stein the anatomy of autonomy

8/17/2019 Stein the Anatomy of Autonomy

1/17

D. C. M. Platt: The Anatomy of "Autonomy"Author(s): Stanley J. Stein and Barbara H. SteinSource: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1980), pp. 131-146Published by: The Latin American Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503096 .

Accessed: 31/07/2014 19:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.224.160.106 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:07:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503096?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503096?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer


2/17

D. C. M. PLATT:

THE ANATOMY OF ''AUTONOMY''*

Stanley

.

Stein ndBarbara

. Stein

Princeton niversity

The concept of dependency,

Platt asserts, is

"scarcely sustainable" be-

cause its historical foundation s unconvincing. "Students of chrono-

politics history),"he

implies, findunacceptable

the notion that

"devel-

opment and expansion"

of WesternEurope's economy

dominated and

conditioned that of Latin America since the conquest.

The fact hat Dos

Santos' definition f

dependency denies the presence of autonomous

development n Latin

America s "critical."Economic autonomy, ccord-

ing to Platt, s the leitmotif f Latin America's

evolution, certainly o the

close of the nineteenth

entury,when there finally woke metropolitan

interest n the neglected

periphery."

The colonial era of threehundred years s summarily reated.The

economies of colonial

Spanish

America

were

"inward-looking":produc-

tion

was primarily or

ocal subsistence; mining and export

of

precious

metals was "only an

element"

in

them. So emphasis upon export-

oriented economies is "anachronistic,"

a view Platt sees supported by

Frank

Saffordon New

Granada. Further,

n

the half-century

fter

n-

dependence, Latin

America "remained outside world markets

to

any

significant egree" as

Spanish America "retired over the edge

of the

periphery." Exceptions

to

this

Latin American experience

were

Brazil,

Cuba, and ("afterthe opening of the guano trade") Peru. To at least

1860, Latin America

remained an insignificant

radingpartnerof Great

Britaincompared to the United States; the level

of imports

of British

manufactures

n

Mexico

and the Central and South

American

republics

"can

hardly

have

scratched

the surface of demand." Again

Safford

s

*The authors thank

the

editors for the

opportunity

o dissect

Platt's

"objections"

and to

clarify urther

atin

America's

secular

relationship

o theAtlantic

conomy.

The school

of

dependency

houses

students

of many

persuasions;

we

happen to have

come

to our view

by "historical nalysis" of Spain's eighteenth-centurytlantic mpireand ofnineteenth-

century atin

America-to

which we

limit ur focus

n

this

rejoinder.

131


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

Latin

American

esearch

eview

cited as

"right

n

doubting

the

implications

of economic

dependency in

New Granada after he

breakaway

from

pain."

These assertions about trade are then extended by analysis to

international inance. Conceding

the role of merchantbanking by for-

eign firms,Platt minimizes their nfluence

as necessary

before

the

ap-

pearance

of commercial

banks,

neither sinisternor . . .

necessarily he

monopoly

of

foreigners."

hat Latin American

governments

n

the

1820s

had to borrow in the London

marketat relativelyhigh rates (between

double and triple that of the

Britishgovernment tself) s explained

as

"in line with the credit of other borrowers n a competitivemarket."

Concluding

that

"Spanish

America

during

the first

alf-century

f

po-

litical ndependence stood outside the currents f world trade and finan-

ce," Platt again charges

dependency analysts

with

misinterpreting

hat

happened later n the nineteenth entury nd extendingthis misappre-

hension to earlierperiods of Latin

American history.

The second part of Platt's

argument follows ogically from

hese

premises and reflects

preoccupation

with

Argentina

as

symbol

of

the

"neglected periphery."Autonomy rather han

pre-existing

ational and

international atterns f economic

relationsdeterminedArgentina'srole

in

the last third of the

nineteenth century. mproved transportwas

needed to provision the growing city of Buenos Aires while foreign

promoters nd investors ensed

that "financial uccess must depend

on

the extent

to which

.

. .

railways

might serve

the

needs

of the

Argen-

tines

themselves

nd of their

apital city"rather han

on

potentialprofits

from

xports

which

had "slight mpacton

eitherpromoters

r nvestors."

Argentina's "natural" evolution

toward an export-oriented conomy

was, furthermore,nly a matter f

operating on the principles

of com-

parative advantage. The

arguments

of

dependency,

informal

mperial-

ism, or colonial heritage re judged "unhistorical," view supported by

H. S. Ferns' observation that "It was so patentlyeconomically advan-

tageous

to

do what Argentina did that t seems a waste of time and a

profitless xercise to look for ny other

explanation of

what

happened."

Platt

closes his critique of

"dependency theory" by arguing-if

one may rephrase affirmativelyis rhetorical uestion-that at the close

of the

nineteenth

century

Latin

America's

economies

"shape[d]

them-

selves

along

lines determined

domestically,

n

the tradition f the self-

sufficiency

nforced

by

isolation from

world markets during the first

halfof the

nineteenth entury."

There could be no alternative conomic

routebut "to move in naturalprogressionfrom he gradual replacement

of

imports

o

the

complete satisfaction

f the domestic market nd .

..

finally o the disposal of the

surplus (if any) by export." The principal

factor

n

Argentina

and

Mexico

"as grain and beef producers was the

132




4/17

DEPENDENCY

IN 19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA: COMMENT

supply

f the

home

market,"

hich upported he "whole structuref

railways,

f

public

utilities

ndof

city

modernization."

This

rejoinder

annot ake

cognizance

f all the misconceptions

f

Platt's

ritique. efore

ebutting

is major oints,

owever,

ertain

asic

clarifications

re n order.

