectly test this proposition by comparing the magnitude of coefficients between our
 National Politics and Basic Needs Provision / 581

three samples and inferring the relationships among core nations. Unfortunately, this analysis
proves inconclusive.
13. For a discussion of this literature, see Moon and Dixon (1985:665-68).
14. Though Moon and Dixon do not log this measure, we feel doing so is appropriate since the
skew of the variable equals .84 and kurtosis equals .65. In addition, a reviewer noted that for
a substantial number of countries the centra! fiscal authority accounts for less than 80% of total
tax revenue, the rest of centra! govenunent revenues and expenditures being made up from
local sources. This may compromise the cross-national comparability of the measure, so results
should be interpreted with caution.
15. Here again, because of our more conservative treatment of missing data, our sample differs
somewhat from Moon and Dixon's. Because of missing data, averaging Bolleri s index for 1960
and 1965 produces a much smaller number of cases than the 116 reported by Moon and Dixon.

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Apparently, when one or the other measure was missing, they substituted the single available
data point. We follow this practice only when the 1960 measure was missing and we could
substitute the more recent 1965 measure for the average. In the case of Burma, however, where
the 1965 measure was missing, we dropped the case entirely.
16. According to Cohen and Cohen (1975:191), effect coding is "particularly appropriate with
nominal scales when each group is most conveniently compared with the entire set of groups,
rather than with a single reference group, as is facilitated by dummy variable coding."
17. A reviewer pointed out that, by replicating Moon and Dixon's (1985) study to ensure
comparability, we produce an essentially cross-sectional analysis. Much empirical cross-national
work, however, employs panel regression analysis. Following London and Williams (1988), we
also examined a series of panel equations. Other than the extremely high coefficients for the
lagged dependent variables, few significant effects were found, which suggests that our models
are unable to predict dzange in basic needs provision over time, perhaps because of the
relatively short lag (aproximately 1970-1980) and the corresponding high correlations between
the basic needs measures at the two points in time (for PQLI, r - .96 for N = 95; for INSP, r
.95 for N = 99).
18. In analyses of this type, where the units of analysis are large aggregates and the number of
cases relatively small, the ratio of the unstandardized partial regression coefficient to its
standard error is the most reliable guide to interpreting the significance level of coefficients
(Pedhazur 1982:242-43). Coefficients are considered significant if the unstandardized coefficient
is at least 1.5 times the size of its standard error. This approximates a .10 level of significance
(see London & Smith 1988:458-59).
19. As Moon and Dixon (1985:679) note, the interpretation of the effect coefficient needs some
explication. Unlike dummy-coding, which compares the included variables to only a selected
reference group excluded from the equations, effect coding compares a variable to all other
groups taken together. Thus, in this instante, the insignificant coefficients for left and riglit
mean that, controlling for all other variables, the PQLI and INSP scores for right-wing and left-
wing regimes are not significantly different from the mean of the three group means (i.e., the
mean of right-wing, tentrist, and left-wing regimes).
20. Because of recent discussions and demonstrations of the importante of influential cases in
analyses of this sort (Dietz et al.1987; Muller 1986), it is prudent to carry our analysis one step
further. We examine equations 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 in Table 1 for the sensitivity of parameter
estimates to one or more influential cases by following the procedure used by Muller (1986),
who notes that "Cook's D is a summary measure of the extent to which a data point is
influential" (p. 441). Using the regression diagnostics available in SPSS (see Hull & Nie 1981:94-
121), we find an unusually high value of Cook's D in equation 13 only, in which Libya has a
Cook's D of .41. Moreover, Libya is the most extreme outlier in the sample (studentized
residual = -3.08). The deletion of this case causes an increase in R 2 from .61 to .69. There is little
change, however, in either the magnitude or patterns of significance of the parameter estimates.
Thus this analysis of influential cases gives more evidente of the stability of our basic findings.
21. An examination of bivariate correlations supports these observations. Investment
dependence is most highly correlated with the PQLI and the INSP in the sample of all noncore
nations (r - -.32 and -.35, respectively). The corresponding correlations for all nations (r = -.23
and -.23) and peripheral nations only (r = -.16 and -.14) are considerably lower.
582 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

APPENDIX: Countries Included in the Analysis, with World-System Position'

Afghanistan (P) Honduras (P) Peru (SP)

Algeria (P) Hungary (SP) Philippines (SP)
Argentina (SP) Iceland (P) Poland (P)
Australia (C) India (SP) Portugal (SP)
Austria (C) Indonesia (P) Romania (SP)
Barbados (U) Iran (SP) Rwanda (P)
Belgium (C) Iraq (P) Saudi Arabia (P)
Benin (P) Ireland (SP) Senegal (SP)

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

Bolivia (P) Israel (SP) Sierra Leone (P)
Brazil (P) Italy (C) Singapore (U)
Bulgaria (SP) Ivory Coast (P) Somalia (P)
Burundi (P) Jamaica (P) South Africa (SP)
Camaroon (P) Japan (C) Spain (SP)
Canada (C) Jordan (SP) Sri Lanka (SP)
Cen. Afric. Rep. (P) Kenya (SP) Sudan (P)
Chad (P) Korea, North (P) Sweden (C)
Chile (P) Korea, South (SP) Switzerland (C)
Colombia (P) Laos (P) Syria (P)
Costa Rica (P) Lebanon (SP) Taiwan (P)
Cypress (SP) Liberia (P) Tanzania (U)
Czechoslovakia (P) Libya (P) Thailand (P)
Denmark (C) Malawi (U) Togo (P)
Dominican Rep. (P) Malaya (SP) Trinidad (P)
Ecuador (P) Mali (P) Tunisia (P)
Egypt (P) Mauritania (P) Turkey (SP)
El Salvador (P) Mexico (P) Uganda (P)
Ethiopia (P) Morocco (P) U.S.S.R. (SP)
Finland (SP) Nepal (P) United Kingdom (C)
France (C) Netherlands (C) U.S.A. (C)
Gabon (P) New Zealand (P) Upper Volta (P)
Germany, East (SP) Nicaragua (P) Uruguay (SP)
Germany, West (C) Niger (P) Venezuela (S?)
Ghana (P) Nigeria (P) Yemen, North (P)
Greece (C) Norway (C) Yugoslavia (C)
Guatemala (P) Pakistan (SP) Zaire (P)
Guyana (U) Panama (P) Zambia (U)
Haiti (P) Paraguay (P)

a (C) - Core; (SP) - Semiperiphery; (P) - Periphery; (U) - Unclassified by Snyder & Kick.
The "Unclassified" countries are included in equations for all noncore nations, but are
excluded from equations for peripheral nations because there is not enough information
to assign them to this category.
 National Polities and Basic Needs Provision / 583

22. The procedure for calculating the significance of the increment to R 2 is taken from Cohen
and Cohen (1975:135-37).
23. We attribute the sign reversal to problems inherent in Moon and Dixon's sample and
specification (see notes 9 and 15).
24. An analysis of influential cases was conducted for equations 4, 5, 8, 9,12, and 13 in Table
2 (see note 20). Influential cases were found in equations 5 (Israel; Cook's D - .57; Studentized
residual - -3.52), 9 (Israel; Cook's D - .58; Studentized residual - 1.36), 12 (Mali; Cook's D -
1.07; Studentized residual - 1.36), and 13 (Libya; Cook's D - .38; Studentized residual - -2.69).
Israe! and Mali were also found to have high Mahalanobis distance scores, indicating unusual
scores on the independent variables. These equations were rerun with the indicated cases
deleted. Once again, parameter estimates and patterns of significance remained remarkably
stable, reinforcing our initial interpretations and conclusions.

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

25. As with the equations in Tables 1 and 2, each equation in Table 3 was examined for
influential cases. While there were some influential cases in some equations, corrective
procedures again yielded littie change in either the magnitude or patterns of significance of the
parameter estimates, providing further evidence of the stability of our basic findings.

