¹ Stern, Steve J., ‘Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean’, American Historical Review, vol. 93, no. 4 (10 1988), p. 836.Google Scholar See the similar judgement in Taylor, William B., ‘Early Latin American Social History’, in Zunz, Olivier (ed.), Reliving the Past: The Worlds of Social History (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1985), p. 128.Google Scholar

² Frank, Andre Gunder, ‘Dependence is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle: An Answer to Critics’, World Development, vol. 5, no. 4 (1977), pp. 355–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, ‘The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the United States’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 12, no. 3 (1977), p. 14.Google Scholar Sheldon B. Liss sees dependency as traceable to Lenin; see his Marxist Thought in Latin America (Berkeley, Calif., 1984), p. 25.Google Scholar

³ See Palma, José Gabriel, ‘Dependency: a Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment?’, World Development, vol. 6, nos. 7–8 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Palma treats Marxism on pp. 882–98, and structuralism, i.e. the work of ECLA, on pp. 9067ndash;8.

⁴ Muñoz, Heraldo, ‘Cambio y continuidad en el debate sobre la dependencia y el imperialismo’, Estudios Internacionales, vol. 11. no. 44 (10–12 1978), pp. 90–1.Google Scholar Muñoz attributes the characterisations ‘old’ and ‘new’ to A. G. Frank.

⁵ For example see Chilcote, Ronald H., (ed.), Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate (Boulder, Colo., 1982).Google Scholar Beyond dependency itself, Marxist elements in dependency were given further salience in Immanuel Wallerstein's World-System Theory – a ‘neo-Smithian Marxism’, in the pejorative phrase of Robert Brenner, because of Wallerstein's emphasis on the market as the driving force in history. In a well-known survey, Daniel Chirot and Thomas D. Hall remark that World-System Theory ‘is in most ways merely a North American adaptation of dependency theory…’. Chirot, and Hall, , ‘World-System Theory’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 8 (1982), p. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Evans, , ‘After Dependency: Recent Studies of Class, State, and Industrialization’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 20, no. 2 (1985), p. 159.Google Scholar

⁷ Paredes, Ricardo,, ‘Informe de la delegación latinoamericana’, Internacional Comunista, VI congreso, II: Informes y discusiones (México, 1978), p. 179Google Scholar; Sombart, Werner, Der moderne Kapitalismus, III: Das Wirtschaftsleben im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus (Munich, 1928), [2 vols, bound as one] vol. 1, xiv–xv; vol. 2, 1019Google Scholar; Furtado, Celso, Uma economia dependente (Rio de Janeiro, 1956)Google Scholar; Prado, Caio Jr., Esboço dos fundamentos de teoria econômica (São Paulo, 1957), p. 190.Google Scholar

⁸ See Thomas Angotti, ‘The Political Implications of Dependency Theory’, in Chilcote, , Dependency and Marxism, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

⁹ Prebisch, Raúl, Hacia una dinámica del desarrollo latinoamericano (Montevideo, 1967 [originally published in 1963]), pp. 41, 52.Google Scholar Prebisch had called for land reform in the early 1950s, though in unspecific terms. Prebisch, , ‘The Soviet Challenge to American Leadership: America's Role in Helping Underdeveloped Countries’, Prebisch file, ECLA, Santiago, 1952(?), p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Prebisch, , Hacia una dinámica, pp. 21, 41, 90,, 99.Google Scholar

¹¹ Prebisch, Raúl, ‘Economic Development or Monetary Stability: the False Dilemma’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, vol. 6, no. 1 (03 1961), p. 24.Google Scholar (The Spanish version was published simultaneously.)

¹² ECLA's self-imposed responsibility for directing attention to restructuring the international trading system was largely shifted in 1963 to a new agency, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which, under Prebisch's leadership as its first executive secretary, was clearly the international body most appropriate for such efforts.

