The concept of dependency, Platt asserts, is “scarcely sustainable” because its historical foundation is unconvincing. “Students of chrono-politics (history),” he implies, find unacceptable the notion that “development and expansion” of Western Europe's economy dominated and conditioned that of Latin America since the conquest. The fact that Dos Santos' definition of dependency denies the presence of autonomous development in Latin America is “critical.” Economic autonomy, according to Platt, is the leitmotif of Latin America's evolution, certainly to the close of the nineteenth century, when there “finally awoke metropolitan interest in the neglected periphery.”

This essay deals with the study of Latin American politics in the United States. The basic question asked is: “Where do we go from here if we take seriously that body of thought loosely and somewhat misleadingly known as dependency theory?” It argues that even though the literature is at times incomplete, confusing, and contradictory, the issues to which it directs us warrant our most serious attention.

The Prevalent Theory of Revolution—After Restricting the Dimensions of the phenomenon under study to only one aspect, that ending with the seizure of power—distinguishes between preconditions and precipitants. Preconditions are “the crucial concern of men of affairs….” Precipitants, “by their very nature,” are ephemeral phenomena and cannot be anticipated. The conservative bias of this elaboration is obvious. By definition revolution is subsumed into the category of “civil strife,” thus eliminating all those phases of the process potentially as creative as the one following the seizure of power. Theoretical relevance, then, is assigned only to those elements of the phenomenon susceptible of preventive treatment—the preconditions. Finally, the events able to unleash the revolutionary process are relegated to the conditions of accidents—“they only happen”—and, consequently, are disregarded.

At the end of almost a year and a half of activities of the International Relations Program of IUPERJ, partially funded by The Ford Foundation, it is possible to identify qualitative as well as quantitative growth in these studies in Brazil, principally in the area of Rio de Janeiro. This growth is remarkable if we take into account, on the one hand, the few attempts at progress made during the decade of the seventies and, on the other hand, the expectation generated at the beginning of the program.

The history of the Pizarros, conquerors of Peru, is inseparably bound with images of swine. If we are to believe the chronicler Gómara, the Pizarro-pig association began when the illegitimate infant Francisco was abandoned at a church door, where he survived by suckling a sow for several days. Later, according to Gómara, the young Francisco's father recognized his offspring, but only to make him his swineherd. Though the former of these two stories is probably fantasy, the latter should not be rejected out of hand, as will become clear later. But whether true or not, the legend of the swineherd-turned-conquistador has sparked the historian's imagination for centuries.

According to the theory of sectoral clashes and coalitions, the sectoral element plays a unique role in affecting, on the one hand, the interrelationships between the economic processes of income creation, distribution, and allocation and, on the other hand, the interrelationships between economic, social, political, and institutional processes that make for change and progress. The objective of this essay is to extend the previous formulation of the theory of sectoral clashes and coalitions along two lines: first, by presenting statistical information from all of Latin America which prima facie supports the theory's basic premises; second, by defining and expanding these premises and the basic framework in an effort to obtain a clearer vision of the theory and its links to economic, political, and social reality. Although most criticisms of the theory find a specific answer and most of the suggestions for improvement are followed, this article is more than a rebuttal. In response to the urgent need for its further development, cited by all commentators and those who have applied and tested the theory in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, and Peru, this essay seeks to open new ground and explore new dimensions.

The recent discovery in Lima's National Museum of History of a sixteenth-century inspection of the royal repartimiento of Yanque Collaguas in the district of Arequipa, has stimulated a search for further important documentation about the region. The investigation was made possible by financial support from the Ford Foundation under its Peruvian program for projects in the social sciences (PA73–807). The project is coordinated by Dr. Franklin Pease G. Y., with the active participation of Dr. N. David Cook, Professor Juan Carlos Crespo (Catholic University, Lima), and Dr. Alejandro Malaga Medina (University of San Agustin, Arequipa).