1 For a description of such need of political control of change within the definition of ‘modernizing autocracies’ see Apter, D., The Politics of Modernization, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965, pp. 256–65, 402–5Google Scholar, and System, Process and the Politics of Economic Development, Mouton, The Hague, 1963, pp. 135–9.

2 See Weber’s ideas on the historical superiority of the bureaucratic type of administrative organization in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Hodge and Co., London, 1947, pp. 309–12, and the relations between such a type, monetary economy and tax system in Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds.), From Max Weber – Essays in Sociology, Kegan Paul, London, 1947, pp. 204–209 Google Scholar. Parsons, T., ‘Evolutionary Universals in Society’, American Sociological Review, 29, 3, 1964 Google Scholar (included in Sociological Theory and Modern Society, Free Press, New York, 1967, whence I quote).

3 Lockwood, D., &Social Integration and System Integration’, in Zollschan, G. K. and Hirsch, W. (eds.), Explorations in Social Change, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1964 Google Scholar.

4 See Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, Glencoe, 1957, p. 73 Google Scholar.

5 See Moore, W. E., Social Change, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1963, pp. 10–11 Google Scholar.

6 As in Rostow, W. W., The Stages in Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, 1960, pp. 162–4Google Scholar; Almond, G. and Coleman, J. S. (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas, Princeton University Press, 1960 Google Scholar (introduction by Almond); or Eisenstadt, S. N., Modernization – Protest and Change, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1966 Google Scholar.

7 Kerr, C. et al., Industrialism and Industrial Man, Heinemann, London, 1962 Google Scholar (esp. chap. X); Parsons, T., ‘Evolutionary Universals in Society’, op. cit., and also Societies – Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1966 Google Scholar.

8 For example, Goldthorpe, J. H., ‘Social Stratification in Industrial Societies’, in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M. (eds.), Class, Status and Power, Free Press, New York, 1966 Google Scholar; ‘Theories of Industrial Society: Reflections on the Recrudescence of Historicism and the Future of Futurology’, Archives Européennes de Sociologic, XII, 2, 1971. Also, Costa Pinto, L. A., Desarrollo econámico y transition social, Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1969 Google Scholar.

9 F. Parkin, ‘System Contradiction and Political Transformation’, and Aron, R., ‘Remarques sur un Débat’, Archives Européennes de Sociologic, XIII, 1, 1972 Google Scholar.

10 For studies of the Spanish regime using the authoritarian' type, see Linz, J. J., ‘An Authoritarian Regime: Spain’, in Allardt, E. and Littunen, Y. (eds.), Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems, Westmark Society, Transactions, no. x, Helsinki, 1964 Google Scholar (reprinted in E. Allardt and S. Rokkan (eds.), Mass Politics, Free Press, New York, 1970, pp. 251–83) and by the same author, From Falange to Movimiento Organization – The Spanish Single Party and the Franco Regime, 1936–68耙, in Huntington, S. P. and Moore, C. H. (eds.), Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society, Basic Books, New York, 1970 Google Scholar. Linz distinguishes authoritarian from totalitarian regimes on two main issues: the former lack the intensive and extensive political mobilization of the totalitarian regimes and have a limited and non responsible pluralism (within the regime). Linz's point of view is adopted by Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. in Comparative Politics. A Developmental Approach, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1966 Google Scholar (in p. 217 they put the Spanish regime within the ‘authoritarian conservative’ type); by Almond, G. A. in ‘Comparative Political Systems’ in Eulau, H. et al. (eds.), Political Behavior, Free Press, New York, 1966 (p. 40)Google Scholar, by Hermet, G. in La Politique dans l’Espagne, Armand Colin, Paris, 1971 Google Scholar, and by Ramirez, M. in ‘Modernizacián politica en España: hipotesis para un estudio’, Revista de Estudios Sociales, no. 5, 05–08 1972 Google Scholar. The definition of the Francoist regime within the totalitarian type has been made by G. Germani in Political Socialization of Youth in Fascist Regimes: Italy and Spain’, in S. P. Huntington and C. H. Moore (eds.), op. cit. (insisting on the similarity of historical origins between the Spanish and the fascist regimes). For a similar point of view see Sole‐Tura, J., ‘The Political “Instrumentality” of Fascism’ in Woolf, S. J. (ed.), The Nature of Fascism, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1968 (pp. 42–50 Google Scholar) and the same author Introduccián al régimen politico español, Ariel, Barcelona, 1971. S. Giner seems to share this position in his chapters on Spain in Archer, M. S. and Giner, S. (eds.) Contemporary Europe: Class, Status and Power, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1971 (pp. 125–61Google Scholar) and Archer, M. S. (ed.) Students, University and Society. A Comparative Sociological Review, Heinemann, London, 1972 Google Scholar.