¹³ Girvan, Norman, ‘The Development of Dependency Economics in the Caribbean and Latin America: Review and Comparison’, Social and Economic Studies, vol. 22, no. 1 (03 1973), p. 8Google Scholar; ECLA, International Cooperation in a Latin American Development Policy (New York, 1954), p. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ECLA, Economic Survey of Latin America: 1956 (New York, 1957), p. 116Google Scholar; ECLA, The Process of Industrial Development in Latin America (New York, 1966), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Rodríguez, Octavio, La teoría del subdesarrollo de la CEPAL (Mexico, 1980), pp. 202–3.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘The Situation in Argentina and the New Economic Policy’, Economic Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1 (01, 1956), p. 30Google Scholar; ECLA, ‘Preliminary Study of the Effects of Postwar Industrialisation on Import Structures and External Vulnerability in Latin America’, in Economic Survey 1956, p. 115.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ECLA, ‘Preliminary Study’, pp. 128, 150, 151.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Furtado, Celso, ‘The External Disequilibrium in the Underdeveloped Economies’, Indian Journal of Economics, vol. 38, no. 151 (04 1958), p. 406.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Bases for the Formation of the Latin American Regional Market’, Economic Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1 (03 1958), p. 4.Google Scholar The seventh session of ECLA in 1957 had adopted a resolution calling for steps towards the creation of a region-wide common market.

¹⁹ Prebisch, , ‘Economic Development or Monetary Stability’, p. 5.Google Scholar

²⁰ ECLA, The Economic Development of Latin America in the Postwar Period (New York, 1964), Pp. 14, 21.Google Scholar

²¹ Maria da Conceição Tavares, ‘The Growth and Decline of Import Substitution in Brazil’, and Macario, Santiago, ‘Protectionism and Industrialization in Latin America’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, vol. 9 (1964), pp. 1–59, and 61–101Google Scholar, respectively. For citations of critical studies of ISI strategies in Asia in later years, see Arndt, H. W., Economic Development: The History of an Idea (Chicago, 1987), pp. 82–4.Google Scholar

²² Tavares, , ‘Growth and Decline’, pp. 7–8, 11, 12, 55.Google Scholar

²³ Macario, , ‘Protectionism’, pp. 65–7, 77, 81.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 67, 78, 81.

²⁵ Ibid., pp. 67 (quotation), 84 (formula for ‘uniform level of net protection’), 87.

²⁶ Inter alia, Hirschman argued that the failure of ISI was not inevitable, but depended on the interaction of social and political factors with economic elements. See his ‘The Political Economy of Import Substituting Industrialization in Latin America’ [orig., 1968], in Hirschman, A., A Bias for Hope (New Haven, 1971), pp. 85–125, esp. p. 103.Google Scholar On ISI failures, see the discussion of Sunkel and Furtado in the following section, and the literature surveyed in Baer, Werner, ‘Import Substitution and Industrialization in Latin America: Experiences and Interpretations, Lalin American Research Review, vol. 7, no. 1 (spring 1972), pp. 95–122, esp. p. 107.Google Scholar

²⁷ ECLA, ‘The Situation in Argentina’, p. 42Google Scholar; ECLA, The Process of Industrial Development (New York, 1966 [Spanish orig., 1965]), p. 38.Google Scholar

²⁸ Furtado, Celso, Subdesenvolvimento e estagnação na América Latina (Rio, 2nd edn, 1968 [orig., 1966]), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar As noted above, Prebisch had previously made this point in Hacia una dinàmica, p. 38.

²⁹ Furtado, , Subdesenvolvimento, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar The perspective of the 1980s permits a slightly more sanguine view of industrial employment than that adopted by ECLA and Furtado in the mid-sixties: although industry in Argentina and Chile absorbed a smaller percentage of the labour force in 1981 than in 1965, in 1981 it employed a larger share in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela. But in no Latin American country in 1981 did industry account for as much as a third of the labour force. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Development Report: 1865 (New York, 1985), pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

³⁰ Furtado, Celso, Formação econômica do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1959)Google Scholar; Cruz, Aníbal Pinto Santa, Chile, un caso de desarrollo frustrado (Santiago, 1959)Google Scholar; Ferrer, Aldo, La economía argentina: las etapas de su desarrollo y problemas actuates (Mexico, 1963)Google Scholar; Sunkel, Osvaldo and Paz, Pedro, El subdesarrollo latinoamericano y la teoría del desarrollo (México, 1970).Google Scholar Subsequently a more specialised structuralist work appeared on Mexico: Villareal's, RenéEl desequilibrio externo en la industrializatión de México (19297ndash;75): Un enfoque estructuralista (México, 1976).Google Scholar Villareal argues, however, that structuralism accounts more adequately for Mexico's external disequilibrium in the period 1939–58 than in 1959–70.