First sPlatt's eculiarly

ariable efinition

fLatin

America. ra-

zil and

Cuba

are excluded s

alien to his autonomy

model from

he

beginning,

nd Peru after he

1840s. Bythis ngenious

nd inventive

exclusion

latt

eprives

ependencynalysts

f

their roperlynclusive

and generally ccepted

frame

f referencewhile

simultaneously

e

eliminates hreemportantrading artnersf GreatBritainrom 820-

1850.The dependency

oncepts then

given "some"'

elevanceo

"some

of the

smaller

Republics

n

the nineteenth

entury." nd "quite apart

from

he banana

Republics,'

there

were

times . . . when

dependency

is

sufficiently

escriptive-the uinine

boom

in Colombia

why

not the

tobacco oom

nd the offee conomy

ot

o mention old

mining

hich

long erved o

sustain olombia's

mport

rade?]J,

olivian

in,

Amazonia

rubber"-but

why separate

Brazil'sbrief ubber

oom from ts long

coffee ependency? nd

finally,

rom he

1880s,

atinAmericas

divided

into strong" nd "weakeconomies"defined rimarilyn terms f ex-

portables-measured

n

terms

f Britain's retained"

mports.

Where

then

s the utonomous

atin

America?

Second,

Platt

scribes

o

the

o-called dependency

heorists"n

assumption

hat ontinuity

eant

smooth ransition"

etween

olonial

and postcolonial

ealities.

ransitiont

was,

but

which istorians

all a

long

destructive

arfor ndependence

nd its equally

raumatic

fter-

math smooth ransition?he

relation etween

ontinuity

nd

change,

whether apid

and violent

r slow

and

evolutionary,

s found

n the

propensityfcertain re-existingtructuresrrelationshipsoemerge

as

constants

ndernewconditions.

hedependence

f

LatinAmerica's

neocolonial

lites

n exportables

o maintainocieties

f

essentially

u-

ropean

mprint as such

a structure.

Third s Platt's

attributionf conspiracy

heory

o

dependency

analysts.

Here we

can

only observe

hat he

dependency

oncept,

y

providing

xplanation

n

terms f enduring

nstitutions

nd

relation-

ships

from hich

ehavioral

atterns

erive,

ejects

ausality

n terms

f

"machinations,"

sinister ctivities,"

development lanned

n

River

PlateHouse," etc.,alongwith posteriorittitudes deploring" ailure

to

follow

alternative" atterns. hese

motes

n

Platt's

eye

seem

to

reflectheover-sensitivity

f

critic hoseeks o

award

o

hisautonomy

theory

he exclusive

virtue f

"natural" self-evidence

nd "common

133




5/17

Latin

American esearch eview

sense."

British

pragmatism, however, despite

its

conceptual poverty,

has not

been inconsistentwith the

pursuit of

long-range policy imple-

mentedby short-term lan and, when necessary, d hoc plot. Britain's

Iberian

and Ibero-Americanpolicy

between 1790

and 1824, for

xample,

illustrates

he skill with which

English statesmen

as well as their on-

tinentalrivals) used

both plan and

plot, war and peace, to defend and

extend mercantile nd

manufacturing nterests.

The

principles

of

free

trade

draped the midwife of

national

sovereignty

n

Latin

America-

and they

were printedon British

ottons.

Beyond these examples of

conceptual

confusion, however, lies

thefundamentalweakness ofPlatt's basic argument:his conceptof au-

tonomy.Here there

s no evidence that he

has analyzed the

nternal nd

external structure f

Latin America's regional

economies either

n

the

colonial period or later.

And omitting uch an

analysis, he confuses

"domestic demand

and production" with

"autonomous economic de-

velopment."

In

all

economies, past as well

as present, domestic

requirements

of

food, housing,

clothing, mplements,

nd

transportation

igure arge

in rough

calculation of

gross national product.

Yet

this cannot eliminate

the criticalrole in colonial areas of those economic sectors and social

strata

directly

ut

also

indirectly

inked to the

international context."

Forcolonial Latin

America,

n

some

cases the export

ink

was

both

direct

and

visible, e.g., sugar plantations

n

coastal

areas;

in

others,

the

large

estate

appeared

to

supply

a

purely

internal market

when,

in

fact,

t

either

played

an

essential role

in

maintaining

nd

servicing

the

export

sector or

was

indirectly inked

to it in

provisioning

the

urban

centers

closely related

to

the

colony's exportfunction.

Iberian

colonialism n America had

many

facets,

but

its

core

was

the organizationand maintenance of economies profitable o the over-

seas

metropolises nd-what is often

overlooked-through them to

the

key

economies

of

northwestern

urope:

Holland, England, and France.

Major elements

of

this

nterlinked

olonial,

submetropolitan nd metro-

politan systemmaterializedwith the

creation of the

silver

mining

com-

plexes of Peru and Mexico-not to

mention he

sugar plantation

omplex

of

Brazil's Northeast-in

the sixteenth

century.

Fluctuations

of

silver

production

and export

in

colonial Spanish

America from

about

1570

culminating

n

the

extraordinary xpansion

of the

half-century reced-

ing thewars of ndependence should notobscure the persistent nder-

lying

structures.

Spanish America's

precious

metals flowed from ts

mines

out of its

ports

across

the Atlantic

directly

o

Spain for

re-export

to

western

Europe,

or

indirectly o

West Europeans

in

the

Caribbean

or

134




6/17

DEPENDENCY

IN

19TH CENTURY

LATIN

AMERICA: COMMENT

operating hrough razil n the Rio de la Plata. Western urope, not

Spain (or Portugal) onstituted he core of the internationalystem;

Spain's dependenceupon what Adam Smith alled the "improving"

countries fEuropewas only hinly isguised ya policy estdescribed

as "pseudo-mercantilism."