References

Bamet, Richard, and Ronald Muller. 1974. Global Readi: The Power of Multinational Corporations.
Simon & Schuster.
Blondel, Jean. 1969. An Introduction to Comparative Government. Praeger.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. "Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Politica! Democracy."
American Sociological Review 45:370-90.
_. 1983. "World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National
Evidence." American Sodological Review 48:468-79.
Bornschier, Volker, and Christopher Chase-Dunn. 1985. Transnational Corporations and
Underdevelopment. Praeger.
Bornschier, Volker, and Peter Heinz. 1979. "Multinational Corporations in the World Economy
and National Development." Bulletin of the Sociological Institute of the University of Zurich
32:1-169.
Cardoso, Fernando H. 1973. "Associated-dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical
Implications." Pp. 142-78 in Authoritarian Brazil, edited by Alfred Stephan. Yale University
Press.
Cardoso, Fernando H., and Enzo Faletto. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America.
University of California Press.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1975. "The Effects of International Economic Dependence on
Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study." American Sociological Review
40:720-38.
Chirot, Daniel. 1981. "Changing Fashions in the Study of the Social Causes of Economie and
Politica! Change." Pp. 259-82 in The State of Sociology: Problems and Prospects, edited by
James F. Short, Jr. Sage.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum.
Dietz, Thomas, R. Scott Frey, and Linda Kalof. 1987. "Estimation with Cross-National Data:
Robust and Non-Parametric Methods." American Sociological Review 52:380-90.
Dixon, William J. 1985. "Trade Concentration, Economic Growth, and the Provision of Basic
Human Needs." Social Science Quarterly 65:761-74.
dos Santos, Teotonio. 1970. "The Structure of Dependence." American Economie Review
50:231-36.
584 / Social Forces 69:2, December 1990

Estes, Richard J. 1984. The Social Progress of Nations. Praeger.

Evans, Peter. 1979. Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital
in Brazil. Princeton University Press.
Hicks, Norman L. 1979. "Growth vs. Basic Needs: Is There a Trade-Off?" World Development
7:985-94.
Hicks, Norman L., and Paul P. Streeten. 1979. "Indicators of Development: The Search for a
Basic Needs Yardstick." World Development 7:567-80.
Hull, C. Hadlai, and Norman H. Nie. 1981. SPSS Update 7-9. McGraw-Hill.
International Labour Organization. (I.L.O.). 1977. Employment, Growth and Basic Needs: A One-
World Problem. I.L.O.
London, Bruce. 1988. "Dependence, Distorted Development, and Fertility Trends in Non-vore
Nations: A Structural Analysis of Cross-National Data." American Sociological Review

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on September 12, 2015

53:606-18.
London, Bruce, and David A. Smith. 1988. "Urban Bias, Dependence, and Economie Stagnation
in Non-core Nations." American Sociological Review 53:454-63.
London, Bruce, and Bruce A. Williams. 1988. "Multinational Corporate Penetratio:n, Protest,
and Basic Needs Provision in Non-Core Nations: A Cross-National Analysis." Social Forces
66:747-73.
Moon, Bruce E., and William J. Dixon. 1985. "Polities, the State, and Basic Human Needs: A
Cross-National Study." American Journal of Politica! Science 29:661-94.
Morris, Morris David. 1979. Measuring the Condition of the World's Poor: The Physical Quality of
Life Index. Pergamon.
Muller, Edward N. 1986. "Income Inequality and Political Violence: The Effect of Influential
Cases." American Sociological Review 51:441-45.
Olson, Mancur. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. Yale University Press.
Pedhazur, Elazar J. 1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Snyder, David, and Edward Kick. 1979. "Structural Position in the World System and! Economie
Growth, 1955-1970: A Multiple Network Analysis of Transnational Interaction." American
Journal of Sociology 84:1097-1126.
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. 1980. World Military Expenditures and Arms
Transfers: 1969-1978. Government Printing Office.