What do you think?
Rate this book
Dependency and Development in Latin America
At the end of World War II, several Latin American countries seemed to be ready for industrialization and self-sustaining economic growth. Instead, they found that they had exchanged old forms of political and economic dependence for a new kind of dependency on the international capitalism of multinational corporations. In the much-acclaimed original Spanish edition (Dependencia y Desarrollo en América Latina) and now in the expanded and revised English version, Cardoso and Faletto offer a sophisticated analysis of the economic development of Latin America.
The economic dependency of Latin America stems not merely from the domination of the world market over internal national and “enclave” economies, but also from the much more complex interact ion of economic drives, political structures, social movements, and historically conditioned alliances. While heeding the unique histories of individual nations, the authors discern four general stages in Latin America's economic development: the early outward expansion of newly independent nations, the political emergence of the middle sector, the formation of internal markets in response to population growth, and the new dependence on international markets. In a postscript for this edition, Cardoso and Faletto examine the political, social and economic changes of the past ten years in light of their original hypotheses.
The economic dependency of Latin America stems not merely from the domination of the world market over internal national and “enclave” economies, but also from the much more complex interact ion of economic drives, political structures, social movements, and historically conditioned alliances. While heeding the unique histories of individual nations, the authors discern four general stages in Latin America's economic development: the early outward expansion of newly independent nations, the political emergence of the middle sector, the formation of internal markets in response to population growth, and the new dependence on international markets. In a postscript for this edition, Cardoso and Faletto examine the political, social and economic changes of the past ten years in light of their original hypotheses.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
13 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
About the author
Fernando Henrique Cardoso
71 books39 followersFernando Henrique Cardoso, (born June 18, 1931) - also known by his initials FHC - was the 34th President of the Federative Republic of Brazil for two terms from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 2003. He is an accomplished sociologist, professor and politician.[1] He was awarded in 2000 with the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award for International Cooperation.[2]
Born in Rio de Janeiro, he has lived in São Paulo most of his life. Cardoso is a widower (he was married to Ruth Vilaça Correia Leite Cardoso until her death June 24, 2008) and has four children.[3] Educated as a sociologist, he was a Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the Universidade de São Paulo.[4] He was President of the International Sociological Association (ISA), from 1982 to 1986. He is a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton),[5] an honorary foreign member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has penned several books. He was also Associate Director of Studies in the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and then visiting professor at the Collège de France and later at the Paris-Nanterre University.[6] He later lectured at United States' universities including Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.[6] He is fluent in four languages: Portuguese, English, French and Spanish.[6]
After his presidency, he was appointed to a five-year term (2003-2008) as professor-at-large at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, where he is now on the board of overseers. Cardoso is a founding member of the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy's Advisory Board.[citation needed] In February 2005, he gave the fourth annual Kissinger Lecture on Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC on "Dependency and Development in Latin America.[7] In 2005, Cardoso was selected by the British magazine Prospect as being one of the world's top one hundred living intellectuals.
From Wikipedia
Born in Rio de Janeiro, he has lived in São Paulo most of his life. Cardoso is a widower (he was married to Ruth Vilaça Correia Leite Cardoso until her death June 24, 2008) and has four children.[3] Educated as a sociologist, he was a Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the Universidade de São Paulo.[4] He was President of the International Sociological Association (ISA), from 1982 to 1986. He is a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton),[5] an honorary foreign member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has penned several books. He was also Associate Director of Studies in the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and then visiting professor at the Collège de France and later at the Paris-Nanterre University.[6] He later lectured at United States' universities including Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.[6] He is fluent in four languages: Portuguese, English, French and Spanish.[6]
After his presidency, he was appointed to a five-year term (2003-2008) as professor-at-large at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, where he is now on the board of overseers. Cardoso is a founding member of the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy's Advisory Board.[citation needed] In February 2005, he gave the fourth annual Kissinger Lecture on Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC on "Dependency and Development in Latin America.[7] In 2005, Cardoso was selected by the British magazine Prospect as being one of the world's top one hundred living intellectuals.
From Wikipedia
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.
December 21, 2017
Ô livro chato! Se não tivesse que ler pra aula, eu teria abandonado sem dúvida.
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.
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