In

the eighteenthenturyhe Spanish and now thePortuguese)

mining omplexes emained ynamic

enters

fthe

colonial

conomies;

but

clearly he "pull"

or

demandof WestEuropean conomies or

new

as well

as

old commodities-sugar, yestuffs, ides-supplemented

and

reinforcedhe centuries-old attern f mineral xports o pay for

importedmanufactures,uxuries nd foodstuffs.ighteenth-century

modificationsrew Argentina, enezuela, nd Cuba into the nterna-

tionaleconomy. n Argentina's ase therebegan reorientationf the

RiverPlate from upplying attle,horses, nd mules to the Peruvian

mining omplex o hide exports o Western urope and jerkedbeef

shipments

o

Brazil nd Cuba whileEuropeanmanufacturesnd African

slaves

ontinuedobe funnellednand silver ut.Atthepeakof olonial

output

f

metals, oth Spanish and British rade tatistics-despite

ll

caveats-point to thebasic trade atterns hichpoliticalndependence

would

revealmore

learly.1

Such a "model" of thecolonialsystem, implifyingnd exag-

geratingtructurallements,s not ntended oneglect heexistence

f

relativelyutonomous egional conomies-from hosevirtuallyutside

a market

conomy o those onlytangentiallynvolved n the principal

exchange conomy. o

state hat

hey

were

t most ncillary

nd at

east

irrelevanto the key structuresf the berian olonialworld s

not

to

deny heir xistencewithintscontext.

In

emphasizing subsistence" nd

in

calling he mining ector

"only

n

element"

n an

otherwise utonomous conomy,

latt

ails

o

comprehendhepivotal oleofsilverneconomies tructuredromhe

beginning pon

the

xchange

f

precious

metals or

mported

ommodi-

ties which llowed

colonial-as well

as

peninsular-elites o pursue

a

life-style

nd

statusto

which

theyremained ommitted. espite

the

limited

roportion

f the

population

nvolved

n

mining

nd

refining

preciousmetals, he mpact f silver pon Spanish colonial conomies

and

upon

their mmediate

metropolis as vastly

ifferentrom hat

f

such

export

ommoditiess

sugar.

For

silver, y

ts ntrinsicharacteris-

tics-highvalue,

ow

volume, mmunity

o

deterioration,ransportability

andconvertibilitynto rnament r specie, nd itsconsequent niversal

exchangeability-affected

ar

more

profoundly

he

Spanish

world han

the

developing

world

of

Europe

or

the economies

of

Asia.

And the

trauma hat

ccompanied

he

eparation

f

Spain

and its

major

olonies

135




7/17

LatinAmerican esearch eview

was

in

many

ways an index of the extraordinary

ilver addiction that

both had

long

experienced.

Obvious

problems n the analysis of the

first ifty ears

of

national

sovereignty

n Latin America

stem

from he

fundamental nstability nd

transitional haracter of the period.

Following

the destructionof the

wars

against

berianrule came the destruction

hat ccompanied

internal

and international onflict s ex-viceroyalties

issioned,new regional

for-

mations were tried nd failed,

and territorial oundaries were arranged

or rearranged. Meanwhile,

within

the

new territorial nits

reconstruc-

tion was delayed by the struggle

of formerviceroyal subregions

for

autonomy againsthegemonic tendenciesof the former olonial capitals,

the new nations'

primate ities

pursuing colonial patterns f monopoliz-

ing distribution,

oncentrating

evenue and expenditure,public

works

and

general (if

few) services. New polities suffered

frombureaucratic

discontinuities, nefficiency,nd

corruption ften

fueled by foreign

mer-

chants

in

search

of privilege and

preference. Only

Great

Britainwas

capable

of

lending

to

newly

formed

governments

which

it did

very

briefly),

while

the

economies of

western

Europe

were

themselves

re-

coveringfrom ecades

ofwarfare nd

coping

with the

power

of

Europe's

first ndustrialnation.

National accounts of

foreign rade,

at least until the last

decades

of the nineteenth

entury,

re usually unreliable

or

simply

nonexistent

in

Latin America.

Fortunately, here

exist the UnitedKingdom's

Annual

Reports of Revenue,

Population

and Commerce (Porter'sTables)

cover-

ing the years

1801-52; these

provide data on volume, real (current)

value, origin

and

destination.

However, while they formthe most

re-

liable

index

of Latin America's

economic activity nd the most

visible

link

to the nternational conomy,

he volume of tradewith Great

Britain

can be misleading since Britain's role as supplier of manufactures s

obscured

by that of intermediaries

uch as Jamaica

n re-exports o for-

mer

Spanish

colonies, Brazil

n handling re-exports o Argentina,

Chile

in

re-exports o Mexico's west

coast ports,2 or the

U.S. in forwarding

goods

to

both Cuba

and

Mexico.

Further,

he

sudden appearance

in

Britain's annual trade

statistics

f

Latin American destinations

where

formerly

uch goods seemed destined only

for

Spain,

Portugal

or

"Southern

Europe"

could

suggest

to

the unwary

nvestigator ew,

sud-

denly opening

markets ratherthan further roof

that the Iberian

me-

tropolises had been mere costly intermediaries n a pseudo-colonial

pact.

The

fact that British rade

statistics mitted

silver imports may

explain

but does not

ustify

latt's failure

o

perceive

the critical

unction

136




8/17

DEPENDENCY IN 19TH CENTURY LATIN

AMERICA: COMMENT

of

mining before

independence and its continuing mportance

n

the

decades immediately ollowing.4

et t s clear that

Mexico, for xample,

for t least twenty-five ears after 825, paid for mportsfrom ts prin-

cipal

supplier, Great Britain,with a gradually rising

export of silver-

admittedly elow the peak

years before1810.5

In

turn,the composition

of

imports continued the pre-1810 pattern of cotton,

woolen, and silk

textiles

nd clothing.Comparable statements ould be

made

with refer-

ence to

the foreign rade of other ex-colonial areas

whose importswere

based on

the miningof

precious metals.

Further,British tatistical

materials suggest conclusions differing

from

hose of Plattregarding he significance f Latin

America's mports

of Britishmanufacturescompared with those of Britain's other major

tradingpartner

n

the

hemisphere,the United States.

