Dependency theories emerged in the mid-20th century as a critique of modernization theory, primarily from scholars in Latin America. They posit that the underdevelopment of peripheral countries is not due to internal deficiencies but is a direct consequence of their historical and ongoing integration into the world capitalist system in a subordinate position to core, developed nations. Critically examining their contribution to understanding the present global scenario reveals both significant insights and notable limitations.

Contributions/Strengths:

1. Historical Context and Colonial Legacy: Dependency theories effectively highlight how historical colonialism and neo-colonialism created and perpetuated structural inequalities. They emphasize that the current global economic order is not a natural outcome but a product of historical power imbalances and exploitation.
2. Critique of Modernization Theory: They provided a crucial counter-narrative to modernization theory, which often blamed developing nations for their own underdevelopment. Dependency theories shifted the focus to external factors and the global economic system.
3. Understanding Global Inequality: They offer a powerful framework for understanding persistent global inequalities, trade imbalances, and the unequal distribution of wealth and resources between the Global North and South. Concepts like 'unequal exchange' remain relevant in analyzing global value chains.
4. Resource Extraction and Exploitation: Dependency theories are particularly useful in explaining how core nations benefit from the extraction of raw materials and cheap labor from peripheral countries, often at the expense of sustainable development in the latter.
5. Debt Crisis and Structural Adjustment: The theories shed light on how international financial institutions and debt mechanisms can perpetuate dependency, forcing peripheral nations into policies that primarily benefit core economies.

Limitations/Criticisms:

1. Overly Deterministic: A major criticism is their deterministic nature, suggesting that peripheral nations are trapped in a cycle of dependency with little agency to break free. This overlooks internal factors like governance, corruption, and policy choices that also impact development.
2. Lack of Nuance: Dependency theories often present a monolithic view of the 'core' and 'periphery,' failing to account for the diversity within these categories or the emergence of 'semi-peripheral' states (e.g., newly industrialized countries).
3. Failure to Explain Success Stories: They struggle to explain the economic success of some East Asian economies (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan) that integrated into the global capitalist system but managed to achieve significant development, often through state-led industrialization and strategic engagement.
4. Economic Reductionism: Some variants are criticized for being overly focused on economic factors, neglecting the role of culture, technology, political institutions, and social dynamics in development.
5. Outdated in a Globalized World: The rise of South-South cooperation, the increasing economic power of countries like China and India, and the complex, interconnected nature of global supply chains challenge the simplistic core-periphery model. Dependency is no longer solely a North-South phenomenon.

In conclusion, dependency theories offer valuable insights into the historical roots of global inequality and the structural mechanisms that perpetuate it. They remain relevant for understanding issues like resource exploitation, trade imbalances, and the power dynamics in international relations. However, for a comprehensive understanding of the present global scenario, they must be complemented by other theoretical perspectives that account for internal dynamics, agency of developing nations, and the evolving complexities of a multi-polar, globalized world.