¹ Smith, AdamSmith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Book IV, Ch. VII, Part II. In the Edwin Cannan (Modern Library) edition (New York, 1937) the passage cited is on pp. 531–533.Google Scholar

² The distinction between “colonies d'exploitation” and “colonies de peuplement” is made in the preface of Leroy-Beaulieu, Pierre, De la Colonisation chez les Peuples Mo dernes, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1882).Google Scholar An English author has recently suggested “extermination colonies” as an alternative term for “settlement colonies”. Osborne, Harold, Indians of the Andes (London, 1952), p. 165.Google Scholar

³ League of Nations, The Network of World Trade (Geneva, 1942).Google Scholar The principal author was Folke Hilgerdt.

⁴ Nurkse, Ragnar, “The Problem of International Investment Today in the Light of Nineteenth Century Experience”, Economic Journal, LIV (1954),Google Scholar reprinted in Supple, Barry E., The Experience of Economic Development: Case Studies in Economic History (New York, 1963), p. 129.Google Scholar

⁵ The following table is provided by courtesy of Professor Matthew Simon:

Note: Table includes both new and reconversion issues. “Partials” are issues floated partly on British and partly on Continental markets.

Earlier results of the same study are presented in Segal, Harvey H. and Simon, Matthew, “British Foreign Capital Issues, 1865–1894”, Journal of Economic History, XXI (Dec. 1961), pp. 566–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Ferns, H.S., Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1960), p. 407.Google Scholar

⁷ Wage and salary earners made up 70.1% of the economically active population in Argentina in 1947 and 70.4% of the economically active population in the United States in 1950. International Labour Office, Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1962 (Geneva, 1962), pp. 20–21.Google Scholar But as Table II indicates, the percentage of net national income devoted to wages and salaries was 47.9 in Argentina in 1947 and 63.7 in the United States in 1950. Five year averages centering on the respective dates are 50.6 for Argentina and 64.6 for the United States. Clark, Colin, The Conditions of Economic Progress, 2nd ed. (London, 1951), pp. 530–541,Google Scholar presents with little explanation a set of figures on income distribution which places New Zealand and Australia with Sweden in a group of countries with the highest degree of equality, the United States and Canada close to them, and Argentina in a category of considerably greater inequality. W. Paul Strassman uses these figures as a basis for his argument in “Economic Growth and Income Distribution”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, LII (1956), pp. 432–440.Google Scholar

⁸ Germani, Gino, Político y Sociedad en una Epoca de Transición (Buenos Aires, 1962), ch. VI, esp. p. 169,Google Scholar Table I. The contrast holds good both for the urban middle class and for the middle class in general. Compare also Maynard, Geoffrey, Economic Development and the Price Level (London, 1962), p. 267:Google Scholar “ … the distribution of income in Chile seems far more unequal than in Argentina”. This statement is based partly on United Nations, Economic Survey of Latin America, 1957 (New York, 1958), pp. 197–199,Google Scholar esp. table 183.

⁹ Goodrich, Carter, “The Australian and American Labor Movements”, Economic Record, IV (1928), pp. 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Carcano, Miguel Angel, Evoluión Histórica del Régimen de la Tierra Pública (Buenos Aires, 1917).Google Scholar The most recent North American writer has been much influenced by this point of view. See Scobie, James R., Argentina: A City and a Nation (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

¹¹ Giberti, Horacio C.F., Historia Económica de la Ganadería Argentina, 2nd ed. (Buenos Aires, 1961).Google Scholar See also Scobie, chs. Ill and V.

¹² Professor Scobie points out that in an earlier shift from cattle to sheep, when estancieros let out their land on shares to Irish, Basque and Scottish sheepherders, sharecropping did sometimes serve as a road to ownership. Scobie, p. 84.

¹³ Germani, p. 241. This and subsequent translations from the Spanish are made for the present paper.

¹⁴ Cruchaga, Miguel, Estudio sobre la Organización Económica y la Hacienda Pública de Chile (Santiago, 1878), p. 2,Google Scholar cited in Martner, Daniel, Estudio de Política Comercial Chilena e Historia Económica National (Santiago, 1923), p. 108.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Picón-Salas, Mariano, De la Conquista a la Independencia (Mexico, 1944), p. 47.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The history of the Di Telia firm may be thought of as illustrating a Latin rather than an Anglo-Saxon style of combining family control with professional management. Cochran, Thomas C. and Reina, Ruben E., Entrepreneur ship in Argentine Culture: Torquato Di Tella and S.l.A.M. (Philadelphia, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Di Tella, Guido, “The Economic History of Argentina, 1914–1933”,Google Scholar and Zymelman, M., “The Economic History of Argentina, 1933–1952”,Google Scholar unpublished doctoral dissertations, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1960. A book in Spanish based on and extending these studies is t o be published by the University of Buenos Aires Press.