³¹ Furtado's pre-ECLA dissertation does not contain much formal economic analysis of any kind. See Furtado, , ‘L'économie coloniale brésilienne (XVle et XVlIe siècles): Eléments d'Histoire Économique Appliques’, PhD thesis, Faculté de Droit, Université de Paris, 1948.Google Scholar But A economia brasileira (Rio de Janeiro, 1954)Google Scholar is a structuralist analysis of Brazil's economic history. Furtado sees as one of his major contributions to structuralism a complete break with a cyclical framework for a fully historical approach. Furtado to author, Paris, 22 Dec. 1982.

³² Peláez, Carlos Manuel, História de industrialização brasileira: crítica a teoria estructuralista no Brasil (Rio de Janeiro, 1972)Google Scholar, (‘external shocks’). This view is stated concisely in the Economic Survey 1949 (97). where it is asserted that, in Argentina, the crisis of 1890 began industrialisation, and that World War 1 produced new industries, ‘which developed most vigorously during the Great Depression and the following war’. (See citation in note 33, below.)

³³ For the best summary of Furtado's arguments and the subsequent debate in Brazil, see Suzigan, Wilson, Indústria brasileira: Origem e densenvolvimento (São Paulo, 1986), pp. 21–73.Google Scholar For a similar thesis about the socialisation of losses through exchange depreciation and government maintenance of aggregate demand, see ECLA, Economic Survey of Latin America: 1949 (New York, 1951 [Spanish orig., 1950]), pp. 60, 171–2.Google Scholar Furtado's argument appeared in print the same year; see Furtado, , ‘Características gerais da economia brasileira’, Revista Brasileira de Economia, vol. 4, no. 1 (03 1950), pp. 1–37.Google Scholar As early as 1932 Prebisch at Geneva had held that ‘…currency depreciation has lessened the effect on the home market [in Argentina] of the world drop in prices’. Prebisch, , ‘Suggestions Relating to the International Wheat Problem’, League of Nations: Commission Préparatoire/Conférence Monétaire et Économique/E8, 11 12 1932 (mimeo), p. 3.Google Scholar (Located at the Palais des Nations, Geneva).

³⁴ See essays in Thorp, Rosemary (ed.), Latin America in the 1930: The Role of the Periphery in World Crisis (New York, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ During World War II, Brazil's growth was perhaps less hampered because of the existence of a small capital goods sector. For discussions of the revisionist literature,, see Suzigan in note 33; Love, Joseph L., São Paulo in the Brazilian Federation, 1889–1937 (Stanford, Calif., 1980), pp. 57–9Google Scholar; Randall, Laura, An Economic History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1978), p. 125Google Scholar; Cardoso, Ciro Flamarion S. and Brignoli, Héctor Pérez, Historia económica de América Latina (Barcelona, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 197Google Scholar (summarising a literature on Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile) and 199; Brignoli, Pérez, ‘The Economic Cycle in Latin America: Agricultural Export Economies (1880–1930)’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 15, no. 2 (1980), pp. 31–2Google Scholar (on Argentina).

³⁶ Rodríguez, , Teoría, p. 223Google Scholar (on planning); ‘Income Distribution in Argentina’, Economic Bulletin for Latin America, vol. 11, no. 1 (1966), pp. 106–31.Google Scholar

³⁷ Sunkel, Osvaldo et al. , Inflación y estructura económica (Buenos Aires, 1967)Google Scholar, cited in Cardoso, and Brignoli, Pérez, Historia económica, pp. 187–9Google Scholar; Baer, , ‘Import Substitution’, p. 105.Google Scholar