If

we

look at

Latin

America as a whole, i.e.,

aggregatingthe declared

value of exports to

"Central

and

South

America

including

Brazil" and

those listed under

"Foreign

West Indies" (mainly

Cuba and St. Thomas) in the period

1820-50,

Latin

America

ranks

close to the

U.S. as importer

f British

goods.6

"The

upward

trend

s

fairly teady,"

conclude

Gayer, Rostow,

and

Schwartz

in

summarizing trade

(1817-48)

with

Central and South

America, "except for the

abnormal peak

in

1825."7

To this

conclusion

must be added the consideration that since by farthe largest single

categoryof Latin

America's

importswere textileswhose unit price

fell

by

approximately one-third with the progress of

the industry,Latin

America

absorbed a rising volume of British otton

goods, much of it

directed to low-income

consumers.8 This

performance s all the more

remarkable

n

view of political nstability nd slow

population growth

n

the area

compared with that ofthe U.S. One may

hardlyconsider Latin

America

"over the edge of the

periphery."

Important s was Latin

America as consumer of British xports

of

manufactures,Platt's position on the role of Latin Americain Britain's

foreign

rade

obscures the

real

issue.

In

the first

lace,

while

the U.S.

absorbed an

increasingvalue and

volume of British oods,

it

proceeded

to

develop autonomously,

notably

n

the

field

of industrial

diversifica-

tion,

n

textiles nd metallurgy,

nlike

Latin America.

Second,

to

Britain,

Latin

America was one of

many trading areas;

but to Latin

America,

Britainwas the most mportant

f all tradingpartners.Put

anotherway,

the

mpact

of

British oods

upon each of the economies of Latin America

was

critical

n

their

growth, s is clear

in

the case of

Mexico and Argen-

tina whichPlattmakes thecenterpieceof his argumentfor utonomy.

It

is

Argentina which offers n example of

how adaptation

to

domestic

inter-regional onflict nd the

transformation f capitalism

abroad failed to

produce

autonomy.

In

the two decades, 1810-30, the

137




9/17

LatinAmericanesearch eview

northwestern rovinces ost Bolivian markets

nd access to silver

while

the Litoral cattleranchingeconomy was disrupted by

civil and

interna-

tional conflict. hereafter, anchingrelocatedwest and south of Buenos

Aires to become

the source of the

port's foreign

rade and contacts.

After

1830 Buenos Aires expanded trade with the major purchaser

of its

hide

exportsand the principal supplier of its imports,Britain.9 t was British

entrepreneurs

who

improved the quality and

increased the size of

sheep

flocks nd raw

wool

exports

to Britain ordomestic

consumption

nd

re-

export.'0 Between 1830

and

1850, Argentina's grupoganadero

onsoli-

dated the port's hegemony over the provinces

nd

expanded

its

multiple

contacts with

Britain.

When Rosas-the

cattlemen's

representative-

fledto exile, he went aboard a Britishvessel to retirement ear South-

ampton.

It

is

no

exaggeration to say that British

rade and

shipping-

important

n

the two decades before 1810-played

a decisive role

in

Argentina'sreorganization nd growth hereafter.

Turning o Platt's other major example of autonomy

and

discon-

tinuity,Mexico,

one

discerns again,

in

the decades

between

1821 and

1856, economic patterns

ooted

n

the colonial period.

Between 1825 and

1849, silver coinage rose from five-year nnual average of 9.2

to

15.6

million pesos,

while

registered

ilver

(and gold) exports oscillated

be-

tween 7.4 and 10.7 million; only war with the U.S. and its effect pon

production nterrupted he slowlyrising rend fsilver xports.

1

Viewed

as a percentage

of

total exports, silver constituted 79 percent for the

period 1821-28;

the

next year forwhich we have data, 1856, showed

a

percentage

of

92.12

If

the role of silver

n

Mexico's exports repeated a

colonial

pattern,

so

did

its imports

in

which

Britishyard goods and

clothing averaged 69 percent over the years 1821-28 and,

in

1856,

60

percent.Given thequalityofthis merchandise,there s littledoubt

that

it was sold to low-income Mexicans and there s evidence to view such

imports as the major factor n the containmentof the Mexican artisan

and

fledgling ndustrial cotton manufacture.'3 One need hardly note

thatGreat Britain hroughout hese decades was Mexico's principal rad-

ingpartner.14

The case

of

Colombia offers o greater ubstantiation f Platt's au-

tonomous growth oncept.

n

citing rankSafford'swork on nineteenth-

century

Colombia

he

does the authora

distinct

isservice

n

quoting

him

out

of context

nd

apparently

without

consulting

his

original

contribu-

tions,

which elaborate the

experience

of Central Colombia

in

consider-

able detail.

5

But even inhis rejoinder o Bergquist, itedby Platt,Safford

emphasizes

that "the

question is not whether economic dependency

existed but its meaning." Safford's riticism f the "dependency matrix"

is directed to its historical oversimplifications. tressing his primary

138




10/17

DEPENDENCY IN 19TH CENTURY LATIN AMERICA: COMMENT

concern

with the manner n which "values mediate between

structures

and

social actions" he concluded that n the middle years of the nine-

teenth century, Colombia's economic growth depended on changed

circumstances,

ver

which Colombia had little ontrol," .e., the appear-

ance of a viable and enduring export,

offee.16

Platt's insistence on the long isolation of Latin America from

he

Atlantic conomy permitshim to initiatehis analysis of the last quarter

of the

nineteenth centuryby asking, "What

.

..

finallybrought Latin

America nto contact with the world economy?" His ingenious reply s

that

production for xport .. [developed] out of productionprimarily

intended forLatin America's domestic market" which was responsible

for

the whole structure f railways, of public utilities, nd of citymod-

ernization" as

well

as "for the first tages in the introduction f foreign

capital.

.

. ." To buttresshis position, Platt relies heavily on Argentina's

development after1850 and particularly n the role of the railroad. Ig-

noring the voluminous literature n Argentine conomic history f the

nineteenthcentury-e.g., the works of Burgin, Giberti,

and

more re-

cently Halperin Donghi, Gallo and Cortes Conde, Scobie'7-he

leans

instead upon Ferns and an articleby Paul Goodwin. Here it s sufficient

to show how his handling of Goodwin's article xemplifies proclivity

to misconstrue ources in order to substantiate he notion of economic

autonomy and the primacyof the domestic market.

