1. I wish to thank Carlos Malamud, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo (h), Juan Velarde Fuertes, José Molero, Daniel Kerner, and Carlos Bastien for various kinds of material and scholarly aid in researching this article. I also wish to acknowledge support of the National Endowment of the Humanities and the Social Science Research Council.

2. Comisión Económica para America Latina y el Caribe. I will use “CEPAL” throughout.

3. The school thus rejected the doctrine of comparative advantage, first advanced by David Ricardo in 1817, and later elaborated and extended by J. S. Mill, Alfred Marshall, Bertil Ohlin and Eli Hecksher, and Paul Samuelson. Ricardo had demonstrated that, given two countries and two goods, it was to the advantage of both countries to specialize in the production of one good and trade for the other, even if one country produced both goods more efficiently (i.e., at lower cost) than the other.

4. Dudley Seers, Bernard Schafer, and Marja Lissa Kiljunen, Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core-Periphery Relations (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1979). Seers' debt to CEPAL is evident from his article, “Los estudios sobre el desarrollo en Europa occidental,” in José Molero, ed., El análisis estructural en economía: Ensayos de América Latina y España (México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica [Lecturas 40], 1981), 200-7.

5. Ivan Berend and Gyorgy Ranki, The European Periphery and Industrialization: 1780–1914 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982). The authors took their organizing scheme from Immanuel Wallerstein's Modern World System 8 (1974). In turn, Wallerstein was heavily influenced by dependency analysis. Daniel Chirot and Thomas D. Hall remark, with some exaggeration, that Wallerstein's World System theory “is in most ways merely a North American adaptation of dependency theory… .” Chirot and Hall, “World-System Theory,” in Annual Review of Sociology 8 (1982): 90.

6. As classified by Berend and Ranki, The European Periphery and Industrialization, 1980–1914 (see previous note).

7. Named for a minor neokantian, Karl Friedrich Krause, whose ideas on the harmony between the individual and the natural order of the universe, allowed reformist Spanish intellectuals to reject the alleged materialism of French philosophy in favor of a moral regeneration they associated with Krause. Krause's leading enthusiast in Spain was Francisco Giner de los Ríos. See Raymond Carr, Spain: 1808-1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 301-4.

8. Salvador Almenar, “The Development of Economic Studies and Research in Spain (1939-95),” in Alfred William Bob Coats, ed., The Development of Economics in Western Europe since 1945 (London: Routledge, 2000), 192.

9. Notably, Antonio Flores de Lemus. Juan Velarde Fuertes, “Un escolarca: Flores de Lemus” in Velarde, Introducción a la historia del pensamiento económico español el siglo XX (Madrid: Nacional, 1972), 112. Flores had studied with Wagner in Berlin, according to Almenar, 192.

10. Neoclassical economics was so denominated to distinguish it from the classical school of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill, and developed more or less simultaneously and independently in the work of Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, and Carl Menger in the 1870s; it was synthesized, systematized, and advanced in Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics in 1890. The neoclassical school dispensed with the labor theory of value of the classicals, to focus on demand at the margin as the basis of value, and was more formalized and mathematized than its classical predecessor. Neoclassical economics (or “marginalism”) held that the relationship between use values and exchange values was proportional to the relationship between the marginal utilities of consumers for given goods and the prices at which those goods exchanged. Thus, “given quantities produced, relative prices are exclusively determined by marginal utilities, independently of the costs of production of commodities.” Antonietta Campus, “Marginalist economics,” in John Eatwell et al., eds., The New Palgrave (rev. ed., New York: Macmillan, 1991), vol. 3, 320.

11. Juan Velarde Fuertes, La vieja generación de economistas y la actual realidad económica española (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1989), 59.

12. Berlin, 1931. On Perpiñá's interest in Wagemann, see Velarde Fuertes, “El movimiento estructuralista español,” in José Molero, ed., El análisis estructural, 177.

13. Roman Perpiñá Grau, De economía hispana: Contribución al estudio de la constitución económica de España y de su política económica, especialmente la comercial exterior (Barcelona: n. pub., 1936), 6. In particular, Perpiñá was influenced by the Austrian Gottfried Haberler, who later taught at Harvard. The Spaniard published Haberler's El comercio internacional in Spain in 1936 (Ger. orig., 1930).

