state organization in latin america since 1930

The literature potentially relevant to this topic is vast, but sprawling and unmanageable. Oscar Oszlak ’The Historical Formation of the State in Latin America: some theoretical and methodological guidelines for its study’, Latin American Research Review 16, 2(1981): 3—32 is a useful start, but deals only with the nineteenth century, as does his monograph La Formación del Estado Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1990). The same is true of Jose Murilo de Carvalho, ’Political Elites and State-building: the case of nineteenthcentury Brazil", Comparative Studies in Society and History 24 (1982): 378—99 and Fernando Uricoechea, The Patrimonial Foundations of the Brazilian Bureaucratic State (Berkeley, Cal., 1980). The main arguments of Claudio Veliz, The Centralist Tradition of Latin America (Princeton, N.J., 1980) remain unpersuasive. Tulio Halperin-Donghi, The Aftermath of Revolution in Latin America (New York, 1973) is a useful antidote. See also Horst Pietschmann, El Estado y su Evolucion al Principio de la Colonizacion Espanola de America (Mexico, D.F., 1989); A. Annino et al., America Latina: dallo stato coloniale allo stato nazione (1750-1940), 2 vols., (Milan, 1987); Oscar Oszlak, Ensayos sobre la Formacidn Histdrica del Estado en America Latina (San Jose, Costa Rica, 1981); and Arnaldo Cordova ’Los Origines del Estado en America Latina’ Cuaderno 32, Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales, UNAM, Mexico, D.F., 1977. For paired comparisons of nineteenth-century Latin American state-building see Helgio Trindade, ’A Construc.ao do Estado Nacional na Argentina e no Brasil (1810—1900): esbogo de uma analise comparativa’, Dados 28, 1 (1985); and Fernando Uricoechea, ’Formaçāo e Expansao do Estado Burocrático — Patrimonial na Colombia e no Brasil’, Estudos CEBRAP, 21 (1977).