¹ The need to clarify the theme developed in this paper arose from the problems encountered in preparing the MS for The State and Economic Development: Peru since 1968 (Cambridge University Press, 1976). The author would like to thank José Maria Caballero for helpful comments on an earlier draft.Google Scholar

² Fitzgerald, E., ‘The Public Sector in Latin America’ (Centre of Latin American Studies, Cambridge, Working Paper No. 18, 1974).Google Scholar

³ Thid issue is more fully discussed in Fitzgerald, E., The State and Economic Developement, Chapter 2.Google Scholar

⁴ For footnote, see p.55

⁵ Ibid. p. 13. Taking the ‘ dividing line’ as enterprise of 5 employees or more, we have the following table for 1972: Value Work- Value Work- Corporate Sector Added force Household Sector Added force Export Production 20% 18% Peasant Agricult. 10% 33% Factory Industry 11% 5% Artisans etc. 9% 11% Services & Govt. 35%, 13% Petty Services 15% 20%

⁶ The functional separation is not hermetic, of course – there is the seasonal employment from coastal towns on the sugar estates, and the practice of ‘ putting out ’ work to artisans by clothing and footwear firms – nonetheless, the functional separation seems to be valid. On this topic, elaborated in the form of an algebraic model which stresses the extremely low marginal product in this sector, see Fitzgerald, E., ‘The Urban Service Sector, Supply of Wagegoods and the Shadow Wagerate’, Oxford Economic Papers (forthcoming, 06, 1976).Google Scholar

⁷ Espinoza, H., El Poder Económico en la Industria (Villareal University Press, Lima, 1972);Google ScholarMalpica, C., Los Dueúos del Perú (Peisa, Lima, 1974);Google Scholar and Torres, J., La Estructura de la Industria Peruana (Horizonte, Lima, 1975).Google Scholar

⁸ See the interesting discussion of the previous phase of penetration in Bertram, G. I., ‘Development Problems in an Export Economy: Domestic Capitalists, Foreign Firms and Government in Peru, 1919–1930’ (unpublished D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford, 1974).Google Scholar

⁹ See the stimulating essay on the history of this class in Ferner, A., ‘The Evolution of the Peruvian Industrial Bourgeoisie’, MS (ESAN, Lima, 1975),Google Scholar and the analysis of its present significance in Wils, F., Industrialists, Industrialisation and the Nation State (Inst. of Social Studies, The Hague, 1975). The scepticism of the former rather than the optimism of the latter coincides with the analysis of this paper.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Fitzgerald, E., ‘Aspects of Industrialisation in Peru: 1965–1975’ (Centre of Latin American Studies, Cambridge, Working Paper No. 22, 1975). This paper gives a breakdown of assets in factory manufacturing, between foreign-controlled and domestic firms on the one hand, and ‘large’ (i.e. with assets of 10 million soles or more) and other firms on the other, for 1968–9: Foreign Share of Assets Domestic Total Share of Firms Large 32% 20% 52% 6% Other 13% 35% 48% 94% Total 45% 55% 100% 100%Google Scholar

¹¹ Villanueva, V., Cien Años del Militarismo en el perú (Baca, Lima, 1971).Google Scholar

¹² Chaplin, D., The Peruvian Industrial labour Force (Princeton Univ. Press, 1967).Google Scholar

¹³ The best survey of this period, for all its analytical weaknesses, is Astiz, C., Pressure Groups and Power Politics in Peruvian Politics (Cornell Univ. Press, 1969).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The term ‘national’ bourgeoisie seems unhelpful, as it begs the very question we are trying to answer – the resistance of domestic to foreign capital.

¹⁵ Such as Bourricaud, F., Power and Society in Contemporary Peru (Faber, London, 1970), though this was written in 1967, and also the official ‘revolutionary’ viewpoint.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Pace Quijano, A., Nationalism and Capitalism in Peru (Monthly Review Press, New York, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Pace Malpica, C., El Mito de la Ayuda Exterior (Moncloa, Lima, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Pace Petras, J. and La Porte, R., Peru: Transformación Revolucionaria o Modernización? (Amorrortu, Buenos Aires, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁹ This point is substantiated by the developments since 1968, of course.

²⁰ This is discussed further in Fitzgerald, E., The State and Economic Development: Peru since 1968. Chapter 3.Google Scholar

²¹ This refers to control over enterprises of five employees or more. The figures for 1968 and 1975 are given in Fitzgerald, Google Scholar, ibid., p. 13, and that for 1950 is an initial estimate, of a tentative nature.

²² Kaplan, M., ‘El Estado Empresario en la Argentina’, Trimestre Económico (01. 1969), pp. 69–112.Google Scholar

²³ Baer, W., ‘The Changing Role of the State in the Brazilian Economy’, World Development, vol. 1, II (1973), pp. 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Fitzgerald, E., The Public Sector in Latin America.Google Scholar

²⁵ A. Quijano, op. cit.

²⁶ J. Petras and R. La Porte, op. cit.

²⁷ Kalecki, M., ‘Social and Economic Aspects of Intermediate Regimes’, in his Essays on the Economic Growth of the Socialist and Mixed Economy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972).Google Scholar

²⁸ This is the central theme of E. Fitzgerald, The State and Economic Development.

²⁹ E. Fitzgerald, “The Public Sector in Latin America ”.

³⁰ Operated by Southern Peru Copper, the enterprise responsible for the Cuajone project.

³¹ See Fitzgerald, E., ‘Aspects of Industrialisation in Peru’, and also Vaitsos, C., Inter-country Income Distribution and Transnational Enterprises (Oxford Univ. Press, 1974).Google Scholar

³² Over the 1969–73 period, there was a net outflow of private foreign capital, and the proportion of declared profits in the economy exported fell to 11%, compared to 36% in the 1963–7 period.

³³ Instituto Nacional de Planificación, Plan Naciomal de Desarrollo, 1975–78 (Lima, 1975).Google Scholar