14. Namely, August Lösch, who taught at Kiel, and Alfred Weber. See Jordi Palafox Garnir, “Introducción,” to Perpiñá, De economía hispana y otros ensayos (Madrid: Fundación Fondo para la Investigación Económica, 1993), xiv. Central place theory is a close relative of regional science and location theory in economics, both of which consider spatial variables.

15. German version in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 1935; Spanish version, 1936.

16. Perpiñá, De economía hispana, 54-55.

17. Ibid., 52, 62, 64, 70.

18. Ibid., 7, 36, 65.

19. Leandro Prados de la Escosura compares the relatively free-trade policy of the period 1860-1890 against the protectionism of 1890-1920, in Del imperio a la nación: Crecimiento y atraso económico en España (1780-1930) (Madrid: Alianza, 1988), 45.

20. Autarky was never attempted in a strict sense, Buesa Blanco points out, because Spain remained dependent on foreign capital goods. Miguel (Mikel) Buesa Blanco, “El estado en el proceso de industrialización: Contribución al estudio de la política industrial española en el periodo 1939-1963.” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense, 1983), 483-84.

21. Mihail Manoilesco [sic], Teoria do proteccionismo e de permuta internacional (São Paulo: Centro das Industrias, 1931); Manoilesco, “Productividad del trabajo y comercio exterior, Economía (Santiago) 8, nos. 22-23 (September 1947): 50-77.

22. Manuel Fuentes Irurozqui, “Prólogo” to Mihail Manoilesco [sic], Teoría del proteccionismo y del comercio internacional (Madrid: Ministerio de Industria y Comercio, 1943), xiv (on previous serial publication by the same ministry in Información Comercial Española). Fuentes was sympathetic to Manoilescu's theses, despite his familiarity with other economists' criticisms. Ibid., vii-xv.

23. Manoilescu, La théorie du protectionnisme et de l'échange international (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1929), 61, 65, 184; Le siècle du corporatisme: Doctrine du corporatisme integral et pur (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1934), 28.

24. Manoilescu, “Curs de economie politică.” (rev. mimeo. text at Şcoala Politehnică Bucharest [1940], 331.)

25. Manoilescu, Théorie, 184; Siècle, 28-30. For a consideration of Manoilescu's direct influence on Prebisch, which I largely reject, see Joseph L. Love, Crafting the Third World: Theorizing Underdevelopment in Rumania and Brazil (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), 134-36.

26. Robert, quoted in Velarde, Vieja generación, 34.

27. Ibid., 36.

28. Carlos Velasco Murviedro, “El pensamiento autárquico español como directriz de la política económica (1936-1951)” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense, 1982), 255.

29. Ibid., 959-60.

30. Ibid., 745, 1019-20.

31. Modeled in part on Mussolini's Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, established in 1931. See Pedro Schwartz and Manuel-Jesús González, Una historia del Instituto Nacional de Industria (1941-1976) (Madrid: Tecnos, 1978), 6, 15.

32. Schwartz and González, Una historia, 27.

33. Velasco, “El pensamiento,” 932.

34. Buesa, “El estado,” 465, 467; Velasco, “El pensamiento,” 268-70.

35. Buesa, “El estado,” 467, 476, 485.

36. Robert, Perspectivas de la economía española (Madrid: Cultura Hispánica, 1954), 205-7.

37. On Wagemann's influence, see Almenar, “The Development of Economic Studies,” 202.

38. See Higinio París Eguilaz, Teoría de la economía nacional (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1945), 311-48.

39. Higinio París Eguilaz, “El futuro de España y las comunidades supranacionales,” in José Larraz López et al., Estudios sobre la unidad económica de Europa, vol. 9: Conclusiones (Madrid: Estudios Económicos Españoles y Europeos, 1961), 22.

40. Ibid., 81; Robert, Perspectivas, 208.

41. Note the appearance of future chairholders in structural analysis at Madrid, Juan Velarde Fuertes, José Luis Sampedro, and Ramón Tamames. On their structuralist approach, see Velarde, “El movimiento estructuralista español,” in José Molero, ed., El análisis estructural (n. 4); Sampedro, Realidad económica y análisis estructural (Madrid: Aguilar, 1959); and Tamames, Fundamentos de la estructura económica (Madrid: Alianza, 1975).

