What do you think?
Rate this book
Dependencia y Desarrollo
En 1969 se publicó la primera edición de este libro que ya es un estudio clásico sobre las fuerzas sociales que intervienen en el desarrollo. El ensayo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso y Enzo Faletto se ha vuelto motivo de discusiones y polémicas e incluso se ha convertido en el tema central de simposios y mesas redondas. Debido a ello, los autores prepararon en 1976 un postscriptum que se incluye en esta nueva edición para precisar algunos aspectos del texto inicial. El propósito de Cardoso y Faletto era establecer un diálogo con los economistas y planificadores para destacar la naturaleza social y política de los problemas de desarrollo en América Latina. Ninguna discordia de importancia hubo en cuanto a los aspectos sociales y políticos del desarrollo económico. Las dificultades aparecieron cuando se intentó mostrar, de manera más directa y específica, cómo se da esta relación, y qué implicaciones surgen del tipo de combinación que se establece entre economía, sociedad y política en momentos históricos y situaciones estructurales distintos. Exactamente en tal dirección se orientó el esfuerzo realizado en este ensayo. Es posible que este limitado propósito haya sido sobrepasado en uno u otro desarrollo particular del texto. No obstante, siguió vigente el fundamento de la discusión del ensayo. Lejos del pensamiento de los autores está el creer que el libro aborda todos los problemas del desarrollo económico y de su relación con los demás procesos sociales. Por otro lado, no se tratan cuestones históricas importantes para caracterizar las diferencias en el proceso de transformación de las sociedades de los diversos países. También muestra hay que considerar los problemas económicos o políticos de América Latina como un todo.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
14 people are currently reading
362 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 13, 2018
Cardoso ve Faletto 1960'larda geliştirilen 'bağımlılık teorilerinin' biraz inceltilmeye ihtiyacı olduğunu düşünerek 1971 yılında bu kitabı yazmışlar. Bağımlılık teorisinin üç temel tezi var:
- Tüm dünya 16. yüzyıldan başlayarak kapitalist ekonominin etkisi altında şekillendi.
- Bu durum dünya genelinde dengeli bir kalkınma biçiminde değil, çevre ülke ekonomilerinin merkez ülkelerin kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda, merkezin daha fazla kâr edeceği biçimde düzenlenmesiyle ilerledi.
- Dolayısıyla yeterince çalışırlarsa yeni-sömürgelerin de bir gün emperyalist ülkeler kadar gelişeceği teorisi yanlıştır. Yeni-sömürge ekonomileri merkez ekonomilerinin 40-50 yıl önceki hali değil, bağımlılığa yazgılı ekonomilerdir.
Cardoso ve Faletto bu teorinin temel önermelerine katılmakla birlikte, bir dördüncü unsur daha ekliyorlar. Kısaca yalnızca emperyalist politikaları (dış) değerlendirmek yeterli değil, ülkedeki sınıfsal duruma da (iç) bakmalı diye özetlenebilir:
- Yeni-sömürge ekonomileri merkezden dayatılan tek bir politikayla şekillenmedi. Emperyalist politikalar her ülkenin kendi özgünlükleriyle yeni biçimler aldı. Emperyalizm içsel bir olgu olurken, bu özgünlükleri yeniden şekillendirdi. Her ülkedeki sınıfların tarihsel gelişimi, durumu ve mücadelesi bu dönüşüme izini bıraktı. Her biri birer bağımlı ekonomi olmasına rağmen, Brezilya, Şili ve Guatemala arasında büyük farklar bulunmasının nedeni budur.
Kitap sıkıcı. Frank, Amin ve Wallerstein okuduktan sonra okununca da büyük bölümü ufuk açıcı değil. Fakat yer yer parlayan tesbitler var.
- Tüm dünya 16. yüzyıldan başlayarak kapitalist ekonominin etkisi altında şekillendi.
- Bu durum dünya genelinde dengeli bir kalkınma biçiminde değil, çevre ülke ekonomilerinin merkez ülkelerin kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda, merkezin daha fazla kâr edeceği biçimde düzenlenmesiyle ilerledi.
- Dolayısıyla yeterince çalışırlarsa yeni-sömürgelerin de bir gün emperyalist ülkeler kadar gelişeceği teorisi yanlıştır. Yeni-sömürge ekonomileri merkez ekonomilerinin 40-50 yıl önceki hali değil, bağımlılığa yazgılı ekonomilerdir.
Cardoso ve Faletto bu teorinin temel önermelerine katılmakla birlikte, bir dördüncü unsur daha ekliyorlar. Kısaca yalnızca emperyalist politikaları (dış) değerlendirmek yeterli değil, ülkedeki sınıfsal duruma da (iç) bakmalı diye özetlenebilir:
- Yeni-sömürge ekonomileri merkezden dayatılan tek bir politikayla şekillenmedi. Emperyalist politikalar her ülkenin kendi özgünlükleriyle yeni biçimler aldı. Emperyalizm içsel bir olgu olurken, bu özgünlükleri yeniden şekillendirdi. Her ülkedeki sınıfların tarihsel gelişimi, durumu ve mücadelesi bu dönüşüme izini bıraktı. Her biri birer bağımlı ekonomi olmasına rağmen, Brezilya, Şili ve Guatemala arasında büyük farklar bulunmasının nedeni budur.
Kitap sıkıcı. Frank, Amin ve Wallerstein okuduktan sonra okununca da büyük bölümü ufuk açıcı değil. Fakat yer yer parlayan tesbitler var.
Read
August 1, 2025Read the English translation that came out a nearly a decade after the Spanish original and included a lengthy post-scriptum accounting for the many events that occured in Latin America throughout the 1970s.
More often than not this book and Gunder Franks Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America were taken as the be-all and end-all by Anglophone works dealing with ‘Latin American Dependency Theory’. This has begun to change recently following a revival of Marxist Dependency Theory in Latin America post the collapse of the neo-developmentalist Pink Tide and the recent translation of some of the classics into English.
From the introduction onwards Cardoso and Faletto make it clear their intention is to challenge 1) the (Rostowian) modernisation by stages understandings of development as advocated by the US during this period 2) the structuralist-functionalist theories of CEPAL associated economists, and 3) ‘mechanistic’ understandings of underdevelopment advocated by (uncited) rival theorists of dependency. In their words they:
…criticize those who expect permanent stagnation in underdeveloped dependent countries because of a constant decline in the rate of profit or the "narrowness of internal markets," which supposedly function as an insurpassable obstacle to capitalistic advancement. But we also criticize those who expect capitalistic development of peripheral economies to solve problems such as distribution of property, full employment, better income distribution, and better living conditions for people. (p xxiii-xxiv)
Against these currents they present what they term ‘dependent development’ that ‘permits an increase in development while maintaining and redefining the links of dependency’ (p.175).
To offer a vulgarised summary their ‘historical-structural’ analysis centers the balance of power between classes at the national level. Sucessful cases of ‘dependent development’ that occurred in various countries between 1910 and the 1960s are explained in terms of the formation of stable hegemonic coalitions between sections of the (national) bourgeoisie, the urban middle class, the working classes and peasantry. Where stable coalitions of this type formed the domestic market expanded. A further factor of particular attention is whether export industries were under national control or are foreign capital run ‘enclaves’. The authors build a narrative based on this analysis that goes from independence in the 19th century up to the impact of the emergence of multinational corporations in the post-WW2 period. Throughout they draw extensively on the historic record – though with surprisingly scant use of citations or empirical data – to substantiate this hegemonic coalition focused argument.
In other words, this book offers a ‘reformist’ slant on dependency theory, as opposed to the more radical Marxist Dependency Theory that discounted the national bourgeoisie, had Cuba as its lodestar, and the revolutionary left as its audience. While those such as Gunder Frank openly positioned the Cuban Revolution as the alternative to underdevelopment, this work treats it as an outlier and ignores it as a case in the main body of the analysis provided. While there are seeming allusions in this work to the other Marxist Dependency Theorists they are left uncited and are not engaged in a serious manner. [Elsewhere Cardoso and José Serra would go on to write a polemical attack on Ruy Mauro Marini’s ‘Dialectics of Dependency’ – to the best of my knowledge neither he nor Faletto responded to or acknowledged Vania Bambirras book length critique of their work]
To offer my own 'post-scriptum', one of the authors Cardoso or FHC would go on to be President of Brazil in the 1990s. Oft-cited but contested media coverage claimed he told a behind-closed-doors gathering of business luminaries in the run up to his election to ignore what he wrote during his academic days. Certainly, his Presidency was marked by its adherence to neoliberal dogma and business friendly policies.
More often than not this book and Gunder Franks Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America were taken as the be-all and end-all by Anglophone works dealing with ‘Latin American Dependency Theory’. This has begun to change recently following a revival of Marxist Dependency Theory in Latin America post the collapse of the neo-developmentalist Pink Tide and the recent translation of some of the classics into English.
From the introduction onwards Cardoso and Faletto make it clear their intention is to challenge 1) the (Rostowian) modernisation by stages understandings of development as advocated by the US during this period 2) the structuralist-functionalist theories of CEPAL associated economists, and 3) ‘mechanistic’ understandings of underdevelopment advocated by (uncited) rival theorists of dependency. In their words they:
…criticize those who expect permanent stagnation in underdeveloped dependent countries because of a constant decline in the rate of profit or the "narrowness of internal markets," which supposedly function as an insurpassable obstacle to capitalistic advancement. But we also criticize those who expect capitalistic development of peripheral economies to solve problems such as distribution of property, full employment, better income distribution, and better living conditions for people. (p xxiii-xxiv)
Against these currents they present what they term ‘dependent development’ that ‘permits an increase in development while maintaining and redefining the links of dependency’ (p.175).
To offer a vulgarised summary their ‘historical-structural’ analysis centers the balance of power between classes at the national level. Sucessful cases of ‘dependent development’ that occurred in various countries between 1910 and the 1960s are explained in terms of the formation of stable hegemonic coalitions between sections of the (national) bourgeoisie, the urban middle class, the working classes and peasantry. Where stable coalitions of this type formed the domestic market expanded. A further factor of particular attention is whether export industries were under national control or are foreign capital run ‘enclaves’. The authors build a narrative based on this analysis that goes from independence in the 19th century up to the impact of the emergence of multinational corporations in the post-WW2 period. Throughout they draw extensively on the historic record – though with surprisingly scant use of citations or empirical data – to substantiate this hegemonic coalition focused argument.
In other words, this book offers a ‘reformist’ slant on dependency theory, as opposed to the more radical Marxist Dependency Theory that discounted the national bourgeoisie, had Cuba as its lodestar, and the revolutionary left as its audience. While those such as Gunder Frank openly positioned the Cuban Revolution as the alternative to underdevelopment, this work treats it as an outlier and ignores it as a case in the main body of the analysis provided. While there are seeming allusions in this work to the other Marxist Dependency Theorists they are left uncited and are not engaged in a serious manner. [Elsewhere Cardoso and José Serra would go on to write a polemical attack on Ruy Mauro Marini’s ‘Dialectics of Dependency’ – to the best of my knowledge neither he nor Faletto responded to or acknowledged Vania Bambirras book length critique of their work]
To offer my own 'post-scriptum', one of the authors Cardoso or FHC would go on to be President of Brazil in the 1990s. Oft-cited but contested media coverage claimed he told a behind-closed-doors gathering of business luminaries in the run up to his election to ignore what he wrote during his academic days. Certainly, his Presidency was marked by its adherence to neoliberal dogma and business friendly policies.
June 17, 2009
This book was originally written in academic Spanish and translated to almost impenetrable English. The book covers very interesting subjects, but the overly-complicated and overly-academic language hides that fact very well.
November 24, 2019
An excellent review of Latin American development that gives due attention to the complexity of the topic while providing a crucial methodology for those who would study Latin America
September 22, 2025
Cardoso y Faletto ofrecen un marco teórico para pensar los distintos modelos de desarrollo en América Latina, desde el fin de la Colonia a la primera mitad del siglo XX. Sin pretender que las tipologías de desarrollo que proponen se ajusten de manera perfecta a cada país, el valor de este ensayo consiste en incluir el factor de dependencia que las economías de América Latina tienen con el comercio y la inversión de Europa y Estados Unidos, y sus consecuencias en el desarrollo particular de cada país. Además, de importancia es que añaden como otro factor que interviene en el desarrollo, las relaciones entre las clases y los grupos sociales al interior del país y con el extranjero, describiendo cómo cambiaron estas relaciones principalmente en dos momentos: al romperse "el pacto colonial" en el s. XIX y a inicios del s. XX durante el periodo de las Guerras Mundiales.
Read
October 1, 2024It is evident why dependency theory became so important in the discussion of Latin American political economies, and why this book is a classic in the field, but the truth is that I had a hard time reading it, and most of it went over my head, calling me ignorant, or dumb (or both) in several intellectual languages.
May 12, 2025
¿dónde está el yaoi? ¿dónde está el romance? 0/10 ZZZZ aburridísimo, hay que buscar en Internet u otros artículos para entender la idea principal porque parece que ni desarrollaron bien los temas, llegaron y escribieron.
December 21, 2017
Ô livro chato! Se não tivesse que ler pra aula, eu teria abandonado sem dúvida.
February 4, 2021
Livro originalmente publicado em 1970. Obra-prima de Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Enzo Faletto.
November 23, 2015
Si quiere tener más o menos idea de lo que un país no debe hacer para quedarse en el atraso debe leer este ensayo, si le interesa como político o economista buscar maneras de garantizar la libertades de los ciudadanos pues no hay nada que ver aquí más que "todo es culpa del capitalismo" y "hay que mantener al Estado interviniendo porque clases sociales and stuff".
May 6, 2010
Un excelente ensayo de F.Cardoso para entender un poco más a Latinoamérica. Muy recomendado.
considering
December 28, 2015presentaciones clásicas de las teorías del subdesarrollo y la dependencia
Imperio Pág.214
Imperio Pág.214
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews