1. I am grateful to the Organization of American States and to the Transnational Relations program (funded by the Rockefeller Foundaton) of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, for support in the preparation of this essay; an earlier version was presented to the Seminar on Inter-American Relations of the Organization of American States. I am also grateful to William Glade, Abraham Lowenthal, and Alfred Stepan for comments on an earlier draft.

2. The Rockefeller Report on the Americas (The New York Times edition; Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1969), p. 17.

3. Ché Guevara Speaks: Selected Speeches and Writings (New York: Merit Publishers, 1967), p. 158.

4. Julio Cotler and Richard Fagen, eds., Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 10–11.

5. Most efforts at formalizing and synthesizing have been addressed to the dependency school of writings, in part because it is newer and less familiar in the United States. Among the best efforts, see Abraham F. Lowenthal, “‘Liberal,’ ‘Radical,’ and ‘Bureaucratic’ Perspectives on U.S.-Latin American Policy: The Alliance for Progress in Retrospect,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America; Robert A. Packenham, “Latin American Dependency Theories: Strengths and Weaknesses,” paper presented before the Harvard-MIT Joint Seminar on Political Development, Cambridge, Mass., 6 February, 1974; Robert R. Kaufman, Daniel S. Geller, and Harry I. Chernotsky, “A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency,” Comparative Politics 7, no. 3 (April 1975); and David Ray, “The Dependency Model of Latin American Underdevelopment: Three Basic Fallacies,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 15, no. 1 (February 1973).

6. See, for example, Stanley Hoffmann, “Obstinate or Obsolete: The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe,” in Joseph S. Nye, Jr., ed., International Regionalism (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1968), pp. 190–91, 219; and Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Transnational Relations and World Politics: A Conclusion,” International Organization 25, no. 3 (Summer 1971), especially pp. 722–29.

7. John H. Petersen, “Economic Interests and U.S. Foreign Policy in Latin America: An Empirical Approach,” paper presented at the Fourth Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Madison, Wisconsin, 3–5 May, 1973, pp. 31–32.

8. Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, The Americas in a Changing World (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1975), p. 23.

9. Ibid., pp. 24–41.

10. The Rockefeller Report, pp. 57–65.

11. See especially, Paul E. Sigmund, “The ‘Invisible Blockade’ and the Overthrow of Allende,” Foreign Affairs 52, no. 2 (January 1974); and Richard R. Fagen, “The United States and Chile: Roots and Branches,” Foreign Affairs 53, no. 2 (January 1975), and the “Correspondence” section in this same issue, pp. 375–77 for an exchange between Sigmund and Fagen.

12. For a flavor of the melange of views and interests in the Panama Canal issue, see, for example, U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Panama Canal of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Panama Canal Treaty Negotiations: Hearings, and Addendum to Hearings, Ninety-second Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972); see also the sections on Panama in U.S., Congress, House, Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Cuba and the Caribbean: Hearings, Ninety-first Congress, second session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970).

13. Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, The Americas, p. 35; see also David Ronfeldt, “Future U.S. Security Assistance in the Latin American Context,” ibid.

14. See the following three examples of Osvaldo Sunkel's work, all published in Estudios internacionales: “Política nacional de desarrollo y dependencia externa,” 1, no. 1 (April 1967); “Esperando a Godot: América Latina ante la nueva administración republicana en los Estados Unidos,” 3, no. 1 (April-June 1969); and “Capitalismo transnacional y desintegración nacional,” 4, no. 16 (January-March 1971).

15. Helio Jaguaribe, Political Development: A General Theory and a Latin American Case Study (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 371–80.

16. See the following two examples of Juan Guglialmelli's work, in Estrategia: “Función de las fuerzas armadas en la actual etapa del proceso histórico argentino,” 1, no. 1 (May-June 1969), pp. 13–14; and “Fuerzas Armadas y subversión interior,” 1, no. 2 (July-August 1969), pp. 13–14.

17. Aníbal Quijano Obregón, “Imperialism and International Relations in Latin America,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, p. 89.

18. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “O estado e as políticas públicas,” paper presented at the Conference on Public Policy in Latin America, sponsored by the Social Science Research Council and the Instituto Torcuato Di Telia, Buenos Aires, August, 1974, especially pp. 1, 9.