Paul Goodwin's

article,

ited

n

note 39, is interpreted

s

proof

of

the minimalrole of

export onsiderations mong

the motivesbehind

the

creationof the Central ArgentineRailway begun in 1863 to link Rosario

with

Cordoba.

Yet

Goodwin sees that

railway

as

contributing

o a

"pro-

cess of

development and transition" which began at the end

of the

colonial

period and "was stimulatedby the introduction

f new

exports

withhigh growthrates." t was the cartroad rather han therailroad,he

argues,

which

"contributed o Argentina'seventual transformation

nto

an

export-oriented ountry. . . By 1850 it became increasingly

lear

to

Buenos Aires merchants hat the maintenance of theirprofits

rom he

export

of

produce demanded

a

more efficient

nd economical

formof

land

transportation....

Between

1854,

when Rosario was

opened

to

foreign rade,

and

1863,

the

year

the

Central ArgentineRailway

drove

its

first pikes, the town blossomed bidding fair o compete successfully

for

portion

of

the

foreign

ommercewith

Buenos Aires'.

.

. ." It s

clear

fromGoodwin's remarks bout Rosario as well as from cobie's analysis

of

Buenos Aires'

growth hatrailroadswere undertaken o enhance

their

export

potential.18

But even were we to

imagine

that

Argentine ailways

were

first aid

to

supply

Buenos Aires consumers with

hides, wool,

139




11/17

Latin

American esearch

eview

meat, nd

wheat,willPlatt

lso

maintain hat he

English

uilt

he

Sao

Paulo-Santos

ailroad oprovision

aulistas

r

the

Veracruz-Mexico

ity

linetosupply hat apitalwith-pulque?

Thus,excluding

major

reas of

Latin

America,

elegating

thers

to

a

nebulous sometimes"

ependency,

isregarding

r

misinterpret-

ing the

economichistory

f yetothers

Venezuela,Chile,

Colombia),

and

above all

overlookingmining

n colonial nd

postcolonial

panish

America hile

gnoringhe ocial

nd

politicalomplexitiesf

he

berian

empires

n

their

nternal

nd external

elationships,

latt

deates an

autonomy hat an

only

ppearfancifulo the cholar

eeking

o

under-

stand

hehistoryfthispart f

the

world.

Yet, trangely,t s

notprimarilyhe

facts hat

re

n

dispute

n

the

present

ontroversy.

reading

f

Platt's revious

ublications

n

British

foreign

olicy

nd

trade

eveals

urprisinggreement

n the haracterf

British

ommercialegemonyn

nineteenth-century

atin

America:

fter

enjoying

a

"profitabletrade

with

colonial Latin America . .

.

through

Spain

and

Portugal, or

. ..

by

contraband .

.

the end

of the

Spanish

Empire

rought

ewbusiness o

Britishraders nd

manufacturers,"ut

following

brief

uphoric

eak, nhospitable

onditions

rought

low,

vacillating rowth ntil a secondhoneymoon" n the 60s and '70s,

"when demand

now existed or

he

primary roduce

f

the

Republics"

and

"capital, ttracted

y the

new market

pportunities

lowed nto

Latin

American ailways,

portworks, tilities nd

processing lants,

opening

he

way

for

vastly

nlargedmarket f

British

manufactured

goods."19

Aside

from

ivergence n the

timing nd

degree

of

British

penetration,his

summaryoincides

ubstantially

iththe

"textbook

version

f theBritish

onnection

withLatin

America"which

Platt-

oddly-calls a "position

.. entirelyifferentn

nearly very espect."20

Whence,then,the dramatic iscrepancyn the "critical"ssue, au-

tonomy?

Whythe shift

n Platt's

nalysis rom

LatinAmerica

which

was

"one

ofthe

most mportant

utlets or ritish

rade nd

investment

throughouthe

nineteenth

entury"1968)21

o a Latin

America

over

the dge

oftheperiphery"

1979)

until he ast

quarter fthe

nineteenth

century?

The

answer

merges rom

review f Platt's

ole as

historianf

nineteenth-centuryritishrade

policy nd

particularly

rom

isearly

rejection f

Hobson's

critique fBritish

mperialism.

n theground

hat

"Hobsonand hissuccessorswere n factooking tfinancialiplomacy

from

he point

of view of the

journalist

r of the

gleanerof

casual

information,"22

latt ndertook

he ittle

xplored ield f

"therelation-

ship

between

inance,

rade,

nd

politics

n

the

conduct

f

British

or-

140




12/17

DEPENDENCY IN

19TH CENTURY LATIN AMERICA: COMMENT

eign policy"

in

order to extirpate

from

the

historiography

f

Britain's

"century

of . .

. leadership in

world trade and finance" the notion of

economic imperialismmade current y Hobson. The task was made all

the more imperativeby the rapid contagion of the Gallagher-Robinson

thesis of the imperialismof free

trade in describingBritain'srelation o

noncolonial peripheral reas. An

Oxford hesis 1962), threebooks (1968,

1971, 1972) and several articles

resulted from this effort,much of

it

devoted to Latin America.

Platt's basic thesis is clear:

national security nd free trade

alone

guided Britishpolicy during the

middle half of the century

nd were

only gradually and partially uperseded by "fair trade" and protection

as British "paramountcy" declined toward the end of the century.23

"Economic imperialism s a politicalrather han an historical abel [since]

politicalpolemicists

know

what they

want

to say long

before

they

have

the evidence to

support it," he

wrote

in

1968 to answer

"the

charge

of

economic

mperialism

n

the Western

Hemisphere."24

There could be

no

"informaldependence" in Latin

America because it was "a-political,"

apparently meaning that unlike such areas as China

it did not

oppose

foreign

conomic

penetration-not

strange onsidering

hat

oreign

rade

had been the raison d'etre of Spanish America since the conquest.25

Significantly,t thistime Plattstill onsideredLatin Americaof farmore

than

tangential nterest o Great

Britain-after all,

he

had made "British

Capital,

Commerce and

Diplomacy

in Latin

America"

the

subject

of his

Oxford

thesis.

