First, Mclean accuses me of waffling on which formulation of dependency theory I accept. As a result of this ambiguity, he attributes to me certain views of dependency which I do not espouse but which I might have, had I actually accepted the brand of dependency theory that he ascribes to me. I think that he is correct to point out that there is an ambiguity in the article over which strand of dependency theory is correct. I thought that my reservations about earlier formulations of dependency theory (Woodhouse, 1985, p. 7), where I actually refer to Mclean's (1983) own critique, would have been enough to warn the discriminating reader that Gunder-Frank (1967) and his Africanist followers, such as Walter Rodney (1981) and Martin Carnoy (1975), cut no ice with me. That is, the "stronger" account of dependency, which sees every developing country as completely dependent upon the metropolitan powers a priori, I believe to be false. As Mclean points out in his reply, this view sees the indigenous elite in any developing country as powerless to effect change that will benefit the majority of its citizens:At a general level, local elites have no possibility for independent political action. At an educational level, all the knowledge they value is centre-created or centre-derived. (p. 53)As Mclean goes on to point out, this view underestimates both the capacities and the traditions of knowledge that inform not only the indigenous elites, but also the people in the developing world as a whole. The tendency, then, is to see the people of the developing world as mere pawns in the game-plans of the evil leaders of the developed world. The view is simplistic, naive, and ideological, in precisely Marx's sense. I shall return to my reasons for this assertion in due course. Perhaps I should have followed the example of Paul Hurst (1984)