³⁸ Sunkel, Osvaldo, ‘The Structural Background of Development Problems in Latin America’, [orig., 1966] in Nisbet, Charles T. (ed.), Latin America: Problems in Economic Development (New York, 1969), pp. 7, 11, 13, 23.Google Scholar

³⁹ Rodríguez, , Teoría, pp. 187–8, 214–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ In 1957 ECLA has still denied that Latin America could compete in manufactured exports on the world market, but in the 1960s the agency viewed the export of manufactures as a requirement for continued development. ECLA, Economic Survey 1956, p. 151Google Scholar; Rodríguez, , Teoría, p. 222.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bitar, Sergio, Transição, socialismo e democracia: Chile com Allende, tr. by Braga, Rita (São Paulo, 1980), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Pinto, Aníbal, ‘Desarrollo económica y relaciones sociales’, in Pinto, et al. , Chile, hoy (Mexico, 1970), p. 47Google Scholar; Sierra, Enrique, Tres ensayos de estabilización en Chile: Las políticas aplicadas en el decenio 1956–1966 (Santiago, 1970), pp. 91–4, 183–5.Google Scholar Vittorio Corbo Lioi argues that most of the alleged structural causes of inflation were eliminated during this period, and notes that the Frei government attributed the failure of its stabilisation programme ‘to the behaviour of wages’, not to the inelasticity and instability of the demand for exports, deficiencies of the fiscal system, or the inelasticity of the supply of agricultural goods based on traditional patterns of land tenure. Corbo, , Inflation in Developing Countries: An Econometric Study of Chilean Inflation (Amsterdam, 1974). p. 15.Google Scholar

⁴² The amount of land distributed and the rural workers unionised in the six years of the Frei government were only half the numbers attained in the three years of Allende's presidency. For details, see Gómez, Sergio, Instituciones y procesos agrarios en Chile (Santiago, 1982), pp. 24–33.Google Scholar

⁴³ Baer, , ‘Import Substitution’, p. 110Google Scholar (on Argentina and Brazil); Palma, , ‘Dependency’, p. 908Google Scholar (on terms of trade).

⁴⁴ Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo and Muñoz, Oscar, ‘Latin America in the International Economy: 1950–86’ (manuscript for Cambridge History of Latin America, revised), pp. 1, 6, 11, 26, 36.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Furtado, Celso, A operação nordeste (Rio de Janeiro, 1959), p. 13Google Scholar; Furtado, , Desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento (Rio de Janeiro, 1961) p. 180Google Scholar and passim; Furtado, , Subdesenvolvimento, pp. 37–4.Google Scholar These statements lend credence to a claim of priority for Furtado as the first theorist of dependency, but I believe H. W. Arndt has exaggerated in tracing Furtado's dependency position back to The Economic Growth of Brazil (Berkeley, Calif., 1963 [Portuguese orig., 1957])Google Scholar, which in my view is more correctly described as the full historicisation of structuralism. At all events, in a recent retrospective Furtado dates his central contributions to dependency analysis in books and articles published between 1970 and 1978. In these works, Furtado views as a central feature of underdevelopment the adoption of the consumption patterns of the developed West by the upper strata of underdeveloped areas, as these regions entered the international division of labour. This process was the ‘result of the surplus generated through static comparative advantages in foreign trade. It is the highly dynamic nature of the modernized component of consumption that brings dependence into the technological realm and makes it part of the production structure’. Novel items of consumption require increasingly sophisticated techniques and increasing amounts of capital. But capital accumulation is associated with income concentration, so industrialisation ‘advances simultaneously with the concentration of income’. Furtado, Celso, ‘Underdevelopment: To Conform or Reform’, in Meier, Gerald (ed.), Pioneers in Development, second series (New York, 1987), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

Thus the evolution of Furtado's thought on this matter was similar to Prebisch's between Hacia una dinámica (1963) and Capitalismo periférico (1981). For Furtado's first statement of this position, see Underdevelopment and Dependence: The Fundamental Connections (Cambridge, Centre of Latin American Studies, Cambridge University, 1973 [offset]), 18 pp.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Furtado, , Subdesenvolvimento, p. 7Google Scholar; Furtado, , Diagnosis of the Brazilian Crisis, tr. Macedo, Suzette (Berkeley, 1965 [Portuguese orig., 1964]), pp. 48–51.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ E.g. note the Brazilian contributors to dependency who were in Santiago in the years following the 1964 coup in their country: Furtado, Cardoso, Theotônio dos Santos, Rui Mauro Marini, Vania Bambirra, and José Serra (still a student). Europeans in Santiago in the 1960s influenced by the emerging dependency perspective included Johan Galtung and Keith Griffin.