Curiously, lthough Africa

nd Asia had been the subject of most

of the debate on

nineteenth-century

nformal

mperialism, atin America

provided a "natural" arena for heexponents of nformal mperialism s

propounded by Gallagher and Robinson. Britain's tance of respect for

national sovereignty,

onintervention, ree trade and laissez-faire

had

evolved in no small measure fromEngland's commercialand political

relations

with

the Iberian

nations and their colonial possessions

in

America between 1700 and 1820. British spirations fordirect and un-

fettered rade

with Iberian

America, pursued

with consummate

diplo-

macy during the Napoleonic wars and the

struggles

for

Latin

America's

independence precipitatedby

them, were realized

in

the

ambience of

post-Napoleonic power

relationshipsthrough

the

doctrinesof

national

sovereignty, onintervention,

nd

free

rade. Political

nd

economic

dis-

organization

which followed

ndependence further alidated

these

poli-

cies. Pressures could be applied to the new, weak governmentsthat

Platt

defines as "a-political."

Claims

of

over-aggressive

British raders

and

disappointed speculators

could

be

eschewed

by

the mediation of

foreign

service career

officials oncerned

with

"haute

politique"

and

141




13/17

LatinAmericanesearch eview

consularagents

handling such

mundane tasks as debt-collection.26

ny

judicious threat

or

application

of force could

be

justified

under inter-

national law. Finally, free trade and noninterventionwere peculiarly

compatible with

Britishrelations with

the

United States

as

important

economic partner

but early

rival

n

Latin America.

Thus,

for

Platt,

Latin

America provided

a clear refutation f

the

political mplications

of in-

formal

mperialism.

But he had

yet

to

deal with

its

economic

implica-

tions.

By 1972,

however,

n

a revisionof his dissertation nder the title,

LatinAmerica

nd

British rade, 806-1914,

he

dea of Latin

America's

economic

autonomy

is

briefly ounterposed

to the

concept

of neocolo-

nialism under Britishhegemony presented by the Steins.27The follow-

ing year a new

critique of Gallagher

and

Robinson expanded

on the

insignificance f

Latin America

in

British trade and on continuity

f

isolation and

autonomy. He thereby denied a "third assumption" of

imperialismof

free trade, "the subordinationof primaryproducers,

as

suppliers

of

foodstuffs

nd

raw materials

o Britain

n her

chosen

role

as

'Workshop of the World."'28The apparent logic

is clear:

no

trade,

au-

tonomy; utonomy plus trade, no

dependence-hence,

no

informal

m-

perialism, political

or economic.

Thus

Platt

moved from

mphasis

on a

presumed abstentionfrom active governmentntervention" o empha-

sis

on Latin

America's presumed autonomy, shift

necessitated by

the

evident vacuity

of

his earlier definition f economic

imperialism

nd of

Latin

America as

"a-political."

Yet, after

emodellinghis thesis to answer

Gallagher and Robin-

son,

9

Plattnow

must confront he dependency analystswho have given

informal

mperialism new dimension. In presenting view from he

periphery, hey

have

focused

not on

"chrono-politics"

but

on "chrono"-

economics and

even

on

"chrono"-sociology.

Their

subject s

the nternal

and external aspects of structural nequality,subordination,and ex-

ploitation mplicit

n

the exchange between

developed

and underdevel-

oped capitalistnations. Their

emphasis

is

not

on bilateral

relationships

but

upon constraints

mposed by

an internationalmarket over

a

long

period

of

time.

It

is far more difficult or

Platt

to

combat colonialism

f

free trade

than imperialismof free trade.

Where dependency analysts

postulate persistent asymmetricalparticipation

n

the world

market,

Platt

postulates the impersonal and equitable

functionof the interna-

tionaleconomy.

He

is thus led to

his present absurd

assertion

of

Latin

America's economicautonomy nthemid-Victorian ears and to project

it

both backward

and forward.

n

this sense he

emerges as the current

paladin

of

imperialism

refurbished.The difficulties f his position may

explain

the hubris of

his

present critique, he resort o neologisms such

142




14/17

DEPENDENCY IN 19TH CENTURY LATIN AMERICA: COMMENT

as "structuration,"

he characterization

f dependency

nalysts s fo-

menters f

"confusionism,"nd the nvocation

fconspiracy.

Polemic mong historianss warrantedf t eads to clarification

through urther

esearch.n this nstance,

uantification

o doubtwill

be one element n theagenda.

Also needed

willbe rigorous et magi-

native nalysis o pursue

critical lements f the hegemony

nd subor-

dination

f mperialism ormalnd informal:

he secularpersistence

f

racism n Europe

nd America, aithn the

natural" aw

ofthe nterna-

tionaldivisionof labor under

capitalism

oupled with acceptance

f

LatinAmerica's echnological

assivity,hemyriadways

n which atin

America's liteshave consciously

nd unconsciously

earned,

ultivated,

and expandedcollaboration ith external orces o the detrimentf

LatinAmerica's

masses-in brief, hesuperhighways,

ocal routes, nd

footpaths

f

dependence.

NOTES

1. For the importance

of Spanish

re-exports

f European goods to the American

colo-

nies, especially

textiles,

ee Resumen

e a balanzadel

comercio

xterior

e

Espanfa

n1792

(Madrid, 1803) and

Balanza

de comercio e Espana

con osdominios e

SM en

America

n el

anio e 1792

Madrid,

1805). Growth of

British

xportsof woolen and cottontextiles

o

Spanish

possessions

in and around

the Caribbean,

1785-1800,

can be discerned

in

the spurt n exportsto theBritishWest ndies registeredn E. B. Schumpeter, nglish

Overseas

Trade Statistics, 697-1808

(Oxford,

1960), p.

