FRANK, Andre Gunder - Latin American Development Theories Revisited

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 0 | Pages: 15

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Tem como base de sua discussão a produção de cinco autores: Bjorn Hettne, Diana Hunt, Cristóval Kay, Jorge Larrain, David Lehmann.
  125 Latin  American Development Theories Revisited  A Participant Review by  Andre Gunder Frank Bjorn Hettne Development Theory and the Three Worlds. (London: Longman/ New York: Wiley, 1990) 296 pp. Diana Hunt Economic Theories of Development:  An  Analysis of CompetingParadigms. (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989) 363 pp. Cristóbal Kay Latin  American Theories of Development and Underdevel- opment . (London and New York: Routledge, 1989) 294 pp. Jorge Larrain Theories of Development: Capitalism, Colonialism, and Dependency. (London: Polity Press, 1989) 252 pp. David Lehmann Democracy and Development in Latin  America: Econom- ics, Politics, and Religion in the Postwar Period. (London: Polity Press, 1990) 234 pp. My intention here is not so much to review the above-listed books on development theory as to compare, classify, and situate them in the context of recent history and theory. To do so, I shall distinguish the following rubrics: their treatment of history, their topical coverage, their classification of theories and theorists, and the authors’ as well as my own critiques and evaluations of the development theories. In conclusion, I ask what all these portend for future development.  Andre Gunder Frank is a professor of development economics and social sciences at the University of  Amsterdam. Frank, a citizen of Germany, received his Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago. He has taught in departments of anthropology, economics, history, political science, and sociology at universities in Europe, North  America, and Latin  America. His recent work has been in the fields of world system history, contemporary international political economy, and social movements. His early work was primarily on dependence and the &dquo;development of underdevelopment.&dquo; In addition to writing three of the books reviewed here, my friends Bjorn Hettne, David Lehmann, and Crist6bal Kay kindly also made valuable incisive comments on a draft of this essay. So did Marta Fuentes and Kunibert Raffer. LATIN  AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 73, Vol.19 No. 2, Spring 1992,125-139 0 1992 Latin  American Perspectives  126 HISTORY  All five authors review the history of development theory since 1945. Hunt and especially Larrain also examine its history before 1945, but both confine themselves to development theory itself. Hettne, Kay, and Lehmann confine themselves to the period since World War II. They make some effort to place and interpret development theory within the historical context that gave rise to it. Hettne cites his compatriot Gunnar Myrdal’s observation that major developments in economic thought have always been responses to changing political conditions and opportunities. Kay and Lehmann make an effort to demonstrate how these changing circumstances gave rise to changes in development theory, but they do not go far enough. This is a task that I have myself undertaken elsewhere, in an autobiographical vein (Frank, 1991), and Celso Furtado, at least, has also recently written autobiographical reflections on this period. We will occasionally return to this matter below. In the meantime, it may be appropriate to ask what recent changes in political conditions and opportunities have given rise to this spate of books on development theory. I have no obvious answer. TOPICAL COVERAGE These books, it should be stressed at the outset, are about economic, social, and political development theory, not about development economics. 0evel- opment economics is a branch of economics that is applied to problems of development.  Academic and practicing neoclassical and Keynesian econo- mists have scarcely recognized, much less accepted, the &dquo;development theories&dquo; under review here as part of economics. They do not teach them and scarcely include them in their own reviews of &dquo;the rise and decline&dquo; of development economics. For instance, The State of DevelopmentEconomics (Ranis and Schultz, 1988) includes (by noblesse oblige?) only one of the theorists under review here, Raul Prebisch, who is by far the most establish- ment oriented theorist of them.  According to the index of Economic Devel- opment : Theory, Policy and International Relations, published under the auspices of the establishment’s Twentieth Century Fund (Little, 1982), Prebisch is mentioned on all of 9, Frank on 2, Cardoso on 1, and the others on none of this book’s 452 pages of review of the state of the art. If some of these latter and their theories have invaded Western academia, then they have done so in and through departments of sociology and other social sciences, not through the economists’ departments of unblemished orthodoxy.  127 TABLE 1 Main Topics Covered in Five Books on Development Theory NOTE: Because the authors sometimes refer to essentially the same subject matter under different names, this tabulation does the same. The amount of attention devoted to the various topics of course differs from one book to another. Moreover, some authors also discuss other topics; thus Hettne especially is wider-ranging (as per his title, which refers to &dquo;Three Worlds&dquo;). Because the five books reviewed here differ in their treatment of history, they also differ in their coverage of topics (Table 1). Hunt, Larrain, and to some extent Hettne include more &dquo;classical&dquo; development theory. Kay and especially Lehmann extend their coverage to more recent developments. They all overlap in their coverage of Economic Commission for Latin  America (ECLA) structuralism and dependence, but they treat it and classify its authors rather differently. Hunt begins with a general discussion of theoretical paradigms.  After that, she devotes three chapters to theoretical heritage and to classical and Keynesian theories. Then she goes on to the topics covered by all five books, beginning with ECLA structuralism. Larrain does something similar from a more Marxist perspective; he interposes a chapter on colonialism and impe- rialism before proceeding to structuralism. Hettne opens with two chapters on crisis and Eurocentrism in development thinking and then proceeds to the  128 voices from the Third World. Kay and Lehmann begin there during the postwar era in Latin  America. VARIETIES  AND CLASSIFICATION OF THEORIES/THEORISTS The common focus of attention among all five books is Latin  American theories of development and underdevelopment. The authors distinguish among varieties of the dependency approach. Hettne, for instance, dis- tinguishes under this heading (pp. 89-91) six &dquo;theoretical dimensions&dquo;: holism versus particularism, external versus internal causal factors, sociopo- litical versus economic analysis, sectoral/regional versus class contradic- tions, underdevelopment versus dependent development, and voluntarism versus determinism. Other authors make similar distinctions and sometimes others that are to their particular liking. The cast of characters that these books review varies in range, but it has a common core in the best-known ECLA structuralists and dependentistas.  Among the former, not surprisingly, Prebisch stands out and is followed by Furtado as a distant second most-mentioned structuralist.  According to their indices, Prebisch appears on 32 pages of Kay, 21 pages of Hunt, 9 pages of Lehmann, 7 pages of Larrain, and 4 pages of Hettne. The dependentistas receive more attention.  Among them, according to the books’ indices,  AndreGunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso are the most cited theorists reviewed: on 49 and 49 pages respectively (or 1 page in 5) of Kay, on 47 and on 38 (also 1 page in 5 or 6) of Larrain, on 23 and 9 of Hunt, and on 15 and 11 of Hettne. Only Lehmann gives less attention to us than to the structural- ists, mentioning Cardoso and Frank each on 4 pages. Some authors discuss the history and &dquo;srcins of the dependency school&dquo; (Hettne, p. 82) or &dquo;the srcins of dependency analyses&dquo; (Hunt, p. 198). In so doing, they occasionally posit lines of influence among dependentistas, which seem to me curious, to say the least. Depending on whom they include or exclude, the srcinators are identified as Prebisch, Baran, Frank, or Cardoso. There is little dispute about the first two. Hunt and Larrain devote more attention to the history of development theory and therefore also to Baran. Either Cardoso or Frank is dubbed the real father of real dependency theory, and there is more dispute about the &dquo;srcinality&dquo; of these two, although perhaps I am overly sensitive to that! Moreover, Larrain (pp. 112, 118, 125) calls dos Santos, Marini, and Gonzdlez Casanova &dquo;followers of Frank.&dquo; I and perhaps they would agree about dos Santos and Marini (both friends and colleagues of mine since the University of Brasilia in 1963), but
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!