⁴⁸ Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, Empresário industrial e desenvolvimento econômico no Brasil, 2d edn (São Paulo, 1972 [orig., 1964]), pp. 181, 191, 195Google Scholar; Cardoso, , ‘The Entrepreneurial Elites of Latin America’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 2 (1966), p. 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cardoso, , Ideologías de la burguesí a industrial en sociedades dependientes (Argentina y Brasil) (México, 1971) [data collected in 1963, 1965–1966], pp. 1, 103, 146, 158, 215Google Scholar; Cúneo, Dardo, Comportamiento y crisis de la close empresarial (Buenos Aires, 1967), pp. 129, 172, 192Google Scholar; Véliz, Claudio, ‘Introduction’, in Véliz, (ed.), Obstacles to Change in Latin America (London, 1965), pp. 2, 77–8Google Scholar; and in a more popular vein, Stavenhagen, Rodolfo, ‘Seven Fallacies about Latin America’ [orig., 1965], in Petras, James and Zeitlin, Maurice (eds.), Latin America: Reform or Revolution?: A Reader (Greenwich, Conn., 1968), pp. 20, 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Sunkel, Osvaldo, ‘The Pattern of Latin American Dependence’, in Urquidi, Victor L. and Thorp, Rosemary (eds.), Latin America in the International Economy (London, 1973), p. 6Google Scholar; Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and Faletto, Enzo, Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina (Mexico, 1969), pp. 17, 28, 38.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cardoso, and Faletto, Dependencia, pp. 27, 143, 154, 155Google Scholar; Jaguaribe, Hélio, ‘The Dynamics of Brazilian Nationalism’, in Véeliz, (ed.), Obstacles, p. 182Google Scholar (‘consular bourgeoisie’). Lenin in 1916 had already noted the mutual interests ‘between British finance capital and the Argentine bourgeoisie’. Lenin, V. I., Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline (New York, 1939), p. 85.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cardoso, and Faletto, , Dependencia, pp. 28, 32–3, 135 (quotation), 142, 147, 155.Google Scholar For Cardoso's views on dependency in the early 1970s, see his ‘Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications’, in Stepan, Alfred (ed.), Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future (New Haven, 1973), pp. 142–78.Google Scholar

The role of the multinationals became the subject of a major research agenda in the 1970s for students of dependency and for ECLA as such; in the absence of a ‘European’ bourgeoisie, the multinational corporations would dominate the new phase of industrialisation in Latin America.

⁵² Mariátegui, José Carlos, ‘Point de vue antiimpérialiste’ [1929], in Lowy, Michael, Le Marxisme en Amérique Latine de 1909 à nos jours: Anthologie (Paris, 1980), p. 113.Google Scholar

Mariátegui is usually regarded as the most original Latin American Marxist writing before World War II. Part of his originality lay in his heterodoxy, including a voluntarism reminiscent of Russian populism. The Peruvian's praise of ‘Incaic socialism’ (a discovery of Plekhanov, a generation earlier) seemed to a Comintern critic in 1941 a reincarnation of Russian populism. Mariátegui hinted that because of its indigenous ayllu, the surviving Incaic form of agrarian communism, Peru could move from its present semifeudal stage of development directly to socialism. Thus Mariátegui was a ‘stage-skipper’, perhaps unwittingly following the tradition of Alexander Herzen and a long line of Russian populists (narodniki). Lenin had repudiated the populist contention that Russia could ‘skip’ capitalism, and argued in 1899 that capitalism had already triumphed in Russia, reducing the peasant commune (mir) to a relic. Mariátegui's view that peasant collectivism could be the basis for passing from feudalism to socialism was shared by one of the leading Latin American spokesmen at the sixth congress of the Communist International in 1928, Ricardo Paredes of Ecuador; his views were echoed by a Uruguayan delegate, Sala. On these matters, see Miroshevski, V. M., ‘El “populismo” en el Perú: Papel de Mariátegui en la historia del pensamiento social latinoamericano’, in Aricó, José (ed.), Mariátegui y los orígenes del Marxismo latinoamericano, 2nd edn., rev. (Mexico, 1980), pp. 55–70Google Scholar; Lenin, V. I., The Development of Capitalism in Russia: The Process of the formation of a Home Market for Large-scale Industry (Moscow, 1956, [orig., 1899])Google Scholar; Internacional Comunista, VI congreso, II, pp. 180–1, 367.Google Scholar Also see note 69.