19. Marcos Kaplan, “Commentary on Ianni,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 64–65.

20. Luigi Einaudi, ed., Beyond Cuba: Latin America Takes Charge of Its Future (New York: Crane, Russak and Co., 1974).

21. See the special issue of International Organization 25, no. 3 (Summer 1971), edited by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., on transnational relations.

22. Luigi Einaudi, “Latin America's Development and the United States,” in Einaudi, ed., Beyond Cuba, p. 220.

23. Luigi Einaudi, Michael Fleet, Richard Maullin, and Alfred Stepan, “The Changing Catholic Church,” ibid., pp. 88–94. For a related, Latin American view, see Victor Alba, “Vatican Diplomacy in Latin America” in Harold Davis and Larman Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1975).

24. David Ronfeldt and Luigi Einaudi, “Prospects for Violence,” in Einaudi, ed., Beyond Cuba.

25. Herbert Goldhamer, The Foreign Powers in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 32–50, 90–96, 159–94, 275–88.

26. Henry A. Landsberger, “Linkages to World Society: International Labor Organization,” in Yale Ferguson, ed., Contemporary Inter-American Relations: A Reader in Theory and Issues (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972).

27. Quijano, “Imperialism,” pp. 81–82.

28. Carlos Estevam Martins, “Brazil and the United States from the 1960s to the 1970s,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, p. 277.

29. Theodore H. Moran, Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 212–15; Franklin Tugwell, The Politics of Oil in Venezuela (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), pp. 143, 162.

30. Charles T. Goodsell, American Corporations and Peruvian Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 139, 217.

31. Quijano, “Imperialism,” pp. 81–82.

32. See George M. Ingram, Expropriation of U.S. Property in South America: Nationalization of Oil and Copper Companies in Peru, Bolivia, and Chile (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1974), chapters 2 and 4.

33. Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, The Americas, pp. 53–54.

34. See Marie Thourson Jones, “The Council of the Americas and the Formation of American Foreign Policy,” in Abraham F. Lowenthal, et al., The Making of U.S. Policies toward Latin America: The Conduct of Routine Relations, vol. 3, appendix 1, of the Report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976).

35. Jorge I. Domínguez, “Cuba, the United States, and Latin America: After Détente,” SAIS Review 19, no. 1 (1975): 20–22, 24.

36. Jaguaribe, Political Development, pp. 371–77.

37. R. Harrison Wagner, United States Policy toward Latin America: A Study in Domestic and International Politics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970), pp. 106–25.

38. Stephen D. Krasner, “Business-Government Relations: The Case of the International Coffee Agreement, ” International Organization 24, no. 4 (Fall 1973): 507–16.

39. Stephen D. Krasner, “ Manipulating International Commodity Markets: Brazilian Coffee Policy, 1906 to 1962,” Public Policy 21, no. 4 (Fall 1973).

40. David Bushnell, “Colombia,” in Davis and Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies, pp. 402–10.

41. Robert P. Clark, Jr., “Economic Integration and the Political Process: Linkage Politics in Venezuela,” in Ferguson, ed., Contemporary Inter-American Relations.

42. Olga Pellicer de Brody, “Los grupos patronales y la política exterior mexicana: las relaciones con la revolución cubana,” Foro internacional 10, no. 1 (July-September 1969).

43. See U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Relations with Latin America: Hearings, Ninety-fourth Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 140.

44. Commission on United States-Latin American Relations, The Americas, pp. 20–21.

45. Jessica Pernitz Einhorn, Expropriation Politics (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974), pp. 69, 91–121.

46. On Sunkel's work, see note 14.

47. Gustavo Esteva, “El comercio exterior de México en el proceso de planeación,” Foro internacional 6, nos. 22–23 (October 1965–March 1966), p. 352.

48. Octavio Ianni, “Imperialism and Diplomacy in Inter-American Relations,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 49–50.

49. Bryce Wood, The Making of the Good Neighbor Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), pp. 288–89, 294–95.

