Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTDuring the last decade a series of essays by prominent development theorists were published in which it was argued that development theory was in crisis. In my view the First World bias of development theory has contributed to its shortcomings. This bias is evidenced by the failure of development theory seriously to examine and incorporate into its mainstream the theories emanating from the Third World. In this paper I deal with the Latin American contribution to development theory. While development theorists have given some attention to dependency studies and structuralism, far too little appreciation has been given to the writings on marginality and internal colonialism. However, the significance of the structuralist school for development thinking and practice has yet to be fully acknowledged. Furthermore, dependency theory has been much distorted and key dependency writers have been completely ignored, especially in the Anglo‐Saxon world. The following themes of the multi‐stranded Latin American development school are examined: the debate on reform or revolution, the structuralist or centre‐periphery paradigm, the analyses on internal colonialism and marginality, and the dependency studies. Wherever relevant the key differing positions within the Latin American school are presented. I then proceed to examine the shortcomings as well as the contemporary relevance of these Latin American theories of development and underdevelopment.

Background to major changes since the mid-1970s; impact on farming communities; based on conference paper.

Two roads to capitalist agriculture are distinguished: the landlord and the peasant. It is argued that the landlord path is predominant in Latin America although the transition to capitalist agriculture is not yet complete. Landlords traditionally owned most of the land but the production process within the hacienda system was mainly undertaken by tenants ( Grundherrschaft). Generally after the crisis of the 1930s the technical and social relations of production began to change as a result of the expansion of the market, the availability of new technologies and the emergence of a growing labour surplus. Landlords mechanized their estates and substituted wage labour for tenant labour centralizing the hacienda's production process by expanding the demesne (Gutswirtschaft). However, the capitalist transformation of the hacienda has not always been uniform, unilinear and successful. Factors such as ecological conditions, types of agricultural product, and the resistance of peasants have introduced variations, limited or even prevented the landlord path. In some cases the State through the implementation of an agrarian reform has attempted to develop a peasant path. Although these attempts have largely been unsuccessful they have introduced further complexities. The cases of Bolivia, Peru and Chile are examined so as to illustrate the variations and limitations in the landlord path.