⁵³ E.g., Teitelboim, V[olodia], ‘El desarrollo del capitalismo en Chile’, in Rumiantsev, Alexei (ed.), El movimiento contemporaneo de liberatión y la burguesía nacional (Prague, 1961), p. 156.Google Scholar On feudal residues in contemporary Latin America, see Rodney Arismendi, ‘Acerca del papel de la burguesía nacional en la lucha antiimperialista’, in Ibid., pp. 134, 136.

⁵⁴ Lowy, , Marxisme, pp. 223–6 (Brazil), p. 47 (Cuba).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Guevara, [Ernesto] Che, Guerrilla Warfare (New York, 1961 [Spanish orig., 1960]), p. 15Google Scholar; Lowy, , Marxisme p. 269.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Bagú, Sergio, La economía de la sociedad colonial: Ensayo de la historia comparada de América Latina (Buenos Aires, 1949).Google Scholar Bagú's work was not explicitly Marxist, unlike those of four other contributors to this thesis: Marcelo Segall and Luis Vitale of Chile, Milcíades Peña of Argentina, and the above-mentioned Caio Prado Jr. of Brazil, all of whose writings are on this matter are anthologised in Lowy, , Marxisme, pp. 243–53, 413–22.Google Scholar From a non-Marxist perspective, Roberto Simonsen has denied that Brazil had known anything other than capitalism in its colonial history, well before the Marxist debate. Simonsen, , História econômica do Brasil (1500–1820), 4th edn. (São Paulo, 1962 [orig. 1937]). pp. 80–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ [Prado, Caio Jr], Três etapas do comunismo brasileiro', Cadernos de Nosso Tempo, no. 2 (01–06, 1954), p. 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Prado, Caio Jr., A revolução brasileira (São Paulo, 1966)Google Scholar; Gabeira, Fernando, O que é isso, companheiro? (Rio de Janeiro, 1979), pp. 31–2Google Scholar (on Prado's influence on urban guerrillas). Prado's previous articles on capitalism in early Brazilian agriculture were ‘Contribuição para a analise da questão agrária no Brasi’, Revista Brasiliense, no. 28 (03–04, 1960), pp. 165–238Google Scholar, and ‘Nova contribuição para a análise da questão agrária no Brasil’, in Ibid., no. 43 (Sept.–Oct. 1962), pp. 11–52. These and other articles of the early 1960s are collected in Prado, , A questão agrária (São Paulo, 1979)Google Scholar. Andre Gunder Frank's essay reflecting Prado's influence was ‘A agricultura brasileira: capitalismo e o mito do feudalismo’, in Revista Brasiliense, no. 51 (01-02, 1964)Google Scholar, published in English in Frank, , Capitalism, pp. 219–77.Google Scholar

