Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:04:40.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Theory and Chile

The Problem of Generalizing from Historical Example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

F. Stirton Weaver
F. Stirton Weaver*
Affiliation:
Adlai E. Stevenson College, University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Industrialization was a powerful social force in the historical development of the Anglo-American economies; economic power was diffused throughout a new, individualistic, and independent economic class that successfully broke the political and cultural monopoly of a traditional, landowning elite. Recognizing the importance of industrialization in social change, conventional economic theory, as taught in the United States and Great Britain, implicitly relied on it to give dynamism to static equilibrium models of resource allocation and income distribution, while Marxist analysis placed it in the very center of a dynamic growth theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1970 , pp. 55 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although it more clearly recognizes the heightened integration and interdependence of modern industrialized nations, Keynesian theory is more abstracted from social aspects of economic organization than is traditional microeconomic analysis, which explicitly relies on atomistic competition (i.e., decentralized economic power).

2 A relatively recent example of the use of conventional theory in studying American economic’ history is the New Economic History. See particularly Fogel, R. W., Railroads and American Economic Growth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

3 Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, La economía de Chile en el periodo 1950-1963 (Santiago: Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, 1963), 2: table 8.Google Scholar

4 Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, Desarrollo económico de Chile 1940-1956 (Santiago: Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, 1956), p. 143 Google Scholar; Instituto de Economía, La economía, 2: table 132.

5 Corporación de Fomento de la Producción, Geografía económica de Chile 3 (Santiago: 1962): 201, 205, 221.Google Scholar

6 La concentración del poder económico. Su teoría. Su realidad chilena (Santiago: Editorial del Pacífico, S.A., 1962), p. 165.

7 For an excellent analysis of this process see Pike, F. B., “Aspects of Class Relations in Chile, 1850-1960,” Hispanic American Historical Review 43, no. 1 (February 1963): 14–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Pinto S. C., Aníbal, Chile: un caso de desarrollo frustrado (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, S.A., 1962), pp. 36–40, 129-135Google Scholar; and Linares, Francisco Walker, “Evolución social,” Desarrollo de Chile en la primera mitad del siglo XX, ed. Villegas, Humberto Fuenzalida, et al. (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, S.A., 1953), pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

8 See Fichter, Joseph F., Cambio social en Chile: un estudio de actitudes (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria Catolica, 1962), pp. 171–172.Google Scholar For an informal but revealing discussion of Chilean class structure, see Silvert, Kalman, The Conflict Society: Reaction and Revolution in Latin America (New Orleans: Hauser Press, 1961), pp. 230–241.Google Scholar

9 For figures on excess capacity see CORFO, Geografía económica 3: 219–224 Google Scholar, and Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, Utilización de la capacidad instalada en 42 empresas industriales (Santiago: Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, 1963).Google Scholar For the income distribution see Instituto de Economía, La economía 1: 116.

10 Between 1952 and 1960 the absolute number in the category of employers and independent workers declined five percent, while the work force grew by ten percent. United Nations Statistical Office, Demographic Yearbook (New York: 1956), p. 478, and (1964), p. 450.Google ScholarPubMed

11 For an excellent discussion of this phenomenon in Latin America in general, see Adams, R. N., “Introduction to Social Organization,” Contemporary Cultures and Society in Latin America, ed. Heath, D. B. and Adams, R. N. (New York: Random House, 1965), pp. 266–270.Google Scholar For Chile's adherence to this pattern see Humbertson, Amanda Labarca, “Apuntes para estudiar la clase media en Chile,” Revista Atenea, no. 305-306 (1950), pp. 239–257 Google Scholar; Fichter, , Cambio social, pp. 171–192 Google Scholar; and Pike, , Hispanic American Historical Review 43, no. 1 (February, 1963): 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see Vega, J., “La clase media en Chile,” Materiales para el estudio de la clase media en la América latina, ed. Crevanna, T. R. (Washington, D.C.: Pan American Union, Departmento de Asuntos Culturales, 1951), 3: 64–92 Google Scholar, for a good if somewhat overly optimistic discussion of the Chilean middle classes.

12 Cerda, Luis Escobar, Organización para el desarrollo económico (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, S.A., 1961), p. 171.Google Scholar

For estimates of subsidies through loan, see Instituto de Economía, Universidad de Chile, La tributación agrícola en Chile 1940-1958 (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, S.A., 1960)Google Scholar; and see Davis, T. E., “Changing Conception of the Development Problem: The Chile Example,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 14, no. 1 (October 1965): 28–29 Google Scholar, for this subsidy to industry.

13 See Finer, Herbert, The Chilean Development Corporation (Montreal: International Labor Organization, 1947)Google Scholar, for details of CORFO's charter making it a “capitalistic partner” to business; and Brandenburg, Frank, The Development of Latin American Private Enterprise (Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association, 1964), Planning Pamphlet no. 121, p. 57, for figures on ownership of Huachipato.Google Scholar

14 See Felix, David, “Chile,” Economic Development, ed. Pepelasis, A., Mears, L., and Adelman, I. (New York: Harper & Bros., 1961), pp. 308–319 Google Scholar, for the emphasis on industrialization. See Pinto S.C., Aníbal, “Alternativas para una reforma de los sistemas convencionales de previsión social,” El Trimestre Económico 38, no. 111 (July-September 1961)Google Scholar, and Chile: un caso, pp. 189-194, for a discussion of the impact of social security. For demonstrating how the education policy has widened the distance between the lower and middle classes see Berr, Eduardo Hamuy, Educación elemental, analfabetismo, y desarrollo económico (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria, S.A., 1960)Google Scholar; and Escobar, , Organización, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar For a discussion of the Chilean governmental bureaucracy see Walker, , “Evolución social,” Desarrollo de Chile, ed. Villegas, Humberto Fuenzalida, et al., p. 42.Google Scholar And for an excellent discussion of the social position and political activity of the Chilean middle class see Sunkel, Osvaldo, “Change and Frustration in Chile,” Obstacles to Change in Latin America, ed. Veliz, Claudio (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 116–144.Google Scholar

15 For a good description of Chilean political history emphasizing the opportunism of the Radical party, see Gil, Federico, Genesis and Modernization of Political Parties in Chile (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1961)Google Scholar, The Latin American Monograph Series, no. 18; also see Bray, Donald, “Chile: The Dark Side of Stability,” Studies on the Left 4, no. 4 (Fall 1964): 86 Google Scholar, where he discusses the irresistible pull to the right exerted on a politically opportunistic party in Chile.

Hirschman, A. O., in Journeys Toward Progress (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1963), pp. 227–297 Google Scholar, presents the “reform-mongering” political model, and C. J. Parrish, in “The Relevance of Comparative Method to the Study of Latin American Politics,” (Department of Government, University of Texas), pp. 34-36 (mimeographed), effectively criticizes it by examples from Chilean politics.

16 United Nations, Economic Development of Latin America in the Post-War Years (New York: 1964), p. 71.Google Scholar Instituto de Economía, La economía 1: 116.Google Scholar

17 Instituto de Economía, La economía 1: 116.Google Scholar

18 Cited by Pinto, , Chile: un caso, p. 185.Google Scholar

19 Celso Furtado makes this argument most persuasively in Development and Underdevelopment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964), pp. 65-68.