¹⁸ United Nations Economic Commission for America, Latin, El Desarrollo Económico de la Argentina (vol. V of Análisis y Proyecciones del Desarrollo Económico) (New York, 1959), Part I, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The figures commonly used for import and export prices for Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, in International Financial Statistics, in the Yearbooks of International Trade Statistics and — for earlier years in Argentina — the ECLA volume already cited, are not exactly comparable for the three countries. Argentina's terms of trade were extremely favorable in the late 1940's and Australia's in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Comparing the late 1930's with 1959–1960, Argentina's terms of trade appear to have worsened by about 25% and Australia's by about 15%. The New Zealand figures show somewhat less year-to-year variation and little net change over the period.

²⁰ Economic Commission for Latin America, op. cit., Part I, pp. 21–23. Villanueva, R. Javier, “The Inflationary Process in Argentina, 1943–1960”,Google Scholar unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964, regards the inelasticity of supply in the land industries as an important “structural” cause of continued inflation.

²¹ Urban population in Argentina, for places over 2,000, was estimated as 70% in 1958. The same figure is given for Canada, for places over 1,000 in 1961, and for the United States in 1960, under the new definition which is little more inclusive than the old measure for places under 2,500. Australia had 56% in places over 1,000 in 1961, and New Zealand had 64% in cities and boroughs in the same year. — Argentina's 34% of population in Gran Buenos Aires (1960) does not appear remarkable in comparison with Uruguay's 32% in the city of Montevideo (est, 1954) or with the 37% of Australia's population residing in Sydney and Melbourne and their suburbs (1961). But the New York and Chicago metropolitan areas between them include only 9% of the population of the United States (1960) and the Montreal metropolitan area only 12% of that of Canada (1961). Auckland Metropolitan area contains 19% of the New Zealand population. Percentages of the economically active population engaged in manufacturing are: Argentina 22.5 (1955), Australia 27.8 (1954), Canada 23.7 (1960), New Zealand 24.2 (1959), and United States 26.2 (1960). Percentages in agriculture, stockraising, forestry, fishing, etc. are for the same years: — Argentina 26.1, Australia 13.3, Canada 12.1, New Zealand 16.2 and United States, 8.6.

²² Ferrer, Aldo, La economía argentina (Mexico, 1963),Google Scholar argues for what he calls “organic” as against “inorganic” industrial development. Fillol, Tomás R., Social Factors in Economic Development: The Argentine Case (Cambridge, Mass., 1961),Google Scholar emphasizes the social attitudes unfavorable to economic development. Villanueva, op. cit., cites the lack of vigorous competition.

²³ James, Preston E., Latin America, 3rd ed. (New York, 1959), p. 357.Google Scholar

²⁴ Scobie, p. 191. See also Fillol, pp. 26–39.

²⁵ Germani, p. 209.

²⁶ Germani, p. 179. The comparison of rates of growth is adapted from his footnote 5, pp. 185–186.

²⁷ These differences are fully analyzed in Germani, ch. VII. Table 13 on p. 195 shows that in 1895 over 80% of proprietors in manufacturing and nearly 75% of proprietors in trade were immigrants. No doubt many of the establishments were small ones. See also Beyhaut, G. and others, “Inmigración y Desarrollo Económico”, Jornadas Argentinas y Latinoamericanas de Sociologia (Buenos Aires, 1961).Google Scholar This is a preliminary publication of what should prove to be a highly significant “Investigation of the Impact of Massive Immigration in the Rio de la Plata” which is being conducted at the University of Buenos Aires.

²⁸ María Rosa, José, Defensa y Pérdida de Nuestra Independencia Económica, 3rd ed.(Buenos Aires, 1962), p. 112.Google Scholar

²⁹ Germani comments, p. 207, that the participation of the immigrants in political life was “very small or non-existent”. The change may be suggested by the fact that Presidents Peron, Frondizi, Guido and now Mia have all come from Italian stock.