67. Moreover,British

extiles

also

flowed to the Spanish colonies as U.S. re-exports

o

that

area. For

example,

the

percentage

of domestic

exports n total

U.S.

exports to Spanish

Americadropped

sharply 1803-1808)

from

4 to

15 percent

nd

it s reasonable to

presumere-exports

consisted largely

of British extiles.

See

the

suggestive

article

by J.

H. Coatsworth,

"American

Trade with European

Colonies

in the Caribbean

and South America,

1790-1812," William

nd MaryQuarterly,

rd ser.,

24 (Apr. 1967):243-66.

The relative

position

of

Spanish

imports

o re-exports f

European manufactures

s

suggested

by

Woodbine

Parish,

BuenosAyres nd

the Provinces f the

Rio de la

Plata ... (London,

1839), appendix 11.

2. Parish reported,

for

xample, thatover

the period

1829-37 "a considerable

portion

of

the articles sent to Chile are intended forthe supply of the West coast of Mexico."

BuenosAyres, .

415.

3. See

references

o Spanish

balances

of trade,

note

1.

4.

"Of the

[silver

nd gold coin

and bullion]

importations

no Account

can be rendered

fromthis Department,

the articles

n

question

being by Law

being exempted

from

Entry nwards at the

Custom-house."

Great Britain.

arliamentary

apers,

854 xxxix),

p.

439.

Similarly,

n the

eighteenth

entury anyone

who

pleased might

mport

oin

and

bullion

without

making any return

f

the

transaction,

nd hence no

recordwas

kept

of the

gold and

silver

brought n."

T.

S.

Ashton,

n

Schumpeter, nglish

Overseas

TradeStatistics, .

7. One

must recall that the

English

East India Company's

annual

deficit

n merchandise balance

with China,

until

Britishmerchantspushed

opium

into that

country,was covered

by "[Spanish]

American silver

currency riginally

broughtto China by the East India Company." See FredericE. Wakeman's contri-

bution

n D.

Twitchett nd

J.K. Fairbanks,eds.,

Cambridge

istory fChina

10 (1978),

p.

164.

5.

See note

11.

143




15/17

LatinAmerican

esearcheview

6.

In the

following able, "Foreign

West ndies" are considered

a Latin American desti-

nation since Cuba and Puerto Rico were the principal importers. Latin America

received 86.5 percent

f the value ofU.S.

imports

f British omestic

xports, 820-49

-by no means insignificant.

Britishomesticxportsy estination,820-1848L000,000)

Central

-

(Platt)

South

m.

Foreign Brazil

Brazil W. ndies

Total U.S.

Spanish

m.

1820-29

42.8 9.4 52.2

57.9

1830-39 49.0

11.5

60.5

79.2 43.4

1831-39)

1840-49

49.6

10.7 60.3 63.3 51.5

Total 173.0 200.4

Sources:

A. D.

Gayer,

W

W

Rostow,

nd A.

J.

Schwartz,

he

Growth

nd Fluctuation

f

theBritish

Economy,790-1850,

vols.

Oxford,953), :182, 15, 51,

82, 14;

D. C. M.

Platt,

Further

bjections

to an 'Imperialism

f Free

Trade,"'Economicistory

eview,

nd

ser.,

36

(Feb., 1973):91, ppendix.

Platt's SpanishAmerica" ncludes uenosAires,Chile,

Colombia, cuador,Mexico,Montevideo,

Peru, nd Venezuela.

7.

Gayer

et

al.,

British

conomy

:783.

8. United ingdomottonPiece) oods xportso rincipalestinations,electedears000,000 ds.)

1820 1830

1840 1850 1860

Yds. % Yds. % Yds.

% Yds. % Yds. %

America*

(except

U.S.)

56.0 22.3 140.8

31.6 278.6

35.2 360.4 26.5 527.1 19.7

U.S. 23.8

9.4

49.3

11.6

32.1

4.0 104.2 7.6 226.8 8.4

Europe 127.7 50.9 137.4 30.9 200.4

25.3 222.1 16.3 200.5 7.4

Total 250.9

100

444.6 100 790.6 100 1358.2 100 2676.2 100

Source: homas llison, heCottonradefGreat ritain1886] New York, 968), p. 63-64.

*Most o

destined,

ne

may ssume,

went

o

Latin

America.

9. Britain's

rade

with

Argentina

s

suggested by

the

following:

Trade

f

he

io

de

a Platawith reat ritain,831-40: Year verage

nnual olume

rValue

Exports

Imports

Years

Hides

no.)

Wool

lbs.)

Cottons

Yds.)

Woolens

L;s)

1831-35 107.664 462.340 14.006.422

111.813

1849-53 270.308 2.674.341 31.549.624 281.985

Source:Great

ritain,arliamentaryapers,

842

xxxix), . 375;

1854-55

Lii).

144




16/17

DEPENDENCY IN

19TH

CENTURY LATIN AMERICA:

COMMENT

10.

Commenting

on the extraordinary

psurge

in Argentine wool exports,

1830-37,

Parish

credited the "intelligent

foreigners

who] introduce and cultivate a

better

breed.... Mr. Sheridanand Mr. Harratt re the ndividuals towhomBuenos Ayres

is principally

ndebted

for his

new source

of wealth" (Buenos

Ayres, p. 358-59).

Ac-

cording to Frank

Safford,

British esidents

n New Granada

had

a similarly nnovat-

ing

effect n

promoting

obacco

and coffee

for xport.

"Commerceand

Enterprise

n

Central

Colombia, 1821-1870" (Ph.D. dissertation,

Columbia

University, 965),

pp.

187-200, 300.

11. There

is a steady

rise

in

Mexican

silvercoinage

and

a fluctuatingevel of

precious

metals

exportsover the

period1825-49.

The export evel, 1845-49,

was

depressed

by

the

U.S. war with

Mexico.

Silver

oined

Silver/Gold

xports

5-Yearnnual 5-Year nnual

Years

Averagesmill.

s)

Averages

mill. s)

1825-29

9.2

8.7

1830-34

11.3

10.7

1835-39

11.5

7.4

1840-44

12.4

9.7

1845-49 15.6

7.7

Sources:

A.

