No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Monoproductive Traits in Brazil’s Economic Past
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Extract
During the first three hundred years of its existence, Brazil had no opportunity to develop its potential natural resources for the benefit of its inhabitants. Portugal, Brazil’s mother country, exploited the colony as a source of wealth for itself and did not administer it for the purpose of creating a sound economic structure for the good of Brazil. Its foreign commerce was a Crown monopoly until 1808. During this colonial period, easily exploited minerals and those crops which would command quick, lucrative profits on the world market, were stressed by Portuguese administrators. Thus, early in its history, the disastrous seeds of monoculture were sown in Brazil. These products were taken to Lisbon, which served as a jobbing center for the Empire, and from there they were distributed by vessel to other countries. Large-scale industry was discouraged by Portugal, and in some instances, actually forbidden. In this, Portugal was following the general colonial policy common to many European nations during that period. Characteristic of the Portuguese attitude was Queen Maria’s order in 1785 for the destruction of all industries and factories in Brazil that were not devoted to the production of sugar; a product from which Portugal at this time derived much of its national income. In return for the lucrative slave crops of sugar and cotton, the colony was forced to buy expensive finished goods from the mother country. The exchange profited Portugal greatly and strangled Brazil economically.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 2004
References
1 Diffie, Bailey W., Latin American Civilization (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Sons, 1945), p. 681.Google Scholar
2 Ibid.
3 Hill, Lawrence F. et al., Brazil (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1947), p. 16.Google ScholarPubMed
4 Brazil, , Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1940/41 (Rio de Janeiro: Est. de Artes Gráficas, 1941), p. 95.Google Scholar
5 Ibid.
6 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1943 (Rio de Janeiro: Est. de Artes Gráficas, 1943), p. 14.Google ScholarPubMed
7 Normano, J.F., Brazil: A Study of Economic Types (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1935), p. 20.Google Scholar
8 Diffie, op. cit., p. 676.
9 Palmer, Truman G., Sugar at a Glance: The Influence of Sugar Beet Culture on Agriculture and Its Importance in Relation to National Economies (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1922), p. 6.Google Scholar
10 Ibid.
11 Normano, op. cit., p. 24.
12 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1943, p. 15.
13 Calógeras, João Pandiá, A History of Brazil, trans. & ed. by Martin, Percy A. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1939), p. 374.Google Scholar
14 Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco, Síntese da História econômica do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Serviço Gràfico, 1938),.p. 66.Google Scholar
15 Ibid., p. 64.
16 Normano, op. cit., p. 30.
17 Albano, Ildefonso, A crise do algodão: a cultura algodoeira no Ceará (Rio de Janeiro: Typ. do Jornal do Commercio, de Rodrigues & C., 1918), p. 17.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., p. 18.
19 A kilo is equal to approximately two and one-half pounds.
20 Diffie, op. cit., p. 691.
21 Albano, op. cit., p. 30.
22 Ibid.
23 Normano, op. cit., p. 34.
24 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1940/41, p. 210.
25 Brazil, , Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1943, p. 167.Google ScholarPubMed
26 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1940/41, p. 210.
27 Lawrence, James Cooper, Rubber: The World’s Struggle with Rubber (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1931), p. 13.Google Scholar
28 Ibid.
29 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1940/41, p. 210.
30 Normano, op. cit., p. 122.
31 Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 1940/41, p. 122.
32 Ibid.
33 Calógeras, op. cit., p. 340.