THE SO-CALLED DEPENDENCE theory is here scrutinized in its political aspects and as political economy, with the purpose of opposing it as a theory in itself, once it does not present methodological elements either significant or innovating in their content. The notion that dependence exists is tautological. Strictly speaking, there is no dependence theory, but merely dependence as a historical process within the international system of force and power relationships. The Cepal academy debates have dealt with the capitalist development at the periphery, more precisely with the consequences of central capitalism in Latin America, a chapter on the interpretations related to the development/underdevelopment condition, which involves the role played by the so-called historical agents in social changes. In their search for a dependence typology, the oversimplication of the butterfly collectors in social sciences does not create a new theory, but merely ambiguous general principles.