42. Walter Eucken, another German neoclassical whose work was introduced in Spain by von Stackelberg, had a similar effect. Juan Velarde Fuertes, “Stackelberg y su papel en el cambio de la política económica española,” unpublished manuscript, 1995, esp. pp. 21-22. On von Stackelberg's importance as a theorist of oligopoly, see “Stackelberg, Heinrich von,” in John Eatwell et al., eds., The New Palgrave, vol. 4, 469.

43. Sampedro, Realidad, 244.

44. Leontief developed a matrix by which, for a given output of final goods, all the required inputs could be specified. This methodological advance was obviously a boon for state planners.

45. Manuel de Torres, “El comercio exterior y el desarrollo económico español,” ICE, no. 328 (December 1960): 35-36.

46. Prebisch, “Commercial Policy in Underdeveloped Countries,” American Economic Review 49, no. 2 (May 1959): 268. Two years later he wrote, “It remains a paradox that industrialization, instead of helping greatly to soften the internal impact of external fluctuations, is bringing us a new and unknown type of external vulnerability.” Prebisch, “Economic Development or Monetary Stability: A False Dilemma,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America 6, no. 1 (March 1961): 5.

47. Charles W. Anderson, The Political Economy of Modern Spain: Policy-Making in an Authoritarian System (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), 100 (on Robert and Paris); Torres, “Introducción” to Alberto O. Hirschman, La potencia nacional y la estructura del comercio exterior, tr. by Ramón Verea Rial (Madrid: Aguilar, 1950 [Eng. orig., 1945]), xvi. For Torres, Hirschman's book showed how such countries might protect themselves against the economic power of stronger countries.

48. One number of the Revista de Economía Política—vol. 5 (May 1953-December 1954 [sic])—is entirely devoted to development economics, following a series of lectures in Madrid by Bert Hoselitz, the development economist of the University of Chicago. The articles, chosen by Hoselitz, include a sampling of prominent development economists. Prebisch is not represented, and though Hans W. Singer is, the article in question was written prior to his seminal paper of 1950 that linked his name with Prebisch's. (The German-born U.N. economist had independently published a set of propositions similar to Prebisch's in 1950; hence, the “Prebisch-Singer” thesis. Singer's study was “The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing Countries.” American Economic Review, no. 2 [May 1950]: 473-85.)

49. Gonzalo Sáenz de Buruaga, “Desarrollo económico y capitalismo,” Revista de Economía Política, 10, 3 (September-December 1959): 1018-19.

50. See ICE, no. 323 (July 1960): 15-46 (CEPAL) and 65-72 (Prebisch). One may also note Charles Anderson's description of the young reformist economists associated with the radical wing of the Falange during the 1950s as “the structuralists.” This group, including Enrique Fuentes Quintana, José Luis Sampedro, Juan Velarde Fuertes, and Angel Rojo Duque, were all important academicians in the 1950s and later. They called for radical structural changes in the Spanish economy, including agrarian reform and income redistribution, and could do so because they had political “cover” and did not link economic to political reforms. E.g., see Velarde, Sobre la decadencia económica de España (Madrid: Tecnos, 1967), 607, endorsing land reform and progressive taxation. Anderson compares the group to Latin American structuralists, but there was no direct connection between the two groups. Anderson, Political Economy, 101.

51. Anderson, Political Economy, 236.

52. Manuel de Torres [Martínez], “Los tipos de economías europeas y el problema de su integración,” in Manuel de Torres, ed., Estudios sobre la unidad económica europea, vol. 4, 2nd part (Madrid: Estudios Económicos Españoles y Europeos, 1954), 636-37. Despite the misgivings expressed by Robert, París, Sáenz and Torres, Spain applied for membership in the Common Market in 1962, only to be rebuffed two years later when the application was shelved.

53. Prebisch, “Economic Development or Monetary Stability: the False Dilemma,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America 6, no. 1 (March 1961): 1-25, esp. 3, where agriculture is cited as a structural cause of inflation (because of antiquated land-tenure systems). Octavio Rodríguez stresses personal, rather than official, contributions of cepalistas in La teoría del subdesarrollo de la CEPAL (Mexico, D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno 1980), 4, 190. CEPAL's El aporte de las ideas-fuerza (Santiago: CEPAL, 1978) and XXV años de la CEPAL (Santiago: CEPAL, 1973) do not mention any contribution by the institution as such on inflation.

54. See Juan Noyola Vazquez, “El desarrollo económico y la inflación en Mexico y otros países latinoamericanos,” Investigaciones Económicas 16, no. 4 (1956): 603-18; Osvaldo Sunkel, “Inflation in Chile: An Unorthodox Approach,” International Economic Papers, no. 10 (1960): 107-31 [orig. in Trimestre Económico (1958)]; Rodríguez, Teoría, chap. 6. In Chile, as Sunkel pointed out, prices for agricultural goods were favorable. In Perón's Argentina, one would have expected an inelastic supply in agriculture, because of government price and foreign exchange controls.

55. “La era de la inflación,” [special number] ICE, nos. 396-397 (August-September 1966): 1 (“realism”). In 1974, Jesús Prados Arrarte, professor of economics at the Facultad de Derecho of the Complutense, would describe the structuralist explanations of inflation by Sunkel and Prebisch, but would critique and reject them. Prados Arrarte, La inflación (Madrid: La Guadiana, 1974), 76-109.

56. On both points, see José Molero, “Introducción” to Molero, ed., El análisis estructural, 13.

57. “Segunda Independencia de América,” ICE, no. 460 (December 1971): 3-4.

58. Gabriel Guzmán, “El desarrollo desigual a escala mundial según la CEPAL,” Anales de Economía (hereafter, AE), 3a. época, nos. 18-19 (April-September 1973): 99-144.

59. E.g., see the revised edition of José Luis Sampedro and Rafael Martínez Cortina, Estructura económica: Teoría básica y estructura mundial (Barcelona: Ariel, 1973 [orig., 1969]), which briefly endorses dependency (662-63), and has a variety of references to the work of Prebisch, Pinto, Furtado, and Sunkel.

60. That Raúl Prebisch was the originator of the NIEO movement is confirmed in a standard textbook on development theory and in a history of that subject. See the text of Michael P. Todaro, Economic Development in the Third World, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 1985), 560, and Heinz W. Arndt, Economic Development: The History of an Idea (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 141. Also on Prebisch at UNCTAD and the NIEO, see n.105 on Eduardo Sousa Ferreira.

61. Javier Braña, Mikel Buesa, and José Molero, “Raúl Prebisch: La categoría centro-periferia y el análisis estructural del subdesarrollo,” AE, 3a época, no. 25 (January-June 1975): 229-55; Molero, “Introducción,” 13.

62. On Singer and Prebisch, see n.48.

63. Molero, “Introducción,” 14.

64. Javier Braña, Mikel Buesa, and José Molero, “El fin de la etapa nacionalista: Industrialización y dependencia en España, 1951-1959,” Investigaciones Económicas 9 (1979): 198-200, 206.

65. Ibid., 174, 176. For a historical perspective on this period and the influence of the Latin American school on the younger generation of Spanish structuralists, see Pedro Fraile Balbín, La retórica contra la competencia en España (1875-1975) (Madrid: Fundación Argentaria, 1998), 136-39. Fraile specifically mentions the influence of Osvaldo Sunkel's dependency-suffused structuralist text with Pedro Paz, El subdesarrollo latinoamericano y la teoría del desarrollo. On the Latin American emphasis on strategic sectors (petrochemicals and metallurgy), Fraile cites the influence of Fernando Fajnzylber, La industrialización trunca de América Latina (Mexico: Nueva Imagen, 1983). More generally on the Latin American impact in Spain, see Almenar, 202.

66. Braña, Buesa, and Molero, “Materiales para el análisis de la dependencia tecnológica en España,” in Vicente Donoso, José Molero, Juan Muñoz, and Angel Serrano, eds., Transnacionalización y Dependencia (Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1980), 327-28, 347 (quotation).

67. Braña, Buesa, and Molero, “Los años 60-70: El auge del crecimiento dependiente en España,” in ibid., 264, n. 20; 283.

68. He mentioned the work of Flores de Lemus, Perpiñá, and Torres. See Velarde Fuertes, “Prólogo” to Molero, Análisis estructural, 10.

69. Ibid., 10.

70. José Molero, “La dependencia tecnológica exterior de las grandes empresas industriales españolas 1974-1976 (algunos rasgos fundamentales),” Investigaciones Económicas 13 (September-December 1980): 186, 192; Braña, Buesa, and Molero, El Estado y el cambio tecnológico en la industrialización tardía: Un análisis del caso español (México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1984), 13.

71. Braña, Buesa, and Molero, Estado, 39-49 (on Latin American structuralism); 50-78 (on dependency).

72. Mikel Buesa and José Molero, Innovación industrial y dependencia tecnológica de Espana (Madrid: Eudema, 1989).

73. José Molero, “Economía e innovación (Hacia una teoría estructural del cambio técnico),” Economia Industrial, no. 275 (September-October 1990): 39-54.

74. The dominance of neoclassical economics also meant a much weightier role for the Anglo-American literature. Almenar, 217-18.

75. See Pensamiento Iberoamericano: Revista de Economía Política, no. 1 (January-June 1982).

76. Velarde interview, Madrid, January 9, 1995.

77. Armando Castro, “O ensino da ciência econômica na segunda metade dos anos trinta e a acção pedagógica do Professor Doutor Teixeira Ribeiro.” Boletim da Faculdade de Direito de Coimbra, número especial (1978), 8. In a similar vein, Carlos Bastien states that modern economic theory only begins in the 1950s. Bastien, “The Advent of Modern Economics in Portugal” in Coats, The Development of Economics, 186.

78. Cf. the same notion in Spain, described above.

79. José M. Brandão de Brito, “Os engenheiros e o pensamento económico do Estado Novo,” in José Luís Cardoso, éd., Contribuições para a história do pensamento económico em Portugal, (Lisbon: Dom Quixote, 1988); and Brandão de Brito, “O condicionamento industrial e o processo português de industrialização apos a Segunda Grande Guerra.” (PhD diss., Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 1987), chap. 2. Carlos Bastien, however, denies that Ferreira Dias altogether ignored economic theory. Bastien, personal communication, April 29, 2001.

80. François Perroux, Lições de economia política (Coimbra: Ed. Coimbra, 1936). Also see Castro, 7.

81. On this matter, see Love, Crafting, 146-47.

82. Perroux, Lições, chap. 2 (138-225).

83. Armando Nogueira, “O aspecto estrutural” in Instituto de Alta Cultura: Centro de Estudos de Estatística Económica, Coletânea de Estudos, vol. 2 (1957): 185 (quotation). Nogueira cites eight studies of Perroux in his bibliography on structuralism (187-88). Also on Perroux's authority, see Fernando Mário Alberto de Seabra (professor of economics at the University of Porto), A industrialização dos países agrícolas: Introdução ao estudo do problema (Coimbra: Atlântida, 1945), 68. Another interwar economist with a similar structuralist approach, Ernst Wagemann (see above), was also cited as an authority by João Pinto da Costa Leite, the chairholder of economics at the Law School at Lisbon, in his text Economia Política, I (Coimbra: n. pub., 1963), 46.

84. Carlos Bastien, “A emergência do pensamento econômico e teórico no Portugal contemporâneo,” Cadernos de Ciencias Sociais, no. 12/13 (January 1993): 149.

85. Bastien, “Emergência,” 160.

86. Carlos Bastien, “A introdução do pensamento económico estructuralista em Portugal (Anos 40 e 50),” in José Luís Cardoso and Antônio Almodóvar, eds., Actas do encontro ibérico sobre história do pensamento econômico (Lisboa: CISEP, 1992), 409. On the content of government development plans, 1959-74, see Eugenia Mata and Nuno Valério, História econômica de Portugal: Uma perspectiva global (Lisboa: Presença, 1994), 210-11.

87. Bastien, “Emergencia,” 150; Bastien, personal communication, April 2, 2001.

88. Cited in Francisco Pereira de Moura, Luís Maria Teixeira Pinto, and Manuel Jacinto Nunes, “Estrutura económica portuguesa: Agricultura, indústria, comércio externo,” in Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Centro de Estudos Econômicos, Revista, no. 14 (1954): 198.

89. The Conditions of Economic Progress (2nd éd., London: Macmillan, 1951 [1940]); A. Ramos Pereira, “Portugal e o quadro das estruturas econômicas sub-desenvolvidas,” Revista de Economia 7, no. 1 (March 1954): 3; Bastien, “A introdução,” 417.

90. Nogueira, “Aspecto estrutural,” 181.

91. He thought Kurt Mandelbaum's prescription of state-led infusions of large capital movements for backward countries was appropriate for Portugal. Ramos Pereira, 22. However, the writer thought that Portugal differed from other underdeveloped countries in not having an absolute dearth, but a “directional insufficiency” of capital, meaning that Portugal misdirected its capital to pay off debt and to overinvest in urban property, rather than favoring industrial development. Bastien, personal communication, above. In addition, see Bastien, “Alvaro Mâmede Ramos Pereira (1920-1984)” in J. L. Cardoso, ed., Dicionário Histórico de Economistas Portugueses (Lisboa: Temas e Debates, 2001), 247. In his “Emergência,” Bastien discusses the general recognition of the backwardness of the Portuguese economy in the decade following the war (149).

92. This institution, Portugal's chief center of economic research, was connected to the Universidade Técnica de Lisboa and went through a number of name changes. During the period under study, it was successively known as the Instituto Superior de Ciências Económicas e Financeiras and the Instituto Superior de Economia.

93. Francisco Pereira de Moura, “Estagnação e crescimento da economia portuguesa?,” Revista do Gabinete de Estudos Corporativos 7, no. 26 (June 1956): 186. In the mid-1950s ISEG introduced a course sequence on development economics. (Bastien, personal communication, May 4, 2001.)

94. Bastien, personal communication, April 2, 2001.

95. Pereira de Moura, “Estagnação,” 186

96. He cited Mandlebaum as an authority on the thesis that the marginal productivity of labor approaches zero in peasant agriculture. Ramos Pereira, “Portugal,” 6, n.13.

97. Celso Furtado, “A técnica do planejamento econômico,” Revista de Economia 7, no. 1 (March 1954): 22-29, published the same year in the Brazilian journal Revista de Ciências Econômicas.

98. Teixeira Pinto, “Segunda Conferência” in Pereira de Moura and Teixeira Pinto, Problemas de crescimento econômico português (Lisboa: Associação Industrial Portuguesa, 1958), 41, n. 2. Also on Teixeira's career and CEPAL's influence on him, see José Luís Cardoso, “Luís Maria Teixeira Pinto (n. 1927)” in Cardoso, Dicionário, 267.

99. Defined as the volume of exports multiplied by the terms of trade.

100. “Planning Concepts and Experiences” from the series “Analyses and Projections of Economic Development, I: An Introduction to the Technique of Programming” in United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, Development Problems in Latin America (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1970), 61-102; the summary above is drawn from Albert O. Hirschman, Latin American Issues: Essays and Comments (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1961), 17-19 (quotation on p. 18).

101. Pereira de Moura, “Terceira Conferência” and Teixeira Pinto, “Quarta Conferência” in Pereira de Moura and Teixeira Pinto, 71, 76, 78, 93.

102. Carlos Bastien, “Introdução,” 414-16; on Spain, see Almenar, 201. In addition, Pereira de Moura argued that one aspect of economic backwardness was a tendency toward the concentration of income in the higher strata of income-recipients, as the postwar economy expanded between 1947 and 1956. Furthermore, the “demonstration effect” caused profits to be spent on “superfluous” consumption and therefore induced a rise in imports, a position Prebisch had defended in Argentina as early as the 1930s—before the term “demonstration effect” had been coined by the Harvard economist James Duesenberry. Pereira de Moura, “Primeira Conferência,” ibid., 30-34.

103. Bastien, “Introdução,” 417.

104. The last-named point, however, would more properly be associated with other structuralists, notably Juan Noyola Vázquez, Aníbal Pinto, and Osvaldo Sunkel.

105. Manuela Silva, “Vias de penetração do pensamento de Raúl Prebisch em Portugal—um balanço provisório,” MS [1987?], 6 pp. typescript, courtesy of Carlos Bastien. In addition, though not directly related to the Portuguese economy, Eduardo de Sousa Ferreira, also a professor at the ISEG, pointed out in 1981 that Prebisch's thesis on international trade was of “central importance” in the first four meetings of the UNCTAD, of which Prebisch was the first Executive Secretary. According to that view, as summarized by Sousa Ferreira, the “trade gap” (in English) between the underdeveloped and developed countries impedes the further development of the former group of nations. Sousa Ferreira, “UNCTAD V: O carácter neoclássico da Nova Ordem Econômica Internacional,” Estudos de economia: Revista do Instituto Superior de Economia 1, no. 2 (January–April 1981): 157.

106. Pereira de Moura, “Estagnação,” 130. Furtado's Economia Brasileira was an early version of his celebrated Formação econômica do Brasil [Economic Growth of Brazil] (Rio: Fundo de Cultura), published in the same year (1959) as Aníbal Pinto's structuralist history, Chile, Un caso de desarrollo frustrado (Santiago: Ed. Universitaria). Furtado's influence on Portuguese planning, noted above, also occurred in the 1950s.

107. Alfredo de Sousa, “O desenvolvimento económico e social português: reflexão crítica,” in Análise Social 7, no. 27-28 (1969): 394, 397, 399.

108. Celso Furtado and Alfredo de Sousa, “Los perfiles de la demanda y de la inversión,” Trimestre Económico 37, no. 3 (July-September 1970): 463-87. The article also appeared in Portuguese in the same issue of Análise Social in which Sousa's “O desenvolvimento” was published (487-511).

109. See Love, Crafting, 170-71.

110. The sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, based at ILPES, a CEPAL-associated agency in the mid-1960s, did explicitly employ a Marxist paradigm, as did many other dependency writers of the 1960s and 1970s. Elsewhere I have tried to show that the main source of Cardoso's famous Dependency and Development, jointly authored with Enzo Faletto, was Latin American structuralism, not Marxism. See Love, Crafting the Third World, 195, and Cardoso and Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina (México, D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno, 1969).

111. The Centro de Estudos de Dependência received funding from the Volkswagen Foundation. See a description of its activities and publications in Estudos de Economia 1, no. 3 (May-August 1981): 395-96.

112. Mário Murteira, O problema de desenvolvimento português (Lisboa: Moraes, 1974), 21, 25.

113. Mário Murteira, Os estados da lingua portuguesa na economia mundial: Ideologias e prácticas do desenvolvimento (Lisboa: Presença, 1988), 254; Murteira, “Estado, crise e regulação: Uma reflexão sobre a experiência portuguesa,” Análise Social, 3a. serie 20, 1 (1984): 30.

114. Murteira, “Estado,” 36.

115. Bastien, “Introdução,” 415, 420-21. In another work Bastien writes that the main contribution of structuralism, “as an instrument of legitimation of pro-growth attitudes, was to characterize Portuguese backwardness in a very clear and thorough way.” See his “Advent of Modern Economics,” 178.

116. Ibid., 183.

117. In a diffuse way, Latin American structuralism, though eclectic, was also influenced by the German Historical School. See Love, Crafting the Third World, 134-37. (For Hans Singer, Prebisch's “co-discoverer” of unequal exchange, the German influence was manifest, since he studied with Arthur Spiethoff, the longtime editor of Schmollers Jahrbuch. See “H. W. Singer,” in Gerald M. Meier and Dudley Seers, Pioneers in Development [New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank, 1984], 273.)

118. After World War II Wagemann returned to his native Chile, taking a post at the national university and editing the journal Economía.

119. For example, Communist Poland, where much nonorthodox theorizing occurred in the postwar years, might yield further evidence of the Latin American impact. An early and incomplete version of my examination of the Romanian case is “Flux şi Reflux: Teoriile Structuraliste ale Dezvoltării din Perioada Interbelică şi Cea Postbelică ∞n România şi America Latină,” Oeconomica 11, no. 3 (2002): 269-83.