11 See the estimate of post‐war repression in Jackson, G., The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, Princeton University Press, 1965 Google Scholar (Appendix D).

12 See Romero‐Maura, J., ‘The Spanish Case’, in Apter, D. and Joll, J. (eds.), Anarchism Today, MacMillan, London, 1971 Google Scholar.

13 J. Blanc, ‘Las huelgas en el movimiento obrero español’; E. Fuentes, ‘La oposicián antifranquista de 1939 a 1955’; and Semprán, J. ‘La oposicián politica en España: 1956–66’, in Horizonte Español 1966, vol. II, Ruedo Ibérico, Paris, 1966 Google Scholar. Vid. also Hermet, G., Les Communistes en Espagne, Armand Colin, Paris, 1971 Google Scholar (esp. pp. 56–76). See also Amsden, J., Collective Bargaining and Class Struggle in Spain, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1972 Google Scholar (Chapter 5).

14 Those years have been described in Velarde, J., Sobre la decadencia econámica de España, Tecnos, Madrid, 1967 Google Scholar; Tamames, R., Estructura econámica de España, Guadiana, Madrid, 1969 Google Scholar; Ros Hombravella, J. et al., Capitalismo español: de la autarquía a la estabilizacián, Edicusa, Madrid, 1973 Google Scholar. Gallo, M., Histoire de l'Espagne Franguiste, Robert Laffont, Paris, 1969 Google Scholar, gives a descriptive and more political’ account.

15 Vid. Anderson, C. W., The Political Economy of Modern Spain: Policy‐Making in an Authoritarian System, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1970 Google Scholar. Anderson concludes his analysis by pointing out that the circulation of criticism and of alternative proposals to the official economic policies had been quite large and that the amount of information available to the Public Administration was very wide. He lays stress on the critical involvement of different groups in the analysis of economic policies within Spanish society, but this element of political involvement should not obscure the fact that the choice of a particular policy and the responsibility for it are independent from any form of democratic participation and representation. Anderson tends to underestimate the latter point. For a very interesting analysis of the rotation of elites', and the changes in economic policies, see C. Moya ‘Las elites econámicas y el desarrollo español’ in S. del Campo (ed.), La España de los años 70: la sociedad, Moneda y Crédito, Madrid, 1972, and his Burocraciay sociedad industrial, Edicusa, Madrid, 1972.

16 Fundacián FOESSA, Informe socialágico sobre la situatián social de España, 1970, Euramerica, Madrid, 1970, p. 56.

17 Directián General de Empleo, Dinámica de empleo (periodical publication).

18 See on these attitudes of parts of Spanish management Linz, J. J. and de Miguel, A., ‘Los problemas de la retribucián y el rendimiento vistos por los empresarios españoles’, Revista de Trabajo, no. 1, 1963, pp. 131 and 140 Google Scholar, Pinilla, E. de las Heras, Los Empresarios y el desarrollo capitalista. El Caso Catalan, Peninsula, Barcelona, 1968, p. 193 Google Scholar, and the survey made by España Econámica, 27 February 1965.

19 Delamotte, Y., ‘Relations Collectives et Régles Juridiques du Travail et de la Sécurité Sociale’ in Friedmann, G. and Naville, P. (eds.), Traité de Sociologie du Travail, Armand Colin, Paris, 1962, vol. II, pp. 204–14Google Scholar. Also, M. Crozier, ‘Sociologie du Syndicalisme’, ibid., pp. 182–7.

20 See footnote 18. In addition, C. Moya, Las Elites econámicas y el desarrollo español', op. cit., in n. 8.

21 S. Roldán, Evolucián de la norma de obligado cumplimiento, Madrid, 1966.

22 OCDE, Croirsance économique 1960–70, Paris, 1966, p. 23.

23 Fundacián FOESSA, op. cit., p. 56.

24 Pérez‐Diaz, V., Emigracián y cambio social, Arid, Barcelona 1972 Google Scholar; Barbancho, A. G., Las migraciones interiores Españolas, Instituto de Desarrollo Econámico, Madrid, 1967, pp. 103–29Google Scholar.

