No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2022
1. See also Ronald C. Newton, “On ‘Functional Groups,’ ‘Fragmentation,’ and ‘Pluralism’ in Spanish American Political Society,” HAHR 50, no. 1 (Feb. 1970):1–29; Howard J. Wiarda, “Toward a Framework for the Study of Political Change in the Iberic-Latin Tradition: The Corporative Model,” World Politics 25, no. 2 (Jan. 1973): 206–35; Wiarda (ed.), Politics and Social Change in Latin America: The Distinct Tradition (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974); James A. Morris and Steve C. Ropp, “Corporatism and Dependent Development: A Honduran Case Study,” LARR 12, no. 2 (1977):27–68.
2. In my opinion, these divergences, important as they may be, are not essential for the purposes of the general arguments presented in this review.
3. Richard R. Fagen, “Studying Latin American Politics: Some Implications of a Dependencia Approach,” LARR 12, no. 2 (1977): 10 (author's emphasis).
4. For useful discussions of dependence theory (theories), imperialism, etc., see the issues of Latin American Perspectives, especially 1, no. 1 (Spring 1974); 2, no. 2 (Spring 1975); and 3, no. 4 (Fall 1976).
5. In this vein, see Guillermo O'Donnell, “Estado y alianzas en la Argentina, 1956–1976,” Documento CEDES/G.E. CLACSO, Buenos Aires, no. 5 (October 1976), and “Reflections on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State,” LARR 13, no. 1 (1978):3–38.
You have
Access