50. Papers documenting this hypothesis have been published in Lowenthal, et al., The Making of U.S. Policies. They are: Donald Wyman, “Summary: U.S.-Latin American Relations and the Cases of the Countervailing Duty”; Marie Thourson Jones, “The Council of the Americas”; Roger Sack and Donald Wyman, “Latin American Diplomacy and the United States Foreign Policymaking Process”; Abraham Lowenthal, “U.S. Policymaking toward Latin America: Improving the Process”; Robert A. Pastor, “Congress's Impact on Latin America: Is There a Madness in the Method?”; Robert A. Pastor, “U.S. Sugar Politics and Latin America: Asymmetries in Input and Impact”; Gregory Treverton, “United States Policymaking toward Peru: The IPC Affair”; and Edward Gonzalez, “United States Policy and Policymaking in the 200-mile Fisheries Disputes with Ecuador and Peru.” See also the previously cited works by Moran, Goodsell, Ingram, Domínguez, Wagner, Krasner, and Einhorn. See also one of the more widely read and praised unpublished pieces on the subject, Richard J. Bloomfield's “Who Makes American Foreign Policy? Some Latin American Case Studies” (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Affairs, 1972), especially pp. 99–114.

51. Christopher Mitchell, “Dominance and Fragmentation in U.S.-Latin American Policy,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 202–4. For a related argument, see Irving Louis Horowitz, “United States Policies and Latin American Realities: Neighborliness, Partnership, and Paternalism,” in Ronald Hellman and H. Jon Rosenbaum, eds., Latin America: The Search for a New International Role (New York: Sage Publications, 1975).

52. Jorge Graciarena, “Commentary on Mitchell,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 207, 209.

53. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. x, 3–7.

54. Abraham Lowenthal, “‘Liberal,’ ‘Radical,’ and ‘Bureaucratic,’” pp. 215–21. Lowenthal presents extensive bibliographic citations for the three perspectives that, therefore, need not be repeated. For other good recent efforts to survey important aspects of the literature of inter-American affairs, see Edward S. Milenky, “Problems, Perspectives, and Modes of Analysis: Understanding Latin American Approaches to World Affairs,” in Hellman and Rosenbaum, eds., Latin America; and Yale H. Ferguson, “Through Glasses Darkly: An Assessment of Various Theoretical Approaches to Inter-American Relations,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Toronto, Canada, February 1976.

55. For a discussion of the role of ideology and its relationship to the unified rational actor assumptions underlying the liberal perspective, see Ferguson, “Through Glasses Darkly,” pp. 7–16; and Yale H. Ferguson, “The Ideological Dimension in United States—Latin American Policies,” in Morris Blachman and Ronald Hellman, eds., Terms of Conflict: Ideology in Latin American Politics (Philadelphia: ISHI Publications, 1977). For the same role of ideology with opposite policy consequences, see W. Raymond Duncan, “Cuba,” in Davis and Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies, pp. 160–70.

56. Lowenthal, “‘Liberal,’ ‘Radical’ and Bureaucratic,'” pp. 221–25.

57. For an excellent formalization and assessment of dependency writings, see Packenham, “Latin American Dependency Theories.”

58. Lowenthal, in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 225–27.

59. Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision: Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971).

60. Lowenthal, in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, pp. 227–33.

61. Dana G. Munro, Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900–1921 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 530–31.

62. Wood, The Making, pp. 332–33.

63. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “The Alliance for Progress: A Retrospective,” in Hellman and Rosenbaum, eds., Latin America, p. 66.

64. Dale Johnson, “Dependence and the International System,” in James D. Cockcroft, André Gunder Frank, and Dale Johnson, Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1972), p. 98.

65. Ibid., p. 100.

66. These ideas owe much to discussions with Professor James Kurth, Political Science, Swarthmore College.

67. See Ronfeldt and Einaudi, and Einaudi, in Einaudi, ed., Beyond Cuba; Goldhamer, The Foreign Powers; Robert H. Swansbrough, “Peru's Diplomatic Offensive: Solidarity for Latin American Independence,” and Thomas E. Skidmore, “United States Policy toward Brazil: Assumptions and Options,” in Hellman and Rosenbaum, Latin America.

68. Dirección, “Las Relaciones Argentina-Brasil,” Estrategia 1, no. 5 (January-February 1970): 56–57, and the rest of this special issue.