Soetbeer,

delmetall-produktion

nd

werthverhaltniss

wischen old und

silver

.

(Gotha, 874), .

55;

M. Lerdode

Tejada,

Comercio

xteriore Mexico

esde

a

conquista

asta oy

(1853) Mexico:

ancoNacional e

Comercio

xterior,967),

ocumento

o. 52.

12. Ines HerreraCanales,

El comercioxterior

e Mexico,

1821-1875

(Mexico, 1977),

p. 60.

13.

That

Latin

America's ower classes

had long been

a prime

market orBritish

ottons

s

clear

from

ontemporary

mercantile

records as well

as recentresearch.

Cf.

Herrera

Canales,

Comercio, p.

26, 34, 113 and

Safford,

Commerce

and

Enterprise," p. 191,

240.

14.

Laura

Randall,A Comparative

conomic istory

fLatin

America, 500-1914.

I. Mexico

(Ann

Arbor,1977), p.

237.

15.

In

addition to

Safford's

Commerce and

Enterprise,"

ee his The dea

of the

Practical:

Colombia's truggle

oForm Technical lite Austin,

1976) and

his

"Trade (1810-1940),"

in

Helen

Delpar, ed.,

Encyclopedia

fLatinAmerica

New York,

1974), pp.

589-92.

16.

"On

Paradigms and

the Pursuit of

the Practical:

A Response,"

LARR

13, no.

2

(1978):253-55.

17. For example,

R. M. Ortiz,Historia

con6mica

e a

Argentina,

850-1930,

2 vols.

(Buenos

Aires,

1955);

M.

Burgin,

Economic

spects f

Argentine

ederalismCambridge,

1947);

H.

Giberti,Historia

con6mica

e a

ganaderia

rgentina

Buenos

Aires,

1954);

T

Halperin

Donghi,

"La

expansion

ganadera

en la campana

de Buenos

Aires,"

Desarrollo

co-

n6mico

(1963):57ff,

nd

his

HistoriaArgentina.

e la revoluci6n

e

independencia

la

confederaci6n

osista Buenos

Aires,1972); J.

Fodor

y

Arturo

O'Connell,

"La

Argentina

y

la

economia atlantica

en la

primera

mitad del siglo

xix,"Desarrollo

con6mico

3

(1973):3ff;

.

Gallo and

R.

Cortes Conde,

Historia rgentina.

a republica onservadora

(Buenos Aires,

1972); J.

R.

Scobie, Buenos

Aires.Plaza to

Suburb,

870-1910 New

York,

1974).

On

railroads, A. Bunge,

Ferrocarriles

rgentinos.

ontribuci6n

l estudio

el pat-

rimonio acionalBuenos Aires,1918);R. M. Ortiz, El ferrocarriln a economiargentina,

2nd

ed.

(Buenos

Aires,1956);

H. J.Cuccorese,

Historia

e

osferrocarriles

n a Argentina

(Buenos

Aires, 1969).

18.

Paul

B.

Goodwin,

Jr.,

The

Central

ArgentineRailway

and

the

Economic Develop-

ment of

Argentina,

1854-1881," Hispanic

American

istorical

eview

57,

no.

4

(1977):

618-19.

As Scobie

has

put it,

"The

building

of

railroads

responded

largely

to

the

145




17/17

LatinAmerican esearch eview

potential or arryingides,

wool

and

grains....

In

1862,

for

xample,

group f

British esidents

nBuenosAires ormedheSouthern ailroad

o serve

he

heep-

and

cattle-growing

ones." Britishnvestors

were

obviously hinking

f

exports.

Buenos ires, . 92.

19. D. C. M. Platt, atin

mericandBritishrade, 806-1914London, 972).

20. "Afterndependence,

n rresistiblelood fBritish

oods..... Local ndustries

ere

'destroyed,' nd Britishraders nd manufacturers

onsolidated ... monopoly

over

a

significant

mport rade

..

theyearsof Britain'shegemony'

f the im-

perialismfFreeTrade'."

Platt, atin mericanndBritish rade, . 312.

21. D. C. M.

Platt, inance,

rade ndPoliticsn Britishoreignolicy,815-1914

Oxford,

1968), . 308.

22. Ibid.,pp. 76-77.

23. Ibid.,pp. 83-84.

24. Ibid.,pp. 76,308.

25. Ibid.,p. 312.

26. Ibid.,p. 41. On the amepage Platt,ronically,erceived hatwhile therulewas no

'official'

r

authoritative'ntervention

.

.

'good

offices'

f

British

iplomatists

..

must

have

been

difficult

ndeed o distinguishromnqualified iplomatic

nterven-

tion."

27. Platt, atin mericandBritishrade, p. 3-4.

28. "Further bjectionso an ImperialismfFree

Trade,"'Economicistoryeview,

nd

ser.,

6

1968):

7 andpassim.

29.

It s an

irony

f

Britain's

mperial ate hatRonaldRobinson,o-authorf he

oncept

of

he

mperialism

ffree rade

o

describe ritain's id-Victorianegemony

n Latin

America nd elsewhere-and

prime arget f

Platt's fforts

o

disprove hat oncept

-could

write n 1972

hat he collaborative

echanism

.

. worked onstructively

so

that

hese olonies South

Africa

nd

Latin

America] ventually

took ff" and

by

mid-twentiethenturythe ollaborativeystem ad done tswork; or hewhite x-

colonies-the UnitedStates nd

Latin

America

],

together

iththe British

do-

minions'-hadbecome xpansiven their wnright

n pursuit f heir wn

manifest

destiny."'R. Robinson, Non-European oundations

f European mperialism:

Sketch or

Theory

f

Collaboration,"

n W.

R. Louis,ed., mperialism:heRobinson

and

GallagherontroversyNew York, 976), .

136.

146

stein the anatomy of autonomy

Documents