25 See R. Bulnes, ‘Del sindicalismo de represián al sindicalismo de integracion’, in Horizonte Español 1966, op. cit., vol. II. The main post‐war clandestine unions were then: 1) The AS (Alianza sindical), composed by socialist, anarchist and Basque groups (the Solidaridad de trabajadores vascos, which abandoned the coalition in 1965), with a reformist' orientation and opposed to the ‘workers’ commissions' because of their allegiance to the small socialist and anarchist bureaucracies in exile; 2) The AST (Accián sindical de trabajadores) which was composed by left‐wing catholics and quickly joined the Comisiones; 3) The ASO (Accián sindical obrera) which integrated in 1962 a dissident group from the AS, the small SOCC (Solidaridad de obreros cristianos de Cataluña) and, from 1965, important elements of the STV. It was a reformist, anti‐communist group, strongly opposed to the ‘Workers’ Commissions'; 4) The USO (Unián sindical obrera), with a socialist‐christian orientation (it was composed by old members of Accián Catálica – an official catholic organization). ASO and USO were unified in a single organization by the end of 1965 and they unsuccessfully fought for a general abstention in the trade union elections of 1966. 5) The FST (Federacián sindical de trabajadores), another confessional organization, of a liberal orientation, strongly linked with Accián Catálica. 6) The OSO (Oposicián sindical obrera), which had been created by the Communist Party and which progressively disappeared as the Workers' Commissions' developed. These small ineffective organizations made indeed a very confusing jigsaw. See the description in G. Hermet, ‘Les Espagnols devant leur Régime’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 20, 1, February 1970.

26 Cf. the study of industrial strikes in this period in J. Blanc, ‘Las huelgas en el movimiento obrero español’, in op. cit., n.13.

27 As important documents on this subject, ‘Ante el futuro del sindicalismo,’ Comisiones Obreras de Madrid, March 1966; Declaratián de las comisiones obreras de Madrid', June 1966; ‘Las actuales tareas de las comisiones obreras’, Comisiones Obreras de Barcelona, February 1968; ‘Conclusiones de la Comisián interindustrial de las comisiones obreras de Madrid’, November 1969; ‘Declaracián de la 5^a reunián general de las comisiones obreras’, November 1969. These clandestine documents have been published in Cuadernos de Ruedo Ibérico, no. 8, August–September 1966; no. 21–2, August–November 1968; and no. 25, June–July 1970. See also Hermet, G., ‘Les Espagnols devant leur Régime’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 20, 1 02 1970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 From the annual statistical reports of the Ministry of Labour (Informs sobre los conflictos colectivos de trabajo). These reports, which link with the work of the ‘Instituto de Reformas Sociales’, were resumed in 1963. The information for 1969 is an estimate, based on data for the first nine months of the year.

29 See Linz, J. J. and de Miguel, A., ‘Within Nations Differences and Comparisons: the Eight Spains’, in Merrit, R. L. and Rokkan, S. (eds.), Comparing Nations, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1966 Google Scholar.

30 Apparently this concentration of the conflicts is not so accentuated lately, with increasing industrial unrest in areas like Valladolid and Seville (metallurgy), Granada (building), Vigo (metallurgy and shipyards and El Ferrol (shipyards).

31 From the annual statistical reports of the Ministry of Labour. Solidarity' presented two modalities: support to other strikes and support to workers who had suffered sanctions because of their activities. It must be noted that these claims were overt and that, because of the harsh measures taken against ‘non‐professional’ conflicts, many wage claims concealed what were indeed political questions. Strikes over democratic unionization have been included with the ‘political‐solidarity’ class.

32 As a study on the differences between administrative reform' and political reform' at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s, see C. Moya, Burocraciay sociedad industrial.

33 Linz, J. J. ‘Opposition in and under an Authoritarian Regime: the Case of Spain’, in Dahl, R. (ed.), Regimes and Oppositions, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1973 Google Scholar.

34 See on these political differences ‘El Año X de las comisiones obreras’, Cuadernos de Ruedo Ibérico, no. 31–2, June–September 1971 (pp. 53–67). Amsden is very critical of the present state and prospects of the ‘workers’ commissions' – he believes that the Spanish political situation requires a jump forward' from the comisiones, which could have played an important role in the 1960s. However I do not think that he has enough evidence for such an interpretation, which seems very influenced by ‘voluntaristic’ political programmes (see Collective Bargaining and Class Conflict in Spain, op. cit., pp. 99–104, 163–5).

35 Touraine has developed his description of Phase B of industrialization in many different places. See for instance, l'évolution du travail ouvrier aux urines Renault, CNRS, Paris, 1955, and La Conscience ouvrière, Seuil, Paris, 1966 (pp. 43–51 provide a short account of the typological phases).

36 Which would perfectly suit L. A. Coser's well‐known argumentation. See his The Functions of Social Conflict, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1956, pp. 44–54, 79–80, 151–7.

37 See J. J. Linz, ‘Opposition In and Under an Authoritarian Regime’, op. cit., n. 33.

38 Huntington, S. P., Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968, p. 404 Google Scholar.

39 Hess , R. L.and Loewenburg, G., ‘The Ethiopian No–Party State’, American Political Science Review, 12 1964 Google Scholar.