69. Estrategia 1, no. 1, was a special issue on the Uruguay-Argentina border problem in the River Plate; 1, no. 6, was a special issue on Argentine-Chilean border conflicts; 1, no. 3, was a special issue on the conflict over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. See also, for the same perspective, Marcelo Aberastury, “Análisis de un caso internacional: el conflicto entre El Salvador y Honduras,” 2, no. 10 (March-April 1971).

70. Antonio Carrillo Flores, “Cooperación económica interamericana”; José Garrido Torres, “El imperativo urgente de la cooperación interamericana”; Antonio Gómez Robledo, “El tratado de Rio”; Alfredo Navarrete, “Una política financiera continental,” all in Foro internacional 1 (1961).

71. Maria Elena Rodríguez de Magis, “Una interpretación de la guerra fría en Latinoamérica,” Foro internacional 4, no. 4 (April-June 1964).

72. Mario Ojeda, “México en el ámbito internacional,” Foro internacional 6, nos. 22–23 (October 1965-March 1966): 263.

73. María del Rosario Green, “Inversión extranjera, ayuda y dependencia en América Latina,” Foro internacional 12, no. 45 (July-September 1971); “Deuda pública externa y dependencia: el caso de México,” 13, no. 2 (October-December 1972); “Las relaciones de Estados Unidos y América Latina en el marco de la dependencia,” 13, no. 3 (January-March 1973). Oscar Moreno Toscano, “El turismo como un factor político en las relaciones internacionales,” 12, no. 45 (July-September 1971). Lorenzo Meyer, “Cambio político y dependencia mexicana en el siglo XX,” 13, no. 2 (October-December 1972).

74. Mario Ojeda, “¿Hacia un nuevo aislacionismo de Estados Unidos? Posibles consecuencias para América Latina,” Foro internacional 12, no. 4 (April-June 1972); Olga Pellicer de Brody, “Cuba y América Latina, ¿ coexistencia pacífica o solidaridad revolucionaria?,” 12, no. 3 (January-March 1972) and “Cambios recientes en la política exterior mexicana,” 13, no. 2 (October-December 1972); see also Ruy Mauro Marini and Olga Pellicer de Brody, “Militarismo y desnuclearización en América Latina: el caso Brasil,” 8, no. 1 (July-September 1967); and Jorge Arieh Gerstein, “El conflicto entre Honduras y El Salvador: análisis de sus causas,” 11, no. 4 (April-June 1971).

75. Among the articles using a strategic perspective in Estudios internacionales, see Horacio Godoy, “La integración de América y el proceso del poder mundial,” 2, no. 3 (October-December 1968); Mercedes Acosta y Carlos Vilas, “Santo Domingo y Checoslovaquia en la política de bloques,” 2, no. 4 (January-March 1969); Félix Peña, “El grupo andino: un nuevo enfoque de la participación internacional de los países en desarrollo,” 6, no. 22 (April-June 1973); Carlos Pérez Llana, “América Latina y los países no alineados,” 6, no. 24 (October-December 1973); José Luis de Imaz, “Adiós a la teoría de la dependencia? Una perspectiva desde la Argentina,” 7, no. 28 (October-December 1974); Luciano Tamassini, “Tendencias favorables o adversas a la formación de un sistema regional Latino Americano,” Carlos Pérez Llana, “¿Potencias intermedias o paises mayores? La política exterior de Argentina, Brasil, y México,” and Helio Jaguaribe, “El Brasil y América Latina,” all in 8, no. 29 (January-March 1975).

76. See also Alexandre Barros, “The Diplomacy of National Security: South American International Relations in a Defrosting World,” and Carlos Fortín, “Principled Pragmatism in the Face of External Pressure: The Foreign Policy of the Allende Government,” in Hellman and Rosenbaum, eds., Latin America.

77. Jaguaribe, Political Development, pp. 378–79.

78. André Gunder Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969), p. 3.

79. Ibid., p. 11.

80. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Associated-Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications,” in Alfred Stepan, ed., Authoritarian Brazil (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), p. 149.

