No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Castro: Economic Effects on Latin America
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Extract
Fidel Castro has had a more profound effect upon the course of Latin American affairs than any other individual in recent times. Castro's socioeconomic revolution combined with his political opposition to the United States and his charismatic personality have all contributed to granting him an historical importance of the first magnitude within Latin America. Castroism (or jidelismo to the Latin Americans) embodied much that was longed for by the frustrated Latin American intellectuals and masses. There is no doubt that the impact of Castro has lessened notably since the 1959-1960 period but there is also no doubt that he has contributed significantly to the fundamental altering of policies in Latin America, and he remains a force that must be reckoned with.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Miami 1969
References
1 Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, and Argentina. Central government budget accounts were not available for Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Uruguay (as well as Cuba).
2 In the case of Brazil, if state government expenditures are also included, then total governmental expenditures on all social services would about equal or somewhat exceed defense spending.
3 The Times of the Americas, Miami, Florida. Issues of 16, 23, 30 November, 1966.
4 Høst Madsen, Poul, “How Much Capital Flight from Developing Countries?” Finance & Development, II, No. 1 (March 1965), 32.Google Scholar
5 External Financing in Latin America, United Nations: Economic Commission for Latin America (1965), pp. 82-83.
6 Ibid., p. 208.
7 Based on figures from Table 4.
8 Hanson, Simon G., “The Alliance for Progress: The Fourth Year,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, 20, No. 2 (Autumn 1966), 71.Google Scholar Nystrom, J. Warren & Haverstock, Nathan A., The Alliance for Progress (D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. 1966), pp. 22-23.Google Scholar
9 Proposed Economic Assistance Programs: FY 1967, Summary Presentation to the Congress, Agency for International Development (1966), p. 69.
10 Alliance for Progress Weekly Newsletter, Pan American Union, vol. IV, No. 13 (March 28, 1966).
11 América en Cifras 1965. Situación Económica: 1. Agricultura, Ganadería, Silvicultura, Caza y Pesca, Inter-American Institute of Statistics, Pan American Union (1966), Table 311-04.
12 Proposed Economic Assistance Programs: FY 1967, loc. cit.
13 Statistical Yearbook (1962, 1966), Statistical Office of the United Nations. Based on data from table “Budget Accounts & Public Debt.”
14 “ ‘Social Development’ and ‘Social Planning’: A Survey of Conceptual and Practical Problems in Latin America,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America, Economic Commission for Latin America, IX, No. 1 (April 1966), 62-63.
15 Agricultural Statistics: 1966, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1966), Table 131.
16 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1962, Congressional Quarterly Service, Inc. (1963), p. 130.
17 Ibid.,p. 130.
18 Survey of Current Business, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Business Economics (1956-1967). Article dealing with tourism and travel appears in the June issue.
19 Statistical Yearbook: 1965, op. cit., Table 161.
América en Cifras: 1965, op. cit., Situación Económica: 3. Comercio, Transporte, Comunicaciones y Turismo, Tables 335-11, 335-12.
20 Economic Survey of Latin America: 1964, Economic Commission for Latin America (1966). Based on data from Table 224.
Primary commodity prices (exports from Latin America) were slightly higher in 1963 and 1964 than in preceding years.