Fernando Henrique Cardoso in 1977 saw Prado as one of a group of Brazilian scholars trying to identify a colonial mode of production. I do not believe Prado saw the problem in that way in the early 1960s: His category was capitalism. See Cardoso, , ‘Consumption of Dependency Theory’, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Frank's model has the force and crudity of W. W. Rostow's ‘stages of growth ’ model, to which it has been compared. See Foster-Carter, Aidan, ‘From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting Paradigms in the Analysis of Development’, World Development, vol. 4, no. 3 (03 1976), pp. 167–80, esp. p. 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge, 1960).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Despite Frank's attribution of Baran, H. W. Arndt has pointed out that Frank went beyond Baran, who had held that capitalism was an obstacle to the underdeveloped world's progress, to argue that underdevelopment was caused by capitalism. Arndt, , Economic Development, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Frank, Andre Gunder, On Capitalist Underdevelopment (Bombay, 1975), pp. 11Google Scholar (on Prebisch), 26 (on Bagú), 68 (terms of trade), 73 (González Casanova); Frank, , Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York, 1967), pp. xi, xviiiGoogle Scholar (on Baran), xii (association with ECLA). On Frank's professional development, see Booth, David, ‘Andre Gunder Frank: an Introduction and Appreciation’, in Oxaal, Ivar, Bennett, Tony and Booth, David (eds.), Beyond the Sociology of Development (London, 1975), pp. 50–85.Google Scholar

⁶² This was an independent ‘rediscovery’, I believe, of a model the Rumanian trade theorist Mihail Manoilescu had developed a generation earlier. See Manoilescu, , ‘Le triangle économique et social des pays agricoles: La ville, le village, l'étranger’, Internationale Agrarrundschau, no. 6 (06 1940), pp. 16–26.Google Scholar Manoilescu's scheme, like Frank's, specifically linked the transnational extraction of surplus with internal colonialism, and was not limited to an analysis of the latter phenomenon. On the history of the concept of internal colonialism, including the models developed by Hans W. Singer and Celso Furtado in a structuralist discourse during the 1950s, see Love, Joseph L., ‘Modeling Internal Colonialism: History and Prospect’, World Development, vol. 17, no. 6 (06 1989), pp. 905–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Stavenhagen, , ‘Seven Fallacies’, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The non-Marxist dualism Frank and Stavenhagen attacked was less that of ECLA than that of J. H. Boeke, who had first developed the concept of virtually unrelated modern and peasant sectors in the Indonesian economy. Although ECLA had hypothesised the existence of a dual economy in the 1949 Survey, in its model the surplus labour force passed from subsistence to modern sectors, assuming a highly wage-elastic labour supply. (ECLA preferred the term ‘heterogeneous’ to ‘dualist.’) In 1963 the ECLA sociologist José Medina Echavarría noted that the differences between traditional and modern sectors of Latin American societies were due to ‘internal development processes’ more than to the imposition of a European society on an indigenous one, and that interpenetration was a basic aspect of their existence. Medina Echavarría, ‘A Sociologist's View’, in Medina, and Higgins, Benjamin, Social Aspects of Economic Development in Latin America (Paris, 1963), p. 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Frank, , Capitalism, p. 211.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Galtung was in Santiago in 1962–3, and maintained contact with Santiago-based personnel later. His model of imperialism cites the dependency literature, and Sunkel criticised the essay in manuscript. See Galtung, Johan, ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research, no. 2 (1971), pp. 81–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ Santos, Theotônio dos, ‘The Structure of Dependence’, American Economic Review: Papers and Procedings, vol. 60, no. 2 (05, 1970), pp. 231–26, esp. p. 232Google Scholar; Galtung (in preceding note).

⁶⁸ Revolution would be more costly in human terms because of the strengthening of capitalist institutions in the development/underdevelopment process. Frank, , On Capitalist Underdevelopment, p. 110.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Frank, , Capitalism, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar In 1974 Fernando Henrique Cardoso argued that Frank and Rui Mauro Marini, two ‘left’ members of the dependency school, were repeating an error of the narodniki in denying the possibility of capitalist development in the Periphery. Cardoso, , Autoritarismo e democratização (Rio de Janeiro, 1975 [orig., 1974]), pp. 27–30.Google Scholar One might add that Frank's sense of urgency seems analogous to the hic et nunc attitude of the People's Will, which in the 1870s and early 1880s held that capitalism had to be smashed in Russia before it destroyed the primitive communism of the peasant mir. (Of course, Frank argued that Latin America had never known any other mode of production than capitalism).