81. Idem.

82. See Lowenthal in Cotler and Fagen, eds., Latin America; Packenham, “Latin American Dependency Theories”; Ray, “The Dependency Model.” See also C. Richard Bath and Dilmus D. James, “Dependency Analysis of Latin America,” LARR 11, no. 3 (1976):5. Bath and James present a three-fold division of dependency writers. One difference between their classification and the one in the present article is that their “conservative” dependency authors (Prebisch, Pinto, and Wionczek) are partly included in the strategic perspective here, and partly excluded altogether. One reason for their relative exclusion is that their writing tends to be more technical and away from the more overtly political public policy questions in the inter-American system, which set the boundaries for inclusion in this essay. To the extent that they are included, their writings seem to be fairly distinct from the rest of the dependency literature and closer to the strategic perspective. A second difference between the Bath/James classification and the present one is that they stress the impact of dependency internally on Latin American countries, while this essay is more concerned with dependency as an approach to study international relations.

83. Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina, 3rd ed. (México: Siglo XXI Editores, S.A., 1971), p. 164.

84. Guillermo O'Donnell, “Commentary on May,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, p. 169.

85. Ibid., pp. 170–72.

86. Amos Perlmutter, “The Presidential Political Center and Foreign Policy: A Critique of the Revisionist and Bureaucratic-Political Orientations,” World Politics 27 (October 1974): 97–106; Stephen Krasner, “Are Bureaucracies Important (or Allison Wonderland)?,” Foreign Policy, no. 7 (Summer 1972); 167–69; and Robert J. Art, “Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique,” Policy Sciences 4 (1973).

87. Donald F. Herr, Presidential Predominance: A Cuba Case Study (New Haven: Yale University, dissertation-in-progress).

88. Edith B. Couturier, “Mexico,” in Davis and Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies, p. 128.

89. Pellicer de Brody, “Cambios recientes.”

90. Martins, “Brazil and the United States,” pp. 269–84.

91. Ibid., p. 295.

92. Ibid., pp. 299–301. For a similar perspective, emphasizing presidential predominance in Brazilian foreign policy, see also Brady Tyson, “Brazil,” in Davis and Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies, pp. 234–42.

93. See James Rosenau, ed., Linkage Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1969).

94. See the research directed by Lowenthal for the Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy; it falls, in fact, under this rubric, and not under bureaucratic politics. See especially the previously cited papers by Jones, Lowenthal and Treverton, Pastor, and Gonzalez. See also the previously cited works by Wagner, Krasner, and Bloomfield. In contrast, for excellent works using bureaucratic politics approaches, and strategic analyses, but not using a political system approach, see Ernest May, “The ‘Bureaucratic Politics’ Approach: U.S.-Argentine Relations, 1942–1947,” in Cotler and Fagen, Latin America, and Randall B. Woods, “Decision-Making in Diplomacy: The Rio Conference of 1942,” Social Science Quarterly 55, no. 4 (March 1975). These are good studies because the decisions made could, indeed, be analyzed successfully without going much beyond intrabureaucratic politics.

95. Douglas A. Chalmers, “Developing on the Periphery: External Factors in Latin American Politics,” in Rosenau, ed., Linkage Politics.

96. Celso Lafer, “Uma Interpretação do sistema das relações internacionais do Brasil,” in Celso Lafer and Félix Peña, eds., Argentina e Brasil: no sistema das relações internacionais (São Paulo: Livraria Duas Cidades, 1973), p. 114.

97. Ibid., pp. 114–19.

98. John H. Petersen and John W. Eley, “An Approach to the Comparative Study of Latin American Foreign Policy,” paper presented at the Fourth Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Madison, Wisconsin, May 1973, pp. 11, 16–17, 21.

99. Enrique Vera Villalobos, “Realidad y ficción en la política exterior,” Estrategia 2, no. 12 (September-October 1971):7.

100. Orville G. Cope, “Chile,” in Davis and Wilson, eds., Latin American Foreign Policies, pp. 312–13.

101. Petersen and Eley, “An Approach,” pp. 11–12, 17–18, 21–22.

102. See note 94.

103. For a study of this type, though not about U.S.-Latin American relations, see Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1977). For an effort to analyze quantitatively the mix of concerns across issue areas, including interstate and transnational relations, see Richard W. Mansbach, Yale Ferguson, and Donald E. Lampert, The Web of Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976).