Cada escritor se maneja dentro de peculiares ciclos productivos, cuyo ritmo, duración, intensidad, época de la vida, propician valederas leeciones sobre su intima problematica, tanto personal como social, tanto histórica como estética, tanto ideológica como artistica, por cuanto no responden meramente a su voluntad productiva sino que surgen en la confluencia de sus interiores procesos psiquicos con las situaciones históricas de la cultura en que viven. Por eso nos hablan del tiempo del escritor y del tiempo de la sociedad y solo podemos alcanzar su comprensión si abrazamos conjuntamente a los dos a través de la fusión ideológica que nos entregan los textos.

The publication information for THE ECONOMY OF SOCIALIST CUBA: A TWO DECADE APPRAISAL by CARMELO MESA-LAGO (William M. LeoGrande, “Two Decades of Socialism in Cuba,” LARR 16, no. 1 [1981]: 187–206) was incorrectly given as New York University Press, forthcoming. This work, which appeared in July 1981, was published by the University of New Mexico Press. In our effort to make the review as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible, our reviewer worked from galleys. The publishers have indicated that “several of the objections he raises concern points which are either not present or treated differently in the final galleys and pages of this book.” LARR regrets any inconvenience this may have caused.

The overthrow of Nicaraguan strongman Anastacio Somoza Debayle by the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional in mid-1979 promises to stimulate academic research on contemporary Central America just as the rise of Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende did for Cuba and Chile. As scholars and policymakers contemplate the future of post-Somoza Central America, they will inevitably consider the role of the armed forces in each country. In recent years the military institutions have occupied key positions in national politics as the Central American nations have attempted to reconcile the often conflicting demands of economic development, political order, and social reform. This note is intended to serve as a guide to the existing social-science literature on the Central American militaries. Costa Rica, having replaced its army with a civil guard or police force in 1948, is mentioned only in passing. Although historically considered a part of South America, Panama is included here because it shares many characteristics with the Central American countries. Not surprisingly, the available literature is sparse in comparison with the sophisticated studies of the armed forces of Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. Only Guatemala has inspired a significant output of scholarly analysis. Millett's work (1977) on the Nicaraguan national guard is the only published monograph concerning one of the Central American military institutions, although several unpublished dissertations have appeared and at least one valuable article exists for each country.

In the last decade in Peru, there have been substantive changes in thinking about Peruvian history and society. Although this change is visible in all the social sciences, in a special way economic analysis and historical investigation have made some important gains. Economics no longer consists, in the works of its better adherents, of vague meditations or the crude accounting of a druggist; and historical studies are also finally beginning to reach a minimal level of seriousness. Once the end product of only a few particularly lucid minds, the concept that we have today of history and the work of the historian is now shared by a much larger group. It is interesting, therefore, to see where these changes have been made, not only because of the academic necessity of giving a correct accounting, but also because the outlines of this new consciousness of its past that Peruvian society is acquiring need to be underscored. The study of history in Peru, more than any other social science, is part of the continual struggle to redraw the past of Peruvian society and to destroy the collective amnesia of the masses. These two objectives have always been sought but only now are they being achieved by works of indisputable rigor.

In a significant survey article published in the American Economic Review ten years ago, Leopoldo Solís could regret, not without justification, the lack of a serious tradition of empirical economics research in Mexico. There was no lack of well-trained and creative applied economists; but they were often engaged, then as now, in political action or public administration. Meanwhile, academic economists were engaged in the transmission of received theory (usually foreign) without reference to the realidad nacional or else in vague generalizations. However, the recent bibliographical survey by the Colegio de México, as well as the publications discussed in this review, indicate that the 1970s saw a flourishing of empirical and quantitative work among the two main groups identified by Solís: the neoclassical and monetarist economists on the one hand and the structuralists and radicals on the other. Moreover, there has emerged an increasing differentiation within these groups, spreading the scope of the debate outwards from the center, reflecting the polarization of political attitudes in Mexican society as a whole. Further, as the economists gained positions of power previously reserved for professional politicians, both structuralists such as Tello and neoclassicals such as Solís himself were in a position to translate at least some of their ideas into practice. However, although Solís had suggested that the intellectual advance would be made by economists of the neoclassical persuasion, in the event it was the monetarists and radical writers who appear to have been most fertile in the 1970s.