⁷⁰ Laclau, Ernesto, ‘Feudalismo y capitalismo en América Latina’ [orig., 1971), in Assadourian, Carlos Sempat (ed.), Modos de producción en América Latina (Mexico, 1973), pp. 28–37, 43.Google Scholar

The degree to which the emerging modes-of-production debate influenced early dependency analysis depends in part on how the ‘modes’ debate is characterised. By definition the dependentista attack on economic dualism was a challenge to Communist orthodoxy on the transition of feudalism to capitalism in Latin America, and in 1966 Frank had engaged in an explicit ‘modes’ debate with Rodolfo Puiggrós, a former leader of the Argentine Communist Party. The debate occurred in the Mexico City newspaper El Diía, where Stavenhagen had denied the existence of dualism in his ‘Seven Fallacies’ in the previous year.

Puiggrós argued that Latin America's past had originated in a feudal regime, and Frank held that it had been capitalist from the beginning; Frank, however, nuanced his view by conceding that capitalism could accommodate a variety of subordinate modes, thereby anticipating the ‘articulation’ thesis of writers influenced by Louis Althusser, Etienne Balibar, and Pierre-Philippe Rey in the early 1970s. See Puiggrós and Frank, ‘Polémica sobre los modos de productión en Iberoamérica’, AUN [Cuadernos Universitarios, serie histórica, ficha 2], Buenos Aires, n.d. [orig. in El Día (Mexico City, 1966)], especially p. 41Google Scholar (Frank' views on articulation).

Although Balibar' essay on the modes issue (‘Elements for a Theory of Transition’) was published in Althusser', Lire le Capital in 1965Google Scholar, and a Spanish edition of Althusser's Pour Marx had been published in Mexico in 1967, structuralist Marxism would have its greatest impact in Latin America in the early 1970s, after a readership had been prepared by Harnecker's, Marta Althusserian primer Los conceptos fundamentales del Marxismo (1969).Google Scholar In short, the appearance of Althusserian Marxism in the region overlapped the formation of dependency analysis in the mid- and late 1960s, but debates between the two schools and mutual adjustments were largely a phenomenon of the 1970s. Sempat, 's Modos (1975)Google Scholar, in which Laclau's ‘Feudalismo’ of 1971 appeared, was the first major statement of the (highly heterogenous) ‘modes’ group. The French impact was broader in fact than that of the Althusserians, however, because as early as 1969, Laclau's thought was influenced by the debate in the journal, MarxistLa Pensée (involving Godelier, Maurice, Coquery-Vidrovich, Catherine, and Suret-Canale, Jean) in 1963–1967.Google Scholar (Interview with Ernesto Laclau, Urbana, Ill., 12 Nov. 1984).

⁷¹ See the review of the changes in the editions from 1969 to 1979 by Packenham, Robert A., ‘Plus ça change…: The English edition of Cardoso and Faletto's Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 17, no. 1 (1982), pp. 131–51.Google Scholar

⁷² See Cardoso, and Faletto, , Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina: Ensayo de interpretación sociológica (México, 1969)Google Scholar; and the original draft, ‘Estancamiento y desarrollo económico en América Latina: Condiciones sociales y políticas (Consideraciones para un programa de estudio)’, mimeo., late 1965. (Adolfo Gurrieri kindly supplied this document and other drafts of Dependencia y desarrollo from the ILPES files in ECLA's Santiago headquarters).

⁷³ Cardoso denied that the roles played by Europe's historical bourgeoisies in economic development could be replicated by Brazilian entrepreneurs in the 1960s. Cardoso, , Empresário, pp. 46, 49, 194.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid., pp. 192–98.

⁷⁵ Arghiri Emmanuel's Marxist theory of unequal exchange was published in 1969, but owed nothing to Latin American Marxists – who worked within the tradition of historical materialism rather than formal Marxist economics. But it did owe something to Prebisch and Hans Singer. Meanwhile, by 1969 dependency analysis had been born. See Emmanuel, , Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (New York, 1972 [French orig. 1969]).Google Scholar See especially pp. 80–7 on the Prebisch-Singer thesis on deteriorating terms of trade.

⁷⁶ For a neoclassical approach denying the existence of dualism in a Peruvian case study, see Figueroa, Adolfo, Capitalist Development and Peasant Economy in Peru (Cambridge, 1984), especially p. 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar