The dependency paradigm is deemed to be the antithesis of the diffusionist paradigm. Using third world examples, elaborate on the merits of this statement.

The Dependency and Diffusionist paradigms are two contrasting theories used to explain the economic development of countries, particularly those in the third world.

1. Dependency Paradigm: This theory posits that economic disparities and underdevelopment in the third world are a direct result of their historical exploitation by wealthy, developed nations. It argues that third world countries are not just 'behind' developed countries in terms of development, but are kept in a state of dependency and underdevelopment by the global economic system which is dominated by the developed nations.

For example, many African countries are rich in natural resources but remain economically poor. This is because these resources are often exploited by multinational corporations from developed countries, with little of the wealth generated returning to the local economy or people.

2. Diffusionist Paradigm: On the other hand, the diffusionist paradigm suggests that economic development is a linear process, where third world countries are simply at an earlier stage of development compared to their developed counterparts. It posits that with time, investment, and the 'diffusion' of technology and ideas from developed to developing countries, the latter will eventually 'catch up'.

For instance, the rapid economic development of countries like South Korea and Singapore is often cited as evidence of the diffusionist paradigm. These countries were able to transform their economies within a few decades by adopting and adapting technology and ideas from the West.

The statement suggests that the dependency paradigm is the antithesis of the diffusionist paradigm because it fundamentally challenges the latter's assumption that all countries are on the same path of development. Instead, the dependency theory argues that the global economic system is structured in such a way that benefits the developed countries at the expense of the developing ones.

In conclusion, the merits of the statement lie in its recognition of the inherent power imbalances in the global economic system, and the role these play in perpetuating economic disparities between developed and developing countries. It also highlights the need for systemic changes to this global system, rather than simply waiting for the 'trickle down' effects of development to reach the third world.